British Politics

Debate about anything going on in the world.
Please remember everyone has their own opinion

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:17 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Phil71 wrote:I think he has to consider his position to be honest.

Especially in regard to the advice that was given to the Queen.


But surely Johnson isn't at fault for advice that was given to him?

Parliaments procedure staff should of raised something and so should the team that was consulted that it was legitimate.

I don't see why he should have to resign over a rule based on opinion.

I want him to stay, keep fkin this sh*t up because its just bring to the fore what a joke our political system is, can't fix it if you can't see the cracks.


He deliberately did it while the Speaker was on holiday, knowing very well that the Speaker had told him not to do it

Considering that, what makes you think he consulted the Speaker's staff?
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19785
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:48 pm

UFGN wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
Phil71 wrote:I think he has to consider his position to be honest.

Especially in regard to the advice that was given to the Queen.


But surely Johnson isn't at fault for advice that was given to him?

Parliaments procedure staff should of raised something and so should the team that was consulted that it was legitimate.

I don't see why he should have to resign over a rule based on opinion.

I want him to stay, keep fkin this sh*t up because its just bring to the fore what a joke our political system is, can't fix it if you can't see the cracks.


He deliberately did it while the Speaker was on holiday, knowing very well that the Speaker had told him not to do it

Considering that, what makes you think he consulted the Speaker's staff?


I would of thought his team would of sought advice on the legality of it, JRM certainly seemed to think it was legitimate and he know's a lot about procedure, I also would of thought the Parliament staff would of made it openly clear so that the Queen would know it was illegal.

The issue here is the rules aren't clear and that is reflected in what the Supreme Court stated "Prorouging is USUALLY for a week" wtf sort of guideline is that?
There should be clear rules on how long is within the rules and how long isn't.

The Courts have simply interjected their opinion, not held up a rule that was broken, if there was such a rule this would of been cleared up on day 1.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 21497
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:55 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
UFGN wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
Phil71 wrote:I think he has to consider his position to be honest.

Especially in regard to the advice that was given to the Queen.


But surely Johnson isn't at fault for advice that was given to him?

Parliaments procedure staff should of raised something and so should the team that was consulted that it was legitimate.

I don't see why he should have to resign over a rule based on opinion.

I want him to stay, keep fkin this sh*t up because its just bring to the fore what a joke our political system is, can't fix it if you can't see the cracks.


He deliberately did it while the Speaker was on holiday, knowing very well that the Speaker had told him not to do it

Considering that, what makes you think he consulted the Speaker's staff?


I would of thought his team would of sought advice on the legality of it, JRM certainly seemed to think it was legitimate and he know's a lot about procedure, I also would of thought the Parliament staff would of made it openly clear so that the Queen would know it was illegal.

The issue here is the rules aren't clear and that is reflected in what the Supreme Court stated "Prorouging is USUALLY for a week" wtf sort of guideline is that?
There should be clear rules on how long is within the rules and how long isn't.

The Courts have simply interjected their opinion, not held up a rule that was broken, if there was such a rule this would of been cleared up on day 1.


Youre labelling the Courts as biassed and in the same post relying on Jacob Rees Mogg's opinion
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19785
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:40 pm

UFGN wrote:Youre labelling the Courts as biassed and in the same post relying on Jacob Rees Mogg's opinion


Don't twist my words.

I said the courts in the light of a lack of clarity from Paliamentary rules have interjected opinion in their ruling.

I also said JRM as has been said by Bercow himself is learned about Parliament procedure, not knows everything but seemed sure enough that it wasn't legal.

Where are the rules in plain English stating this a length of time for suspending Parliament?

This is your issue, I'm talking about facts and your letting your own bias get in the way of a reasonable question, I don'tr care if you like them or not, I'm stating that if the rules on this were written then this would never have made it to Court and wasted everyones fkin time.

Parliament would already be back in session if it was which is what you wanted so be quiet and stop angling for an argument, its getting tiresome.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 21497
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:05 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
UFGN wrote:Youre labelling the Courts as biassed and in the same post relying on Jacob Rees Mogg's opinion


Don't twist my words.

I said the courts in the light of a lack of clarity from Paliamentary rules have interjected opinion in their ruling.

I also said JRM as has been said by Bercow himself is learned about Parliament procedure, not knows everything but seemed sure enough that it wasn't legal.

Where are the rules in plain English stating this a length of time for suspending Parliament?

This is your issue, I'm talking about facts and your letting your own bias get in the way of a reasonable question, I don'tr care if you like them or not, I'm stating that if the rules on this were written then this would never have made it to Court and wasted everyones fkin time.

Parliament would already be back in session if it was which is what you wanted so be quiet and stop angling for an argument, its getting tiresome.


DiamondGooner wrote:What the Court has done here is interjected personal bias
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19785
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:15 pm

A bias opinion then.

........... which they have.

Because there is nothing in writing giving them the guideline to suggest its "illegal".

Its a pathetic ruling made up on the spot.

I would give it more credence if they were at least were honest about it, i.e "In lack of a clear ruling or guidelines we have had to make a decision drawing a line to stay in step with previous suspension timetables of around a week".

That would be an unbiased ruling.

But that's too much integrity for the state of play today, we need serious changes in this country, we've let the ruling class wing it for far too long.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 21497
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby Callum » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:21 pm

I love how DG and a thousand other Brexiteers suddenly know more about the legality of the situation than literally the highest court of law in the country

The f***ing mental gymnastics to try and counter ANYTHING that delays the Brexit train is stunning
User avatar
Callum
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 34553
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:58 pm
Location: Kieran Tierney's back pocket

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:23 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:A bias opinion then.

........... which they have.

Because there is nothing in writing giving them the guideline to suggest its "illegal".

Its a pathetic ruling made up on the spot.

I would give it more credence if they were at least were honest about it, i.e "In lack of a clear ruling or guidelines we have had to make a decision drawing a line to stay in step with previous suspension timetables of around a week".

That would be an unbiased ruling.

But that's too much integrity for the state of play today, we need serious changes in this country, we've let the ruling class wing it for far too long.


I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19785
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:36 pm

Callum wrote:I love how DG and a thousand other Brexiteers suddenly know more about the legality of the situation than literally the highest court of law in the country

The f***ing mental gymnastics to try and counter ANYTHING that delays the Brexit train is stunning


STFU Callum, how many times can you be wrong in one short post, its shameful.

Firstly I'm not a Brexiteer you muppet, secondly if you were actually following this conversation we're debating the lack of written rules on what seems to be an important area of Parliament, something which even Adolf Hitler had to get an agreement from the President and Gov't to suspend its function, apparently 1930's Germany in tatters had better written rules than we do.

Lastly I don't particularly want Brexit, not in its current form at the very least.

Typical Far Left Campus reactionary, anyone who questions anything is the enemy right? bore off.

My suggestion of these rules being apparent would of mean't Parliament would never of been suspended in the first place!! but you carry on my little lamb.

UFGN wrote:I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.


But its how they presented it by saying "Its illegal" no its not, you've literally just declared it is from your own new ruling, but again my biggest issue is that this rule should be written in the first place.

How many times have we been to Supreme Court over this fkin Brexit, its scandalous, our democracy is 400 yrs old ffs we didn't just write the rules in the last 50 years.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 21497
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:00 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Callum wrote:I love how DG and a thousand other Brexiteers suddenly know more about the legality of the situation than literally the highest court of law in the country

The f***ing mental gymnastics to try and counter ANYTHING that delays the Brexit train is stunning


STFU Callum, how many times can you be wrong in one short post, its shameful.

Firstly I'm not a Brexiteer you muppet, secondly if you were actually following this conversation we're debating the lack of written rules on what seems to be an important area of Parliament, something which even Adolf Hitler had to get an agreement from the President and Gov't to suspend its function, apparently 1930's Germany in tatters had better written rules than we do.

Lastly I don't particularly want Brexit, not in its current form at the very least.

Typical Far Left Campus reactionary, anyone who questions anything is the enemy right? bore off.

My suggestion of these rules being apparent would of mean't Parliament would never of been suspended in the first place!! but you carry on my little lamb.

UFGN wrote:I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.


But its how they presented it by saying "Its illegal" no its not, you've literally just declared it is from your own new ruling, but again my biggest issue is that this rule should be written in the first place.

How many times have we been to Supreme Court over this fkin Brexit, its scandalous, our democracy is 400 yrs old ffs we didn't just write the rules in the last 50 years.


Tend to agree.
To declare something unlawful, a judge at the very least should be able to point to the specific law that has been broken. In this case they can not.
It does not sit well with me that a judge can rule on areas outside written law.
Some of the language in the statement was most concerning... like the passage that read something like 'in the absence of evidence, we find this unlawful'. That is way too much like a court asking a person to prove their innocence.
I thought we got our Arsenal back - but we got Emery
User avatar
jayramfootball
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm
Location: Midlands UK

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:06 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Callum wrote:I love how DG and a thousand other Brexiteers suddenly know more about the legality of the situation than literally the highest court of law in the country

The f***ing mental gymnastics to try and counter ANYTHING that delays the Brexit train is stunning


STFU Callum, how many times can you be wrong in one short post, its shameful.

Firstly I'm not a Brexiteer you muppet, secondly if you were actually following this conversation we're debating the lack of written rules on what seems to be an important area of Parliament, something which even Adolf Hitler had to get an agreement from the President and Gov't to suspend its function, apparently 1930's Germany in tatters had better written rules than we do.

Lastly I don't particularly want Brexit, not in its current form at the very least.

Typical Far Left Campus reactionary, anyone who questions anything is the enemy right? bore off.

My suggestion of these rules being apparent would of mean't Parliament would never of been suspended in the first place!! but you carry on my little lamb.

UFGN wrote:I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.


But its how they presented it by saying "Its illegal" no its not, you've literally just declared it is from your own new ruling, but again my biggest issue is that this rule should be written in the first place.

How many times have we been to Supreme Court over this fkin Brexit, its scandalous, our democracy is 400 yrs old ffs we didn't just write the rules in the last 50 years.


It is illegal because they ruled it so. That is their job.

The judiciary is part of our democracy and always has been
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19785
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:09 pm

Whats happening here is that, yet again, people who pay no attention to politics or the law besides bRexIT are having to be given a crash course in how the country works
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19785
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:13 pm

UFGN wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
Callum wrote:I love how DG and a thousand other Brexiteers suddenly know more about the legality of the situation than literally the highest court of law in the country

The f***ing mental gymnastics to try and counter ANYTHING that delays the Brexit train is stunning


STFU Callum, how many times can you be wrong in one short post, its shameful.

Firstly I'm not a Brexiteer you muppet, secondly if you were actually following this conversation we're debating the lack of written rules on what seems to be an important area of Parliament, something which even Adolf Hitler had to get an agreement from the President and Gov't to suspend its function, apparently 1930's Germany in tatters had better written rules than we do.

Lastly I don't particularly want Brexit, not in its current form at the very least.

Typical Far Left Campus reactionary, anyone who questions anything is the enemy right? bore off.

My suggestion of these rules being apparent would of mean't Parliament would never of been suspended in the first place!! but you carry on my little lamb.

UFGN wrote:I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.


But its how they presented it by saying "Its illegal" no its not, you've literally just declared it is from your own new ruling, but again my biggest issue is that this rule should be written in the first place.

How many times have we been to Supreme Court over this fkin Brexit, its scandalous, our democracy is 400 yrs old ffs we didn't just write the rules in the last 50 years.


It is illegal because they ruled it so. That is their job.

The judiciary is part of our democracy and always has been


A judges job is not to rule on areas outside the law. None of them will able to point to any act of parliament that deals with either the length of prorougation or the reasons for it.
That they have gone down the constitutional covention route is a worrying development, because most PArliamentary conventions are not even written down and have for generations not been legally enforceable - rather the job of the executive, the House of Commons and the House of Lords to manage.
Where does this end?
Can Gina Millar or soemone like her have an election overturned because a politician or party lied in their manifesto?
Think you should be careful about ceding your rights to judges. They are not gods. They are bound by the law too.
I thought we got our Arsenal back - but we got Emery
User avatar
jayramfootball
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm
Location: Midlands UK

Re: British Politics

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:17 pm

UFGN wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:A bias opinion then.

........... which they have.

Because there is nothing in writing giving them the guideline to suggest its "illegal".

Its a pathetic ruling made up on the spot.

I would give it more credence if they were at least were honest about it, i.e "In lack of a clear ruling or guidelines we have had to make a decision drawing a line to stay in step with previous suspension timetables of around a week".

That would be an unbiased ruling.

But that's too much integrity for the state of play today, we need serious changes in this country, we've let the ruling class wing it for far too long.


I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.


Yes, 'uncertainties in the law'
That is about interpretation and ruling.
The problem here is that there is no law to interpret.
Today, judges decided what the law should be, not how to interpret it - and that is NOT their job. That is the job of Parliament.
I thought we got our Arsenal back - but we got Emery
User avatar
jayramfootball
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm
Location: Midlands UK

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:37 pm

I'm confused.

I thought a large part of the Leave camp wanted UK courts to have authority to rule on UK legal affairs so the UK could regain its sovereignty...or something like that anyway. Now it's a problem when a UK court does just that? :scratch:
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Royal Gooner and 2 guests