London court rejects bid to stop PM Johnson's suspension of parliament

[StreetCowboy]

6 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Are you replying to your own posts?

That might be excusable on a less heavily trafficked thread.  Perhaps he just didn't recognise the user name.  

[Amma09]

Or perhaps it's time to talk about the topic, instead of the people talking about the topic?

 

Let us stop this nonsense. 

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Amma09 said:

Or perhaps it's time to talk about the topic, instead of the people talking about the topic?

 

Let us stop this nonsense. 

You first, oh sod it, lets all go down to spoonies.????????????????

[StreetCowboy]

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

You first, oh sod it, lets all go down to spoonies.????????????????

Your first sensible suggestion in as many threads as I can remember.

 

Although, to be fair, the benefit of bickering on the internet rather than going down the pub is that it is less likely to result in the police being called in response to fisticuffs.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Yet another meaningless one liner rather than an actual argument.

 

Never mind, I'm sure your mates will see it as the epitome of wit and shower you with 'likes.'

Like me or loathe me, it said it all. 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, StreetCowboy said:

I'm sure people might be as honest as the day is long and faithful in public service yet cruelly unfaithful and duplicitous in their personal life.  Boris Johnson has not given us any evidence that he is such a person.

 

On the other hand, when one catches a person lying and cheating once, it calls into question their other claims to credibility, and a modicum of cynical scepticism would be no more than sensibly prudent.

I can go with that broad brush style. But the other main players are equally dubious.

[Loiner]

 You claimed to have previously produced a list of 40 objections to May's agreement; yet when asked to reproduce just one, you have failed to do so!
 
The labour opposition voted against it because it removed the UK from the customs union, and they believed we would be better off in it.
 
Various others voted against it for a number of reasons.
 
Rees-Mogg and his ERG voted against for their own personal ambitions and profit.
 
"Did any ERG defect to the rabid Remainer cabal, which is still plotting to overturn the referendum? "
 
No, because they seem to have achieved their aims.
 
Last march Rees-Mogg alone was estimated to have made £7 million pounds from his investment with Somerset Capital since the referendum. You remember, the one which opened an account in Dublin so they could still profit from EU membership after Brexit.
 
Boris, of course, after deliberating on which course of action to take before the referendum has now seen all his plotting come to fruition.
 
"Yes it’s still LAB and Remain cowardice. Can’t be common sense because they keep changing their minds and their political allegiances. That’s cowardice."
 
No, it's common sense to delay the election so Boris can't use it to con the country and Parliament, break his promise and delay the election until after October 31st.
 
After all, breaking promises is nothing new to Boris; just ask his wife.
 

Sorry, I don’t dance for Remainers entertainment. If you really want the 40 Horrors of the Merkel/May Surrender Treaty go look for it yourself. I’m not putting it up again for you to complain about it again.

You have no idea what reasons any of them voted against the WAG for. Maybe you asked Jacob Rees-Mogg and he told you so? Your links are pure leftist propaganda.

Cowardly Remainers from both sides of the House have kept Boris on his toes, combatting the dirty Remainer tricks. To date, nobody has achieved their aims yet:
Remainers have not overturned the Brexit Act.
ERG and Boris have not got us out yet.

The fat lady hasn’t sung yet, but she will by 31st Oct. Common sense will prevail over Remainer cowardice and we’ll be out.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies removed.  

 

[simple1]

@7by7. 'Loiner' is referencing a blog in the Spectator regards the so called '40 horrors'. As I respect your analysis I have provided the link below. Would be interested to read your opinion on say three items.

 

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-top-40-horrors-lurking-in-the-small-print-of-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-2/

[billd766]

14 hours ago, Amma09 said:

As a real Brit, why have you not never really challenged the people you are discussing with?

 

 

Because it is very difficult challenging people who are fixed in their way and follow blindly the remainer herd.

 

Also, over the past 3 years my boredom threshold has reached its limit.

 

Not bad for a member who supposedly only joined yesterday and has 28 posts already.

 

13 hours ago, Amma09 said:

 

I guess so. Making the point.

More like labouring the point.

[7by7]

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

22 hours ago, evadgib said:

Another "I'm still waiting for a...." followed by

from a poster 'outed' for 'liking' his own posts?

 

Will you eva learn?

 

"from a poster 'outed' for 'liking' his own posts?" 

 

Outed by whom and when? (Yep, another question for you to evade!)

 

Yet again you make an unfounded accusation or statement and when asked for evidence, ignore it.

 

Experience shows, though, that in about a weeks time you will claim that you did provide it!

[7by7]

19 hours ago, vogie said:

You first, oh sod it, lets all go down to spoonies.????????????????

 

Despite Tim Martin's much publicised support for Brexit, you'd be surprised by how many of his customers don't share that view; at least in the many I have visited during my travels to all parts of the UK for work over the last couple of years.

 

His staff don't share his views either: Anti-Brexit Wetherspoon staff crusade against chain boss’s ‘propaganda’ .

 

 

[7by7]

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

Like me or loathe me, it said it all. 

 I don't loathe those with whom I disagree.

 

I also try to provide reasoned arguments when I do disagree.

 

I don't merely post (un)witty one liners when I have no argument.

 

If you have any arguments against the points I raised in the post in question; let's hear them.

[7by7]

@Loiner, yet again you are unable to list even one of the 40 points you claim to have referenced earlier!

 

Instead you go off on yet another of you interminable rantings!

 

However, simple1 has thrown you a lifeline:

12 hours ago, simple1 said:

@7by7. 'Loiner' is referencing a blog in the Spectator regards the so called '40 horrors'. As I respect your analysis I have provided the link below. Would be interested to read your opinion on say three items.

 

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-top-40-horrors-lurking-in-the-small-print-of-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-2/

I'll pass comment once I've read that article by an anonymous author described by The Spectator itself as "The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from London and beyond" and compared that "tittle tattle" to what is in the actual agreement. 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I'll pass comment once I've read that article by an anonymous author described by The Spectator itself as "The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from London and beyond" and compared that "tittle tattle" to what is in the actual agreement.

 OK, I tried; but I'd barely started on this 9 months old article when a pop up appeared saying that "This article is exclusively for Spectator digital subscribers" and asking me for money.

 

I didn't see the "horrors," but did get far enough into the preamble to see that Downing Street had provided rebuttals for each and every one of them, with a link to those rebuttals.

 

Couldn't follow that link due to the pop up being in the way, but found the relevant page after a short Google search, only to get the same message "This article is exclusively for Spectator digital subscribers." The same when finding and then going to the page containing the gossip columnist's rebuttals to those rebuttals.

 

Does anyone want to commit to paying The Spectator £8.99 per month for the next 12 months so they can read those pages and then tell us what they say?

 

So who to believe?

 

An anonymous author described by his/her own publisher as "serving up the latest tittle tattle," or the Government?

 

But whichever one chooses, all the indications are that any Cummings/Johnson deal will be identical to May's with just a few minor tweaks for the Backstop. Which means, of course, that those so called "40 horrors" will still be there!

 

Assuming they exist, of course!

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Yet again you make an unfounded accusation or statement and when asked for evidence, ignore it.

 

Experience shows, though, that in about a weeks time you will claim that you did provide it!

Thank you for the kind offer to further wind you up 49 but having made my point I tactfully decline ????

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Thank you for the kind offer to further wind you up 49 but having made my point I tactfully decline ????

 You made an accusation about me.

 

As you are now declining to provide even the slightest piece of evidence to back up that accusation, I can only conclude that you are now admitting that you lied.

 

In which case, although I know that your ego would never let you apologise for that lie, will it allow you to at least withdraw it?

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies reported and removed.   Continue with unfounded accusations against members and face a suspension.  

 

You have been warned.  

[Loiner]

[mention=157612]Loiner[/mention], yet again you are unable to list even one of the 40 points you claim to have referenced earlier!
 
Instead you go off on yet another of you interminable rantings!
 
However, simple1 has thrown you a lifeline:
I'll pass comment once I've read that article by an anonymous author described by The Spectator itself as "The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from London and beyond" and compared that "tittle tattle" to what is in the actual agreement. 

I told you to go look yourself and why. If you won’t then it’s up to you, but if another Remainer does it for you please reply to him, not me.

Interminable Rantings? Try counting my posts and their column inches, then compare to your own.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

 

I told you to go look yourself and why. If you won’t then it’s up to you, but if another Remainer does it for you please reply to him, not me.

Interminable Rantings? Try counting my posts and their column inches, then compare to your own.

 

Honorable people back up their claims. 

[Slip]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Honorable people back up their claims. 

QED

[7by7]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

 

I told you to go look yourself and why. If you won’t then it’s up to you, but if another Remainer does it for you please reply to him, not me.

Interminable Rantings? Try counting my posts and their column inches, then compare to your own.

 

 So are you saying that your 40 horrors are different to the 40 horrors listed by the Spectator's purveyor of what they call tittle tattle?

 

Even though a Google search only turns up the Spectator articles or other articles quoting or referring to them?

 

You made the statement, you claimed it was a fact; it is up to you to provide the evidence to back that up.

 

But instead you tell people to go look for themselves; a tactic you rely on time and time again. Why? Well, it's obvious.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 I don't loathe those with whom I disagree.

 

I also try to provide reasoned arguments when I do disagree.

 

I don't merely post (un)witty one liners when I have no argument.

 

If you have any arguments against the points I raised in the post in question; let's hear them.

Your post 75. A list of claims with no evidence to support them. Nothing to argue about.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Your post 75. A list of claims with no evidence to support them. Nothing to argue about.

 

I said "The labour opposition voted against it because it removed the UK from the customs union, and they believed we would be better off in it." That's item 1 on Six reasons why Theresa May's Brexit deal is bad for Britain.

 

I also said that "Various others voted against it for a number of reasons. " Do you really want me to list all of those MPs and their individual reasons? 

 

Then I said "Last march Rees-Mogg alone was estimated to have made £7 million pounds from his investment with Somerset Capital since the referendum. You remember, the one which opened an account in Dublin so they could still profit from EU membership after Brexit." Note the links in there.

 

Finally, I said that "Boris, of course, after deliberating on which course of action to take before the referendum has now seen all his plotting come to fruition." Which I admit is an opinion, but one which his dropping out of the leadership race in 2017 and subsequent events does seem to support.

 

So, got any arguments to refute any of that now?

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[gk10002000]

On 9/6/2019 at 6:46 AM, gunderhill said:

The crucial one that voted to leave you mean?

I have to admit that as an outsider, this Brexit vote and the meaning and legality of it are confusing.  I mean there can always be legal challenges until some supreme court objects and rules out any further litigation, but I can't sort out if Britain is exiting or not, and when the situation can or must be resolved. Is there no firm deadline now that a few years have passed since the supposed proper and required national referendum vote that said exit?

[beautifulthailand99]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 OK, I tried; but I'd barely started on this 9 months old article when a pop up appeared saying that "This article is exclusively for Spectator digital subscribers" and asking me for money.

 

I didn't see the "horrors," but did get far enough into the preamble to see that Downing Street had provided rebuttals for each and every one of them, with a link to those rebuttals.

 

Couldn't follow that link due to the pop up being in the way, but found the relevant page after a short Google search, only to get the same message "This article is exclusively for Spectator digital subscribers." The same when finding and then going to the page containing the gossip columnist's rebuttals to those rebuttals.

 

Does anyone want to commit to paying The Spectator £8.99 per month for the next 12 months so they can read those pages and then tell us what they say?

 

So who to believe?

 

An anonymous author described by his/her own publisher as "serving up the latest tittle tattle," or the Government?

 

But whichever one chooses, all the indications are that any Cummings/Johnson deal will be identical to May's with just a few minor tweaks for the Backstop. Which means, of course, that those so called "40 horrors" will still be there!

 

Assuming they exist, of course!

Over at Conservative Home the most popular blog for....Conservatives the editor Paul Goodman is speculating a Johnson volte-face and screwing the ERG/Spartans - the hundreds of comments seem to see the end of the Conservative party and a re-alignment of politics. With about half of the comments from ardent Brexit Party supporters furious at what they see as a coming traitorous Johnson betrayal. Here's just one picked at random fas a taster...

 

Let me be clear. The will of the people is to leave the EU. If Borris enters any form of deal, or references the back stop, or even references ever again something related to the EU, I am going to vote for Nigel Farage's Brexit Party. I will destroy the Conservative Party, Boris Johnson and the Country. Did you hear me? Get it sorted, and get it sorted now. Boris Johnson, it's no deal or it's no meal for you. And if any remoaner doesn't like that, I respectfully request they go and live in the EU with all the other immigrants.
(old bloke getting angry at the telly syndrome - plus Boris only has one S).
 

It's over Leavers time to dance to a new tune and raise the white flag. I dedicate this song to all you Brexiteers - no hard feelings. Life goes on - the world turns - and we get one day closer to death with each passing day. 

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/09/stuffing-the-spartans-revisited.html

 

Telegraph raising the white flag as well 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/12/boris-johnson-urged-cabinet-allies-ask-brexit-extension-rather/

 

And it gets worse for all you vets - attention a General is on hand to detail the EU-sellout. If you were Japanese it would be harakiri time. 

 

http://veteransforbritain.uk/whitehallbriefing/

 

You have no choices left now Brexiteers  - Brexit Party or no vote can I suggest keep Nigel in his dotage for a bit longer whilst the adults in the room sort out this mess. Here's some inspiration by the multi-millionaire property developer (not one of the establishment elites in Churchillian mode who by God is ready - are you ? ).

 

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

Even more defeatism from the Telegraph. It's a total rout. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/12/middle-ground-has-gone-now-either-clean-break-brexit-remain/

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, WAILITA said:

Johnson announced at the end of August that he would suspend parliament from mid-September to mid-October, just before Britain is due to leave the European Union on Oct. 31, so the government could announce a new legislative programme.

Yes, and?

[transam]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Despite Tim Martin's much publicised support for Brexit, you'd be surprised by how many of his customers don't share that view; at least in the many I have visited during my travels to all parts of the UK for work over the last couple of years.

 

His staff don't share his views either: Anti-Brexit Wetherspoon staff crusade against chain boss’s ‘propaganda’ .

 

 

That reads like made up twaddle.....But if not, could you post your customer interview video, it might be very interesting..