So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

And? Nothing angry there.

Plenty that's funny at your expense though. Especially the "heroic failures" bit where the score currently stands at:

Gina Miller 2  Government Executive 0

I wonder if the amusing "Book of Heroic Failures" is still in print? 

[pongo]

50 minutes ago, woolley said:

I can see both sides of this. It IS of course a plot to stop Brexit. There is no other driving force behind this ...

I do agree that the ERG will bear a heavy responsibility, as will all MPs who stood on a manifesto for Brexit (that the vast majority of them) if it doesn't happen. May's deal should have been passed and further progress left for another time.

 

Boris said that prorogation  was to enable him to “bring forward an ambitious new legislative programme for MPs’ approval”. Nothing to do with Brexit. Assuming he was being honest and sincere, it therefore seems illogical to suggest that challenging prorogation is a plot to stop Brexit. They can't honestly have it both ways.

I agree with you that MPs including the ERG and the Ulster Loyalists should have voted for Mrs May's perfectly sensible for now deal. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by pongo

[woody2]

51 minutes ago, woolley said:

I can see both sides of this. It IS of course a plot to stop Brexit. There is no other driving force behind this. That Gina Miller is a staunch Remainer is beyond debate and it is disingenuous to claim that the case is unconnected.

All the same, it does seem to me that the prorogation wasn't worth the candle as it was bound to stir up a hornet's nest. And for what? MPs have already passed legislation barring no deal, which to my mind cuts away the argument that has just prevailed, saying that they were stymied from acting. Well, in fact, they acted.

I do agree that the ERG will bear a heavy responsibility, as will all MPs who stood on a manifesto for Brexit (that the vast majority of them) if it doesn't happen. May's deal should have been passed and further progress left for another time.

maybe not.....

35 minutes ago, Declan said:

Well, it's a remainer plot to stop a Brexiteer plot to force through a no Deal Brexit.

I think the whole prorogation thing is a bit daft, Boris has lost credibility by the stunt. But really I don't think this ruling makes much difference to whether the UK leaves on 31 October.

they have blocked no deal.....they have voted against a deal......they all openly support remoan.......it done for no other reason than to block exit......

it won't make any difference........

[woody2]

benn bill might not be law because royal assent was given in the prorogation window......... according to a law professor on the bbc.....

[Bobbie Bobster]

3 hours ago, woolley said:

dufus

My work here is done.

[woody2]

51 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

My work here is done.

you still work at your age........

[woolley]

3 hours ago, pongo said:

 

Boris said that prorogation  was to enable him to “bring forward an ambitious new legislative programme for MPs’ approval”. Nothing to do with Brexit. Assuming he was being honest and sincere, it therefore seems illogical to suggest that challenging prorogation is a plot to stop Brexit. They can't honestly have it both ways.

I agree with you that MPs including the ERG and the Ulster Loyalists should have voted for Mrs May's perfectly sensible for now deal. 

Big assumption. 

[woolley]

3 hours ago, The Lurker said:

Clearly not; the term gammon refers to a physiological reaction that occurs in some people when they get angry. 

Usually when someone objects to them talking about ‘wogs’ and ‘poofters.’

Is it racist to mock someone when they blush or go pale when they’re ill?

You missed something out. What you mean is some people of a certain ethnicity. It is a racist pejorative term. The reason that liberals refuse to accept this obvious truth is that they are the ones who throw the term around and it is anathema to them to be confronted with their own use of a racist term.  

[woolley]

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

Plenty that's funny at your expense though. Especially the "heroic failures" bit where the score currently stands at:

Gina Miller 2  Government Executive 0

Not at all. Gina Miller won the first case but only succeeded in giving the triggering of Article 50 the force of Parliament rather than stopping it in its tracks as she had hoped and expected. Now she's won the second case. It remains to be seen how the fallout lands. 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

My work here is done.

You're suggesting 'dufus' is angry? 

[Non-Believer]

Am I right in thinking that to date, the Brexiteer's case pillars have been deemed illegal? Has it reached the stage where law has been disregarded in the pursuance of an ideology? 

[woolley]

Perhaps the judges should just cut out the middleman and outlaw Brexit. Just have done with it instead of all the posturing.

[P.K.]

58 minutes ago, woolley said:

Not at all. Gina Miller won the first case but only succeeded in giving the triggering of Article 50 the force of Parliament rather than stopping it in its tracks as she had hoped and expected. Now she's won the second case. It remains to be seen how the fallout lands. 

Complete and utter nonsense.

It's clear to me that the Executive being found to have tried, and once again failed, to exceed their authority by overuling our sovereign parliament you try to portray as an attempt to scupper your totally stupid brexit.

In doing so you show your ignorance of the importance of the rule of law that even the totally amoral narcissistic serial philanderer and inveterate liar Boris Johnson UK Prime Minister is not above it and is therefore bound by it.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you would love to, but the referendum was only advisory wasn't it...?

[manxman1980]

22 minutes ago, woolley said:

Perhaps the judges should just cut out the middleman and outlaw Brexit. Just have done with it instead of all the posturing.

I was considering something similar earlier but not about outlawing brexit.

If the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the executive in this case, then it is my belief that under common law, such a ruling would have granted future governments to prorogue Parliament almost at will without any real checks and balances.

The only way to prevent such a ruling resulting in that scenario would be for Parliament to pass new legislation setting out the rules.

I am sure none of us would like a scenario where a future government can simply shut parliament for an indefinite period at will.

Perhaps John Wright might comment on my understanding of the legal precedent. 

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Complete and utter nonsense.

It's clear to me that the Executive being found to have tried, and once again failed, to exceed their authority by overuling our sovereign parliament you try to portray as an attempt to scupper your totally stupid brexit.

In doing so you show your ignorance of the importance of the rule of law that even the totally amoral narcissistic serial philanderer and inveterate liar Boris Johnson UK Prime Minister is not above it and is therefore bound by it.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you would love to, but the referendum was only advisory wasn't it...?

Now that is angry.

What I said and what you bolded is absolutely factual.

Gina Miller won the first case but only succeeded in giving the triggering of Article 50 the force of Parliament rather than stopping it in its tracks as she had hoped and expected.

She is on record expressing her disappointment that MPs sanctioned the triggering of Article 50 after she won the first case. Her precise words were that she was "filled with trepidation and anxiety" at the move. She brought the case in the hope and expectation that MPs would decline to trigger Article 50. So how is it nonsense?

Parliament passed the decision to the voters by an Act of Parliament and every voter was advised specifically that the Government would enact the result. Then in 2017, 84% of current MPs were elected on a Brexit manifesto. But it's still not good enough for them. They still aren't listening.