kaz7
Well-Known Member
Yep,no matter how much he paints labour as being cowards they hold all the power at the min,boris has tried a high risk game,he has tried to do a trump on us but we are not having it,he should have known that about us
Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19
- Thread starter George Hannah
- Start date
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Call me Dave.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Fact is he hitched his horse to the Cummings wagon on the basis he was a master tactician who won the vote for Leave. That is the big mistake. As distasteful as it may seem Farage secured the Leave vote in this country - just look at the appeal he brought to UKIP, to the BP and continues to draw to his rallies. Unfortunately for Bozo the Clown he thinks the crazed egoist is a winner - bit like Spuds fans do with Potch.
Rascal
El Presidente
Believe it or not this is not about Corbyn, it is about a man taking the piss out of the electorate and treating them like idiots.
His refusal to answer questions is an abrogation of duty and he is making the nation look a laughing stock.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Why is he hitler? An utterly disgraceful thing to say.
Would the below aptly describe Corbyn?
Far left, supporter of terrorists over 30 years, racists, antisenite, most hated opposition leader ever?
Don’t think you could argue with a word of that?
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
What questions all that happened for the last 3 hours is every opposition mp stood up called him a **** , liar, twat , bully etc etc
And then said does the prime minister agree with me that
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
He answered every single one - mostly with the disdain they deserved. It was absolutely cringeworthy. Mass hysteria and emotional drama vs a dignified and consistent response. The mogatwr was actually turning me on. Sat there like Walter the softy seemingly emotionless and rising above it all.
FlemishDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,785
Torygraph feed gave up on the live grilling, had to swith to guardian live feed.
The momentum of all this, dunno if Bojo has a good amount of stamina, looked certaintly more "combative" at the start of these 300 or so questions, as to be expected. Kinda enjoying the slow grind here.
The momentum of all this, dunno if Bojo has a good amount of stamina, looked certaintly more "combative" at the start of these 300 or so questions, as to be expected. Kinda enjoying the slow grind here.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Very simple for me tbh. In Ireland, the referendum would have been the totality and the parliament and executive would have had to obey it, the electorate being sovereign. England (I won't say UK as England obviously carry the weight and the other states stew wireless) parliament take precedence and you need a majority from them to do anything.Would that be another prerogative power ripe for trespass? Anyway here's a sensible comment
Supreme Court ruling is the natural result of Boris Johnson’s constitutional vandalism
Lord Sumption
Where does law begin and politics end? Any government’s relationship with parliament is bound to be political. Ever since the 18th century, ministers have made use of the power to prorogue or (until 2010) dissolve parliament for political advantage.
There was a consensus that they should not abuse the power, but what amounted to abuse was itself a political question, not a legal one. What is revolutionary about the Supreme Court’s decision is that it makes the courts the ultimate arbiters of what political reasons are good enough.
Yet the Supreme Court’s judgment should be welcomed even by those who believe, as I do, that politics is not the proper business of courts of law. The objection to judicial intervention in politics is that it undermines the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making. The court’s judgment, however, is not concerned with the political issues surrounding Brexit. It is concerned with the process by which those issues are to be resolved. Its effect is to reinstate parliament at the heart of that process.
The question for the rest of us is whether we still believe in the parliamentary model that the Supreme Court has vindicated. Underlying the debate about the merits of leaving the European Union, there is an even more fundamental conflict between two opposing claims to democratic legitimacy, one based on the referendum and the other on the parliamentary process. Most of our difficulties over the past three years have arisen from the misguided attempt to insert a referendum into a fundamentally parliamentary system.
I have lost count of the number of times that prominent Brexiters have declared that by authorising the referendum Parliament delegated its sovereignty to the majority. The argument is completely untenable. Leaving the EU and creating other arrangements to replace it requires new laws. It requires complex political judgments about our future relations with the EU.
Parliament is the supreme source of law. It is also the only body to which ministers can be continually accountable for their political judgments about Brexit or anything else. It is central to our whole political system. A referendum can serve none of parliament’s functions. It is not a source of law. It is not a mechanism for holding ministers to account. It is a snapshot of public opinion, and as such an important political fact for parliamentarians to take into account. But that is all it is.
The parliamentary process is fundamental in another, even more important sense. It is a mechanism for accommodating opposing opinions and interests in our society. To gain power, political parties have to appeal to a wider base than tribal faithfuls and single-issue fanatics.
A legislature whose membership reflects the balance of political parties is therefore a natural forum for compromise. In a Brexit context this might mean membership of the customs union or the European Economic Area or something similar under a different name. These half-way houses are in many ways impure and unsatisfactory. Few people would make them their first choice. But it is probable that a larger proportion of the electorate could live with them than with any other solution.
Appeals to the referendum as an alternative source of legitimacy are really calls to reject compromise. Proroguing parliament was a method of circumventing the political process, and avoiding the pressure to compromise that is inherent in it. It is absurd to criticise the House of Commons for being just as divided as those whom it represents; and dangerous to obstruct its attempts, however laborious and accident-prone, to accommodate our divisions and avoid the aggressive extremes at either end of the Brexit spectrum.
The British constitution famously consists of many things that are not law but political conventions. Some of them are rules of practice. Others are attitudes of mind, part of a shared political culture that is based on respect for the centrality of the House of Commons. Political conventions are a better, more flexible and more democratic alternative to law. But if we are to avoid a wholly legal constitution, we must honour them.
The present government has taken an axe to convention. It has sought to use the awesome prerogative powers of the Crown, but without the accountability to parliament that alone makes the existence of those powers tolerable. It has been determined to disregard our only collective political forum. This is something entirely new in British politics.
The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.
The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.
Lord Sumption retired as a justice of the Supreme Court in December last year