|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 1 Oct 17:44
They started off as against Brexit.
After the vote they then moved to against No Deal.
Then they were to a man....almost.... against Boris “Operation @rse.
Now the used car salesman is for a no deal ...if it happens, simply because we have to get behind the PM....apparently.
An unelected PM in a minority government.
They are quite happy for Scotland to be steam rolled......they will rejoice.
Do they not understand that the majority of people in Scotland and by association the majority of their constituents voted to remain?
They don’t care.
They were against every devolution bill/referendum ....and now they sit in the Scottish parliament and do everything they can to undermine that very institution.
They are paid handsomely by Scottish tax payers .
If the U.K. government announced tomorrow that they were going to close Holyrood, Carlaws mob would not lift a finger and would be delighted.
They are cuckoos in the nest and need weeded out ASAP.
List MSP’s most of them , serial losers like Mad Murdo.
They disgust me and people in Scotland who support them? I have no words.....I could put here at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 2 Oct 22:19
Quislings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 3 Oct 21:51
Have you seen the quality of the contenders to replace Carlaw?.....lol. Morons the lot of them.
Imagine Sturgeon up against Leonard and Ballatyne or Jamie Green.......carnage....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 4 Oct 07:57
Please please please let's have Annie Wells as the tories leader, she must be the thickest politician ever and a brilliant fibber.
Wouldn't mind two jobs Popkin also
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 4 Oct 12:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 4 Oct 16:24
Hope it wasn't the Aberdeen Tory who "fell" and groped the bottoms of two gentlemen in doing so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 4 Oct 19:20
Poor guy was just trying to protect himself from injury.Grabbed what he could in his intoxicated state and gets abuse.
Aye right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Fri 4 Oct 22:18
Not quite sure why a Norwegian traitor is being referenced by SNP cultists. Their own party has more than a whiff that kind of thing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 4 Oct 22:38
I agree with the first sentence of your post Mario but you then let yourself down with the second one. Educated types would know that nobody in Scottish politics can hold a candle to Vidkun Quisling. Its a akin to the nonsense spouted by those on the left who brand anyone even remotely right of centre a Nazi.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 5 Oct 01:38
I prefer to use "fascist" when I'm using scatter-gun insults against right wingers - it's much broader and easier to justify ;)
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 5 Oct 02:07
Not really though. The term fascist can be defined many ways but here is one of them;
'A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.'
I'd say that could easily be deployed against those on the far left as well.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 5 Oct 02:25
"The nation" is the key phrase. Folk on the far left tend not to have any nationalist tendancies.
Although Stalinists and other "tankies" can be a bit like that tbf.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Sat 5 Oct 06:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 14:35
<Unlawfully shutting down parliament to silence his critics>
HAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Grow up.
Hang on, are we agreeing that having a prorogation on Parliament to avoid questions on some contentious is unlawful? Or are you hung up on the LENGTH of said prorogation?
I really hope that the hypocritical Major wasn't arguing the first.
Anyway, I think you will find, that according to the Supreme Court, he didn't actually shut down parliament AT ALL.
Prorogation will most likely happen very shortly, in line with the guidance of the court regarding length of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Sat 5 Oct 16:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 17:54
The Supreme Court decided that the prorogation was unlawlful because
<<it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason "let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks">>
<<Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.>>
Ergo - there was not any 'last one'.
Also - I have no doubt that one of the main aims was to "stymie" parliament asking awkward questions.
This has been a legitimate and lawful tactic of MANY governments throughout the years, in fact, centuries.
(Isn't that right John Major?)
The Supreme Court has effectively created a new law, and somehow placed itself above the government, above parliamentary procedure and answerable to nobody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 5 Oct 19:07
Government or the Queen are not, and should not be above the law.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 21:40
<Government or the Queen are not, and should not be above the law.>
Agreed,
but the court should not be able to arbitrarily change or invent new laws based on it's interpretation of reasons (or in this case, no explanation of reasons) behind an action, and impose its decision retrospectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 5 Oct 21:54
The alternative - that a government can arbitrarily shut down parliament for as long as it likes - is hardly satisfactory in a democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 22:31
The government shut down parliament for 'as long as it likes'?
The NORMAL shutdown for a recess for conferences at this time each year is 3 weeks.
The ACTUAL prorogation was going to be 7 working days, as opposed to the usual attempt of 4-5 days, and considering that this is currently the longest parliament session without prorogation and a queens speech since 1651...
The court case was sod all to do with prorogation, but 100% about stymying the government in it's attempt to carry out the result of the referendum, the promise in the manifesto in the last General Election and the existing laws declaring the UK would leave the EU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 5 Oct 22:32
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 21:40
<Government or the Queen are not, and should not be above the law.>
Agreed,
but the court should not be able to arbitrarily change or invent new laws based on it's interpretation of reasons (or in this case, no explanation of reasons) behind an action, and impose its decision retrospectively.
Luxembourg Par
I think what the 11 supreme court judges were trying to do was stop a dictator from dragging the Country into an abyss merely to satisfy a cabal who will become ultra wealthy in a no deal scenario
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 5 Oct 22:52
<<I think what the 11 supreme court judges were trying to do was stop a dictator from dragging the Country into an abyss merely to satisfy a cabal who will become ultra wealthy in a no deal scenario >>
IF that is what they were doing, then they have overstepped their mark, and destroyed the credibility and impartiality of the court.
The court is not, and is never meant to be, a political body.
If your assertion is even close to the truth, they have clearly stepped into the political world, and (IMHO) will regret this intervention.
However, in the good Lady's defence, she tried to be clear that their decision was nothing to do with the exit of the UK from the EU, or the conditions thereon.
- Which, I may add, is still the legal position. The UK will, in the absence of a new law repealing the law effecting the article 50 withdrawal, leave the EU with or without a deal.
Date dependent on extensions being requested AND granted...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 6 Oct 00:24
Presumably the three Scottish judges in the Court of Session and the eleven judges in the Supreme Court were all remainers? That's stretching conspiracy a bit too far. Everyone's an expert nowadays though, perfectly capable of questioning a judgement from the highest court in the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 6 Oct 01:18
Someone rattle on your cage wee eck?
I don't see anyone stating that judges were remainers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 6 Oct 01:26
The government lost the case because nobody was willing to sign a statement saying why they prorogued parliament.
And the courts restraining part of the government from acting beyond its powers is not the same as the courts being politicised. Their job is to interpret the law and that's what they did. Had they had a signed statement from somebody in the government laying out their reasoning then that probably would have swung it, but it seems as if nobody in the government was willing to risk perjury or contempt charges.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 6 Oct 02:01
<Their job is to interpret the law and that's what they did.>
Nope - they effectively invented a new law.
And yes, I agree with the lack of statement from government - mentioned a few posts up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 6 Oct 08:37
They didn't make up a new law despite the best attempts by the gutter press to portray the decision like that.
The two constitutional principles the decision to prorogue Parliament were assessed against were: Parliamentary Sovereignty & Parliamentary Accountability, and, was the decision to prorogue Parliament a deliberate attempt to stop either of those principles of the constitution from functioning to it's full extent?
In the judgement examples of the courts ruling that the use of prerogative powers to limit Parliamentary sovereignty had been illegal dated as far back as the 17th century.
The decision wasn't about whether the prerogative power of proroguing was legal or not, it obviously is as that's how Parliamentary sessions end; it was about whether the rational behind this request to prorogue Parliament was in any way designed to limit Parliamentary Sovereignty or The Accountability of Government to Parliament.
The Government gave reasons for proroguing Parliament to the Queen that didn't include the fact that Parliamennt was hostile to its Brexit plan and it wanted to limit it's ability to challenge. BoJo had given several interviews on TV stating he was proroguing Parliament because of Brexit.
As noted above nobody from the Government was prepared to give a sworn statement that Parliament was not being prorogued for an abnormally long time because of Brexit.
The court looked at the underlying reason for the request to prorogue Parliament and determined it wasn't in line with Parliamentary norms for the ending of one session and the preparation of a Queens speech to start the next. The court's decision was that the Government's action breached Parliamentary Sovereignty and Accountability and was therefore unlawful.
Parliament is sovereign and the Government is accountable to Parliament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 6 Oct 08:40
Can you detail what new law they have invented?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 6 Oct 10:21
Is it normal to have a Queen's Speech when a government is in its death throes and is trying to engineer a general election?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 6 Oct 10:54
The court decided, and declared arbitrarily, contrary to all existing case law and precedent, that it had the power to examine and pass judgement on government executive decisions and/or actions.
Gutter Press? yup,
<<David Allen Green writes in the Financial Times that today has been the 'one of the most significant constitutional law judgments for a generation'.
Green adds: 'It does not hide behind narrow legal technicalities. Many paragraphs are quotable, and they will be quoted in cases and books for many years. The court has knowingly set out the UK's core constitutional arrangements in as accessible a form as possible.>>
Eck, are you watching? The government has been refused a GE, it is not 'trying to engineer' one, it has clearly and unambiguously asked the House to permit a GE - denied, twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 6 Oct 11:01
OK, but it doesn't really change the question.
''Is it normal to have a Queen's Speech when a government is in its death throes and wants a general election?''
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 6 Oct 11:05
If you read the judgement all of the previous relevant case law is quoted. Which case law are you claiming was ignored? As TOWK asked which laws are you now claiming have been made up?
The court has been regulating Government executive decisions for hundreds of years as it should do. The Government is not a law unto itself, it reports to Parliament and if it acts outside of the bounds of its remit then its subject to legal challenge.
It tried to limit Parliament's authority through the incorrect use of proroguing Parliament and was busted. The legal arguments may have been complex but the end result is that it's that's simple
BoJo was actually out there giving interviews stating he was proroguing Parliament over Brexi then gave a serious of different reasons to the Queen which she was obliged to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Sun 6 Oct 15:17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 6 Oct 18:44
''Is it normal to have a Queen's Speech when a government is in its death throes and wants a general election?''
Wasn't the last prorogation by John 'hypocrit' Major by <a government is in its death throes> just before a GE?
Already quoted - <constitutional law judgments> - whilst not actually creating a law (parliaments job) - the court has imposed its biased view by making assumptions on the intentions of others.
As stated, I am under no illusion that the prorogation was largely to do with Brexit - however, given previous prorogations, specifically Hypocrit Major's never being declared as 'unlawful' - I'm sure he thought that he was within his rights.
The fact that subsequently, the court pulled a fly one to get around Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 whereby <<for a proceeding in parliament — which is what prorogation is — to be questioned in court is explicitly forbidden>>
LOL BJP - show me a politician that ISN'T a liar, and I'll show you a liar that hasn't been caught yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Sun 6 Oct 18:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 6 Oct 21:09
Yup - a convenient interpretation of <the purpose of article 9 in determining its scope>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 7 Oct 19:31
The fact that they didn't provide sworn testimony is all you need to know Lux.
They told the truth by omission.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 9 Oct 08:54
Quote:
BigJPar, Sun 6
Yep, Bojo is the salt of the earth type. Sticks to all the rules, tells no lies and is an all round great guy.
Indeed, BJ and no less than the President of the good old US of A, is in full agreement with your succinct analysis. 🙂
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 9 Oct 21:50
<<The fact that they didn't provide sworn testimony is all you need to know Lux.
They told the truth by omission.>>
So, the fact that I have not sworn to not being a Martian means that I am?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 9 Oct 21:57
<<The fact that they didn't provide sworn testimony is all you need to know Lux.
They told the truth by omission.>>
So, the fact that I have not sworn to not being a Martian means that I am?
Depends.
Would you rather provide sworn testimony to the contrary or have the highest court in the land all but declare you a Martian?
What if a significant chunk of the population believed you to be a Martian and you continually behaved as if you were a Martian?
What if, a few months before you suddenly started denying it, you casually remarked to anybody who would listen that you were, in fact, a Martian?
What is your position on instant mashed potato?
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
