BREXIT

[JohnfromUK]

48 minutes ago, oowee said:

I Reckon Geoffrey Cox, Kier Starmer, Dominic Greeve in a room for a week could sort out the basis of a proposition for the EU that would get Brexit over the line. 

Cox is a firm leaver; the other two are remainers.  I see no prospect for agreement.

[Vince Green]

On ‎24‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 13:36, Blackstone said:

Apparently taking back power to British Courts and a British Parliament is only important if they agree with you

The high court had already ruled that the courts have no jurisdiction over parliamentary procedure. Since Johnson was not questioned in court, how could the court establish his motive?

Anyway, the Supreme Court is an self run talking shop created by Tony Blair. It operates outside the rest of the legal framework

Edited September 25, 2019 by Vince Green

[Blackstone]

18 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

The high court had already ruled that the courts have no jurisdiction over parliamentary procedure. Since Johnson was not questioned in court, how could the court establish his motive?

Anyway, the Supreme Court is an self run talking shop created by Tony Blair. It operates outside the rest of the legal framework

If you cared to read the judgement, or even the summary, you would see that the Supreme Court made no judgement on his motive, its judgement was based on the effect that progation had on the ability of this sovereign parliament to scrutinise the government

[Stonepark]

Boris held his own this evening much to Corbyn and Co's chagrin.

[Mice!]

I heard the SNP fella? Saying on the news that Boris should quit? Why, for trying to do what he said he would.

I hope the SNP try for yet another break away, the way they bleat on, I cant decided if i want them to crash and burn or get what they want, although that seems a shame for Scotland.

[Remimax]

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

Boris held his own this evening much to Corbyn and Co's chagrin.

+1

[scouser]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

International rescue? Which Thunderbird is he? 

Don’t think it’s BRAINS.

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, Mice! said:

I heard the SNP fella? Saying on the news that Boris should quit? Why, for trying to do what he said he would.

I hope the SNP try for yet another break away, the way they bleat on, I cant decided if i want them to crash and burn or get what they want, although that seems a shame for Scotland.

Perhaps they should put it to the whole UK. I know which way I would vote

[Capt Christopher Jones]

20 hours ago, Scully said:

Just a thought....if we leave does it mean I can’t do the euro lottery anymore? 

Moggy & his m8s will will it every week

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

Moggy & his m8s will will it every week

Ah.....I see where you’re coming from now; the old upper class resentment chip on the shoulder. You’d fit right in with Jeremy and his bitter chums. 👍

[Rewulf]

10 hours ago, Blackstone said:

If you cared to read the judgement, or even the summary, you would see that the Supreme Court made no judgement on his motive, its judgement was based on the effect that progation had on the ability of this sovereign parliament to scrutinise the government

I thought this was interesting so I copied from the site the following. However what has happened has happened so Boris and his team must suck it up and get on with it. I'm not a legal mind but reading below, judgement found was found in assumptions.. So I assume that when we come out of the EU  our judicial system along with the House of Lords, The BBC might also be reviewed as for fit for purpose. 

Any ruling by a court must be based on law.
When ruling something illegal or unlawful, the presiding judge must quote the law, and specific clause within that law, that has been transgressed.
I failed to hear any such reference, and therefore the ruling was based on assumptions and opinions, and is therefore not legal itself.
I can quote the law that prevents the courts from ruling on Parliamentary procedures;
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in ParlIament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of ParlIament."
This means Parliamentary proceedings can only be questioned and challenged in Parliament itself.
In addition, the prorogation was authorised by Her Majesty, and is one of the last few remaining prerogatives that are the exclusive right of the Monarch.
These judges have set themselves above the Queen, and based their judgement on supposition, which is entirely contrary to legal requirements.
Also quoting EU law..

Copied from a friend...interesting and maybe shows just how deep this sickening corruption goes!!!!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Boris didn't break the law, he had the law invented after he had seen the Queen and prorogued Parliament!

[SpringDon]

I notice that “surrender” is now an inflammatory word. One wonders whether “crash”, “catastrophe” and “cliff edge” will be added to the list.

[ditchman]

saw yesterdays debacle.............

"if Boris Johnson cant get Brexit thro using fair means or foul...........there is little hope to see an end to all this during this parliament term"

the next election..........will it be the decieder ?...........is there any indication that the country is turning more and more towards a hard exit ?

[KFC]

I think we've lost the last semblance of democracy when a 'supreme' court can rule over our parliament citing only assumptions and declaring something 'unlawful' and at the same time fail to quote which laws have been broken, all funded by private individuals with the stated intent of overturning the legitimate will of the majority.

Don't think I'll ever bother voting again😕

[Mice!]

11 minutes ago, ditchman said:

saw yesterdays debacle.............

"if Boris Johnson cant get Brexit thro using fair means or foul...........there is little hope to see an end to all this during this parliament term"

the next election..........will it be the decieder ?...........is there any indication that the country is turning more and more towards a hard exit ?

 

but how will the election come about? Tories can't force it for some reason, and the rest don't want it until they feel the time is right?? Which is never because they know they can't win.

It's a coup, bloodless but none the less

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, KFC said:

Don't think I'll ever bother voting again

THAT is exactly what THEY want. 

They don't want people like you, with strong views and unpredictable votes, they don't want people who will say 'NO! I'm not having that, my votes going to someone who will actually deliver what I want' 

They want sheep. 

Don't fall into the trap. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, KFC said:

I think we've lost the last semblance of democracy when a 'supreme' court can rule over our parliament citing only assumptions and declaring something 'unlawful' and at the same time fail to quote which laws have been broken, all funded by private individuals with the stated intent of overturning the legitimate will of the majority.

Don't think I'll ever bother voting again😕

The work was done pro bono. 

Not voting again 🙂 makes sense. 

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I thought this was interesting so I copied from the site the following. However what has happened has happened so Boris and his team must suck it up and get on with it. I'm not a legal mind but reading below, judgement found was found in assumptions.. So I assume that when we come out of the EU  our judicial system along with the House of Lords, The BBC might also be reviewed as for fit for purpose. 

Any ruling by a court must be based on law.
When ruling something illegal or unlawful, the presiding judge must quote the law, and specific clause within that law, that has been transgressed.
I failed to hear any such reference, and therefore the ruling was based on assumptions and opinions, and is therefore not legal itself.
I can quote the law that prevents the courts from ruling on Parliamentary procedures;
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in ParlIament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of ParlIament."
This means Parliamentary proceedings can only be questioned and challenged in Parliament itself.
In addition, the prorogation was authorised by Her Majesty, and is one of the last few remaining prerogatives that are the exclusive right of the Monarch.
These judges have set themselves above the Queen, and based their judgement on supposition, which is entirely contrary to legal requirements.
Also quoting EU law..

Copied from a friend...interesting and maybe shows just how deep this sickening corruption goes!!!!

It's be interesting to see if parliament will contest the interference of the court... after the dirty deed has gone through of course.

[SpringDon]

“Pro bono” (if true) but underwritten by wealth and privilege. 

[Blackstone]

1 hour ago, KFC said:

I think we've lost the last semblance of democracy when a 'supreme' court can rule over our parliament citing only assumptions and declaring something 'unlawful' and at the same time fail to quote which laws have been broken, all funded by private individuals with the stated intent of overturning the legitimate will of the majority.

Don't think I'll ever bother voting again😕

I don't know if people like you and Vince Green are genuinely or intentionally ignorant. The Supreme court did not overrule Parliament. It specifically cannot rule on the actions of Parliament. It ruled on the actions of the Executive. Parliament had no say in the Order of Council that was made to prorogue Parliament.

[Dave-G]

2 minutes ago, Blackstone said:

I don't know if people like you and Vince Green are genuinely or intentionally ignorant. The Supreme court did not overrule Parliament. It specifically cannot rule on the actions of Parliament. It ruled on the actions of the Executive. Parliament had no say in the Order of Council that was made to prorogue Parliament.

It seems to have allowed parliament to defy the will of the PM and the queen.  I'll admit to being ignorant about this, could you explain that 'order of council' bit for us/me please

[Blackstone]

19 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

It seems to have allowed parliament to defy the will of the PM and the queen.  I'll admit to being ignorant about this, could you explain that 'order of council' bit for us/me please

Are you suggesting that the will of the Executive is unable to be challenged? That sounds very dangerous.

The Prorogation was carried out by an Order in Council at a meeting of the Privy Council. In effect, the Executive goes to the Queen and informs her they want to prorogue Parliament. And Parliament has no say in this matter, it is purely a decision by the Executive. The Executive, Judiciary and Legislature form the system of checks and balances fundamental to the healthy functioning of any democracy as it prevents any one entity from becoming too powerful. The Executive, by proroguing Parliament, prevented the Legislature from exercising its right to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account. Therefore, the Judiciary stepped in and ruled this unlawful under Constitutional law.

Many (in this thread) are making bogus claims that the Supreme Court made up a new law, or are interfering with Parliamentary business. For one, the Judiciary cannot make laws, only Parliament can do that. Also, note that they found that the PM acted unlawfully, not illegally. There is a subtle difference between the two. If something is illegal, it is explicitly prohibited by law. If something is unlawful, that just means it is not authorised by law. The charge of interfering with Parliamentary business is not true either, as the process of prorogation was not conducted in Parliament. It was not a motion or a bill that was passed in Parliament. It was solely an action of the Executive and so the Court could rule on it.

Another false claim that I've seen in this thread is that the Court ruled on the PM's motive for proroguing Parliament.  This is untrue. His motive for doing so was irrelevant to the court, they were only concerned with the effect of the prorogation.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Blackstone

[Scully]

1 hour ago, KFC said:

 

Don't think I'll ever bother voting again😕

I was of a similar mindset not too long ago, and although I genuinely can’t see the point of voting for any particular party, I’m now making it my intent to vote tactically at every opportunity, and will endeavour to coerce those I think I can into doing the same. I’ll use all means in future, both fair and foul. 

[Raja Clavata]

6 minutes ago, Blackstone said:

Are you suggesting that the will of the Executive is unable to be challenged? That sounds very dangerous.

The Prorogation was carried out by an Order in Council at a meeting of the Privy Council. In effect, the Executive goes to the Queen and informs her they want to prorogue Parliament. And Parliament has no say in this matter, it is purely a decision by the Executive. The Executive, Judiciary and Legislature form the system of checks and balances fundamental to the healthy functioning of any democracy as it prevents any one entity from becoming too powerful. The Executive, by proroguing Parliament, prevented the Legislature from exercising its right to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account. Therefore, the Judiciary stepped in and ruled this unlawful under Constitutional law.

Many (in this thread) are making bogus claims that the Supreme Court made up a new law, or are interfering with Parliamentary business. For one, the Judiciary cannot make laws, only Parliament can do that. Also, note that they found that the PM acted unlawfully, not illegally. There is a subtle difference between the two. If something is illegal, it is explicitly prohibited by law. If something is unlawful, that just means it is not authorised by law. The charge of interfering with Parliamentary business is not true either, as the process of prorogation was not conducted in Parliament. It was not a motion or a bill that was passed in Parliament. It was solely an action of the Executive and so the Court could rule on it.

Good post.

I would appreciate it if someone could riddle me how on one hand the Cons say the prorogation of Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit and then on the other state the supreme court hearing and outcome is a flagrant attempt by Remainers to thwart Brexit.