- Location
- Ceredigion
Here we going . The Scottish Courts now think they can stop Brexit. Up yours
Here we going . The Scottish Courts now think they can stop Brexit. Up yours
Just imagine an election had been called and Labour won.
On the very first day of that new parliament Jeremy Corbyn elects to suspend parliament for the entirety of the fixed term.
Would that be on? Would his political opponents not take similar steps after much nashing of teeth?
I bet they would and that is why this case was taken to court in Scotland and by Gina Miller at al in England.
And as the affront that some have that has been suggested that a Scottish court has made this decision is some how an affront to United Kingdom legal system shows the fair of some to fail to understand that the law of England and Wales is not the only legal system in the united Kingdom
I am not suggesting anything.Are you seriously comparing a 5 week suspension, slightly longer than takes place every year, that doesn't even cover the time when a no deal could have been pushed through, to a 5 year suspension? I think that may be pushing it a bit.
Hmm... those at the top of the side you support have not broken the law, but have changed the law - without a mandate - to avoid breaking it, very democratic. But they have twisted rules, and ignored others - courtesy of the Speaker - and acted like complete nutjobs by doing their damnedest to go against the will of a democratic majority.Johnson apparently lied to the queen about the reasons for proroguing parliament. If Brexit is so reasonable a course of action, then why do its supporters keep having to break the law, twist the rules, and act like complete nutjobs just to make it happen?
This mess is almost certainly going to lead to a breakup of the union.
You did, the inference was clear, if you don't want to be accused of such things don't use hyperbole and post such ridiculous stuff. As for 'legal systems' in the UK, there is only one, but with separate jurisdictions within it.I am not suggesting anything.
What the decision taken by the Prime Minister, and the paper trail leading up to it being presented to the cabinet and subsequently the Head of state, suggest that may actually be a possibility if the Prime Minister so wishes to avoid a prolonged period of parliamentary scrutiny.
The original petitioners may have seen this as being unlawful and in this instance the court looks to have agreed.
And there lies the problem of a truly divided nation.Hmm... those at the top of the side you support have not broken the law, but have changed the law - without a mandate - to avoid breaking it, very democratic. But they have twisted rules, and ignored others - courtesy of the Speaker - and acted like complete nutjobs by doing their damnedest to go against the will of a democratic majority.
You did, the inference was clear, if you don't want to be accused of such things don't use hyperbole and post such ridiculous stuff. As for 'legal systems' in the UK, there is only one, but with separate jurisdictions within it.
Hmm... those at the top of the side you support have not broken the law, but have changed the law - without a mandate - to avoid breaking it, very democratic. But they have twisted rules, and ignored others - courtesy of the Speaker - and acted like complete nutjobs by doing their damnedest to go against the will of a democratic majority.
Is there a democratic mandate to make reaching a deal imperative? You people just make up the rules as you go along.There is no democratic mandate for a no deal Brexit. Efforts to stop that happening are both rational and in the public interest.
You can claim a democratic mandate for leaving certainly. Although its a pretty hypocritical position to find yourself in, if you're scared stiff of a second vote in case the public will might have changed.
There is no democratic mandate for a no deal Brexit. Efforts to stop that happening are both rational and in the public interest.
You can claim a democratic mandate for leaving certainly. Although its a pretty hypocritical position to find yourself in, if you're scared stiff of a second vote in case the public will might have changed.
So now it is hypocritical to disagree with the call for a second referendum. In simple terms hypocritical means insincere. David Cameron called the first referendum, not any member of a leave campaign but those with an interest voted in good faith. Who is calling a second one? The people who lost the first of course. Why don`t you all get mummy to put the toys back in the pram and wheel you off into a dark corner. Insincere indeed.There is no democratic mandate for a no deal Brexit. Efforts to stop that happening are both rational and in the public interest.
You can claim a democratic mandate for leaving certainly. Although its a pretty hypocritical position to find yourself in, if you're scared stiff of a second vote in case the public will might have changed.
Have to say that the court has suggested at this time only the Prime Minister is "making up the rules" as you suggest.Is there a democratic mandate to make reaching a deal imperative? You people just make up the rules as you go along.
A theory that I broadly subscribe to. History has repeated itself many times in the last 3000 years and will continue to do so. The trick is knowing when to leave the party before it really gets nasty. That times is now.Brexit represents the end of the old empire! The establishment or indeed the "old boys network" are fighting tooth and claw too overturn the democratically reached Leave vote. Projection is being widely used, that is accusing those you wish to discredit (Boris) of doing the exact thing (dirty tricks) that you are engaging in. And of course with a pro remain media the slant is continually given in the liberal lefts favour.
Now im beginning to get concerned that the next aim is to pee brexiteers off so much with this continual injustice and interruption that some lose their cool and resort to violence!! And you can be sure you know how that will be portrayed (UK media) with yet another election just round the corner.
What the old guard cant grasp is that their loss of power is part of a wider movement far more powerful than their ability to stop and reverse it. All empires come to an end, even the Great Roman one. I truly believe there is an unseen hand that intervenes and tips the balance against those who rule at critical moments in history and we are most definitely in those times now.
I am no legal boffin but I thought a judge could only judge the facts and not validity of an opinion or intent. Sadly I lost faith in the legal system some time ago.As far as I'm aware there are no laws on prorogation ...... @Danllan , yet the scottish judges have adjudged there is , English judges have said no law gas been broken but have deferred the decision the the Supreme court .
Seems the scots have selected their judges very carefully for this case .............. roll fudgein eyes