Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Obviously incorrect since his proroguing was ruled unlawful. He broke the law, end of.

You haven't answered the others, you've made b.s excuses for him.
Click to expand...

"The court also found that the Government had not provided a justification for the prorogation nor for its length"

all in here - scroll down to the Supreme Court section - confirms he had broken the law and the prorogation was in fact void. Thats why he had to go for a 2nd prorogation to get the all important Queens Speech through so he could ignore it. He was effectively found guilty of a double whammy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy#Supreme_Court
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
So he broke the law, got it.

Your defense of him is almost as bad as Dax's defense of trump.
Click to expand...

How can he have broke the law to prorogue parliament?

Its perfectly legal to do so and established business.

Only the length of the prorogation was challenged and deemed unlawful.

It was a one off judgement.

You should look up the word unlawful, it might help.
 
meltonblue said:
Yes their current position is ridiculous. What they've done to this point doesn't go against their manifesto from 2017 though.

What promise do you think they had that they've broken? It's akin to them saying in their manifesto "we will put 10000 more police on the street" and then three years of being in opposition later saying to them "you haven't done it, you're liars".

It makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Its been done thousands of times on here over the last 3 years but the video the other day sums up what they are guilty of imo.

3 mins of them all telling us how they would respect the result of the referendum and ensure we leave the EU.
 
Bluemanc100 said:
Another genuine question, do you think that the Labour MPs from leave constituencies have represented their constituents with the abstentions and no votes?
Click to expand...

Depends on the specifics. Mostly yes though given they were voted in as MPs representing Labors manifesto, which should dictate them voting no to the two deals proposed so far. Abstentions, I'm less keen on but again depends on the context.

That's getting to the root of the issues in general though that both sides have suffered from and having referendums in general in our party system. Remain and leave (and everything in between) aren't aligned directly to political parties who could then deliver it and we aren't used to cross party working, which is what should have happened from day one and we'd have had a far better chance of being out by now.
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Because the supreme court ruled so, they are far more qualified than both me and you in the rule of law mate.
Click to expand...

No doubt but he broke no law. Had he done so he would have been found to have done an illegal act.

They found the length of the prorogation unlawful because it went against established procedure, namely the time scale for proroguing parliament.

Bercow puts many of them in their place all the time for breaking established procedures but none of them are criminals or have broke the law in fact he was that guilty of breaking the law he did it again just a few weeks later by doing the exact same thing.

He didn't get dragged through the supreme court for it either which tells you all you need to know.
 
blueinsa said:
Its been done thousands of times on here over the last 3 years but the video the other day sums up what they are guilty of imo.

3 mins of them all telling us how they would respect the result of the referendum and ensure we leave the EU.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the video is, but their negotiation plan in their manifesto did respect the referendum. Voting against a deal doesn't disrespect it either.

Their new plan of putting revoke back on the agenda does though.
 
blueinsa said:
No doubt but he broke no law. Had he done so he would have been found to have done an illegal act.

They found the length of the prorogation unlawful because it went against established procedure, namely the time scale for proroguing parliament.

Bercow puts many of them in their place all the time for breaking established procedures but none of them are criminals or have broke the law in fact he was that guilty of breaking the law he did it again just a few weeks later by doing the exact same thing.

He didn't get dragged through the supreme court for it either which tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlawful

Definition of unlawful

1: not lawful : ILLEGAL

2: not morally right or conventional
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Lol
Click to expand...
Lol right back at you.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=unlawful+vs+illegal&s=g

https://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

UNLAWFUL

That which is contrary to law. “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S
 
Chippy_boy said:
Lol right back at you.

https://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

UNLAWFUL

That which is contrary to law. “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S
Click to expand...
So you've gone and found a definition that suits you, well done I guess?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Most of that time was when parliament were on their public school length summer holidays, and tbh BJ seems to have wasted less time than anyone else. Any objectivity would allow that he'd done more in a short time to 'do brexit ' than anyone else. The bullshit artists that were so appalled by prorogation spent two days fucking about like kids when they finally forced parliament to open. They may as well have left it closed and let BJ have the extra days in Brussels - but of course they are not liars.
Click to expand...
Any objectivity would show that he spent two months bullshitting about getting a great deal without talking to the EU, then went straight across one the main red lines to an offer that the EU put on the table years ago which they gladly accepted and he then tried to circumvent any scrutiny of it by shutting down parliament.
He invented a new catch phrase about getting Brexit done, spent a shit load of money and fucked it up. That’s reality.
As for Parliament, it just did its job whilst unfairly getting the blame for Johnson’s shenanigans.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
illegal is a sick bird.
Click to expand...

WgtYimB.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top