Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[Pettytom 1]

28 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

The whole legal argument is ludicrous. The letter has been acted upon and the EU leaders will be considering whether to grant an extension.  They can't send Boris the Prime Minister of our country to jail for expressing an opinion that an extension is not in our country's interest or the EU's interest.  

 

But people do go to jail for contempt of court.
 

We have courts to decide this sort of thing. Let them do their work. As a democrat , I’m sure that you believe in the importance of the Judicial System 

[Lockdoctor 10]

15 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

But people do go to jail for contempt of court.
 

We have courts to decide this sort of thing. Let them do their work. As a democrat , I’m sure that you believe in the importance of the Judicial System 

I am not disputing that people go to jail for contempt.  

 

Those getting the courts involved about the letters are only do so for political reasons and are wasting the court's time.  

[hobinfoot 25]

18 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

But people do go to jail for contempt of court.
 

We have courts to decide this sort of thing. Let them do their work. As a democrat , I’m sure that you believe in the importance of the Judicial System 

I can’t understand why people are still arguing about this. The Act said the PM must ask for an extension. He has sent a letter asking for The extension.

 

[L00b 441]

15 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

I can’t understand why people are still arguing about this. The Act said the PM must ask for an extension. He has sent a letter asking for The extension.

 

Had he sent solely the Benn Act letter, duly signed, I'd agree with you.

 

As it is, however, Johnson has sent two letters, with the Benn Act-compliant letter unsigned, and the other letter disavowing the Benn Act letter duly signed: his act has created a genuine issue about compliance with the Benn Act, serious enough to be tried (this is a legal threshold).

 

A problem of Johnson's own making (months ago during his leadership bid) and, given his track record in the Courts to date, likely yet another attempt to be cute with the spirit/letter of the law that the Court will quash (at your tax-paying expense).

Edited October 21, 2019 by L00b

[Pettytom 1]

29 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

I am not disputing that people go to jail for contempt.  

 

Those getting the courts involved about the letters are only do so for political reasons and are wasting the court's time.  

I think that the court should decide whether their time  is being wasted, or not.

 

As a democrat, I’m sure that you agree

[ads36 217]

1 hour ago, Lockdoctor said:

We have General Elections to decide which Party or Parties decide what is enshrined in law.  

it's almost as if we always were an independent country...

[Pettytom 1]

37 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

I can’t understand why people are still arguing about this. The Act said the PM must ask for an extension. He has sent a letter asking for The extension.

 

You’d expect the Prime Minister to comply fully with the law of the land, wouldn’t you?

 

It sort of goes with the job.

[Lockdoctor 10]

6 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

You’d expect the Prime Minister to comply fully with the law of the land, wouldn’t you?

 

It sort of goes with the job.

hobinfoot believes like all reasonable  people that the Prime Minster has complied fully with the law of the land which is the point he made.

 

23 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I think that the court should decide whether their time  is being wasted, or not.

 

As a democrat, I’m sure that you agree

As a democratic I am entitled to say when I think court time is being wasted just as our Prime Minister is entitled to express his view for an extension to Article 50 is not in the best interest of our country and the EU.

[apelike 10]

58 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

I can’t understand why people are still arguing about this. The Act said the PM must ask for an extension. He has sent a letter asking for The extension.

More importantly it has also been accepted by Tusk and action is being taken by the EU in response to it so basically validating the letter. That will be the sticking point when it comes to the courts.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, hobinfoot said:

I can’t understand why people are still arguing about this. The Act said the PM must ask for an extension. He has sent a letter asking for The extension.

 

No, the Act was to obtain an extension if a deal wasn’t agreed By a certain date. Sending the letter was only part of that process.

 

That is why the court is reserving judgement until an extension is given. If the second letter disrupts the process and an extension is delayed or even cancelled as a result, then Bozo could be judged to have intentionally undermined the Act.

 

Bozo has said on many occasions that he doesn’t think an extension is a good idea. Everybody, including the EU knows his position on this. Specifically sending a letter stating this to Brussels, at the same time as sending his request for an extension could be judged as a deliberate attempt to undermine the legislation however if the extension is granted, then the court will almost certainly bow out.

[Pettytom 1]

39 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

hobinfoot believes like all reasonable  people that the Prime Minster has complied fully with the law of the land which is the point he made.

 

As a democratic I am entitled to say when I think court time is being wasted just as our Prime Minister is entitled to express his view for an extension to Article 50 is not in the best interest of our country and the EU.

No.

 

Surely, as a democrat, you accept all of the outcomes of our democratic institutions.

 

That will include our courts and our parliament.

 

Unless you are selective about the bits of democracy that you agree with. 

[apelike 10]

7 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

No.

 

Surely, as a democrat, you accept all of the outcomes of our democratic institutions.

 

That will include our courts and our parliament.

 

Unless you are selective about the bits of democracy that you agree with. 

I keep saying the same to many remainers on here that still won't accept the referendum result despite it being democratic and valid.