Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[evadgib]

I have no idea what's coming but BJ may as well blow the cobwebs off this.

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

I have no idea what's coming but BJ may as well blow the cobwebs off this.

If he can secure Robin Tillbrook as his lawyer, everything is possible. Any news about the UK having left already but the MSM is just not telling anyone? 

[Forethat]

46 minutes ago, Slip said:

I'm not sure what method you have used to achieve it, but the post that is showing there is certainly not the post I responded to.  The gist is the same, but the wording is not. This I have reported to the mods.

You need to be more aware of what you are posting, says I. 

Here is your post with my quote embedded:

 

I'm going to ask you again; WHERE am I being dishonest when I quote the High Court Judgement? Here is the Judgement for reference:

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

 

Section 59:

"The unchallenged evidence of Sir John Major is clear. The work on the Queen’s Speech varies according to the size of the programme. But a typical time is four to six days"

 

You accuse posters of lying time and again. My advice is that you stop calling people liars just because you don't agree with them.

 

[Forethat]

And in case anyone have any doubts as to exactly who IS lying (OR is simply incompetent), here is your post where you accuse me of lying. And to top things up you incorrectly accuse me of manufacturing a quote. Post #139 in this thread.

 

You've got some nerve, I'll tell you that...

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Forethat

[evadgib]

11 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If he can secure Robin Tillbrook as his lawyer, everything is possible. Any news about the UK having left already but the MSM is just not telling anyone? 

Not entirely correct but you may find this useful:

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by evadgib

[tomacht8]

What a storm in a coffee cup.

The highest court in the UK has decided, with 11 : 0 votes, that the parliamentarians have not earned a prolonged holiday.

And the boss who arranged it made a mistake. The country (UK) is in the worst crisis since WW2 and the country  is split as never before. The responsible politicians should now move together and have to think cross-partys about what is best for the UK.

The ruling is also a vote in favor of people in the UK, but also in the EU, who have had enough of this disorientation.

[elliss]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

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

 

 

     With due  respect  , the Queen,  totally  ill informed , by her  court advisors .

     However , that  said ,  i do tune in , for her christmas speech ..

        

 

[luckyluke]

Leavers and Remainers should have expressed their opinion about the authority of the Supreme Court before the verdict. 

 

It seems now, after the ruling, that most of the Remainers here,  have no problem with this authority,

while most of  the Leavers, contest it. 

 

One can easely assume it would have been the other way around, if the Supreme Court had pronounced a different verdict. 

 

 

[DannyCarlton]

23 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

I think I have posted enough reasons on this thread already that explain why I think the Supreme Court's decision is vulnerable to challenge.

You haven't said where he's going to challenge it. There is no process to challenge a supreme court decision.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[DannyCarlton]

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Leavers and Remainers should have expressed their opinion about the authority of the Supreme Court before the verdict. 

They didn't need to The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in the UK. Most people know that.

[DannyCarlton]

12 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Not entirely correct but you may find this useful:

Why would anyone find the thoughts of the leader of a tiny neo facist group useful?

[HansumFarang]

37 minutes ago, stuandjulie said:

Both Brexiteers and remainers seem to forget facts, a referendum is NOT lawful, it is advisory and as we are a Parliamentary Democracy  no Government is legally bound to abide by a referendums decision, sorry if you don't like that (either side) but that is the way it is.

 

I don't remember anyone mentioning that before the referendum.

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

The country (UK) is in the worst crisis since WW2 and the country  is split as never before. 

Agreed. Far more worrying than any EU membership, if you ask me.

 

Ununited Kingdom

 

Fancy that... 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, HansumFarang said:

 

I don't remember anyone mentioning that before the referendum.

Mentioned or not, it is correct. 

[HansumFarang]

5 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

You haven't said where he's going to challenge it. There is no process to challenge a supreme court decision.

 

 

 

I didn't suggest that there would be a legal challenge. The legitimacy of the decision will be debated by the media and the general public, however. The role of the Supreme Court in politics will certainly be challenged going forward.

[HansumFarang]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Mentioned or not, it is correct. 

 

Are you claiming that you, personally, knew that before the vote?

[evadgib]

19 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Why would anyone find the thoughts of the leader of a tiny neo facist group useful?

A novel yet predictable way of explaining his eccentricity ????

Edited September 24, 2019 by evadgib

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Are you claiming that you, personally, knew that before the vote?

I am telling you it doesn’t matter what anyone did or didn’t know. 
 

Ignorance of facts does not change their applicability. 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

The normal, common, decent thing would be to call a general election. BJ wanted to, an alliance of the opposition and his own party rebels won't allow it. Why not?

 He, now shown to be illegally, prorogued Parliament for 5 weeks to stop MPs questioning him. He claimed it was so he could prepare his legislative programme and then have it presented in the Queen's speech.

 

However, his legislative programme and content of the speech were published on the 28th August! 

 

If his only reason for the prorogation was the legitimate one of preparing for the state opening and Queen's speech, he only needed to do so for a couple of days; a week at most.

 

Having used a , now declared illegal, prorogation to stop MPs from questioning him for five weeks, he then tried to call a general election so he could dissolve Parliament and stop them from questioning until after his Brexit had happened.

 

These are not the actions of a Prime Minister in a democracy; they are the actions of a dictator. He's been found out; an honourable person would resign.

[CharlieH]

Troll comment removed

[tomacht8]

33 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Agreed. Far more worrying than any EU membership, if you ask me.

 

Ununited Kingdom

 

Fancy that... 

Mr. Bender of facts.

Brexit aka EU membership has created this disunited UK country. 

Fancy that.

 

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, HansumFarang said:

 

 

If I CONDEMNED a cash donation to myself, I wouldn't then go on to stuff the money in my wallet.

You are sounding desperate now - it wasn’t given to Miller, it wasn’t Millers to return - I’m not sure how to help you get your head around that. 

 

If you are suggesting she personally gained financially from it I would be wary - she seems to be a dab hand in a courtroom !

Edited September 24, 2019 by Bruntoid

[7by7]

4 hours ago, JAG said:

<snip>

Both results, obtained through the ballot box, have effectively been overturned by this establishment, and a general election, the proper constitutional means to arrive at a solution has been denied. It is tempting if perhaps melodramatic to suggest that the establishment has vigorously and contemptibly put two fingers up to the electorate.

Rubbish.

 

The Supreme Court has not overturned any democratically arrived at decision. The 11 members have not cancelled Brexit. They have not cancelled or even postponed Article 50: only Parliament can do either of those.

 

As Parliament has been unable to decide on the best way forward, the proper democratic means of arriving at a solution is not a general election, it is a final, legally binding referendum where we, the people of the UK, make the decision for ourselves.

 

But we all know why Brexiteers don't want that!

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Which law did he break?

He prevented parliament from doing the work they are legally obliged to do by lying. 

 

As for lying to the queen not sure if that’s another one 

 

 

[JamesBlond]

1 hour ago, stuandjulie said:

Both Brexiteers and remainers seem to forget facts, a referendum is NOT lawful, it is advisory and as we are a Parliamentary Democracy  no Government is legally bound to abide by a referendums decision, sorry if you don't like that (either side) but that is the way it is.

Except that's not at all the way it is. They are bound by the fact that if the result is not enacted, Britain's international reputation will be in shreds, parliament will lose all credibility, the foundations of participative democracy will be utterly undermined, and there will be rioting in the streets.

 

'Not legally binding' is just caviling. Everyone knows a referendum is morally binding otherwise it would not be held, and the result will stand unless there are legal reasons why the vote was invalid. As there are no such reasons, the vote is as good as binding.

[7by7]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

<snip>

She brought back a BRINO deal that was defeated 3 times in parliament and they had the final say on it.

 Whether or not one agrees that May's deal was BRINO, and I don't, at least Parliament did have the final say on that deal!

 

With his illegal prorogation and failed attempt to dissolve Parliament for a general election Johnson did his upmost to prevent Parliament having that say on his deal, if he gets one, or no deal.

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Just because you use emotive phrases like "your spin based theory has been rubbished with facts just accept it", it doesn't mean that your statement is legitimate or even truthful.

Wow - it’s on record <deleted> ! 

 

Wheres the emotion? You made an accusation, wrapped in spin, I debunked it. I provided you with the facts and I’m emotional ? 

 

Have you heard of google (other search engines are available) 

 

Off you go - tell me where I am wrong (or untruthful) 

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, HansumFarang said:

 

I couldn't give a monkeys. I look forward to you getting banned when the moderators discover you've been multi-handling.

Standard practice for Brexiteers who have no game and want everyone removed who has game.

 

Sick.

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

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

Where on the paper did it say ‘unconditionally if necessary’ ? 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't presume to understand currency speculation. I am pretty sure that Ms Miller has some big money behind her though!

 Ask Rees-Mogg; he understands it perfectly and has made millions from it since the referendum!