5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Disagree. The Government did not want to release its legal advice, Parliament disagreed and used a Parliamentary device/motion to rein Government in. No need for the mock prissy rage more redolent of a Noh Theatre actor.

Oh so the government were not found in contempt of parliament?!

 

 

Except they were.

6 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Disagree. The Government did not want to release its legal advice, Parliament disagreed and used a Parliamentary device/motion to rein Government in. No need for the mock prissy rage more redolent of a Noh Theatre actor.

 

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh so the government were not found in contempt of parliament?!

Except they were.

That's what I said: "Parliament .....used a Parliamentary device/motion to rein Government in."

What I did object to was the accompanying prissy hysterics, which are an unfortunate feature of both sides of the debate from certain quarters jumping on their high horses.

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

That's what I said: "Parliament .....used a Parliamentary device/motion to rein Government in."

What I did object to was the accompanying prissy hysterics, which are an unfortunate feature of both sides of the debate from certain quarters jumping on their high horses.

What part of British democracy do you fail to understand. Particularly in a national non security issue such as this. The parliament, and more importantly the population deserves to be given the full briefing that was being suppressed by Ms May. The parliament was lied to by Ms May and now she will be forced to give the full brief that every Brit deserves to have.

My understanding is that it may be issues with Irish border control and issues with Scotland. 

 Either way, there is no information that the public needs to be denied. I would hate to have you as my political rep. 

Someone willing to hide information from the public for a political purpose. May as well live in Russia or China. 

2 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

What part of British democracy do you fail to understand..............................

 It is obvious from your rant that it is you who fails to understand British democracy!

 

Either that or your hatred of the Tories in general and May in particular leads you into knowingly posting hyperbolic nonsense.

 

In the past, governments, both Tory and Labour, have never published the detailed legal advice they have received, just a summery of the points they were going to act upon. This detailed publication of the whole briefing is completely without precedent.

 

Theresa May's secret Brexit legal advice says exactly what we thought it said – just more bluntly

Quote

This is a historically important document: the first time confidential legal advice from the attorney general to the government has been published while the issue was still live. It provides a fascinating case study in the difference of language between advice to ministers that the writer did not expect to see made public so soon, and summaries of that advice intended for public consumption.

 

However, the prime minister and the attorney general are justified in saying that the private advice does not contain anything of substance that is different from the public versions of that advice. 

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 It is obvious from your rant that it is you who fails to understand British democracy!

 

Either that or your hatred of the Tories in general and May in particular leads you into knowingly posting hyperbolic nonsense.

 

In the past, governments, both Tory and Labour, have never published the detailed legal advice they have received, just a summery of the points they were going to act upon. This detailed publication of the whole briefing is completely without precedent.

 

Theresa May's secret Brexit legal advice says exactly what we thought it said – just more bluntly

 

Just what part of British Democracy do you not understand. This is the first time ever that a British government has been found to be in Contempt of Parliament.

This has now created a precedent. The Ms May lead govt has created a legal precedent, in which Contempt of Parliament now has a precedent to which all political parties can hark back to. It will always be a "you did it first" or "its been done before, what have I done wrong" by politicians that refuse to show advice they have been given to parliament and to all voters they are supposed to represent.

Ms May should quit if she had one gram of moral backbone. It is obvious that a second referendum needs to be held where ALL the legal advice of all parties can be tendered.

Either that or the first referendum should be acted on to Exit the EU. There is nothing else to do and Ms May is acting in a presidential role instead as a representitive of the people. And the people don't seem to matter to you.

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 It is obvious from your rant that it is you who fails to understand British democracy!

 

Either that or your hatred of the Tories in general and May in particular leads you into knowingly posting hyperbolic nonsense.

 

In the past, governments, both Tory and Labour, have never published the detailed legal advice they have received, just a summery of the points they were going to act upon. This detailed publication of the whole briefing is completely without precedent.

 

Theresa May's secret Brexit legal advice says exactly what we thought it said – just more bluntly

 

It could be argued, couldn't it, that a reluctance amongst our political leaders to be open about the actual implications, and what they know about the possible implications of our various deals, agreements and treaties with the EU has been the "leitmotif" of our political classes approach to the whole process - all the way back to Me Heath's patently false reassurances that we were merely joining a trading community, and there was no question of surrendering sovereignty.

 

This claim or similar reassurances have been trotted out every time the EU has taken another step towards morphing into a federal state.

 

That's why we're in the mess we're in now. The referendum was the opportunity for the electorate to say that they don't believe successive governments lines (more that than believing the leave campaigns claims I suspect). Now the present government are doing exactly the same again - refusing to come clean to both parliament and the people about just what the implications of what they propose to do. For the first time they have been forced to come clean.

 

This is British Democracy working, finally...

Edited December 5, 20187 yr by JAG

The government did what every government before them did in similar situations; they published a summary of the legal advice rather than the detailed advice in full.

 

The decision by the House to hold them in contempt of Parliament was a political one, not a legal one. Those who voted for the motion are opposed to the government's policy on political grounds, not legal ones. They voted for the motion to give May a bloody nose, not because of any high moral or legal principle.

 

Yes, it has set a precedent; one which those who voted for it may very well come to regret in the future.

 

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The government did what every government before them did in similar situations; they published a summary of the legal advice rather than the detailed advice in full.

 

The decision by the House to hold them in contempt of Parliament was a political one, not a legal one. Those who voted for the motion are opposed to the government's policy on political grounds, not legal ones. They voted for the motion to give May a bloody nose, not because of any high moral or legal principle.

 

Yes, it has set a precedent; one which those who voted for it may very well come to regret in the future.

government would have gotten away with the summary if they had not pissed off parliament

over and over and over

there is a limit to how much piss parliament is prepared to take before they get angry

 

20 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

agovernment would have gotten away with the summary if they had not pissed off parliament

over and over and over

there is a limit to how much piss parliament is prepared to take before they get angry

 

 Pissed off the DUP mainly.

 

But that does not get away from the fact that, as The Independent said, 

Quote

However, the prime minister and the attorney general are justified in saying that the private advice does not contain anything of substance that is different from the public versions of that advice. 

 

This contempt vote has made the Opposition parties, the DUP and the Tory rebels feel important; but has in fact achieved nothing except set a dangerous precedent.

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Pissed off the DUP mainly.

 

But that does not get away from the fact that, as The Independent said, 

 

This contempt vote has made the Opposition parties, the DUP and the Tory rebels feel important; but has in fact achieved nothing except set a dangerous precedent.

yes, pm and att gen are justified, agree

 

but it doesn't work when parliament is ANGRY with you

 

tm and her ministers have treated parliament as shit over and over

raab and may even try to instruct parliament re how they can / cannot vote re the deal

what the can do and what they can not do - raab and may are fully on par with trump

too bad may didnt join raab when he pissed off

silly ministers do NOT instruct parliament - that is asking for trouble

 

that does not pay off - parliament is furious for good reasons - hence, bad things happens

 

 

yes, pm and att gen are justified, agree
 
but it doesn't work when parliament is ANGRY with you
 
tm and her ministers have treated parliament as shit over and over
raab and may even try to instruct parliament re how they can / cannot vote re the deal
what the can do and what they can not do - raab and may are fully on par with trump
too bad may didnt join raab when he pissed off
silly ministers do NOT instruct parliament - that is asking for trouble
 
that does not pay off - parliament is furious for good reasons - hence, bad things happens
 
 

Please remember scummy Blair and his WMD.
Scummer[emoji35]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

57 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes, pm and att gen are justified, agree

 

but it doesn't work when parliament is ANGRY with you

 

tm and her ministers have treated parliament as shit over and over

raab and may even try to instruct parliament re how they can / cannot vote re the deal

what the can do and what they can not do - raab and may are fully on par with trump

too bad may didnt join raab when he pissed off

silly ministers do NOT instruct parliament - that is asking for trouble

 

that does not pay off - parliament is furious for good reasons - hence, bad things happens

 

50 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

Please remember scummy Blair and his WMD.
Scummer

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

That passed in Parliament.

That passed in Parliament.

Yes it did..just shows you hoe fools are easily led.
Ever heard of PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT???

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

MPs are used to being told what to do and how to vote in the Lobbies.

 

That's what the Whips are for!

 

May's problem is that she does not have a majority so even if all her own party obeyed the Whips, she would still lose unless the DUP voted with her.

 

That is her own fault of course for calling an election when she didn't have to.

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

MPs are used to being told what to do and how to vote in the Lobbies.

 

That's what the Whips are for!

 

May's problem is that she does not have a majority so even if all her own party obeyed the Whips, she would still lose unless the DUP voted with her.

 

That is her own fault of course for calling an election when she didn't have to.

I thought whips had something to do with S and M

2 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

I thought whips had something to do with S and M

That would be expected.

12 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

I thought whips had something to do with S and M

Thus speaks someone who claims to have an intimate knowledge of how the UK Parliament works!