Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[Waldo]

3 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

sadly, the people weren't given the opportunity to indicate what their "will" was in regard to the future relationship with the EU was,   

 

ultimately, all of this mess is a result of this, Had there been an opportunity to investigate the  people's "will" in this regrad then this would have been over and done with after 6 months. 

I agree. The whole sorry episode is a cluster duck.

[andyofborg]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Wasn’t Johnson supposed to make Farage ambassador to the US?

 

When Bozo was interviewed in New York yesterday he refused to rule out re-proroging Parliament if the Supreme Court went against him. I suspect that if he even tried that now, Parliament would just completely ignore him and continue sitting. 

as I understand things there is nothing to stop him from proroging parliament for a more normal period. 

[saywhatnow]

40 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Does anyone have a price on Johnson resigning over this? It might be worth a couple of quid.

 

His hands are tied over no deal, he has said that he will never ask for an extension and it is pretty much accepted that his attempts to get a new deal with Brussels are not serious and unlikely to succeed.

 

A resignation would solve a lot of his problems in one go. 😁👍

 

 

Sky offering 1/3 that the next GE will be in 2019, 13/8 that the GE will be in November. Cant find a market for him resigning, but they're also offering 7/4 that he'll be the shortest ever serving PM (no more than 119 days) 

[Waldo]

13 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

One party (Parliament) has failed to come to a decision on an issue on which the country is divided 50/50.

 

The other party (the government, i.e. Mr Johnson and his coterie) have engaged in behaviour "the effect [of which] upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme", according to the unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court.

 

Do you not see any significant differences between those two things?

 

The former reflects a weakness in our polity, as well as, of course, extreme stupidity on the part of Mr Cameron and his successors.  I suppose that allowing people that stupid into positions of power is one facet of that weakness.

 

But the latter would have set a precedent that would have destroyed our polity.  If the SC hadn't clamped down, there would have been nothing to stop future governments shutting down and bypassing the legislature at will.

Wasn't it more like 49/51?

 

Anyhow, you put your points very well CaptainSwing. I'm struggling to find fault with your arguments.

 

I'm ****** that some MP's (looking at you Lib Dems) are set on overturning the referendum result. While it seems there is no legal basis for my grievence; it still feels very wrong to me, and does not match up well with what my (albeit uneducated in such matters) mind considers Democracy means.

 

When I think about our MP's, I feel a bit angry to be honest.

 

Let's hope things turn out well eh?

Edited September 24, 2019 by Waldo

[andyofborg]

7 minutes ago, Waldo said:

It's still very much a thing (in and of itself) though, and it is very much being subverted.

 

but isn't the real subversion being done by the executive, in that they have continually and deliberatly avoided any sort of process by which the will of all the people in regard to the future relationship with the EU could be gauged. 

 

by not doing this, it has only left a struggle between the wills of the people on the extreme edges of the arguments

[nightrider]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

What I don't understand is that it's conference season, so wouldn't MPs be away at the conferences that are going on at this time?

Prorogation also stops a lot of important behind the scenes stuff too, not just MP's sitting. So its not the same at all.

[Top Cats Hat]

13 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Okay. I would say, 'wrong doing' is action that is contrary to an individual's personal ethics or sense of right and wrong. It has nothing to do with our legal system or lawyers etc.

Dude, you are all over the place on this. Earlier you said

 

Quote

For this, they are not being held accountable by any court I'm aware of.

Your contradictory position on today’s court ruling has also been pointed out by others.

 

This is absolutely typical of the confused thinking of many Leave supporters. You remind me of the Leave supporter in Andrew Bridgen’s constituency interviewed on the BBC ‘Tories at War’ programme the other night.

 

Interviewer. “What do you think we should do?

 

Leave supporter. Well , I don’t really know anything about it but I think we should leave!”

[L00b]

28 minutes ago, Waldo said:

 

It's still very much a thing (in and of itself) though, and it is very much being subverted.

 

I don't like or dislike it, it is what it is. I hardly have the time and resources to go about changing these kind of things.

I don't disagree that the majority opinion in the 2016 referendum introduced a moral quandary, doubling as a political quandary, for MPs. But never a legal quandary, nor a moral duty to enact. It is only if you misunderstand how British democracy works (and has worked for hundreds of years indeed), that you would hold MPs to be obligated to implement the Leave result. The earlier Miller judgement, and today's, simply reaffirm how British democracy works.

 

I would argue (again, but it's a long time since the last time), that the referendum result was as much of a call to thoroughly, objectively and carefully consider, and then rectify through relevant policies, the severe socio-economic problems across the length and breadth of the UK (what pushed a non-trivial portion -if not a majority- of the 17m, to favour Leaving as a protest vote), as a call for the UK to actually rescind its EU membership.

 

Acknowledging these problems and enacting those mitigating policies is as valid an approach to the referendum result, as Brexiting (any version of which will only exacerbate the problems further) and, I would also argue, a far more responsible and beneficial one.

Edited September 24, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat]

9 minutes ago, Waldo said:

.I'm ****** that some MP's (looking at you Lib Dems) are set on overturning the referendum result.

No one can overturn the referendum result unless they have a time machine. It is now a matter of historical record.

 

What the Lib Dems have said is that they will revoke a decision made by a previous government if they are elected into power. I struggle to understand how you can possibly object to that in a free and democratic society.

[Waldo]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Dude, you are all over the place on this. Earlier you said

 

Your contradictory position on today’s court ruling has also been pointed out by others.

 

This is absolutely typical of the confused thinking of many Leave supporters. You remind me of the Leave supporter in Andrew Bridgen’s constituency interviewed on the BBC ‘Tories at War’ programme the other night.

 

Interviewer. “What do you think we should do?

 

Leave supporter. Well , I don’t really know anything about it but I think we should leave!”

I'm sorry you're not understanding me Top Cats Hat.

 

I personally don't feel I have a contractictory position on todays ruling, at all.

 

Please feel free to continue misrepresenting me as a Brexiteer.