British PM to suspend parliament before Brexit, opposition denounces 'coup'

[billd766]

3 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Back in court Tuseday. fake news is a bitch.

Did the judge refuse the temporary ban or not?

 

If he did, then as usual you have got it wrong and it is NOT fake news.

 

However (what you omitted to say) was

 

"The judge will not decide on the merits of the case until he has heard legal arguments from both sides on Tuesday, with his final ruling potentially being delivered the following day.

His decision not to grant an interdict was largely because the first possible date that Parliament can be suspended is not until next Friday."

 

 

[evadgib]

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Back in court Tuseday. fake news is a bitch.

Under what mechanism are you expecting something filed outside the jurisdiction of common (England and Wales) law to succeed?

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

If he did, then as usual you have got it wrong and it is NOT fake news.

I thought that you had me on ignore? Damn! 555

 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[CG1 Blue]

47 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Let me explain this one more time.

 

The UK is a Parliamentary democracy, the referendum was advisory which is why parliament had to vote to trigger article 50. Before executing the exit from the EU, parliament has to vote on the agreed terms. All of this is because the UK is a Parliamentary democracy. Johnson, in his action to prorogue Parliament is preventing Parliament executing it's parliamentary duty. i.e. exercising Parliamentary democracy.

 

I can understand your pique if parliament doesn't allow Brexit but it's within their power as a parliamentary democracy to do so. So not undemocratic.

 

However Johnsons actions are a deliberate attempt to subvert parliamentary democracy, therefore as undemocratic as you can get in the UK.

 

Hope that helps.

And it is within the Prime Minister's power to call for a Queen's Speech, especially after the longest parliamentary session in modern history. 

 

You seem to be ok when parliamentary rules work in your favour, but when they don't you think it's outrageous. 

 

[DannyCarlton]

6 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Under what mechanism are you expecting something filed outside the jurisdiction of common (England and Wales) law to succeed?

You need to ask that to the lawyers requesting the injunction. They obviously think that it's a runner.

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Under what mechanism are you expecting something filed outside the jurisdiction of common (England and Wales) law to succeed?

So if the motion was filed in an English court it could have legs depending upon the merits of the case, but a Scottish court is powerless regardless of how meritorious the complaint?

[tebee]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

This is the real reason we are going to suffer from Brexit for generations to come is this: setting aside all the very obvious physical damage it will cause, the real harm is that is has created an unbridgeable sectarian divide. The consequences of that will be devastating.

 

 

 

The way that we can tell this proposition is categorically true is from the intensity of the passions that it has provoked. Nobody gets this lastingly angry about membership of an economic area. Lastingly angry is when you see your entire worldview under threat.

 

This is sectarianism in all it's living glory  

 

With all due respect tebee I think you have over egged your last paragraph. What would be a tragedy is ignoring democracy.

Like I said it's not that we don't respect democracy, it's that we define it differently.

 

You rely on  one vote at one instance of time as the foundation for your definition of democracy. I and the rest of my tribe prefer to think of it as an ongoing thing, which should change and develop  as time progresses and our knowledge and understanding of things develop.

 

You decide to buy a house - do you still buy it when the survey shows it is built on a swamp with a rotting wooden foundation ?  

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

You need to ask that to the lawyers requesting the injunction. They obviously think that it's a runner.

They probably realise that time is running out and Brexit might actually happen, despite all their attempts to subvert the will of the people. It's beginning to look even more like a Keystone Cops movie with remainers running around like headless chickens in desperation.

[DannyCarlton]

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

And it is within the Prime Minister's power to call for a Queen's Speech, especially after the longest parliamentary session in modern history. 

 

You seem to be ok when parliamentary rules work in your favour, but when they don't you think it's outrageous. 

 

Oh so they need a break do they? It may have escaped your notice but they're on Summer recess as we speak. There's no urgency for the Queen's speech. He can still start to implement his plans without it. Should have waited until November. Normal to ask for a prorogation for conference season, 2 weeks not 5. Absolutely no reason to enforce a 5 week break at such a crucial time for parliament and Brexit, unless you want to stifle debate in parliament and force through a no deal Brexit. Everyone knows that, they're just taking the <deleted>. Sadly, the most galling thing about this debacle is that the Queen knows that too. Not getting involved in politics? You're havin' a giraffe ma'am.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[evadgib]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So if the motion was filed in an English court it could have legs depending upon the merits of the case, but a Scottish court is powerless regardless of how meritorious the complaint?

We'll all find out next week but 'tail-wagging-the-dog' again springs to mind. It'll be blown out of the water in a common law jurisdiction because HM is the be-all-and-end-all in such matters.

 

(Checkout the difference between 'Roman/Napoleonic' and 'Common law' RR)

Edited August 30, 2019 by evadgib

[JonnyF]

39 minutes ago, tebee said:

Like I said it's not that we don't respect democracy, it's that we define it differently.

 

You rely on  one vote at one instance of time as the foundation for your definition of democracy. I and the rest of my tribe prefer to think of it as an ongoing thing, which should change and develop  as time progresses and our knowledge and understanding of things develop.

 

You decide to buy a house - do you still buy it when the survey shows it is built on a swamp with a rotting wooden foundation ?  

We are not buying a house we are leaving one. 

 

And yes, we know its rotten because we lived in it for decades.

[CG1 Blue]

34 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Oh so they need a break do they? It may have escaped your notice but they're on Summer recess as we speak. There's no urgency for the Queen's speech. He can still start to implement his plans without it. Should have waited until November. Normal to ask for a prorogation for conference season, 2 weeks not 5. Absolutely no reason to enforce a 5 week break at such a crucial time for parliament and Brexit, unless you want to stifle debate in parliament and force through a no deal Brexit. Everyone knows that, they're just taking the <deleted>. Sadly, the most galling thing about this debacle is that the Queen knows that too. Not getting involved in politics? You're havin' a giraffe ma'am.

 

 

I didn't say they need a break. Boris is using the tools he has available to him. One of those is calling for a Queen's Speech to give those remainer MPs less time to scupper Brexit again.

The remainer MPs, and even the Speaker have used every tool available to them to stop Brexit, and they will continue to do so. You seem ok when remainers use these tactics because they're on your side of the argument. That's called double standards. 

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I didn't say they need a break. Boris is using the tools he has available to him. One of those is calling for a Queen's Speech to give those remainer MPs less time to scupper Brexit again.

The remainer MPs, and even the Speaker have used every tool available to them to stop Brexit, and they will continue to do so. You seem ok when remainers use these tactics because they're on your side of the argument. That's called double standards. 

No it's called subverting parliamentary democracy, which is sacrosanct. Neither Brexiteers nor remainers have done anything close to this before. The queen has every right to cart Johnson off to the Tower and lop his fat head off.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[sawadee1947]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

How pathetic from you.

 

You must believe in guilty until proved innocent.

If I want to believe I shall enter a church ????????????

[sawadee1947]

4 hours ago, transam said:

Seems tabloids and gossip are your thing..Sadly...

Well stirred up by FBI..... ????

[Slip]

1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

No it's called subverting parliamentary democracy, which is sacrosanct. Neither Brexiteers nor remainers have done anything close to this before. The queen has every right to cart Johnson off to the Tower and lop his fat head off.

 

 

People have indeed lost their heads for such.  This farce is coming to its end whatever that may be.

EDIT:  If heads are to roll, BJ should not be the 1st.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Slip

[Stupooey]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Latest from the Morbid Monthly.

Of all the pathetic replies I've witnessed over the past few years this must be the most pathetic. If you can't say anything intelligent then don't say anything at all. 

[AlexRich]

9 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No. It was  pleasure dream to rid all the traitors out of the country so they can join the EU countries..

Do you even live in the UK? 

 

The traitors are those that take Russian money to fund Brexit campaigns, like Farage and Banks. 

[AlexRich]

32 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Of all the pathetic replies I've witnessed over the past few years this must be the most pathetic. If you can't say anything intelligent then don't say anything at all. 

If you impose that rule, he’d never be able to post again. All he’ll be left with is his equally vacuous smiley faces.

[sawadee1947]

40 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Looking at the majority of Presidents around the world (dictators included) I would suggest that they do need some sort of royalty to temper their excesses.

The fact is that the queen had no choice but a president instead would have. He could have had deny Boris' demand. And true is Boris doesn't have any kind of royalty but coarseness 

[nauseus]

12 hours ago, Stupooey said:

Of all the pathetic replies I've witnessed over the past few years this must be the most pathetic. If you can't say anything intelligent then don't say anything at all. 

My lipth are thealed, Mathster.

Edited August 31, 2019 by nauseus

[Rimmer]

A troll post and several replies have been removed

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, AlexRich said:

If you impose that rule, he’d never be able to post again. All he’ll be left with is his equally vacuous smiley faces.

You guys seem to confuse smiling with laughing. When I see a post that is full of laughable, vacuous rubbish I often just laugh at it. As you have obviously noticed this, this emoji option is evidently efficient enough. There are so many polluted posts like these, so the faces are a great way respond and save time. It takes a sensible post to warrant a similar reply.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

I do hate it when the talking heads keep interrupting the person that they are interviewing. It is extremely bad manners and by constantly interrupting the guest the guest cannot finish answering the question.

I would have to be forced into listening to anything JRM had to say, but your point goes both ways Bill. It is extremely bad manners for the guest to answer a question that was never asked.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, Mavideol said:

Absent from legislative statutes and existing only by virtue of the common law. Sometimes used in a wider sense to refer to principles that are entirely unwritten.

Prior to the single market, common law was the only recourse open to the consumer. With the introduction of the single market came a range of EU directives that put a legal obligation on manufacturers to produce a safer and more reliable product. In common with any increase in quality there was a resulting increase in price. The eurosceptics jumped on this and blamed the EU. In their view being led by the EU to have more robust legal protection and having to pay extra for safer and more reliable products was not in the national interest.

[DannyCarlton]

36 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You guys seem to confuse smiling with laughing. When I see a post that is full of laughable, vacuous rubbish I often just laugh at it. As you have obviously noticed this, this emoji option is evidently efficient enough. There are so many polluted posts like these, so the faces are a great way respond and save time. It takes a sensible post to warrant a similar reply.

You use them as a form of trolling, as you have just alluded to. Primarily to sensible posts that you have no sensible answer to.

 

You'll be telling us next that Boris prorogued parliament and suspended it for 5 weeks because MPs needed a rest and he needed a "Queens Speech". 555

[billd766]

13 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

The fact is that the queen had no choice but a president instead would have. He could have had deny Boris' demand. And true is Boris doesn't have any kind of royalty but coarseness 

Have you considered talking to probably Jeremy Corbyn about abolishing the Monarchy and changing the UK into a republic. Perhaps a bit like Eire.

Edited August 31, 2019 by billd766
edited for bad spelling after I had posted, again.

[billd766]

44 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I would have to be forced into listening to anything JRM had to say, but your point goes both ways Bill. It is extremely bad manners for the guest to answer a question that was never asked.

But during that interview JRM was rarely allowed to finish answering her first question before she was off onto the second with the third following close behind.

 

She is only a talking head as is Piers Morgan who is much worse then her. They could be replaced by puppets and nobody would care.

[Forethat]

On 8/29/2019 at 3:01 PM, Stupooey said:

Much of it.

 

David Cameron never considered for one moment that the vote would go against him. His comments were aimed not at the electorate, but at Farage and his henchmen telling them to give up the fight. You must remember, he was a Conservative PM, you can take his comments with a pinch of salt.

 

We are forever being told by Leavers that it was a binary vote, in or out, no ifs or buts. Theresa May produced an agreement which would leave the UK outside the EU, but we kept hearing 'that's not what we voted for' and it was rejected by the extremists. Please tell us what people did vote for (and it certainly wasn't 'no deal' in 90 per cent of cases).

 

A majority voted to leave on Thursday 23/6/2016. Had the referendum been held on Sunday 27/6/2016, I'm sure the result would have been very different, as working people would have had as much opportunity to vote as non-workers. Unlike a General Election, in which the moderate Tory bias amongst pensioners is balanced by the Labour bias of the unemployed, in the referendum both groups voted solidly to leave. Add to that the huge (well over 1 million) number of people that voted (mainly Leave) in the referendum who abstain in General Elections (usually because they have 'no interest in politics') and you see that the result was a freak and by no means represented 'the will of the people'.

 

But that is all in the past. We are now in 2019. A million people who voted for Brexit are no longer alive. Millions of 18, 19, 20 and 21 year olds, seemingly primarily Remain voters, are supposedly now adults but have been given no opportunity to determine the long-term future of their country. Democracy? Hardly.

 

In retrospect, most of what you posted were lies, but they were all the words of Tory PMs. Don't expect anything different this time round.

Respectfully. The proposed 'withdrawal' agreement didn't outline a withdrawal but a "make-it-look-like-you-leave-just-to-shut-the-leavers-up-but-remain-via-a-complex-and-bureaucratic-set-of-nonsense-articles-containing-so-much-gibberish-the-pleb-wont-realise-what-is-really-going-onal".

 

I for one would prefer a deal. But the proposed one didn't take us out of the EU. I know that. The MP:s know that. That's why it's been rejected three times in the house. Not because the MP:s are extremists.  

[tebee]

20 hours ago, vogie said:

 

 

It's not just  "foreigners" that the Brexiters actually hate - it's their fellow citizens who refuse to let them hate foreigners. Brexiters hate Remainers more profoundly and bitterly than they hate anything or anyone else. The EU was always only a proxy in this war.

 

Unfortunately, and shamefully, it will of course work the other way. Remain hates Brexit because it finds its worldview abhorrent - and that all too quickly becomes personal. We are "Catholics and Protestants", living lives that are enmeshed with each other and incapable of accepting the other. 

 

Can we please dispel that myth that Brexiteers hate foreigners, they don't and to say that Brexiteers hate remainers is total nonsense. Just look at the Brexit threads nearly all the insults are emanating from the remainers, it has become very toxic and caustic with all the anger being posted by a certain few remainer culprits. They are like spoilt children who havn't got their way, so they will scream and scream till mother gives in, well for once mother has dug her heels in and they will do what mother says for once.

 

 

Well if Brexiters don't hate foreigners, what reason is there for Brexit? It will make us all worse off financially, The sovereignty argument is ultimately futile - you don't gain it by being a small country next to a much larger neighbour - ask Switzerland.

The ironic thing is the UK need immigrants to make the economy function, all restricting EU immigration will do is see more people coming from asia and africa