Meat Wad

Brexit, WTF

Recommended Posts

Then it gets worse for strategists at #10..."Mutton dressed up as mutton" will suddenly change her Tinder and Facebook accounts to now being a "single" piece of mutton after finding out Boris prefers busty US artificial growth hormoned lamb.

images - 2019-09-23T230851.338.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Musicians' Union has now abandoned Corbyn.

That means he will never get a Glastonbury invite again to ply his Marxist magic on the young and those who are stoned.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong but this is the first article I have read where Loyalists (and with grey hair experience) have gone to print saying there is a risk of a return to violence because of Brexit in NI and attribute to Loyalists, not the Nationalist bogeyman.

That is a very telling shift and that puts even more pressure on the DUP.

belfast1_260x180-1160x796.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Leo I haven't yet scrounged around for EU leaks but my bet is Brussels have already sent a memo out to all of the EU27 stating Boris's "non- papers" he presented last week are meaningless "fishing expedition" shit.

The EU boat starting to leak to ensure everyone knows it is Boris who is taking everyone over the No Deal cliff.

 

And not a coincidence in timing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is both a wonderfull and appalling article about Nth Ireland politics in the context of how London views it.

The wonderfull being a dedicated civil servant who is clearly very bright and passionate about Ireland and very highly regarded by a procession of PM's on both sides.

The appalling being the British Government's most senior advisor in Northern Island is a Yorkshireman and has held that position for 30 years and is a proud Loyalist.

Having regard for Great Britain's position of neutrality and a joint underwriter of the GFA, he should have been immediately replaced in 1988 or twenty years ago.

The outcome post 1998 is not exactly brilliant. Downing Street have since inception been lukewarm about the GFA on account it has constrained them.

Whether attributable to his advice/position who knows. That aside the optics have been bad.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/jonathan-caine-not-many-people-go-from-harehills-to-being-a-tory-in-the-lords-1-10004595

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I'm out for the day. I wonder what the result will be?

 

 

Image result for corbyn sitting on fence

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Tusk does not care much about Brexit any more, but if Varadkar wants to be mentioned in this way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The labour party have voted to sit on the fence with JC,  that will suit Boris and also the liberals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Watch this space. Supreme Court will rule TOMORROW at 1030 on whether the Government's decision to prorogue Parliament was lawful or not.

So potentially UK newspapers will somehow try to fit on their FP's both their PM lying to the Queen and a story about him paying with taxpayer money for some American chick to slide up and down his pole?

They must be pissing their pants in Brussels, like everyone around the world.

Well done UK.

Good thing that BoJo decided to cook Thomas Cook just in time for a timely diversion. (The part of the news cycle where BoJo decided that the Gouvernement will not bail out Thomas Cook.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Q said:

The labour party have voted to sit on the fence with JC,  that will suit Boris and also the liberals. 

This represents the best LibDem opportunity in a generation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, KC375 said:

This represents the best LibDem opportunity in a generation.

A spectacular fuck-up by Labour, I wonder how long Corbyn lasts after they lose the next election?  

My moneys on new leaders for both the Tories and Labour, quite possibly before Christmas at this rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mad said:

A spectacular fuck-up by Labour, I wonder how long Corbyn lasts after they lose the next election?  

My moneys on new leaders for both the Tories and Labour, quite possibly before Christmas at this rate. 

That's a sound prediction BUT Corbyn is doing his best to give Johnson job security.

I guess the refreshing thing about labour is their effort at truth in advertising, vote for us and yes we will go back to class warfare and putting the government in charge of everything and ensuring lower income disparity, not by raising incomes but by bringing everyone down to a depressing subsistence level.

Even though that may be the plan, the smart thing to do was not to declare war until you in a position to wind (don't invade Russia when the winter is coming). If labour kept quiet, where unremarkable, they would look like brilliant managers compared to the Tories. Instead Labour is looking so scary that Remainers might still back BJ to avoid Corbyn.

Go the LibDems.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mad said:

A spectacular fuck-up by Labour, I wonder how long Corbyn lasts after they lose the next election?  

My moneys on new leaders for both the Tories and Labour, quite possibly before Christmas at this rate. 

One can only hope. It beggars belief what both parties have done to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, KC375 said:

This represents the best LibDem opportunity in a generation.

And we all thought they’d buried themselves after joining government with the Tories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

And we all thought they’d buried themselves after joining government with the Tories. 

That was a foolish gambit by the LibDems. I don’t know why third parties join government benches in first past the post democracies (proportional rep and like, e.g. Knesset have different dynamics).

In first past the post the second partner in the government regularly gets slaughtered in the next election (I’ve not done a robust study of this just personal observation – good examples to the opposite welcomed).

It seems the only reason for the weaker party  to join such an alliance is one of genuine policy, e.g. you can have my votes if you enact xyc during the session or if you think the third party is so bad anything to stop them is warranted.  Then except annihilation in the next election as acceptable cost of doing the right thing (actually would be good if more politicians behaved like that)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hoppy said:

Yes, the British public voted yes to letting Brexit shag them with a condom in a well lubed up vagina. They did not how ever give consent to getting fucked in the arse without lubricant or a condom, which is what Boris is trying to do to them.

These days, stealthing and other sex acts without explicit consent is a crime.

 

metoo-1-1.jpg

Nobody’s getting fisted by Johnson, so keep your fantasies to yourself you sicko.

 

The people of the U.K. voted to leave the EU and all you bitches cannot accept that fact.

Quit trying to make it into something it’s not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

OK I look forward then to watching that documentary of your attempt to climb Mt Everest nude.

I’ve no interest in climbing Mount Everest, but if I had then you can be sure I’d do it.

 

You see, I’m a self made man, everything I own I’ve earned and I’ve nothing to prove to myself or anybody else. I'm secure in my manhood unlike you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

You see, I’m a self made man, everything I own I’ve earned and I’ve nothing to prove to myself or anybody else. I'm secure in my manhood unlike you.

 

Including the prestigious Lake Shore Drive Address

2073800840_Selfmademan.jpg.214bc1635586d3a29fbc1f0d7afbde83.jpg

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Including the prestigious Lake Shore Drive Address

2073800840_Selfmademan.jpg.214bc1635586d3a29fbc1f0d7afbde83.jpg

;)

There are condos on lakeshore drive that go for less than a sfh in Robbins 

Not much of an achievement to have an address on lsd imho

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3950-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-APT-1416-Chicago-IL-60613/3713632_zpid/

 

 

https://www.redfin.com/IL/Robbins/14031-S-Wayman-Ln-60472/home/18952358

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

 

Not much of an achievement to have an address on lsd imho

 

That's okay SW, we just move in different circles with different definitions of achievement.

Some consider this an achievement:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/840-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-APT-2601-Chicago-IL-60611/2084787436_zpid/?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/199-E-Lake-Shore-Dr-10-11E-Chicago-IL-60611/2082837141_zpid/  

But others on lake side Drive can also point to earning everything they own:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-homeless-chicago-wagon-plant-mattress-possessions-1109-20151106-story.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeoV said:

Seems Tusk does not care much about Brexit any more, but if Varadkar wants to be mentioned in this way...

It's a bird ...no it's a plane.

 

EFLfZhEXYAMasrC.jpeg

EFK_-KzWwAEEoIy.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote, chairman's call etc a bit of a fuck up. 

 

Anyway Labour will now go into a snap general election promising a Referendum but not saying how they’d campaign until after the election.

Pure genius...Lib Dems will need to order more T Shirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IPLore said:

$13 million?

not a lot of money to someone who inherits money when you think of it.

 

and as for the homeless in the USA?

Generally speaking, they are either drug addicts or people with mental illness, or simply there by choice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KC375 said:

In first past the post the second partner in the government regularly gets slaughtered in the next election (I’ve not done a robust study of this just personal observation – good examples to the opposite welcomed).

It seems the only reason for the weaker party  to join such an alliance is one of genuine policy, e.g. you can have my votes if you enact xyc during the session or if you think the third party is so bad anything to stop them is warranted.  Then except annihilation in the next election as acceptable cost of doing the right thing (actually would be good if more politicians behaved like that)

It also occurs in preferential voting but to a lesser extent than FPP. 

Bit like a Protestant and Catholic marriage, the couple are fine, it's their respective families where all the drama occurs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The annoying thing about articles like this No Deal Brexit 'incompatible' with Good Friday Agreement is no-one actually makes any effort to articulate why. Then when they try they get it wrong.

An example is this from Shadow Northern Ireland Minister Stephen Pound warning that putting cameras on the Irish border will lead to a situation where "the Good Friday Agreement is dead"

The imposition of border infrastucture and threats to it is not what causes the end of the GFA.

In fact as this report by a custom expert from the European Commission notes there is already surveillance infrastructure at the border that is able to track vehicles.

The word "border" doesn't appear in the GFA other than in the context of a future border poll.

The GFA was meant to be a charter to allow political process to occur without threats and with Great Britain and Ireland being neutral as underwriters of those processes.

The GFA is already dead and died the day the DUP were invited to be a coalition partner to form government thus stripping away that neutrality demanded of the British Government by the GFA.

Brexit by removing "uniformity" between north and south for all forms of life is what is going to cause the problems and bury the GFA for good, not border surveillance infrastructure.

D84vN0iXsAAP_1x.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

T

you need a hobby

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day the Brexit loving Spectator with their Eurosceptic Chairman Andrew Neil may write something about Brexit which is factually correct.

This time in The EU has failed again to strike a free trade deal - Why the UK should follow the Chilean model to underwrite why the UK should exit the EU and can succeed going it alone in the trade deal world.

Chile has not operated alone in trade agreement land. Was in 2005 a founding member of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP) that then morphed into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPATPP) that comprises 11 Pacific Rim countries.

Article also cites the difficulties where without the agreement of all 28 EU member states, a trade deal cannot go ahead as a reason to leave the EU. Yet that is exactly where the UK is heading if it exits with No Deal. Also not mentioned is the most strident apponent to the agricultural component of Australia's proposed EU FTA has been the UK. Maybe the author had been drinking when he wrote this drivel.

Little wonder a country divided when ordinarily a great publication like the Spectator sees no problem telling porkies to promote a one-eyed ownership/editorial view on Brexit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme court case;
Hale says prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament.

Although it takes place in parliament, it is not their decision. It is something that has been imposed on them from outside.

The PM’s advice to Her Majest was “unlawful, void and of no effect”.

That means the order in council was also “unlawful, void and of no effect”.

That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect.

Parliament has not been prorogued, she says.

She says it is for the Speaker to decide what happens next.
------------------------------------
OOmph and energy is not enough, another loss. BJ advisors needs to be sacked or silenced.
Curious how Rees Mogg will reply, he admitted they did prorogue for political reasons. Naughty boy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I feel a little better about Blighty now.  It is heartening to know that justice can engage on the question of competent action.  I am enjoying reading the structure of the judgement .  This will have a long term effect on royal prerogative, which is an area of constitution which has been troubled.  While not entirely surprised by the judgement, I am surprised by the unanimity.  

Of course, who know what the effect of this will be on the gang...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

Things are looking up.

Supreme court says Scottish court was right.
Supreme focussed on effects of prorogation, Scottish on that BJ was a liar.
So it combines the two, Pro was unlawful, and BJ lied to the Queen.

Interesting... Scots kicked BJ ass.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't possibly get any more embarrassing than this.

If ever a PM should resign immediately, it's NOW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BJ could appeal to the European Court of Justice.

Other remark I have seen;
Turns out Brexiters aren't so keen on British judges enforcing British laws after all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Boris be locked up in the Palace of Westminster's jail?  It's at the top of the Elizabeth Tower, next door to Big Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

Things are looking up.

Cheers,

              W.

 

Definitely!!!  Resisting the temptation to burst out laughing at Johnson, Cummings and Rees-Mogg etc. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LeoV said:

BJ could appeal to the European Court of Justice.

Image result for donald duck laughing gif

 

Oh the irony if he did!???

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Supreme court says Scottish court was right.

More than right...tipped a bucket of shit over the Government/Boris.

At some point even Boris's fanboys have to say enough is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Can't possibly get any more embarrassing than this.

If ever a PM should resign immediately, it's NOW.

 

Well it would save updating Wikipedia, he's still at the bottom of the list. :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_length_of_tenure

Quote
52 Bonar Law 211 days 1 Conservative (Scot. Unionist) 1922
53 The Viscount Goderich 130 days 1 Tory (Canningite) 1827
54 George Canning 119 days 1 Tory (Canningite) 1827
55 Boris Johnson 62 days 1 Conservative 2019

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that so many Brexiters who insisted the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit are now saying prorogation being declared unlawful is an attempt to stop Brexit. The tweets from Tory exiteers MP's are really weird. There seems to be no whipping yet on twitter feeds ... Hard to do when BJ is not at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeoV said:

Amazing that so many Brexiters who insisted the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit are now saying prorogation being declared unlawful is an attempt to stop Brexit. The tweets from Tory exiteers MP's are really weird. There seems to be no whipping yet on twitter feeds ... Hard to do when BJ is not at home.

But aren't Cummings and Rees-Mogg in charge anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cummings; failed strategic.
Rees Mogg lied at Balmoral to the Queen.

I think it will take a while to align Tory MP's.
Gove already thinks he will be the next Tory leader, but he is not good at understanding how twitter works. Can not even make a thread.

EFOWyjWXYAAhzP1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gina Miller for PM.

Lord Pannick for leader of the House of Lords.

 

What a hero's !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is before BJ is home...
And when is his next visit to the Queen ? He does have weekly meetings with her ?
Can he ask for a Queens speech after this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two fundamental principles of our constitutional law are relevant to the
present case. The first is the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty: that laws
enacted by the Crown in Parliament are the supreme form of law in our legal system,
with which everyone, including the Government, must comply. However, the effect
which the courts have given to Parliamentary sovereignty is not confined to
recognising the status of the legislation enacted by the Crown in Parliament as our
highest form of law. Time and again, in a series of cases since the 17th century, the
courts have protected Parliamentary sovereignty from threats posed to it by the use
of prerogative powers, and in doing so have demonstrated that prerogative powers
are limited by the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

 

That is the ruling; paragraph 41;
this looks like the claim of BJ that he can ignore Benn act is unlawful. So he must ask for an extension.
BJ is blocked in more and more. Do or Die, Ditch, whatever, this really limits him.

BTW impressive legal work from the Court, only in a few days work this document cements a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't for get its the weekly PMQs tomorrow as well!!

Will he get back in time?   If not, who's going to stand in for him?

Tomorrow is going to be a fun day in the house. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

This tosser doesn't get it...it is not a zombie Parliament....it is you the Government/PM who are the walking dead.

 

 

That little shit was crying that if the Tories don't make an alliance with Farage and the Brexit party he'd be out of a job and homeless............self serving cunt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mad said:

Don't for get its the weekly PMQs tomorrow as well!!

 

Bercow has already said it's too late notice for PMQs, so they won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mad said:

Will he get back in time?   If not, who's going to stand in for him?

Boris mum will be ringing saying he is sick.

Cabinet seniority for Acting PM is first Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and then Home Secretary.

So Javid draws the short straw. Rees Mogg might find it very hot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JonRowe said:
11 minutes ago, mad said:

Don't for get its the weekly PMQs tomorrow as well!!

 

Bercrow has already said it's too late notice for PMQs, so they won't happen.

What a pity, would have been the TV highlight of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wondering why the judge reading the verdict did wear a spider brooch.
walterscott1-2x.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it'll definitely distract from the latest little scandal that started the week, so i suppose that's one bonus for him. :rolleyes:

Image result for jennifer arcuri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if he'll imediately prorogue parliament..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only possible for a few days and needs a Queens Speech.
With a minus 43 minority government ?

You can bet the Queen knew she was lied to and accepted it, but can she do that again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BJ speaks in NY;
Boris Johnson has refused to apologise for prorogation order. Asked if he will say sorry, he instead replied: “I strongly disagree with this decision of the Supreme Court”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LeoV said:

BJ speaks in NY;
Boris Johnson has refused to apologise for prorogation order. Asked if he will say sorry, he instead replied: “I strongly disagree with this decision of the Supreme Court”

I just watched him live now at a UK investment spin breakfast. Totally unrepentant, won't be deterred etc. It is as if the Supreme Court decision didn't happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He refused to accept that the Benn Act made a no-deal Brexit on 31 October impossible. When it was put to him that the law would not allow a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, he replied:

As the law stands, we leave on October 31. And I’m very hopeful that we will get a deal. I think what the people of the county want is to see parliamentarians coming together in the national interest to get this thing done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the prorogation has ended, in that time a Queens Speech could have been written unless they did nothing.
The next prorogation should be one day max :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Q said:

I wonder if he'll imediately prorogue parliament..

I don't think even he's stupid enough to try that one again........then again anything is possible at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson language by extension is now one of the Courts frustrating Brexit. Court made it clear appeal and judgement has nothing to do with Brexit.

That is dangerous territory and has Cummings fingerprints of contempt for laws, conventions etc all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Q said:

I wonder if he'll imediately prorogue parliament..

Maybe not imediatley but at some time he will when he needs some space to operate in without Parliament all over him. Maybe after Tory conference next week? That said outstanding legislation, special committees (which he is afraid of) etc should be kept going in Brexit mode.

Though he might have to give the Queen a chinese burn to get her to agree this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty interesting.

In October 2015, the European Commission decided that Starbucks (Starbucks Amsterdam is HQ for Europe, Nth Africa and Middle East) received illegal state aid via tax rulings issued by the Netherlands. The government appealed to the European Court of Justice which ruled today the Dutch tax deal with Starbucks is legal and Starbucks don't have to pay €30 million in back taxes.

Now the funny bit. Starbucks got the shits waiting so early this year decided to pack their bags and leave. They close up shop in the Netherlands this weekend. Where do they start work Monday??? London.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/eu-court-rejects-order-that-starbucks-must-pay-dutch-back-taxes-1.4028588%3fmode=amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Secretary's very stupid Tweet if he gave Boris legal advice about proroguing, but I think I recall him being out of the loop?

However his 31 Oct comment is very odd as he is already on the record saying he won't sign up to the Benn Act being ignored.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Justice Secretary's very stupid Tweet if he gave Boris legal advice about proroguing, but I think I recall him being out of the loop?

However his 31 Oct comment is very odd as he is already on the record saying he won't sign up to the Benn Act being ignored.

 

 

Actually, a government cannot disagree with the decision of the Supreme court, respectfully or otherwise.

You can be disappointed by the decision.  You can criticize the decision.  But you cannot disagree that the prorogation is void because, prima facie,  the supreme court has decided it is void.

The US government cannot  believe that abortions in the first 2 trimesters are illegal because Roe vs Wade decided that the law of the land as it stood was that they were legal. The US government cannot disagree that the law prohibits schools segregating schools based on race and color because Brown vs Board of Education decided that was illegal.  A government cannot disagree that a law exists when the supreme court resolves that it does exist. A government can work to change that law if it believes that the law is not in the best interest of the citizenry. 

In BJ's case, if he doesnt like the law, then he has to persuade Parliament to pass a statute changing the law......good luck with that! 

Prorogation was never going to survive the Supreme Court of the UK.  Despite the the turmoil of the past 3 years, the UK remains a parliamentary democracy! To paraphrase the great man himself, that form of democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Prorogation was never going to survive the Supreme Court of the UK. 

Trouble is it seems the AG advised it was legal. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now can we get on with a new referendum?  

 

good gravy, thank heavens the leave party is so poorly managed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice summary of BJ's time in office (from BBC)

In his two months in power, Boris Johnson has lost his first six Commons votes, broken the law by suspending Parliament and misled the monarch.

Even for a politician who seems to enjoy breaking the rules, that is a serious charge that, only two months into office, even the most brazen Johnson backer cannot simply shrug off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Trouble is it seems the AG advised it was legal. 

 

 

I don't think that the advice given by the attorney general or the decision by BJ to act on the advice of NC is cause for either the AG or prime minister to resign. After all, the English court of appeal initially agreed with them.

However their legal advisors should probably tell BJ not to publicly state that they will continue to proceed with Brexit despite the setback in the supreme court, because that would suggest that the decision to prorogue parliament was part of a plan to force through Brexit, which would mean that either or both the prime minister and the head of the privy council deliberately misled her majesty.....which might have constitutional consequences.   I dont think those consequences benefit the opposition at the moment because they dont want a general election.  This whole situation is so weird and happening on ground that has never been trodden on before........if this was a film script, it would be rejected as too far fetched,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He was utterly wrong to use such dishonest means of persuasion. He treated Parliament and the public with contempt, and that is why he deserves to be impeached: that is, to be formally held to account,.."

"Impeached"... shit that is pretty strong.....however that reference is not directed at Boris, but at Tony Blair in 2004 over the Iraq war.

Trouble is it was Boris who wrote that in the Telegraph and also as a MP backing the impeachment of Blair.

Isn't it time to impeach Blair over Iraq?

EFOunp5XkAAAM_l.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until now, the prime minister and cabinet stayed on script saying that the reason for the prorogue of parliament was in anticipation of launching their new domestic policy program via a Queen's speech.    The government declined to submit a witness under oath to the court so they could avoid answering the question if there were any other reasons.   The court noted that in their judgement and ruled that they did not need to rule on the question of the prime minister's motive for advising the Queen to prorogue parliament.

"Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. We do not know what conversation passed between them when he gave her that advice. We do