woolley Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: 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. Indefinite? I think that is a new introduction and a quantum leap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, woolley said: Indefinite? I think that is a new introduction and a quantum leap. Boris Johnson needs 5 weeks to prepare a queens speech? Give me a break.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: Boris Johnson needs 5 weeks to prepare a queens speech? Give me a break.. You said "indefinite". Which means of unspecified length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 39 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. So, you’re saying, or at least inferring via sarcasm, that the judges are corrupt or biased. Just to be clear, is this because the judgement went against something into which you have sunk a huge amount of emotional capital, or because you think there is some evil conspiracy within the judiciary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, woolley said: You said "indefinite". Which means of unspecified length. I am well aware of that. The point being that if the executive had been able to lawfully prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks without reason then where is the limit? 6 weeks? 4 months? A year? The Supreme Court simply ruled that the executive could not simply prorogue Parliament without good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 21 minutes ago, woolley said: 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. You can't possibly know that. So just don't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 45 minutes ago, P.K. said: You can't possibly know that. So just don't bother. She said so. She said she was so devastated the morning after the vote that she had to try to do something about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 51 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: I am well aware of that. The point being that if the executive had been able to lawfully prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks without reason then where is the limit? 6 weeks? 4 months? A year? The Supreme Court simply ruled that the executive could not simply prorogue Parliament without good reason. Ah. Ok. That's slightly different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Freggyragh said: So, you’re saying, or at least inferring via sarcasm, that the judges are corrupt or biased. Just to be clear, is this because the judgement went against something into which you have sunk a huge amount of emotional capital, or because you think there is some evil conspiracy within the judiciary? They are human as we all are. (Implying not inferring) Edited September 25, 2019 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, woolley said: 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. No; it's not; it is a term that has been used since the 19th century to describe a certain type of person; first recorded use in 1838 by Charles Dickens in Nicholas Nickleby. Gammon refers to someones views, opinions and intransigence. It is not defined by that persons natural skin colour or ethnicity. It is perfectly reasonable that a non-white person could be a gammon; just because it is an insult usually directed at middle aged white men does not mean it can be exclusively applied to that demographic; purely that that demographic are most likely to display gammonic behavior. It is what happens to a person when they are confronted with the fact that their views are either unacceptable or just plain wrong and rather than taking a moment of reflection to examine their views and possibly consider that they may be wrong they become angry, usually with the person confronting them on their views. this can either be caused by an inherent lack of intelligence or more likely an unwillingness to admit that they have been gulled into thinking a certain way. A gammonic episode is usually accompanied by claims that the sufferers freedom of speech is somehow being curtailed; again highlighting their ignorance as they believe that freedom of speech means that they have the right to say what they think without being challenged on it. A gammonic episode often results in the sufferer calling their tormentor a snowflake; which is also not a racist term but by your definition could well be. Edited September 25, 2019 by The Lurker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 7 hours ago, Freggyragh said: So, you’re saying, or at least inferring via sarcasm, that the judges are corrupt or biased. Just to be clear, is this because the judgement went against something into which you have sunk a huge amount of emotional capital, or because you think there is some evil conspiracy within the judiciary? the outcome doesn't change anything...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, woody2 said: the outcome doesn't change anything...... Which is why I don't understand why brexiteers are calling the Supreme Court Judges 'enemies of the people'. Why are brexiteers going full snowflake over this ruling? Can you explain it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 25 minutes ago, woody2 said: the outcome doesn't change anything...... Of course not, love. You sit yourself down and have a nice cup of tea and forget all about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: Which is why I don't understand why brexiteers are calling the Supreme Court Judges 'enemies of the people'. Why are brexiteers going full snowflake over this ruling? Can you explain it? i haven't seen any that are...... #fakenews 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: Of course not, love. You sit yourself down and have a nice cup of tea and forget all about it. we will be seeing bj removed from no.10 today then.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.