Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.
 
Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad.

He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief.

(Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)
 
jimbob said:
Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.
Click to expand...

In the background Rees-Mogg mutters "Hear hear", but then starts to look a little sheepish ...
 
Jesus, Bojo really is trying to be the British Trump, right down to being a horrible liar and having no sense of decency.
 
More stuff today on Johnson, the pole-dancing technology guru, Steve Bannon, Milo.... Jesus, it stinks. I'm thinking "Kompromat"
 
Ian Osborne said:
I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters.
Click to expand...

A good point though since part of the Brexit argument was regaining sovereignty which was never taken away in the first place.
BJ has exposed another lie :-)
 
Darat said:
And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.
Click to expand...

Quite wrong. It was planned during Tony Blair's time in office, and opened under Gordon Brown. These were Labour Prime Ministers and governments - not Tory.
 
dudalb said:
IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?
Click to expand...
What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.
 
psionl0 said:
What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.
Click to expand...


So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.
 
GlennB said:
Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad.

He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief.

(Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)
Click to expand...

I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?
 
psionl0 said:
What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.
Click to expand...


But there is well established precedent from the courts that administrative actions must be done for valid reasons. Parliament hasn’t overruled this, so it stands.
 
a_unique_person said:
So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.
Click to expand...
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?
 
Last edited:
James Cleverly in BBC interview “he [Johnson] did not use the word “betrayal.”

Martha Kearney: “we will not betray the people who sent us here”

Cleverly: “you‘re saying he said ‘betrayal’, he said ‘we will not betray’” !!!
 
psionl0 said:
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?
Click to expand...

Then they would still have to obey it, hopefully without throwing the sort of tantrum Johnson did. His performance in parliament yesterday was no different from the row he had with his girlfriend a few weeks back, someone told Boris no and he can't handle it.

Also there was nothing random about the decision, the 11 judges of the highest court in the land came to a unanimous decision after due consideration.

Captain_Swoop said:
James Cleverly in BBC interview “he [Johnson] did not use the word “betrayal.”

Martha Kearney: “we will not betray the people who sent us here”

Cleverly: “you‘re saying he said ‘betrayal’, he said ‘we will not betray’” !!!
Click to expand...

They've fully embraced the Trump school of dealing with the media.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom