The EU forced them to make those investments though!Champions of their investments
The EU forced them to make those investments though!Champions of their investments
It fits the mantra of being elite vs ordinary people. It’s quite perverse how people go for it as wellThe new narrative that remainers are all rich is irritating and complete nonsense
Weird isn’t it! Poor remainer here and it’s infuriating.The new narrative that remainers are all rich is irritating and complete nonsense
Just for balance what do you think the likes of JRM, BoJo, farage, Aaron Banks, Gove etc are? Aside from high profile leave campaigners?
I mean look at the guys post before, ending with this gemIt fits the mantra of being elite vs ordinary people. It’s quite perverse how people go for it as well
Calls all of us who voted remain as thick but seemingly shovels the bs down his throat that he’s fedbecause apparently they're so thick that they can't count past 48 so don't know that 52 is more than 48.
It’s about the level of answer I expectedAm I allowed to answer ?
They're certainly not EU sympathisers, Champaigne Socialists, nor wealthy media luvvies.
Unlike Cameron, Greive, Blair, Soros, Lineker, Major, Mandelson and half of the £ million house owning Labour Shadow Cabinet.
It’s about the level of answer I expected
So Cameron, Greive and Major are rich elitists, but Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob fecking Rees-Mogg are humble men of the people?Am I allowed to answer ?
They're certainly not EU sympathisers, Champaigne Socialists, nor wealthy media luvvies.
Unlike Cameron, Greive, Blair, Soros, Lineker, Major, Mandelson and half of the £ million house owning Labour Shadow Cabinet.
All this answer reveals is that you know you're talking bollocks but would quite like to continue the attempted wind up.Am I allowed to answer ?
They're certainly not EU sympathisers, Champaigne Socialists, nor wealthy media luvvies.
Unlike Cameron, Greive, Blair, Soros, Lineker, Major, Mandelson and half of the £ million house owning Labour Shadow Cabinet.
So Cameron, Greive and Major are rich elitists, but Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob fecking Rees-Mogg are humble men of the people?
Soros for feck sake it’s obvious where you get your information from. Soros is the new “Rothschilds”. That evil New order Jewish Strawman.Am I allowed to answer ?
They're certainly not EU sympathisers, Champaigne Socialists, nor wealthy media luvvies.
Unlike Cameron, Greive, Blair, Soros, Lineker, Major, Mandelson and half of the £ million house owning Labour Shadow Cabinet.
Yeah you know that football bloke from the TV that has his own opinions on Twitter. LoomnattyLineker lolllllllllllllllllllll
Some of those are glorious.
Who the feck argued that?Never said Johnson, Gove and Rees-Mogg are humble men of the people.
But if you want to argue that Cameron, Grieve and Major aren't rich EU sympathising elitists, then let's call it a draw and move on.
And No - I don't wind people up...Well, not deliberately. I just have opinions different from 95% of the posters on here.
Enjoy the Court Case, those who will be watching.
Really is a country built on sand.They don't even have the files
Got helped out by one of the judges to be fair. He's certainly not an orator/it's not the same as watching the commons/politicians.Just turned it on. Pannick struggling to formulate the correct response during cross questioning. Got there eventually.
Yeah, Pannick made a hash of that response but I'm not sure it was so much a pushback as appeal for clarity. The obvious answer is that if a government thinks it is to its advantage to prorogue parliament for a legitimate purpose (such as to prepare for a general election or facilitate a new Queens speech) then it is perfectly reasonable for it to do so. However if the benefit is conferred simply by parliament being shuttered then this is an illegitimate advantage. Owlo's right, the matter was clarified by another judge "it would depend on the species of advantage."Its a very convincing case, but the Lord Justices have pushed back on a few points, particularly indicating that the use of Prorogation for political advantage is legal, and with precedent. Major's use on this way should be particularly interesting as a Case in point.
The problem is just because it was done then. Does that mean it was right to do then?Making key points here, that Parliament has previously been prorogued, for longer than this current period, and for party political purposes, and to avoid scrutiny, especially when as a minority government. Basically stating that there is Precedent. Quite a strong point.
The problem is whether they want to create a new precedent.The problem is just because it was done then. Does that mean it was right to do then?
It wasn't a minority government when the decision was made?Making key points here, that Parliament has previously been prorogued, for longer than this current period, and for party political purposes, and to avoid scrutiny, especially when as a minority government. Basically stating that there is Precedent. Quite a strong point.
Yep. What I suspected all along. I think the Government has exploited a loop hole and there is nothing except protest that anyone can do. Perhaps a change of law for the future but can’t see how they will overcome this current prorogued parliament.Keen is getting a lot more push back than I was expecting here. Call me cynical but I can't help but think that the judges are looking to air their grievances and displeasure at what Boris and co have done here and make it clear that there is plenty wrong with it before coming to the conclusion that it's a political mechanism and not one they can make judgement on.
It's not 1949. The CCSU case and others have set a lot of precedent since then.Making key points here, that Parliament has previously been prorogued, for longer than this current period, and for party political purposes, and to avoid scrutiny, especially when as a minority government. Basically stating that there is Precedent. Quite a strong point.
Only been involved with one case with her, but she's sharp as a whistle. And an excellent/concise summariser.I like Hale.
The most dangerous precedent they could set here is that the prime minister can prorogue to stymie executive scrutiny whenever he likes.The problem is whether they want to create a new precedent.
Essentially yes, the verdict would be saying that prorogative power for the intention of suppressing parliament is a political only matter, and would have to wait for either a general election or for parliament to sit again to reassert itself, as the judiciary are powerless.So unless a judgement is made against the government, then a PM can effectively suspend Parliament whenever he likes and for however long he wants?
That’s what Cummings has threatened very soon should Government not get its way.So unless a judgement is made against the government, then a PM can effectively suspend Parliament whenever he likes and for however long he wants?