Something we (finally) agree on. Like the ref on alternative vote where there was legislation in place subject to the referendum result - there should have been an agreement on how we would leave and then the vote - which is why a 2nd vote on the actual deal not on empty promises works for me (and I would respect the result either way)
It's not as easily as that Whitejock, 2m(50%) voted to remain a part of the UK, they are the real victims in this drawn out saga. Held back by undemocratic Scottish independants who wish to be ruled by the EU
Problem is where is this deal going to come from. The EU will not give us a deal that would get past first post. In my view Boris was prepared to push it to the limit ie 31st October by which time the EU would have come up with a suitable deal, not for our benefit but their own. Never mind I have made my decision I will never knowingly buy anything that comes from the EU. As a general point of interest if the vote had been to remain I would have accepted it.
They won't let us vote on getting rid of you, or you would be long gone. Tax sucking nation who brings nothing
Have you noticed that a lot of this trouble is caused by anti English feeling from the satellite states of England
A Northern Ireland only backstop coupled to a 2nd vote I believe would pass (or would have done prior to today). You would lose ERG but gain enough Labour to get it through. On the general point of interest if the vote had been 48-52 to remain and then remainers had used this as confirmation to say right then now we'll join the Euro, start an EU Army and admit Turkey it would have been as dishonest as saying the referendum result was a mandate for a No Deal brexit.
The thing is The EU don't want N/Ireland or the Jocks, when we leave, the EU won't let them rejoin.They want the English tax payers money, not the tax sucking Hanger on nation's.
Thing is they bring nothing, we are phasing out petrol cars soon,what else does Scotland have apart from lucky Heather, maybe they could have a wind farm at SNP meetings to create electric from all the hot air.
Just a thought (which I do have occasionally) this is for all the intellectuals out there. The Supreme Court has ruled that Boris acted unlawfully in suspending parliament so I would expect that parliaments in the future will not be able to be suspended. He did not act illegally as there is not to my knowledge anyway a law that forbids the suspension of parliament. So question do we now have a law which prevents the suspension of parliaments, no I thought not, as I said earlier Let's have the correct rules then we all know where we stand. O'h sorry we are talking politics and politicians prefer everything to be as woolly as possible
It was found to be unlawful because of the length of prorogation. The Government argued that Parliament was only going to miss out on 5 sitting days because of 3 weeks of the annual Party conferences, which is true. The Raving Loony Commie ****s Party are currently having theirs in Brighton. If you want a glimpse of the UK aka East Germany MK2 check it out.
11 high court Judges seem to think Johnson did act unlawfully I would think that means it was illegal.
Prorogation falls under public law which is why the procedure could be found unlawful. Because the court found no good reason offered for why the prorogation was so long then it meant parliament could not do its job of scrutinising the government. Had the prorogation been the appropriate length needed to get ready for a queens speech it would have been lawful. Otherwise you could have future governments imposing month/year long prorogations to avoid scrutiny. Had Boris offered the court a reason for the length of the prorogation the courts could have judged whether that had been a lawful reason but they didn’t - hence the judgment. Monumental decision today but remain/brexit hats off - ultimately a decision which I hope protects us from rogue leaders (of any party). I hope it’s not a politicisation of the courts but an example of the separation of powers; parliaments being law makers and courts being interpreters and appliers of law.
I would only add that this decision also shows that the PM and cabinet are responsible and answerable to Parliament.
Indeed. Ultimately it’s parliament that’s sovereign. The executive ‘runs’ the country but parliament makes the laws and the judiciary is there to make sure they’re enforced. Of course if boris had a working majority, and didn’t have people in his own party that thought he was a shyster, he could maybe have passed a new law to make it legal. The fact he never put forward a defence is arrogant and deplorable. Meanwhile at the other end of the sorry saga, the Labour Party continues to shoot itself in the foot with its brexit bingo policy. They really don’t want to be in government do they. Mind you choosing Corbyn as leader in the first place made that pretty clear. They’d rather spout socialist virtues, they will never get to put into practice than viable electable policies that might give them a chance. More a pressure group than a credible opposition. Has to be a matter of time before the party splits. Must have been some talks about half of them going to Lib Dem’s... and a further chunk of tories doing the same. Both major parties have gone to extreme’s, big gap in the middle.
For it to be illegal there must be a law to break surely. On a further point of note the authorities need to be very careful otherwise I can see a civil war on the horizon, I kid you not.
