Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

Still it takes the sting out of Johnson using public money so he could shag that american bint

Who wants a republic??, where a President - even one worthy of the office - can appoint 'leaning' judges who essentially do his/her bidding! We should be grateful that we have an independent judiciary, that can look dispassionately at the issues, and arrive at a considered judgement. I think Johnson should be very careful in pronouncing that he disagrees with the judgement, in the sense of suggesting that nothing has changed, and we are heading toward an October exit regardless!! Parliament has already put that to rest! Whether he likes it, or not, he will have to obey the law now.

I wish people would stop seeking to suggest that this is all about stopping Brexit (although that should clearly be an option, if that is where the evidence leads) - It isn't that from my perspective!! This is about power resting where it should - with Parliament - and in the hands of those who are charged with representing us there (representative democracy Johnson - not a dictatorship)

When Parliament was first prorogued the line was "it's not about Brexit" now that the Supreme Court has ruled against the government the line is "that the Supreme Court are trying to scupper Brexit"

I was surprised it was unanimous because I had seen a few lawyers on twitter saying it would be tight but when you look at the governments own case they never actually argued whether or not it was legal. They only ever argued that the court should not intervene in this process. Imagine being charged with a crime only to go to court and rather than argue your innocence tell the judge they have no business in this process

(24-09-2019 17:52 )southsidestu Wrote:  When Parliament was first prorogued the line was "it's not about Brexit" now that the Supreme Court has ruled against the government the line is "that the Supreme Court are trying to scupper Brexit"

I was surprised it was unanimous because I had seen a few lawyers on twitter saying it would be tight but when you look at the governments own case they never actually argued whether or not it was legal. They only ever argued that the court should not intervene in this process. Imagine being charged with a crime only to go to court and rather than argue your innocence tell the judge they have no business in this process

I must keep that note in my pocket - just in case!

I can just imagine criminals queueing up to use that line in their cases!!

(24-09-2019 12:50 )snookered Wrote:  

(24-09-2019 09:51 )HannahsPet Wrote:  In the arse by Lady hale with a strap on in the supreme court

11 strap ons more like.
He won't be able to sit on the front bench for weeks

More like months probably

Farage done up like a Right Kipper

https://twitter.com/OFalafel/status/1176557758344093696

next level prank call

Boris has apparently just got of the phone to Her Majesty!! Now there is a transcript that could make Sotheby's or Christies a clean fortune in buyers premium!

Boris profoundly disagrees with the judgement of the court

Half the prison population would probably say the same...

If he has a half a brain he'd probably appeal the the decision..
but then again would he care how much taxpayers' money it would cost? probably not!!
only a fool would reject the decision of the Supreme Court? (Or even the Supreme Dalek for that matter?)

But he has to fire Cummings now.. he has led him barking up the wrong tree..