Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[Bruntoid]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Amazing. 11 judges all agree that what Boris did was 'unlawful'. But if you listen closely to the case put forward by the spiderwoman you will quickly realize there's not a shred of evidence to support this. I fear Britain's judiciary is now totally corrupt.

How odd - it is an OFFENCE to prevent parliament from doing its job by nefarious means - Boris Johnson (or more truthfully Dominic Cummings) committed that offence. 

 

Enough shreds ? 

[evadgib]

2 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

How odd - it is an OFFENCE to prevent parliament from doing its job by nefarious means - Boris Johnson (or more truthfully Dominic Cummings) committed that offence. 

 

Enough shreds ? 

Having been advised by his attorney general that all was well, which to me suggests nothing was unlawful earlier than yesterday.

[RuamRudy]

Possibly a niche joke, but a very funny one indeed, should you be up on Scottish politics and sectarianism. 

[Bruntoid]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Having been advised by his attorney general that all was well, which to me suggests nothing was unlawful earlier than yesterday.

Eh ? The Attorney General doesn’t make the law so he can only give his opinion. He reviewed it, misinterpreted it, obviously, then <deleted> it up for Dominic. 

 

If it was unlawful yesterday it always has been. 

[evadgib]

4 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

Eh ? The Attorney General doesn’t make the law so he can only give his opinion. He reviewed it, misinterpreted it, obviously, then <deleted> it up for Dominic. 

 

If it was unlawful yesterday it always has been. 

In that case how about John Major in 97 and how was he (a fellow offender) able to have a say when detailed constitutional submissions from others were refused?

Edited September 25, 2019 by evadgib

[DannyCarlton]

14 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Seems that you want to welcome them all in. Would you care to clarify your position on that?

I'm not talking about the desperadoes who float in on bits of cardboard. I'm talking about the end of the social mindset - as promoted by the EU- that takes a soft stance on cultural identity. That will have a telling effect, as it is already, for the UK's immigration policy is already in the process of being changed.

I'm not going to comment on inane psycobabble that has no connecton with reality.

 

I'll just say "Complete nonsense".

[DannyCarlton]

Just now, evadgib said:

In that case how about John Major in 97 and how was he able to have a say when other submissions were refused?

That's known as "Brexiteer deflection". This is about Tory leadership misdemeanours in 2019 not Major in '97. Apples and oranges anyway.

[Rookiescot]

A couple of weeks ago pro brexit guys were on here claiming the prorogation of parliament was normal and nothing to do with brexit.

Now many of them are on here claiming the supreme courts decision is an attempt to overturn the vote for brexit and to try and prevent it.

Seems odd.

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

(...) there's not a shred of evidence to support this. 

Again a Brexiteer appears completely uninformed. I guess reading things that are longer than a lie on a bus is not their strength. 

[Blue Muton]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

That is what they do in Africa when they have lost an election. You're dragging British politics down to that level.

I'm sure all the Africans who have piled into Britain to exploit our standard of living are fine with that, but I am not - it is un-British and ignoble. Nobody is making any legal challenges to the validity of the vote. Just honour it. Anything else is anarchy and third-worldism.

What are you waffling on about bringing up legal challenges?

No legal challenges are allowed in the case of a non-binding, advisory referendum. That's under UK electoral law, which is the topic under discussion, not some attempted deflection by bringing Africa ito the debate.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Having been advised by his attorney general that all was well, which to me suggests nothing was unlawful earlier than yesterday.

1. just because Johnson claims the AG advised him all was well isn’t proof that the AG said as much or that Johnson even asked the AG’s advice.

 

2. The AG might well have given an opinion all was well but the AG is not the arbiter of the law, he’s a lawyer advising government, the courts rule on the law, not the AG.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

That is what they do in Africa when they have lost an election. You're dragging British politics down to that level.

I'm sure all the Africans who have piled into Britain to exploit our standard of living are fine with that, but I am not - it is un-British and ignoble. Nobody is making any legal challenges to the validity of the vote. Just honour it. Anything else is anarchy and third-worldism.

This racist hogwash from a Brexiteer has been called out by a number of members, non of whom are  Brexiteers. Seems they don’t have a problem with it.

 

 

Go figure.

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, BobBKK said:

you don't really believe that right?  lol

you don't really believe in the rule of law, right?  lol

[evadgib]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1. just because Johnson claims the AG advised him all was well isn’t proof that the AG said as much or that Johnson even asked the AG’s advice.

 

2. The AG might well have given an opinion all was well but the AG is not the arbiter of the law, he’s a lawyer advising government, the courts rule on the law, not the AG.

For which I award you a Higgot.

[Chomper Higgot]

What I find amusing is the Brexit supporters on TVF were gleeful when Johnson Prorogued Parliament, accepting at the time that the purpose was to block Parliament from scrutinizing Johnson and his ‘no-deal plans’.

 

And when the SC now rules his actions unlawful the pretense is put out that it’s all some kind of unlawful, U.N. Democratic plot.

 

Where was your outrage when Johnson Prorogued Parliament?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

For which I award you a Higgot.

Thanks you, I’ll accept it in the absence of you having a counter argument.

[evadgib]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This racist hogwash from a Brexiteer has been called out by a number of members, non of whom are  Brexiteers. Seems they don’t have a problem with it.

 

 

Go figure.

Being married to Asians renders that claptrap unnecessary.

 

Incidentally; when the Quail was poorly a few months ago it was the Brexiters he routinely slags off who enquired as to his welfare. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by evadgib

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

you don't really believe in the rule of law, right?  lol

Yes, by a British court, one of the reasons for brexit, right?

 

But then again the prorogation had nothing to do with brexit.

[evadgib]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, by a British court, one of the reasons for brexit, right?

 

But then again the prorogation had nothing to do with brexit.

Yeah, Nor did yesterdays ruling ????

Edited September 25, 2019 by evadgib

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Yeah, Nor did yesterdays ruling ????

Exactly, so why are brexiteers upset?

[Rookiescot]

Maybe Brexiteers could ask the supreme court to vote again?

[Nigel Garvie]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, by a British court, one of the reasons for brexit, right?

 

But then again the prorogation had nothing to do with brexit.

Exactly. 

Here are a couple of headlines 

Let’s be in no doubt there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit  Torygraph

Unlawful - What’s lawfull about denying 17.4 million people Brexit  Sexpress

Then there's "Who runs the country"  from the Seig Heil

 

Just a little point of logic here.

Johnson claimed proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit, it was for the Queen's speech.

So either 

1) Johnson was telling the truth (Hard to believe I know but bear with me) in which case the newspapers above are lying by claiming it was all about Brexit. 

or

2) Johnson was lying, in which case the newspapers above are correct in claiming it was all about Brexit. 

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

 

Basically the Torygraph for which Boris wrote, has undermined his position completely by openly linking prorogation to Brexit, and thereby openly admitting that the Prime Minister of this country is a Liar.

Essentially he is just a common crook, there's a bed waiting for him in the Scrubs, or if he wants to come to Scotland I'm sure we can find one in Barlinnie. 

[DannyCarlton]

51 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

A couple of weeks ago pro brexit guys were on here claiming the prorogation of parliament was normal and nothing to do with brexit.

Now many of them are on here claiming the supreme courts decision is an attempt to overturn the vote for brexit and to try and prevent it.

Seems odd.

Johnson made the same "foot in mouth" comment yesterday. It didn't go unnoticed.

[DannyCarlton]

41 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Being married to Asians renders that claptrap unnecessary.

 

Incidentally; when the Quail was poorly a few months ago it was the Brexiters he routinely slags off who enquired as to his welfare. 

Guy who drinks in my local is married to a Russian mail order bride. I've never met a bigger racist. Has been banned from several pubs for exopunding his views. Brexiteer, of course.

 

And those same Brexiteers have accused everyone and anyone, all remainers, of being Grouse, in order to get them banned.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[grollies]

Democracy – "the art of divesting power from the majority and placing it into the hands of the minority"

[JonnyF]

56 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

A couple of weeks ago pro brexit guys were on here claiming the prorogation of parliament was normal and nothing to do with brexit.

Now many of them are on here claiming the supreme courts decision is an attempt to overturn the vote for brexit and to try and prevent it.

Seems odd.

Allow me to clarify.

 

Proroguing Parliament has happened for hundreds of years and sometimes for obviously political reasons (see John Major for reference). Johnson's reasons for doing it were political, and therefore not a matter for the courts. We now have unelected judges striking down government decisions. This is not a great moment for Democracy in the UK, not that a Remainer would care about that, so long as they get their own way. Just remember though, one day this precedent could be used against you and then you probably won't find it so amusing ????.

 

The following article explains why it is such an outrage. 

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/24/a-tyranny-of-judges/

 

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

In that case how about John Major in 97 and how was he (a fellow offender) able to have a say when detailed constitutional submissions from others were refused?

Whataboutism.

[JonnyF]

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Guy who drinks in my local is married to a Russian mail order bride. I've never met a bigger racist. Has been banned from several pubs for exopunding his views. Brexiteer, of course.

 

And those same Brexiteers have accused everyone and anyone, all remainers, of being Grouse, in order to get them banned.

 

 

What an amazing coincidence that you know this racist Brexiteer in your local that so perfectly backs up your point. 

 

If I didn't know better, I'd think you just made that up ????.

[SheungWan]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Allow me to clarify.

 

Proroguing Parliament has happened for hundreds of years and sometimes for obviously political reasons (see John Major for reference). Johnson's reasons for doing it were political, and therefore not a matter for the courts. We now have unelected judges striking down government decisions. This is not a great moment for Democracy in the UK, not that a Remainer would care about that, so long as they get their own way. Just remember though, one day this precedent could be used against you and then you probably won't find it so amusing ????.

 

The following article explains why it is such an outrage. 

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/24/a-tyranny-of-judges/

 

The judges explicitly did not rule on Boris Johnson's reasons (motivations) for doing so. Have another go at Brexiteer clarification.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The judges explicitly did not rule on Boris Johnson's reasons (motivations) for doing so. Have another go at Brexiteer clarification.

Was it, or was it not a political decision by Johnson?

 

And did unelected judges over-ride that political decision?

 

Therein lies the problem. Are governments going to be taken to court for every political decision they make so that unelected judges can over-ride those decisions? That sounds like the sort of Democracy a Remainer might like. ????