4 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Or for the three weeks before a General Election. Ask John Major if you don't believe me.

Couldn't be reached. Apparently he was a bit tied up carrying Gina Miller's handbag in a court case concerning the decision of a prime minister to prorogue parliament at a controversial time...

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by JAG

3 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

Not at all predictable response - it wasn’t hers to return - your spin based theory has been rubbished with facts just accept it 

 

Oh, and where were your links to the quotes where Gina Miller "condemned" the donation? Am I supposed to take your word for it? This was the closest thing that I could find.

 

Quote

Miller told The New European that she regarded attempts to bring down a government other than through an election or a referendum as undemocratic, and says that toppling May is the last thing the country needs at the moment. But she also described Soros as a great philanthropist and humanitarian, and called for transparency not only with regard to his donations, but in all political funding – “which is certainly not the case for Leave funders, with an apparently illiberal destabilising agenda”.

 

4 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Or for the three weeks before a General Election. Ask John Major if you don't believe me.

This reaches new heights.  These guys must be scraping the bottle of the recruitment barrel.

"But, but, but John Major...."  Waah waah.

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

It was 11-0. There is no ambiguity in that.

What you going to do now?

Appeal to the EU courts?

I would like to know what the Queen thinks about all this.

 

11-0 reeks of political correctness, the chief characteristic of which is herding-instinct hysteria. They thought it was what they ought to do, because they felt morally obliged to do something that would be perceived by sensitive people as correct. A different bunch of people would have decided differently, and that consideration is all that is needed to impugn this outrageous and retrograde precedent.

4 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

What momentous decision? The decision was already made by the people in the referendum. Boris was simply doing what was necessary to enact it.

Boris was simply shutting down any discussion as to what leaving actually meant because in 2016 that was never made clear.

6 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Since she brought the case and her lawyers submitted evidence, yes, those donations may well have made a difference to the ruling. Here's a link to the ruling, since you don't seem to have read it.

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

Why ? It was on points of law - John Major was there if she wasn’t who knows who else ? 

 

Youre just not getting it - but I’ll leave it there as I do not want to suffer the same fate as the recently (?) departed  ‘grouse’ 

5 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

No one voted to leave without a deal.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

But there again and again and again, how could they when it wasn't even on the ballot paper, there was leave or remain.

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

I would like to know what the Queen thinks about all this.

 

11-0 reeks of political correctness, the chief characteristic of which is herding-instinct hysteria. They thought it was what they ought to do, because they felt morally obliged to do something that would be perceived by sensitive people as correct. A different bunch of people would have decided differently, and that consideration is all that is needed to impugn this outrageous and retrograde precedent.

A different bunch of people being your mates down in Witherspoons I imagine.

This is the highest court in the UK we are talking about. Who voted 11-0 that Johnson's proroguing of parliament is not legal. Indeed they confirmed he has lied to the Queen.

 

1 minute ago, bannork said:

Boris was simply shutting down any discussion as to what leaving actually meant because in 2016 that was never made clear.

It was perfectly clear. Leave means leave, unconditionally if necessary.

Just now, Slip said:

You are being dishonest, and you know it.  Firstly, it was not a 'recess' it was a prorogation, and secondly the actual number of days lost due to other events is irrelevant in law. This was a legal matter. This post of yours is spreading false information and should not be allowed to stay.

In my opinion, repeatedly calling other posters liars should - at a minimum - be supported by some kind of evidence. I think it's lamentable behavior. I refuse to report posts, but I have to say I'm seriously surprised to see posters get away with this time and again.

 

In terms of recess, the HOC conference recess was in the HOC calendar long before the request for a prorogation. That's not dishonest. It's a fact.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit :

 

Quote

However, the five-week suspension does include a three-week period that would typically be recess anyway, three weeks during which the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative party conferences are held.

 

The prorogation effectively canceled the conference recess, but had BJ not requested one it would - by my count - have left five days to prepare for the Queen's speech.

 

There, once again I provide accurate information.

Another happy customer...

1 minute ago, vogie said:

But there again and again and again, how could they when it wasn't even on the ballot paper, there was leave or remain.

The leave campaign said we would stay in the single market.

8 minutes ago, bannork said:

As you know recess is not the same as progurement, and why do you say 5 days? With the Brexit deadline looming the annual Party conferences could easily have been curtailed to discuss Brexit in Parliament.

Admit it, Johnson's claim the progurement was to prepare for the Queen's speech was a lie.

He didn't even send a signed witness statement to the court!

What a joke.

Of course. But that's speculative. In this case, I completely agree with your speculation (they could have cancelled party conference recess), but we have to start this off from the facts, not what COULD have happened.

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

In my opinion, repeatedly calling other posters liars should - at a minimum - be supported by some kind of evidence. I think it's lamentable behavior. I refuse to report posts, but I have to say I'm seriously surprised to see posters get away with this time and again.

 

In terms of recess, the HOC conference recess was in the HOC calendar long before the request for a prorogation. That's not dishonest. It's a fact.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit :

 

 

The prorogation effectively canceled the conference recess, but had BJ not requested one it would - by my count - have left five days to prepare for the Queen's speech.

 

There, once again I provide accurate information.

Another happy customer...

The court said nothing about any recess. They said that the prorogation was unlawful and upheld the Scottish supreme courts decision that Johnson LIED to the Queen.

10 minutes ago, Slip said:

Actually, it's a favourite Leaver gambit.  So far I have been accused of being two or three other different posters, and today to my surprise I was told I was not British.  Of course it's all the stuff of tin-foil hats. The poor wee things are flailing around these days as they can't bear that they are in the minority.

I was accused of being Irish. Nothing wrong with that but I've never even been to Ireland!

5 minutes ago, Slip said:

This reaches new heights.  These guys must be scraping the bottle of the recruitment barrel.

"But, but, but John Major...."  Waah waah.

 

Even fullfact.org cheerfully admits that John Major was up to no good.

 

https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/

 

Facts aren't your thing, presumably. Stick to the jokes ????

 

 

 

Quote

 

Claim

John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay a report into Conservative MPs taking bribes.

Conclusion

Major’s prorogation in 1997 had the effect of delaying a report into Conservative MPs taking bribes until after the 1997 election, whether or not that was his intention.

 

 

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

The court said nothing about any recess. They said that the prorogation was unlawful and upheld the Scottish supreme courts decision that Johnson LIED to the Queen.

Congratulations, you've managed to understand my point. Wonderful! Finally! 

3 hours 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!

 

     Correct ,  it is time for her too step down , old age has its problems . 

     Boris , and farage, wait for it ,  Justice is not democratic .. 

 

 

           

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by elliss

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

In my opinion, repeatedly calling other posters liars should - at a minimum - be supported by some kind of evidence. I think it's lamentable behavior. I refuse to report posts, but I have to say I'm seriously surprised to see posters get away with this time and again.

 

In terms of recess, the HOC conference recess was in the HOC calendar long before the request for a prorogation. That's not dishonest. It's a fact.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit :

 

 

The prorogation effectively canceled the conference recess, but had BJ not requested one it would - by my count - have left five days to prepare for the Queen's speech.

 

There, once again I provide accurate information.

Another happy customer...

I didn't call you a liar, I said you were being dishonest and gave you the reasons why.  They still stand.  I addressed your point.

I applaud your refusal to report posts, but seemingly that doesn't stop you having a little whine up publicly.  If you think my post is against the rules then report away.

 

With regard to recess/ prorogation I have already addressed the point.

 

 

Just now, HansumFarang said:

 

Even fullfact.org cheerfully admits that John Major was up to no good.

 

https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/

 

Facts aren't your thing, presumably. Stick to the jokes ????

 

 

 

 

Yeah Conservatives eh?

What a load of shysters they are.

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

But there again and again and again, how could they when it wasn't even on the ballot paper, there was leave or remain.

100% agree so there were only the two choices. 

 

However given grown adults were unable to negotiate their way out of an open sack, do you not think it is the responsible thing to do for politicians to intervene to stop a catastrophe unfolding ? People demanding a no deal Brexit are simply economic illiterates who need saving from themselves.

 

Brexit has not been cancelled (yet) but a catastrophic Brexit has been averted.

 

Rejoice  

25 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

He says it to all remainers that make posts that he can't counter. (too clever for him by half). It's nothing personal. 555

They ain't as 'ficker than us' as 'we' thought though are they? ????

 

('You can't pick a pickpocket's pocket' lol)

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by evadgib

4 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Congratulations, you've managed to understand my point. Wonderful! Finally! 

So why are you talking about a recess?

7 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Even fullfact.org cheerfully admits that John Major was up to no good.

 

https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/

 

Facts aren't your thing, presumably. Stick to the jokes ????

 

 

 

 

Did you read the conclusion? Really different from what you're saying.

6 minutes ago, Slip said:

I didn't call you a liar, I said you were being dishonest and gave you the reasons why.  They still stand.  I addressed your point.

I applaud your refusal to report posts, but seemingly that doesn't stop you having a little whine up publicly.  If you think my post is against the rules then report away.

 

With regard to recess/ prorogation I have already addressed the point.

 

 

Please tell me where in this post I am being dishonest:

 

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

They ain't as 'ficker than us' as 'we' thought though are they? ????

I wouldn't go that far. Maybe I'd modify that to deluded, desparate, devoid of ideas....555

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Yeah Conservatives eh?

What a load of shysters they are.

 

I won't argue with that ????

 

 
     Correct ,  it is time for her too step down , old age has its problems . 
     Boris , and farage, wait for it ,  Justice is not democratic .. 
 
 
           

It is when it upholds democratically enacted laws.

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

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Did you read the conclusion? Really different from what you're saying.

 

I put the summary in my post stevenl ????

 

 

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

It is when it upholds democratically enacted laws.

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

 

That aren't written down anywhere .....

 

The Supreme Court unanimously found in favour of John Major re the current judgement.

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