Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[RJRB 688]

56 minutes ago, retep said:

I think public opinion was with him, obviously the remoaner judges? were not.

All eleven of them!

Leaving legal technicalities  aside,it must have been obvious to anyone with a brain that prorogation was ALL about stifling discussion and examination of Boris’s intentions to bulldoze through a No Deal Brexit in his self imposed time scale.

Asking us to believe otherwise is to insult the intelligence of almost everyone.

I am delighted that on this point he has got his comeuppance.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Just now, Pettytom said:

I’m not sure that he can be forced out.

 

If he doesn’t go, the crisis deepens 

We live in a post truth world. His friends in the press will assist in pushing the whole thing away from the front pages and focus on Jeremy corbyn failing to eat a donut correctly or something. And he’ll keep lying.

 

Johnson is going nowhere. 

[apelike 10]

1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

I’m not sure that he can be forced out.

 

If he doesn’t go, the crisis deepens 

I think he is banking on that very fact as it may just force an early GE which Corbyn does not want.

[Albert the Cat 0]

13 minutes ago, apelike said:

I think he is banking on that very fact as it may just force an early GE which Corbyn does not want.

Johnson could lose a vote of no confidence. He should resign and allow someone else who can command the majority of Parliament to form a government. No GE is needed. 
 

He could of course refuse to resign, but the Queen has the power to sack him. Given what recent events has shown us, I think anything is possible. 

[andyofborg 11]

1 hour ago, retep said:

So if Boris did something illegal when does his case come up in court?

it came up last week, we got the verdict today

[Top Cats Hat 10]

11 minutes ago, apelike said:

What he did may be unlawful but so was the judgement in the other Miller case against the government and despite that brexit is still on-going.

I’m not sure you can equate the two things.

 

In the first case, the court ruled that the UK entered the EU by an Act of Parliament therefore an Act of Parliament was required to take us out. As a result, Theresa May accepted the ruling and introduced the bill to trigger Article 50.

 

In this latest case, a Prime Minister elected simply on the promise that he will take the UK out of the EU by October 31st. and not having the Parliamentary majority to do this, tried to force a fait à complis by suspending Parliament.

 

Unfortunately for him, he announced that he was going to use this as a tactic while still campaigning for the leadership, so when he went to the queen and gave her a load of pony to avoid telling her that he was deliberately and undemocratically trying to exclude Parliament from his Brexit ambitions, it was always going to end in the courts.

 

Interestingly, Johnson said today that he was going to comply with the ruling. There is nothing to comply with. Parliament was never prorogued so unless he intends to enter the House of Commons with a large stick and tries to chase MPs out of the chamber, he has no choice but to comply.

[andyofborg 11]

1 hour ago, retep said:

I think public opinion was with him, obviously the remoaner judges? were not.

i thought the referendum was a secret ballot, so how do you know how the judges voted or even if they did vote?

 

i'd also be interested in why you think this decision affects positivly or negatively brexit, as I can see how it affects it one way or another.

 

 

[apelike 10]

12 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I’m not sure you can equate the two things.

In both cases it was about proroguing parliament. In the article 50 case May had also planned to bypass parliament and trigger article 50 by invoking the crown prerogative power and its that that was challenged.

Edited September 24, 2019 by apelike

[Mister M 1,625]

57 minutes ago, Michael_W said:

Choose what you believe in fella ……… You Gov though lol

Go on then Michael, tell us what the working classes, (who can never, ever be wrong - so long as they agree with you) have been saying to you.

After all, anecdotal evidence is more valid than a carefully constructed survey.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mister M

[andyofborg 11]

10 minutes ago, apelike said:

In both cases it was about proroguing parliament. In the article 50 case May had also planned to bypass parliament and trigger article 50 by invoking the crown prerogative power and its that that was challenged.

as far as i'm aware, May wasn't going to prorogue parliament.

 

the supreme court has been consistent in it's support for parliamentary soverignty against an executive intent on suppressing it.

[Mister Gee 823]

3 hours ago, Michael_W said:

Can't trust the public can't trust the politicians, wait until some clown like Jezza the Red gives the vote to 16 year olds and the <removed> becomes complete with Thungbergesque drama queens getting in on the act !

Are you referring to this young person?

[andyofborg 11]

52 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I’m not sure that he can be forced out.

 

If he doesn’t go, the crisis deepens 

a vote of no confidence and  either a caretaker leader to arrange an extension followed by a general election or a government of national unity to negotiate a deal,  possibly arrange a confirmatory referendum and then have a general election