Jump to content
You are not logged in ▶️ Click to sign-up or login ×
ASEANNOW Official TikTok account is now LIVE! -Follow Us!

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

Jonathan Fairfield

By Jonathan Fairfield
in World News

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 620
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Forethat Platinum Member

Forethat

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forethat Platinum Member

Forethat

Posted
Posted

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...

 

 

Screenshot 2019-09-24 at 16.14.19.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
evadgib Ruby Member

evadgib

Posted
Posted
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:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tomacht8 Gold Member

tomacht8

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elliss Platinum Member

elliss

Posted
Posted
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 ..

        

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
luckyluke Diamond Member

luckyluke

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DannyCarlton Gold Member

DannyCarlton

Posted
Posted
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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HansumFarang Explorer Member

HansumFarang

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HansumFarang Explorer Member

HansumFarang

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
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 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
Posted
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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesBlond Newbie

JamesBlond

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruntoid Advanced Member

Bruntoid

Posted
Posted
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) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7by7 Star Member

7by7

Posted
Posted
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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...