Jump to content
You are not logged in ▶️ Click here to sign-up or login ×

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

Jonathan Fairfield

By Jonathan Fairfield
in World News

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 620
  • Created
  • Last Reply
stevenl Star Member

stevenl

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Well, at the risk of being flippant, ( and perhaps not directed at Jinghing in particular but America in general, the bit where the party or candidate or proposal which/who wins the most votes also wins power or is enacted?

You mean like Hillary Clinton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JAG said:

The normal, common, decent thing would be to call a general election. BJ wanted to, an alliance of the opposition and his own party rebels won't allow it. Why not?

Ok I’m tempted to put all this in upper case as your question has been answered a gazillion times but that would be rude so here it is again 

 

Because Bojo can’t be trusted as shown YET AGAIN today, of course Labour want an election only AFTER a catastrophic no deal has been taken off the table - do you understand now ? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAG Gold Member

JAG

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bruntoid said:

Ok I’m tempted to put all this in upper case as your question has been answered a gazillion times but that would be rude so here it is again 

 

Because Bojo can’t be trusted as shown YET AGAIN today, of course Labour want an election only AFTER a catastrophic no deal has been taken off the table - do you understand now ? 

 

 

If an election results in Boris Johnson returning to power, then a no deal exit is firmly back on the table, Labour will be in opposition for the foreseeable future and the Tory rebels will be looking for work. As things stand, whilst not in government Labour have managed to get their paws on some of the levers of power, and (understandably) are unwilling to let go. - do you understand now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SheungWan Gold Member

SheungWan

Posted
Posted
The whole "Brexit" debacle   from the "flawed" referendum, years of negotiations by a "remainer" prime minister who's deal was rejected by parliament 3 times then failure to ask "the people" again this time in a "legally binding" referendum...  in or out  either way  just get on with it !!!
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, Parliament can get on with it.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, JAG said:

If an election results in Boris Johnson returning to power, then a no deal exit is firmly back on the table, Labour will be in opposition for the foreseeable future and the Tory rebels will be looking for work. As things stand, whilst not in government Labour have managed to get their paws on some of the levers of power, and (understandably) are unwilling to let go. - do you understand now?

Your argument is based on a prediction of future events.

 

Were you possessed of a ‘seeing eye’ you would have foreseen today’s outcome.

 

Actually, the knowledge that Johnson is a serial liar and hopelessly incompetent should have been enough of a portent of today’s outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JAG said:

If an election results in Boris Johnson returning to power, then a no deal exit is firmly back on the table, Labour will be in opposition for the foreseeable future and the Tory rebels will be looking for work. As things stand, whilst not in government Labour have managed to get their paws on some of the levers of power, and (understandably) are unwilling to let go. - do you understand now?

I understand perfectly that you’re struggling - it would be enshrined in law, how else would it be ‘taken off the table’ ? on Bojo the serial liars word ? (and you think Bojo’s going to take on the courts again after today’s humiliation ?). 

 

I understand it’s a poor day for leavers but come on! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SheungWan Gold Member

SheungWan

Posted
Posted
Well I have to say that I am not particularly surprised. The "Remain Campaign" has from before the referendum, been very much the child of the establishment. The courts are after all the product of the establishment, and I suspect that the government realised that from the start.
 
Amidst the whole sea of opinions, campaigns, parliamentary and party machinations a couple of fixed points poke out of the foam.  One: the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in the referendum. Two: the subsequent general election returned a parliament, of which the overwhelming majority of members, on both sides of the house, were elected on manifestoes which stated that the result of the referendum was to be honoured, and the UK was to leave the EU. Both results, obtained through the ballot box, have effectively been overturned by this establishment, and a general election, the proper constitutional means to arrive at a solution has been denied. It is tempting if perhaps melodramatic to suggest that the establishment has vigorously and contemptibly put two fingers up to the electorate.
 
Where do we go from here? I suspect that it will be some time before we have an election - the Labour Party, which has spent the last week in conference busily confirming its reputation as being unelectable will not want one until they are sure that they can win it - a long wait; and the Conservative rebels will not want one unless they can oust Johnson and his team and replace them with their own people, if they don't manage that then they know that come an election they will be toast! We are probably in for quite a long period of a stalled government, and yet more choleric grandstanding from Mr Speaker Bercow - he won't resign now!
Honouring the referendum does not equate to honouring no-deal Brexit only.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SheungWan Gold Member

SheungWan

Posted
Posted
Apparently not- They are part of the establishment which is determined to force Brexit through by fair means or foul.  Legality no issue.  As we saw today, these tactics will fail due to the rule of law.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Boris's means are foul.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DannyCarlton Gold Member

DannyCarlton

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

No end of entertainment. At least for non-Brits.

 

HM will be extremely unamused. The decree issued by her, on 'her' PM's advice, is declared illegal, nul & void. I doubt that she's encountered that at any previous time in her 67 years on The Throne!

According to a senior Tory MP, she's going to be even more unamused tommorow when Johnson turns up at her house asking for a second proroguation. Apparently Dominic Cummings flew back from New York early to make up some more <deleted> to feed the Queen with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

 

quote "You honestly don't think Johnson, Gove, Reese Mogg and Farage are not part of the establishment?

 

The first 3 yes, but Farage, not really. If he was he would be an MP in the UK and not in the EU.

 

 

Hmmm he’s tried SEVEN times I think and been told no thanks each time on the basis I’m presuming he’s a loon ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

According to a senior Tory MP, she's going to be even more unamused tommorow when Johnson turns up at her house asking for a second proroguation. Apparently Dominic Cummings flew back from New York early to make up some more <deleted> to feed the Queen with.

The only message the serial

liar Johnson needs to hand HM is his resignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HansumFarang Explorer Member

HansumFarang

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This ruling will surely send a nervous shiver down the spines of the hedge fund managers who bankrolled the Leave Campaign and have placed their investment bets against the UK.

 

What about the currency speculators who have been funding Gina Miller's legal challenges against Brexit? Presumably they will be very pleased ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAG Gold Member

JAG

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your argument is based on a prediction of future events.

 

Were you possessed of a ‘seeing eye’ you would have foreseen today’s outcome.

 

Actually, the knowledge that Johnson is a serial liar and hopelessly incompetent should have been enough of a portent of today’s outcome.

 You may recall that at the start of this exchange I remarked that I was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Mind you it would be fair to say that I am perhaps not as persuaded by the, how shall we put it, legal purity of the judgement as you may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SheungWan Gold Member

SheungWan

Posted
Posted
Incredible decision. All the legal experts on Sky now are saying how shocked they are at the verdict. Of course while being cut off by the host and remainer politicians but that's par for the course.
 
The establishment needs to be very careful. If the courts are seen to be biased (which this judgement has proved to be the case) then things could get ugly.
And so the Brexiteer not-so veiled threats begin.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

What about the currency speculators who have been funding Gina Miller's legal challenges against Brexit? Presumably they will be very pleased ....

I’m struggling with that - the big money has been made on shorting the pound - why would they back Miller ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JAG said:

 You may recall that at the start of this exchange I remarked that I was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Mind you it would be fair to say that I am perhaps not as persuaded by the, how shall we put it, legal purity of the judgement as you may be.

Please do give us your expert legal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JAG said:

 You may recall that at the start of this exchange I remarked that I was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Mind you it would be fair to say that I am perhaps not as persuaded by the, how shall we put it, legal purity of the judgement as you may be.

6-5 you may have had a point - 11-0 is as pure as it’s going to get 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAG Gold Member

JAG

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

I understand perfectly that you’re struggling - it would be enshrined in law, how else would it be ‘taken off the table’ ? on Bojo the serial liars word ? (and you think Bojo’s going to take on the courts again after today’s humiliation ?). 

 

I understand it’s a poor day for leavers but come on! 

A law which a majority government could simply repeal. You and your ilk are forever telling us that parliament makes the law. I am sure that a stickler for constitutional probity such as yourself is familiar with the concept that a parliament cannot bind its successors. One can hardly grouse about that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HansumFarang Explorer Member

HansumFarang

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

You could of course read the unanimous ruling of the UK Supreme Court decided upon 11-0. It should be in the public domain sometime very soon.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Yeah, I've been reading it. It references John Major (who prorogued for 3 weeks before an election in 1997 for his own ends) and Gina Miller (who is bankrolled by dubious foreign interests), and of course the unwritten constitution, which we conveniently can't refer to on account of it not existing in written form.

 

It's b*****it. No written laws have been broken.

 

That's why you don't have a real answer to my question "Which law was broken?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...