Another new Brexit thread

[Chris in London]

I'm genuinely interested in what I haven't understood and grateful to be corrected. I've just been listening to this constitutional debate on BBC Sounds and to be frank have already been softened up by these experts.

Okay. Here’s what you said.

He's absolutely right and had very good reasons to complain. It was indeed a "revolutionary" judgment converting convention into common law and prescribing new limits of a pregogative power. More importantly the opposition parties invited the courts in to politically supervise the executive by cynically abdicating their own constitutional obligation to allow a GE.

1. You say it converted convention into common law and it did nothing of the sort. The effect of the convention has been that the power historically has not been exercised in a way that even approached the common law limits of the power. Johnson not only went far beyond the limit of the convention, he went beyond the common law limit too. But make no mistake, the common law power he offended has existed for over 400 years.

2. You then say it prescribed new limits to a prerogative power. Again, it did nothing of the sort. All royal prerogative powers have always been subject to common law limits. Again, that principle has been recognised for 400 years.

3. It follows that far from having good reason to complain that is based on a misunderstanding of the judgment. He had no grounds for complaining at all. Had he followed the convention he would have not have come anywhere close to breaking the law. Because he ignored the convention completely he ran the fish of a finding his advice was unlawful, and that’s exactly what he got.

BTW when you next say the opposition parties asked the courts politically to supervise the executive in relation to what you say is a constitutional obligation to allow a general election, I assume here you were making a point that was separate to the judgment as it has got absolutely nothing to do with the judgment at all. But as it happens I think you are quite wrong about that too. Under the fixed term parliament act there is no obligation to bring about a General Election just because the government of the day wants one. That is the whole point of the act.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I’m surprised someone used the word “****” in parliament but fair play, liar too, considering it’s not allowed.

Although it was Ken Clarke who said the Prime Minister has a fantastic ability to keep and a straight face whilst he’s being completely disingenuous.

Do you think it was fake outrage when someone tried to break into Jess Phillips’s office recently?

Or when the daughter of another MP said she couldn’t sleep after reading the death threats and abuse?

No I think it’s terrible but it’s not one way. They are all as bad as each other and probably all as frightened by some nutter having a go.That is my point.

 

[mcfc1632]

So what you're saying is everyone should only agree to a deal that you're happy with?

??

Proper weird response

I was actually saying that:

Every UK citizen that cares for the UK’s interests must/should.....

The words were clear - not sure how you are finding ambiguity

 

[west didsblue]

It might be the dictionary definition but I think it's just as common for it to mean "bollocks".

By which I don't think he meant she was making it up, merely that he was refuting her argument.

His language might not have been ideal but people's reaction to it are completely over the top imo.

You’re doing a shit job of defending the indefensible.

 

[Ban-jani]

No I think it’s terrible but it’s not one way. They are all as bad as each other and probably all as frightened by some nutter having a go.That is my point.

No they are not.

The rhetoric and actions of the current government are reprehensible.

 

[M18CTID]

How good of the Prime Minister to speak for the dead when they cannot answer that point.

He was responding to the MP who was addressing him and who brought Jo’s name into it. What did you expect him to do? Ignore her completely?

 

[mcfc1632]

I'm not surprised you'd read it that way.

I DO respect the hard leave vote, I even share their desire to leave the EU, but i'm also raising the point that if leaving the EU is their end goal, they must have compromises on their position, same with the remainers. Staying connected to Europe and trade is their goal, but they also must reach a compromise by relinquishing certain aspects of being connected to Europe, namely being an EU member.

You're the one who wishes to completely disregard both soft and hard leave voters points of view, as well as some of the compromising remainers who feel we should leave in order to honour and respect democracy.

Just a helpful comment

Making reasonable and calm responses to those that are obsessed tends to lead to disappointment

 

[blueinsa]

He was responding to the MP who was addressing him and who brought Jo’s name into it. What did you expect him to do? Ignore her completely?

Imagine if he did?

Misogynist would have been the cries i suspect?

 

[M18CTID]

Absolutely but what’s the indefensible stuff the leader of the Labour Party has done?

Been up the arse of a terrorist organisation who bombed my home town....TWICE

 

[Ban-jani]

Cameron and Osborne acted disgracefully and very irresponsibly toward the armed forces no doubt you are quite right, but how can you possibly trust a man who would scrap our nuclear weapons, how can you trust a man who is insane enough to say he will scrap Trident but keep what would be a completely useless fleet of submarines, keep the aircraft carriers but scrap the F35 that would operate from them. These are not the ideas of a sane man or an electable party, truly ridiculous.

I agree he is not as dangerous as Boris right at this moment for one reason only....Boris is in power Corbyn is not.

For the record he said he would replace trident with something more cost effective and will plow more into the armed forces.

I think we should keep trident but I’m waiting to see the detail when the manifesto comes out.

Corbyn’s plans for the rest of the armed forces are greater investment and will keep them stronger than the Tories have done, not just under Cameron and Osbourne.

Corbyn has demonstrated absolutely no intention to bypass parliament and thus bypass our democracy, that’s why he’s not as dangerous.

 

[Ban-jani]

Been up the arse of a terrorist organisation who bombed my home town....TWICE

Nice use hyperbole without any specific detail about what he has done.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The conversation I am referring too in the HoC was about violent threats towards female MPs due to the language being used. I am not weaponising or threatening anybody, and I do see a link, as do the police, between this language and these threats. Look at the language that was used by the guy who killed Jo Cox, it was this very same language. I couldn't give a shite if you find me asking a question about this offensive.

The only part of this that makes sense it the bit about you not caring about causing offence. You truly are a sad and angry little man trapped by your own personal issues. Get help and enjoy your life.

 

[mcfc1632]

So the opposition is not at fault for 'stopping Brexit' then ? They are doing the right thing, according to you ?

Unless the Government has offered them another alternative deal to vote on ?

Have they ?

The opposition did of course offer the Government chance to work on a Brexit deal of their preference & pass that through.

Did the Conservatives go with it ?

Your posts are becoming more incoherent

 

[Ban-jani]

He was responding to the MP who was addressing him and who brought Jo’s name into it. What did you expect him to do? Ignore her completely?

No but did he have to suggest how we best honour someone, by calling for something that someone completely disagreed with?

 

[M18CTID]

Nice use hyperbole without any specific detail about what he has done.

If you don’t know about Corbyn’s friendship with IRA terrorists by now - to the point that even then Labour leader Neil Kinnock was disgusted - then you’ll never know.

 

[M18CTID]

No but did he have to suggest how we best honour someone, by calling for something that someone completely disagreed with?

I honestly believe that you and others are making way too much out of that particular comment. There’s plenty to criticise Johnson for, but it seems some are just looking for literally any excuse to have a pop.

 

[Ban-jani]

If you don’t know about Corbyn’s friendship with IRA terrorists by now - to the point that even then Labour leader Neil Kinnock was disgusted - then you’ll never know.

I do know about Corbyn’s connection to the IRA, thank you.

What I don’t know and what you don’t know is how strong that connection is.

 

[Ban-jani]

I honestly believe that you and others are making way too much out of that particular comment. There’s plenty to criticise Johnson for, but it seems some are just looking for literally any excuse to have a pop.

So are you admitting he needn’t have said it?

Of course you think that, you couldn’t give a shit about what Johnson says or does as he’s your best chance of Brexit.

The rest of us would prefer not to speak for the dead, as a way for pushing our own policy, when they disagreed with it whilst they were alive.

 

[M18CTID]

I do know about Corbyn’s connection to the IRA, thank you.

What I don’t know and what you don’t know is how strong that connection is.

What we do know is that it’s enough of one to make me think that if he ever becomes PM it’ll be an utter piss take in my eyes.

You see, I can put up with most of his other views even if they’re too left wing for me, but I’ll draw the line at that and as such, he’s never getting my vote in a million years.

 

[mcfc1632]

There is also the fact that, if the EU acted dishonestly re the 'unfettered backstop' & were obviously just holding us prisoner, we would just tell them to fuck off & the current Brexit would be like a Mariah Carey Christmas video, compared to what we would do then.

Fuck

You do rant some utrer shit