I don’t and never have supported any politician unlike you, who supports the worst in living memory - he will lose an election and he knows it, the only thing he has got right in his career
So where we appear to be heading (if the bill passes the HoL) is..the EU will stick to ‘the current deal is the only deal’ line, and They’ll not approve a further extension. The UK then cannot leave on 31st ..and cannot stay unless it accepts the thrice rejected deal, or remains proper. ...Thanks to those 329 ‘Public servants’ that just refuse to do as the public they represent have directed. Fvck me!! ...And they’re calling Torys facist ??
With the House of Lords agreeing not to filibuster the “No No-Deal” bill, BoJo has now suffered 3 defeats in a row. Perhaps his optimism merely needs more steroids (as formerly prescribed by our lounger in chief, JRM)? Maybe he simply doesn’t want it badly enough? It could be that if he denies reality just that little bit harder he will get his way? What chance do we have of this clown and his team of extremists doing in a matter of weeks what others have failed to do in 3 years by convincing the EU to change their stance, when he can’t even convince his own MPs (or Peers) to do his bidding or even stay in his party? I’ll simply end with this, as the debate sunk to that level quite some time ago
It's very straightforward. The fascist dictator whose fascist agenda has been baulked in Parliament has called for a General Election, and the democratic freedom fighters in Parliament have decided to reject both a General Election and the result of the largest democratic ballot in UK history. It really doesn't get more totalitarian than that. (Fact check: Yes it does, expect worse to come)
The same as you Exy, there has been politicians that have held my respect but they are long time dead now. I am a firm believer if you can't pay don't play, but it doesn't stop us having opinions it's just your's are full of shit.
Someone is still positive: https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/econ...2-feSekLnXNIByrcD4h1XB4TyPSe_vehqGhl1QIoib-8I
This is possibly not a perfect analysis. The EU Speaker, Bercow, has decreed that the Remainer motion does not require Royal Assent because, ah, reasons. On this basis, I am informed that the Government can treat the proposed legislation as advisory only and thus need not act on it. I haven't yet seen this view refuted. As far as this layman is concerned, everything is still up in the air so I fall back on my default position: I can count the number of MPs I trust on my pet colobus monkey's thumbs.
What are you getting at, Al? Why do you suddenly have an opinion on Brexit having kept silent these past three years or so?
But Queens Consent is entirely different. " This post seeks to explore one of the major difficulties facing the new Bill, focusing on a long-standing procedure in both Houses called ‘Queen’s Consent’. Queen’s Consent must be sharply distinguished from Royal Assent. Unlike Queen’s Consent, Royal Assent is required for every Bill before it can become law, and is secured right at the end of the legislative process, after a Bill has passed both Houses. Background For our purposes, Queen’s Consent is a procedural requirement for any Bill passing through the Commons and Lords where the terms of the Bill would ‘affect’ the exercise of any royal prerogative if it was passed. The effect on the prerogative must be more than de minimis. If a ruling is required, the final decision as to whether Queen’s Consent is required is made by the Speaker. Normally it is the Clerk of Legislation who decides, in conjunction with his counterpart in the House of Lords. If necessary, the Clerks provide confidential legal advice to the Speaker for the purposes of his ruling. If a Bill affects prerogative, a minister must explicitly confirm that the government agrees that the Bill should pass. This formally happens in the Commons at the Third Reading stage. If the government does not want the Bill to proceed, its refusal to indicate its approval at Third Reading is fatal for the Bill. Queen’s Consent is normally a formality, because the government usually proposes (or more accurately for Private Members Bills, acquiesces to) all Bills that are successfully voted through both Houses. The current scenario could see a situation where a Bill passes in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the government. Royal prerogative Prerogative powers are legacy powers of the Crown that are now mainly exercised by the government. Conducting foreign affairs, and in particular the power to agree treaties and operate treaty powers, is an important part of the prerogative and is the relevant power for this post. Under that power, the UK government has agreed new treaties, and particular laws, at EU level over the last 46 years (and indeed continues to do so). As part of the exercise of this prerogative, the UK agreed the Lisbon Treaty that created the Article 50 process for a country to leave the EU. The power to extend the Article 50 process, like virtually all legal acts conducted by the government at EU level, is not governed by any UK statute. Legal acts by ministers at EU level therefore remain, in almost all circumstances, exercises of prerogative power. One exception to the normal legal basis for acting at EU level was the decision to notify the EU of the UK’s intention to withdraw. In the recent Miller case, the Supreme Court held that the normal prerogative power could not be used to trigger the process because it would frustrate the intention of parliament in the European Communities Act 1972 (‘ECA’) and other Acts. Following that decision, Parliament passed the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (‘EUNoWA’) which conferred on the government the legal power to trigger the Article 50 process for the UK. It might be thought that EUNoWA would have required Queen’s Consent during its passage because the statutory power would appear to overlap directly with what would otherwise have been the previous terrain covered by the prerogative power. In fact, EUNoWA did not require Queen’s Consent. The reason is not wholly clear but it must be presumed that the very fact that the Supreme Court had held that, in the particular circumstances, the prerogative could not be used meant that the conferral of a statutory power could not actually ‘affect’ the exercise of the prerogative in reality. If an Act would affect the prerogative, even on one occasion, Queen’s Consent would be required. Cooper-Letwin The story behind the passage of Cooper-Letwin is more complex than many realise. The drafting of the original version was masterly. Cooper-Letwin mandated the then Prime Minister (PM) to seek an extension to the Article 50 process under s 1(2). The word ‘seek’ is crucial. The reason it is so crucial is that it allowed the argument to be made that Queen’s Consent was not necessary for the Bill. This was because to ‘seek’ an extension does not actually have any effect in terms of changing the date of exit at EU level. Seeking an extension arguably does not ‘affect’ prerogative exercise as a matter of law. A detailed analysis of the assumptions underlying the claim that seeking an extension is not itself an exercise of prerogative power is beyond the scope of this post. It rests on a contested view defended by Sir William Wade that unless the exercise of a prerogative has measurable legal effects, it is not in fact an exercise of prerogative power. This is a point on which scholars differ, but need not concern us here. The sheer cleverness of the drafting of Cooper-Letwin rests on the fact that it left entirely open what would happen after the extension was ‘sought’. The negotiations and agreement of a new exit date were without doubt exercises of prerogative power and any Bill that sought to regulate or supplant those aspects of securing an extension would certainly have required Queen’s Consent during the passage of the Bill. In fact, the PM sought an extension before Cooper-Letwin had even passed so the second extension from 12 April to 31 October was in fact secured solely through the normal exercise of prerogative power. Indeed, the first extension, from 29 March until 12 April was also done entirely using prerogative power. The Speaker’s ruling The issue of Queen’s Consent was taken very seriously during the passage of the Cooper-Letwin Bill and was so controversial it resulted in a formal ruling by the Speaker. That ruling made clear that the original draft of the Bill did not require Queen’s Consent. As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. http://tapnewswire.com/2019/09/can-the-queen-fight-herself/
Wonderful. I think that since the handing down of Mr Bercow's opinion and given Michael Gove's recent pronouncement that the Govt would not rule out ignoring anti-no deal legislation, I will henceforward ignore the Theft Act 1968. A guy who lives up the road from me has a lovely new orange McLaren parked outside his house, and as we speak I am waiting for the tow truck to arrive in order to drag it out of his driveway and into mine. Have these people never heard of the Rule of Law (especially shameful given that Michael Gove was one of the many many temps who have had a bash at being the Lord Chancellor in the past few years)? Leaving aside one's political views that sort of conduct is not just disgraceful, it is dangerous.
Thank you. It should be noted that Cooper-Letwin vs May's government represented a disagreement between two factions of Remain - ie those who sought to frustrate Brexit in toto (ie over-turn it) vs those who sought to use the WA to leave the EU on terms that absolutely guaranteed to result in the UK begging to return to the fold. For the savvy leaver, this represented a Heads They Win, Tails We Lose scenario. The situation is less clear now. Is BoJob a committed Leaver? Is he fighting against the EU/Establishment? Or is he simply the next actor in Remain/Establishment's psychodrama? Is he opposed to the EU/Globalist agenda, or is he mere window-dressing, an attempt to bamboozle the electorate to the point where they simply want an end to the proceedings, one way or another? Crazy idea, right. Conspiracy 101. But ask yourself, how did BoJob win the Tory leadership ticket if he is an actual bona fide No-Deal Brexiteer (who just happened to vote for WA during May's stint)? There are too many things that fail to add up for me to accept BoJob on face value. We won't need to wait much longer now for our answer. On 1 November, we will know.
Is BoJob a committed Leaver? Is he fighting against the EU/Establishment? Or is he simply the next actor in Remain/Establishment's psychodrama? Is he opposed to the EU/Globalist agenda, or is he mere window-dressing, an attempt to bamboozle the electorate to the point where they simply want an end to the proceedings, one way or another? . follow the money.
The trail of which, in one case, leads to former Metals Exchange trader Farage dissembling about the result (causing the Pound to rise) and then his City buddies shorting the currency on Brexit night. If indeed he did behave in the manner he has been accused of or has been postulated (not just by the leftist press, but also by Bloomberg), how very patriotic of him. I don't think there is any hard evidence that the two events are linked and that there was market manipulation going on, but I tend not to believe in coincidences when well connected, wealthy, greedy and unprincipled people stand to make an awful lot of money from the said happy coincidence.
We have group 2 telling group 1 they were lying in trying to get a deal and if they couldn't, they would leave the eu group 2 says we are telling the truth as we just want to stop no deal (despite all of those people in group 2 admitting they do not want to leave the eu or act on the democratic majority peoples vote the whole house asked us to vote on and will do everything to stop it)
I don’t care about your use of the word. Nothing stresses me anymore. It makes no difference to me. I just like pointing out that you are using language which many people find offensive and language you would not use in person in front of a Scot. That’s a bit cowardly, no?
To be fair, I reckon I've had enough. I think we should just remain now, revoke article 50, forget the whole torrid thing and concentrate more on how our political system is setup, how it gets paid for and on and on and on. I genuinely and wholeheartedly have zero trust in any politician, no matter their 'side' or professed moral standing. The system is buggered, its archaic, ran by people so detached from the average joe it just cant continue to work. I dont want some far right bollocks, but equally i dont want some socialist state whereby you get penalised for working your arse off, dedicating yourself to a career and climbing the ladder by your finger nails. I'm happy with the middle ground, and nobody seems to be offering that. Corbyn & McDonnell can fuck off frankly as they're old boy crack pots and will just hammer business and tax the shit out of anything that moves trying to create some utopia and then realise their running out of money as nobody will have any left to take. Boris as much of a clown he is seemed as though he 'could' have gone centrist but is being steered whilst trying to emulate the google definition of 'populism', meh. And the Lib Dem's, Jesus wept, they struggle to even identify with anything other than no Brexit, after that who are they and what are they? Nobody knows, they're just devoid of any standing and will move around until something fits. SNP? Give them an Indi vote, why not, doesn't matter to me frankly, if Scotland votes to be independent good on em, I can live with that, again I'm just bored of hearing about it. I'd much rather just get on with something else now, its a tired argument with no winners anywhere, most of all its shown them all up for what they are, EU bureaucrats included, and they're all cu##s ahhhh, that's better
