The EU forced them to make those investments though!
Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful
- Thread starter owlo
- Start date
The EU forced them to make those investments though!
The new narrative that remainers are all rich is irritating and complete nonsense
It fits the mantra of being elite vs ordinary people. It’s quite perverse how people go for it as well
Weird isn’t it! Poor remainer here and it’s infuriating.
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.
I mean look at the guys post before, ending with this gem
Calls all of us who voted remain as thick but seemingly shovels the bs down his throat that he’s fed
It’s about the level of answer I expected
You asked the question - happy to oblige.
Anway, back to the court case which isn't at all about Brexit so I shouldn't be posting on here the way I have.
So Cameron, Greive and Major are rich elitists, but Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob fecking Rees-Mogg are humble men of the people?
All this answer reveals is that you know you're talking bollocks but would quite like to continue the attempted wind up.
So Cameron, Greive and Major are rich elitists, but Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob fecking Rees-Mogg are humble men of the people?
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.
Last edited:
You missed this factoid from your OP, @owlo #supremescourt
Soros
for feck sake it’s obvious where you get your information from. Soros is the new “Rothschilds”. That evil New order Jewish Strawman. As for being £ millions house owners, the basic annual salary of an MP is £76k. The average price of a house in London is just short of £700k. The average wage in London is £48k.
Is it any surprise that this cabinet of career politicians mostly middle aged own a house which reflects their basic income?
Lineker lolllllllllllllllllllll
Yeah you know that football bloke from the TV that has his own opinions on Twitter. Loomnatty
Who the feck argued that?
It's not just a difference of opinion, it's a spectacular abdication of reality. Fairly obviously the majority of politicians, especially in the Tory party, are gonna be rich dudes with privileged backgrounds. So when you bang on incredulously about champagne socialists and the heinous liberal elite comprising the "vast majority" of EU sympathisers there's the all too conspicuous analogue of champagne capitalists and the conservative elite standing right next to them. Pretending that either of these groups represent the "vast majority" of anything is terrible mathematics at best and really amounts to nothing more than mindless ranting. It's entirely disingenuous.
Direct link to the live video on the site @sammsky1 shared on the previous page:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
They don't even have the files
Really is a country built on sand.They don't even have the files
Quite pleased with myself. Pannick making my argument, even quoting my boy, and making the same references to the articles that I made to put it together the same way.
Just turned it on. Pannick struggling to formulate the correct response during cross questioning. Got there eventually.
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.
Small issue, but his backroom team have made a right hash out of preparing the files, very embarrassing for them in such a high-profile case.
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 Govt. side should present their case in next few minutes, will be interesting to see how they rebut the points of the advocate.
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 Govt. side should present their case in next few minutes, will be interesting to see how they rebut the points of the advocate.
This Lord Keen couldn't be any duller. Very difficult to follow his train of thought.
Also for a case of such importance I'm finding the arguments put forward by both sides surprisingly simplistic.
Also for a case of such importance I'm finding the arguments put forward by both sides surprisingly simplistic.
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."
Keen is not doing terribly well in threading the needle between unlawful and invalid.
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.
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.
I like Hale.
Boris will probably get away with this one.
The problem is just because it was done then. Does that mean it was right to do then?
The problem is whether they want to create a new precedent.
It wasn't a minority government when the decision was made?
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.
It's not 1949. The CCSU case and others have set a lot of precedent since then.
Only been involved with one case with her, but she's sharp as a whistle. And an excellent/concise summariser.
The most dangerous precedent they could set here is that the prime minister can prorogue to stymie executive scrutiny whenever he likes.
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?
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.
That’s what Cummings has threatened very soon should Government not get its way.