Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,426
The two courts weren't ruling on the same thing. The High Court simply ruled that it wasn't a matter for them to decide.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,882
I too was surprised, but I expect they came to a consensus for very proper and well considered reasons.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the reality is that on justitiability the decision was 8-3 or 7-4 but rather than deliver three or four partially dissenting judgments they didn’t bother because on the footing that the matter WAS justitiable, all 11 agreed that the government had acted illegally.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I bet Lady Hale’s broach was one of the dissenters.It wouldn’t surprise me if the reality is that on justifiability the decision was 8-3 or 7-4 but rather than deliver three or four partially dissenting judgments they didn’t bother because on the footing that the matter WAS justifiable, all 11 agreed that the government had acted illegally.
I hadn’t realised they could do that. It makes it more understandableIt wouldn’t surprise me if the reality is that on justifiability the decision was 8-3 or 7-4 but rather than deliver three or four partially dissenting judgments they didn’t bother because on the footing that the matter WAS justifiable, all 11 agreed that the government had acted illegally.
I
I
inbetween
Guest
Genuinely I hope you are right and he gets a deal, for the good of the country but I just can’t see it.
I don’t think he has enough time left and the noise out of the EU is that he hasn’t even proposed an alternative.
I also believe that his backers want a no deal, as his sister has said.
I think he’s drumming up the feeling of Parliament vs the people in the knowledge we’ll still be in after the 31st and it’ll be parliaments fault.
Let's ask this question, what does Parliament currently want? Does it want Brexit or not?
If I was Boris, I'd do my best with a deal and then bring it back vs no deal and let MP's vote as they want.
Brexit solved.
Anyone refusing or acting against that clearly is just attempting to frustrate the process for other reasons.
However if we have the best deal on the table vs the worst deal then who is to say otherwise.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
It is obvious to all that Boris is more concerned about how to gain a majority in a GE and any actions he has taken so far, are more to do with championing himself and positioning himself to get the leave vote. It has had nothing to do with actually finding a workable solution to the one substantive issue that is stopping him getting a deal. The backstop that your previous PM put in instead of the one we suggested.It is utterly shameful the way the interest of the Irish people has been totally disregarded in any and all Brexit calculations and shows Brexit to be, at its heart, a selfish act.
It would not take much persuasion for Ireland and the EU to accept what we originally suggested, if Boris & Co were sincere about a solution.
He needs someone to blame though to keep himself riding high in the polls for a GE.
He is being totally disingenuous.
Fuck me mate - but you are one patient fellaOn the back of the public support. The Tories were voted in on the back of the promise they'd hold a referendum and as a result, were voted into Government. Parliament then agreed to hold one.
The public chose which Parliamentarians agreed with that directive. Parliament is sovereign, but the electorate chooses the representatives of Parliament, not Parliament itself.
Let's ask this question, what does Parliament currently want? Does it want Brexit or not?
If I was Boris, I'd do my best with a deal and then bring it back vs no deal and let MP's vote as they want.
Brexit solved.
Anyone refusing or acting against that clearly is just attempting to frustrate the process for other reasons.
However if we have the best deal on the table vs the worst deal then who is to say otherwise.
Parliament generally speaking wants a deal and then to remain, in that order.
It’s true the majority voted or supported remain but the vast majority have voted for a Brexit deal over remain.
Johnson needs to get a deal first and then it’s going to tough to get it through in time, without a slight extension.
He can’t just pit it against no deal, that’s not how it works and no deal has to be voted on separately.
But it is only the Leave supporting extremists that we need to comment ononline and offline the hate just keeps being ramped up by the extremists on both sides
Those on the other side should be considered 'victims' it seems and this fully exonerates their behaviour and language
FFS - get on message
This is some proper daft attempt at distraction through introducing something utterly absurd as a comparison@Mëtal Bikër : Do you know anything about Physics? I know a bit, having graduated in Physics at Imperial College back in the 1980s.
What do you reckon to CERN holding a referendum on what settings we should use for the Large Hadron Collider? Would you think that would be a good idea? Trust the people etc?
I'd say it was an absolutely fucking stupid idea and that the people who do it for their day job, should make those decisions. Maybe we might consider the public electing which physicists should be on a committee making such decisions? That might not be a bad idea. But giving the public the choice on individual settings? Plainly ridiculous.
So what's the difference between this and our political system?
Proper arrogant and condescending as well IMO - thought we had seen a change in you
Last edited:
Ha - that's the Chippy we are used toYou're right, I think it was a stupid idea and anyone who thinks otherwise must be stupid. Is that condescending enough for you? Jeez "condescending"????! Touchy or what.
And regards the "must always be held accountable" line, they are. Every 5 years at least.
You haven't in any way justified how it can make sense to ask people ill-equipped to decide on a complex matter, what we should do regards said complex matter. It is illogical, pointless and as we have seen, extremely dangerous to seek guidance from those unable to give it.
This is some proper daft at distraction through introducing something utterly absurd as a comparison
Proper arrogant and condescending as well IMO - thought we had seen a change in you
How lucky we are to have you police the forum and tell posters how to post all day, every day.
I think that it would be a good idea to have a referendum on whether or not in the future referendums should be retained as a vehicle to consult the public.No need to overreact.
And the public has no plans to remove referendums. I cannot see any motion to remove referendums being popular in Parliament.
Option 1: Should referendums be retained as a vehicle to consult the public on major matters of policy and secure their mandate
Option 2: Should referendums be removed as a vehicle to consult the public on major matters of policy and secure their mandate because patently the public are too fucking stupid
Don't be touchy - we all know that's your roleHow lucky we are to have you police the forum and tell posters how to post all day, every day.
Don't be touchy - we all know that's your role
Exactly, get your own job.
Ha - that's the Chippy we are used to
Thank god logical Chippy is back.
Assuming that Labour will whip against any deal Johnson comes up with, the Lib Dem’s, SNP etc will not vote for a deal without a confirmatory referendum, Johnson won’t agree a deal that isn’t sanctioned by the DUP, the Tory rebels will vote for a deal, then for a deal to go through don’t the number of Labour MPs defying their whip and voting for a deal deal need to exceed the number of Tory MPs defying their whip and voting against a deal? And is that at all likely?Parliament generally speaking wants a deal and then to remain, in that order.
It’s true the majority voted or supported remain but the vast majority have voted for a Brexit deal over remain.
Johnson needs to get a deal first and then it’s going to tough to get it through in time, without a slight extension.
He can’t just pit it against no deal, that’s not how it works and no deal has to be voted on separately.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Yes, I said so a while back. I am a Remainer 2nd and a Corbyn hater first and foremost.Has this awakening happened since Boris became pm and you realise that a Corbyn led government is very close unless a few more remainers become leavers?
Correct - the only valid options are No-Deal or whatever deal is on offerCurious if we did have another referendum why would remain be on it? 80% of Parliament want a deal so shouldn't it be May’s rehashed deal or leave again?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Sure. I think it is a political decision at the discretion of the PM as to when and for how long to prorogue parliament and the courts should not be meddling in politics. As to my qualifications, i am a member of the human race. Any such member is fully qualified to have an opinion on any matters they chose.Do explain why you think that the 11 most senior judges in the country fucked it up, and whilst you’re at it it would be helpful to have an idea of your experience and qualifications to make that judgment
- Status
- Not open for further replies.