Oh I didn't like it at all There are nowhere near enough pretty women used to break up the long strings of text, no no no, I merely pasted the link for the benefit of my fellow man (dem)
The case is about the law, which it is right to defend, review and prove. To allow a PM to close parliament so that MP's votes can be circumvented - especially ones which have been proven to be necessary in the High Court, is not a small issue and I have no problem with a judgement being made at court.
Agree, If people are able to read the article with an open mind, (strike most labour remainers who want catweazle as our leader) then it fairly points out the worst of the remainers are different from remainers
Be honest, don't you find them even the tiniest bit wearisome with this constant meddling and delaying of brexit? You know, like a trainer sock that keeps rolling down and chaffing your ankle? Like the neighbours dog you wish would just fuck off? Like the brexit countdown timer on sky news? That kind of wearisome? We're all friends here, you can say it
I agree with this part, it was just the comment from Jollyone that got my goat. It's correct, BoJo may not have a mandate from the people but then does any party leader as they are all chosen from within? It wouldn't be BoJo 'cancelling' Parliament but the Government. The public did vote on the issue - Leave the EU or Remain within the EU. We all know the outcome of that. However, on the basis it was reported by the BBC it is possible his comment has ben taken out of context.
I'm not sure which thing is offending you today? If LABOUR call for a no confidence vote, then 14 days to build a new government kicks in, that will see probably, a general election and during that time we will pass into leaving. This will be a Labour party call So it appears he's not prorogueing but simply the extreme remainers have run out of options to stop the peoples democratic majority vote to leave and the leaving date will be reached.
The case is about the legality of his actions AFAIK, see my comment below . Bojo has a legal mandate to be PM, as legal as any previous PM.
No. The dreadful pro- EU incompetent John Major did it so that that the Parliamentary cash-for-questions enquiry was stifled. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-sleaze-report-the-end-of-a-grubby-affair-1248811.html
The Leave voters wanted their Parliamentary Sovereignty back, because the EU had taken it away. This is Parliamentary Sovereignty in action. HTH.
It will certianly be entertaining. Gina miller went to court to say the law supercedes parliamentary convention. Now they seem to be going to court again to ask can we restore parliamentary convention over law because it looks like we are losing.
Well you certainly don't understand the law do you? That couldn't be clearer after reading your comment above. Unless you also know better that the High Court?
Sorry Ant, you quoted my post and then answered someone else's question? Are you working too hard? I bet you are, you little workaholic : o )
In the beginning, the government had the power to launch article 50 as the executive and miller challenged that by saying the executive should not be able to use parliamentry convention but must use legal convention. The court found in her favour Now, with common sense about to return to the nation and we get on with it, some are going back to the court to say parliamentry convention must now be upheld, even though if an election is called, there is no legal requirement for boris to step down until a new prime minister is elected, it has been convention. desperation and little more The good thing about all of this is that they have tried for over three years to stop a peoples democratic majority vote and they are now experiencing the death rattles of stopping democracy and it will be over very soon, thank god
It was more relevant to the point, that was all. And it's always nice to see you wriggle; not in a "gyrating" kind of way though. And I am at work...
