He fought the law, and the law won

Talk about anything you want in here.

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
grytters
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Sheffield

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by grytters » Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am

PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
A hyena dancing on the grave of a lion.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:30 pm

grytters wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am
PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Democracy does not exist in the UK. Proven by the refusal to get us out as democratically voted for leave. No second vote can be "democratic" until the first is acted upon.

That apart. How the hell do we get out of this mess? I did not, and still do not, want us leaving with no deal, but to take it off the table simply means the EU have no reason whatever to go back to the table and help sort the mess out. I can not understand why so many intelligent people don't get that simple point.
I would love to see someone, anyone, come up with an idea we can all live with in peace. Never in my 70 years have I seen the nation so divided.
It is quite sad really that as a proud Englishman, (I am actually a Yorkshire nationalist), I would now happily see the UK split up and go their own way.
At this point in time a Scottish party, who keep saying they are democratic, have in effect over ruled the will of the majority, (now backed by the supreme court), as the entirety of the UK voted to leave.

Twice the parties have been offered a general election, and said no because they were scared they would be beaten out of sight.

BJ has now said in the last few minutes no way will he resign and we still leave on the 31st October.

How about mp's set aside their part allegiances and and go with what we voted for instead of party point scoring which has brought us to this mess.

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 12194
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlo_Pete » Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:29 am

grytters wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am
PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
No democracy has lost, as the democratic vote has been ignored, people will not forget this betrayal.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:44 am

Darlo_Pete wrote:
grytters wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am
PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
No democracy has lost, as the democratic vote has been ignored, people will not forget this betrayal.
As Johnson claimed proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit, then democracy has definitely been upheld - the Supreme Court have confirmed unanimously that Parliament itself is sovereign, not the Executive (Johnson). Leavers must be jumping up and down with joy for this “taking back control”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PierremontQuaker03
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by PierremontQuaker03 » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:08 am

So 11 unelected judges passed judgement that an unelected Prime Minister was unlawful.
We live in a Democracy?
In my opinion the judges crossed a line yesterday, we know nothing about them and their political persuasion.
I believe this ruling is good for Boris and for Farage - because the referendum was won by the so called "the establishment" telling us what was right - and we voted against it. The same thing will happen again - people do not like being told what to do - they want balanced opinions not black and white arguments - or they backlash.
“If you can't hit a driver, don't.”
Greg Norman

EDJOHNS
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:32 am

QuakerPete wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:44 am
Darlo_Pete wrote:
grytters wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am
PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
No democracy has lost, as the democratic vote has been ignored, people will not forget this betrayal.
As Johnson claimed proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit, then democracy has definitely been upheld - the Supreme Court have confirmed unanimously that Parliament itself is sovereign, not the Executive (Johnson). Leavers must be jumping up and down with joy for this “taking back control”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Get your point, but it saddened me to see they gave as part of the reason that "It has never been done before". (The proroguing). (As reported by Sky news. I have not read the document yet).

Of course the mass hysteria came out for BJ to leave. Yet again, more party point scoring than trying to sort the mess out.

I listened to a large portion of Corbyn's speech at the conference. Only 1 question, where does the money come from?

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:50 am

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:So 11 unelected judges passed judgement that an unelected Prime Minister was unlawful.
We live in a Democracy?
In my opinion the judges crossed a line yesterday, we know nothing about them and their political persuasion.
I believe this ruling is good for Boris and for Farage - because the referendum was won by the so called "the establishment" telling us what was right - and we voted against it. The same thing will happen again - people do not like being told what to do - they want balanced opinions not black and white arguments - or they backlash.
“Unelected judges”? FFS!
Suddenly 17.4m leavers know more about constitutional law than 11 Supreme Court judges


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:01 am

EDJOHNS wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:44 am
Darlo_Pete wrote:
grytters wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am
PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
No democracy has lost, as the democratic vote has been ignored, people will not forget this betrayal.
As Johnson claimed proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit, then democracy has definitely been upheld - the Supreme Court have confirmed unanimously that Parliament itself is sovereign, not the Executive (Johnson). Leavers must be jumping up and down with joy for this “taking back control”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Get your point, but it saddened me to see they gave as part of the reason that "It has never been done before". (The proroguing). (As reported by Sky news. I have not read the document yet).

Of course the mass hysteria came out for BJ to leave. Yet again, more party point scoring than trying to sort the mess out.

I listened to a large portion of Corbyn's speech at the conference. Only 1 question, where does the money come from?
What part of “unlawful” do you not understand? In any other days than these, the Prime Minister of the day would have resigned in shame immediately for misleading (lying to) the Queen. Correction: No other Prime Minister would have done this in the first place. Hardly party points scoring! Democracy is through Parliament, not the Executive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EDJOHNS
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:16 am

QuakerPete wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:01 am
EDJOHNS wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:44 am
Darlo_Pete wrote:
grytters wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:54 am
PM's decision to prorogue Parliament unlawful

Democracy 1, the Executive 0.

Get in.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
No democracy has lost, as the democratic vote has been ignored, people will not forget this betrayal.
As Johnson claimed proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit, then democracy has definitely been upheld - the Supreme Court have confirmed unanimously that Parliament itself is sovereign, not the Executive (Johnson). Leavers must be jumping up and down with joy for this “taking back control”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Get your point, but it saddened me to see they gave as part of the reason that "It has never been done before". (The proroguing). (As reported by Sky news. I have not read the document yet).

Of course the mass hysteria came out for BJ to leave. Yet again, more party point scoring than trying to sort the mess out.

I listened to a large portion of Corbyn's speech at the conference. Only 1 question, where does the money come from?
What part of “unlawful” do you not understand? In any other days than these, the Prime Minister of the day would have resigned in shame immediately for misleading (lying to) the Queen. Correction: No other Prime Minister would have done this in the first place. Hardly party points scoring! Democracy is through Parliament, not the Executive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But parliament has not been democratic as it has refused the peoples mandate to leave

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

EDJOHNS wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:01 am
EDJOHNS wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:44 am
Darlo_Pete wrote: No democracy has lost, as the democratic vote has been ignored, people will not forget this betrayal.
As Johnson claimed proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit, then democracy has definitely been upheld - the Supreme Court have confirmed unanimously that Parliament itself is sovereign, not the Executive (Johnson). Leavers must be jumping up and down with joy for this “taking back control”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Get your point, but it saddened me to see they gave as part of the reason that "It has never been done before". (The proroguing). (As reported by Sky news. I have not read the document yet).

Of course the mass hysteria came out for BJ to leave. Yet again, more party point scoring than trying to sort the mess out.

I listened to a large portion of Corbyn's speech at the conference. Only 1 question, where does the money come from?
What part of “unlawful” do you not understand? In any other days than these, the Prime Minister of the day would have resigned in shame immediately for misleading (lying to) the Queen. Correction: No other Prime Minister would have done this in the first place. Hardly party points scoring! Democracy is through Parliament, not the Executive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But parliament has not been democratic as it has refused the peoples mandate to leave
It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6129
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:48 am

QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:34 pm

loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.
If only all of the Tory Party (including the ERG) and the (bribed) DUP had voted for May’s Deal, all of this would be history.
As it is, even removing the backstop won’t satisfy some of the hardliners
Labour”s position on Brexit is equally fanciful and satisfies none of its supporters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:20 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.
If only all of the Tory Party (including the ERG) and the (bribed) DUP had voted for May’s Deal, all of this would be history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or indeed the Labour MPs in Leave seats who voted down the agreement but have since indicated they’d vote in favour of the agreement.

Indeed on two occasions MPs held indicative votes but failed to reach agreement. In this instance, a General Election can be the only outcome, with each party outlining their form of Brexit and the public deciding.

Also, when MPs like Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Ummuna switch political allegiance repeatedly in the space of months, it makes a mockery of the idea MPs are serving in the interests of democracy. They’re serving themselves (E.G. Soubry and her Change MPs won’t vote an election as they know they’d lose their seats).

I’m all for Parliament taking back control (indeed greater Parliamentary sovereignty is a reason I voted Leave), but MPs need to act responsibly with it. And currently I’d argue they are not. Just look at the bear-pit Parliament has descended into. Hardly MPs setting the example for the constituents they represent.

As for your accusations of bribery, those are serious allegations. I suggest you take your substantial evidence directly to the Metropolitan Police immediately.

While you’re at it, can you report David Cameron for bribing the Lib Dem’s into coalition in 2010. And maybe a back-dated corruption investigation into the Lib-Lab pact of the 70s.

Or you can accept deals are made as a result of hung parliaments under constitutional precedent. Some deals are financial, others are political or policy-based.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6129
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:49 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:20 pm
QuakerPete wrote:
loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.
If only all of the Tory Party (including the ERG) and the (bribed) DUP had voted for May’s Deal, all of this would be history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or indeed the Labour MPs in Leave seats who voted down the agreement but have since indicated they’d vote in favour of the agreement.

Indeed on two occasions MPs held indicative votes but failed to reach agreement. In this instance, a General Election can be the only outcome, with each party outlining their form of Brexit and the public deciding.

Also, when MPs like Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Ummuna switch political allegiance repeatedly in the space of months, it makes a mockery of the idea MPs are serving in the interests of democracy. They’re serving themselves (E.G. Soubry and her Change MPs won’t vote an election as they know they’d lose their seats).

I’m all for Parliament taking back control (indeed greater Parliamentary sovereignty is a reason I voted Leave), but MPs need to act responsibly with it. And currently I’d argue they are not. Just look at the bear-pit Parliament has descended into. Hardly MPs setting the example for the constituents they represent.

As for your accusations of bribery, that’s a serious accusation. I suggest you take your substantial evidence directly to the Metropolitan Police immediately.

While you’re at it, can you report David Cameron for bribing the Lib Dem’s into coalition in 2010. And maybe a posthumous investigation into the Lib-Lab pact of the 70s.

Or you can accept deals are made as a result of hung parliaments under constitutional precedent. Some deals are financial, others are political or policy-based.
Behave gramps, I'm having to agree with you again :shock: :shock: :shock:

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:46 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:20 pm
Or indeed the Labour MPs in Leave seats who voted down the agreement but have since indicated they’d vote in favour of the agreement.

Indeed on two occasions MPs held indicative votes but failed to reach agreement. In this instance, a General Election can be the only outcome, with each party outlining their form of Brexit and the public deciding.

Also, when MPs like Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Ummuna switch political allegiance repeatedly in the space of months, it makes a mockery of the idea MPs are serving in the interests of democracy. They’re serving themselves (E.G. Soubry and her Change MPs won’t vote an election as they know they’d lose their seats).

I’m all for Parliament taking back control (indeed greater Parliamentary sovereignty is a reason I voted Leave), but MPs need to act responsibly with it. And currently I’d argue they are not. Just look at the bear-pit Parliament has descended into. Hardly MPs setting the example for the constituents they represent.

As for your accusations of bribery, those are serious allegations. I suggest you take your substantial evidence directly to the Metropolitan Police immediately.

While you’re at it, can you report David Cameron for bribing the Lib Dem’s into coalition in 2010. And maybe a posthumous investigation into the Lib-Lab pact of the 70s.

Or you can accept deals are made as a result of hung parliaments under constitutional precedent. Some deals are financial, others are political or policy-based.
I know we had a little disagreement in the other thread but I agree with loan_star on this, top post. :thumbup:

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:25 pm

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:20 pm
QuakerPete wrote:
loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.
If only all of the Tory Party (including the ERG) and the (bribed) DUP had voted for May’s Deal, all of this would be history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or indeed the Labour MPs in Leave seats who voted down the agreement but have since indicated they’d vote in favour of the agreement.

Indeed on two occasions MPs held indicative votes but failed to reach agreement. In this instance, a General Election can be the only outcome, with each party outlining their form of Brexit and the public deciding.

Also, when MPs like Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Ummuna switch political allegiance repeatedly in the space of months, it makes a mockery of the idea MPs are serving in the interests of democracy. They’re serving themselves (E.G. Soubry and her Change MPs won’t vote an election as they know they’d lose their seats).

I’m all for Parliament taking back control (indeed greater Parliamentary sovereignty is a reason I voted Leave), but MPs need to act responsibly with it. And currently I’d argue they are not. Just look at the bear-pit Parliament has descended into. Hardly MPs setting the example for the constituents they represent.

As for your accusations of bribery, that’s a serious accusation. I suggest you take your substantial evidence directly to the Metropolitan Police immediately.

While you’re at it, can you report David Cameron for bribing the Lib Dem’s into coalition in 2010. And maybe a posthumous investigation into the Lib-Lab pact of the 70s.

Or you can accept deals are made as a result of hung parliaments under constitutional precedent. Some deals are financial, others are political or policy-based.
Behave gramps, I'm having to agree with you again :shock: :shock: :shock:
Tried to tell you being on the Dark Side was no good for your well-being!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:21 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.
If only all of the Tory Party (including the ERG) and the (bribed) DUP had voted for May’s Deal, all of this would be history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or indeed the Labour MPs in Leave seats who voted down the agreement but have since indicated they’d vote in favour of the agreement.

Indeed on two occasions MPs held indicative votes but failed to reach agreement. In this instance, a General Election can be the only outcome, with each party outlining their form of Brexit and the public deciding.

Also, when MPs like Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Ummuna switch political allegiance repeatedly in the space of months, it makes a mockery of the idea MPs are serving in the interests of democracy. They’re serving themselves (E.G. Soubry and her Change MPs won’t vote an election as they know they’d lose their seats).

I’m all for Parliament taking back control (indeed greater Parliamentary sovereignty is a reason I voted Leave), but MPs need to act responsibly with it. And currently I’d argue they are not. Just look at the bear-pit Parliament has descended into. Hardly MPs setting the example for the constituents they represent.

As for your accusations of bribery, those are serious allegations. I suggest you take your substantial evidence directly to the Metropolitan Police immediately.

While you’re at it, can you report David Cameron for bribing the Lib Dem’s into coalition in 2010. And maybe a back-dated corruption investigation into the Lib-Lab pact of the 70s.

Or you can accept deals are made as a result of hung parliaments under constitutional precedent. Some deals are financial, others are political or policy-based.
1. You could try to put the blame on Leave Labour MPs I suppose, but a deal was entirely within the grasp of the Tories and even Johnson voted against it twice. Now he’s trying to get a v2.0 of the same deal. Go figure!

2. You say General Election, I say Confirmatory Vote (with a Remain option, of course) - I think mine is more likely to give a definitive decision either way, especially as the Tory rebels and waverers are more likely to accept the result. General Election, in current circumstances, is looking more like another hung Parliament unless there is a significant shift in public opinion due to, for example, a PM who may have misused public funds for one of his “friends” who required ‘technology lessons’ in her top floor flat (on a number of occasions). Another hung Parliament would leave us in the same position as now.

3. Have already said previously I agree on MPs switching sides should face a by-election within a time period. No arguments from me on that one.

4. MPs acting responsibly? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? In my considered opinion, Johnson and Cox need to take a long, hard look at themselves and their conduct at the return of Parliament, after all it was they who were found to have acted ‘unlawfully’ by the 11 Supreme Court justices - though you wouldn’t think so by their demeanour.

5. Bribes? Inducements? Considerations? Sweeteners? Pretty much add up to the same thing - certainly not political conviction because they’re confidence and supply - to provide a majority for the larger party under many circumstances. Email already on the way to the authorities!

6. Not a fan of these deals, whatever the political persuasion - democracy deserves better than that. Better to have PR in my opinion, I think it will come soon under the right circumstances and would be much better for the country than the present adversarial system. It would help stem the excesses of the extreme elements on all sides. Something we could learn from the EU?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:14 am

QuakerPete wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:16 am

It hasn’t refused, it just doesn’t like Johnson’s non-mandated No Deal version
It didnt like Mays mandated deal version either. In fact Labour have said they only want a deal they agree with and even then recommend to reject it.
The commons is full of clowns.
If only all of the Tory Party (including the ERG) and the (bribed) DUP had voted for May’s Deal, all of this would be history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or indeed the Labour MPs in Leave seats who voted down the agreement but have since indicated they’d vote in favour of the agreement.

Indeed on two occasions MPs held indicative votes but failed to reach agreement. In this instance, a General Election can be the only outcome, with each party outlining their form of Brexit and the public deciding.

Also, when MPs like Luciana Berger, Anna Soubry, Sam Gyimah and Chuka Ummuna switch political allegiance repeatedly in the space of months, it makes a mockery of the idea MPs are serving in the interests of democracy. They’re serving themselves (E.G. Soubry and her Change MPs won’t vote an election as they know they’d lose their seats).

I’m all for Parliament taking back control (indeed greater Parliamentary sovereignty is a reason I voted Leave), but MPs need to act responsibly with it. And currently I’d argue they are not. Just look at the bear-pit Parliament has descended into. Hardly MPs setting the example for the constituents they represent.

As for your accusations of bribery, those are serious allegations. I suggest you take your substantial evidence directly to the Metropolitan Police immediately.

While you’re at it, can you report David Cameron for bribing the Lib Dem’s into coalition in 2010. And maybe a back-dated corruption investigation into the Lib-Lab pact of the 70s.

Or you can accept deals are made as a result of hung parliaments under constitutional precedent. Some deals are financial, others are political or policy-based.
1. You could try to put the blame on Leave Labour MPs I suppose, but a deal was entirely within the grasp of the Tories and even Johnson voted against it twice. Now he’s trying to get a v2.0 of the same deal. Go figure!

2. You say General Election, I say Confirmatory Vote (with a Remain option, of course) - I think mine is more likely to give a definitive decision either way, especially as the Tory rebels and waverers are more likely to accept the result. General Election, in current circumstances, is looking more like another hung Parliament unless there is a significant shift in public opinion due to, for example, a PM who may have misused public funds for one of his “friends” who required ‘technology lessons’ in her top floor flat (on a number of occasions). Another hung Parliament would leave us in the same position as now.

3. Have already said previously I agree on MPs switching sides should face a by-election within a time period. No arguments from me on that one.

4. MPs acting responsibly? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? In my considered opinion, Johnson and Cox need to take a long, hard look at themselves and their conduct at the return of Parliament, after all it was they who were found to have acted ‘unlawfully’ by the 11 Supreme Court justices - though you wouldn’t think so by their demeanour.

5. Bribes? Inducements? Considerations? Sweeteners? Pretty much add up to the same thing - certainly not political conviction because they’re confidence and supply - to provide a majority for the larger party under many circumstances. Email already on the way to the authorities!

6. Not a fan of these deals, whatever the political persuasion - democracy deserves better than that. Better to have PR in my opinion, I think it will come soon under the right circumstances and would be much better for the country than the present adversarial system. It would help stem the excesses of the extreme elements on all sides. Something we could learn from the EU?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. I’m not trying to put the blame on anybody. I’m just pointing out there are people who would back the deal now who didn’t when it was last voted on.

2. I’d say General Election now is better for a number of reasons. Firstly Parliament is now utterly dysfunctional. We see that from the unprecedented angry scenes, and the fact the ruling party can no longer pass legislation. Nothing is being achieved and no agreement can be made on the major issue of the day, Brexit. We badly need a reset.

Secondly a Confirmatory Ballot (nice use of language - why not just call it Additional Referendum or Attempt to Overturn the Original Result), would entrench divisions further, particularly if the Remain option won. Good luck convincing those who voted Leave initially in 2016 that they’re not disenfranchised. We’d be in really dangerous territory then. And if Leave won again, are you seriously going to convince me Remain would accept the result. Of course it wouldn’t. Jo Swinson has already said she’d campaign for Revocation of Article 50 even if she lost a new referendum.

Thirdly, any new ballot cannot have a Remain option. There’s no mandate for that, or evidence the public wish for it to be the case. In the Euros, a party literally called the Brexit Party won in its first election. In 2017, more than 80% people voted at the General Election for parties whose policy was to Leave. And there’s the 2016 mandate from the original referendum. So in three major votes, pro-Brexit parties have consistently performed above pro-Remain parties.

The case against that, which you’ve stated before, is democracy is ongoing and doesn’t remain static. Fair enough and I don’t necessarily disagree. However, if you accept that logic, let’s say two or three years down the line and there’s some crisis or event which makes the public more Eurosceptic and once more want to Leave, you must also accept another referendum at that point, otherwise you’re anti-democratic. You can’t want a referendum now, but deny others in similar circumstances.

But on the issue of the EU, at one point or another you have to make a long-term choice. The stability of our economy, jobs, trade, co-operation with other nations dictates this is essential. You can’t keep having referendums, which is the path holding a new one would take us down. Moreover, this is what we were told 2016 was about. Deciding our future relationship with the EU and the Government implementing that result. Changing the goalposts because you disagreed with the original result is not on.

Finally, I don’t see many Leavers wanting a new referendum. It’s predominantly the call from people who would vote Remain. That confirms it’s nothing more than an attempt to overturn the original result.

That’s why I think a General Election is preferable, as it can provide a mandate for resolving Brexit, resetting this dysfunctional parliament and actually achieving something beyond Brexit.

On your point about us heading for another hung parliament, firstly polls can’t be used as serious evidence. According to the polls, Hilary Clinton would be president, Theresa May would have increased her majority and in 2015 we’d have had a hung parliament too. Events change and polls do too.

We largely agree on points 3 and 4 - no disagreement from me on Johnson and Cox’s behaviour. Johnson should have resigned after the Supreme Court judgement.

Point 6 doesn’t make sense to me. You advocate PR but dislike deals to form coalitions/confidence and supply support. Yet PR would lead to more of these deals as it’s almost impossible to get majority Goverment under PR. The Lib Dems would permanently be king-makers purely because of our narrow political system. Not for me.
It would also lead to more political extremists not less as it’s easier for them to get representation. UKIP is now a far-right party, yet even with 1% of the vote it would get 6 or 7 MPs under a directly proportional system.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

EDJOHNS
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:37 pm

I actually don't see what good BJ resigning would do at this point. He always seemed only a means to get Brexit done and always thought that once we were through that issue he would be voted out quite quickly. I don't see that him going now would be an advantage to anyone. Simply more delay and mud to wade through.
Did any of the other candidates that he beat come across as being a better choice to get us out of this mess? If so, I missed them.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:46 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:I actually don't see what good BJ resigning would do at this point. He always seemed only a means to get Brexit done and always thought that once we were through that issue he would be voted out quite quickly. I don't see that him going now would be an advantage to anyone. Simply more delay and mud to wade through.
Did any of the other candidates that he beat come across as being a better choice to get us out of this mess? If so, I missed them.
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps resign because he acted unlawfully according to all 11 Supreme Court justices, misled the Queen / Parliament / Country about the true nature of proroguing for 5 weeks instead of the normal 4-6 days. Old fashioned, I know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:26 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
EDJOHNS wrote:I actually don't see what good BJ resigning would do at this point. He always seemed only a means to get Brexit done and always thought that once we were through that issue he would be voted out quite quickly. I don't see that him going now would be an advantage to anyone. Simply more delay and mud to wade through.
Did any of the other candidates that he beat come across as being a better choice to get us out of this mess? If so, I missed them.
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps resign because he acted unlawfully according to all 11 Supreme Court justices, misled the Queen / Parliament / Country about the true nature of proroguing for 5 weeks instead of the normal 4-6 days. Old fashioned, I know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m agreeing with you far too much these days. It’s unnerving.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:08 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
EDJOHNS wrote:I actually don't see what good BJ resigning would do at this point. He always seemed only a means to get Brexit done and always thought that once we were through that issue he would be voted out quite quickly. I don't see that him going now would be an advantage to anyone. Simply more delay and mud to wade through.
Did any of the other candidates that he beat come across as being a better choice to get us out of this mess? If so, I missed them.
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps resign because he acted unlawfully according to all 11 Supreme Court justices, misled the Queen / Parliament / Country about the true nature of proroguing for 5 weeks instead of the normal 4-6 days. Old fashioned, I know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m agreeing with you far too much these days. It’s unnerving.
I think you’re definitely mellowing! It’s a long walk on that road to Damascus Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EDJOHNS
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:03 am

QuakerPete wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:46 pm
EDJOHNS wrote:I actually don't see what good BJ resigning would do at this point. He always seemed only a means to get Brexit done and always thought that once we were through that issue he would be voted out quite quickly. I don't see that him going now would be an advantage to anyone. Simply more delay and mud to wade through.
Did any of the other candidates that he beat come across as being a better choice to get us out of this mess? If so, I missed them.
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps resign because he acted unlawfully according to all 11 Supreme Court justices, misled the Queen / Parliament / Country about the true nature of proroguing for 5 weeks instead of the normal 4-6 days. Old fashioned, I know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did not say there was no reason for him to resign I said I don't see what good it would do. Slightly different. Just another remainders way of stiring up mud to try to avoid carrying out the will of the people.
By the way, the Lord chief justice apparently disagrees with them according to what was said in Parliament yesterday.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:57 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:46 pm
EDJOHNS wrote:I actually don't see what good BJ resigning would do at this point. He always seemed only a means to get Brexit done and always thought that once we were through that issue he would be voted out quite quickly. I don't see that him going now would be an advantage to anyone. Simply more delay and mud to wade through.
Did any of the other candidates that he beat come across as being a better choice to get us out of this mess? If so, I missed them.
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps resign because he acted unlawfully according to all 11 Supreme Court justices, misled the Queen / Parliament / Country about the true nature of proroguing for 5 weeks instead of the normal 4-6 days. Old fashioned, I know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did not say there was no reason for him to resign I said I don't see what good it would do. Slightly different. Just another remainders way of stiring up mud to try to avoid carrying out the will of the people.
By the way, the Lord chief justice apparently disagrees with them according to what was said in Parliament yesterday.
There are reasons already articulated why he should be out on his ear and it’s not about flimsy mitigating circumstances of ‘what good would it do?’ As Johnson said, ‘it wasn’t anything to do with Brexit’.
There’s a reason it’s called the ‘Supreme’ Court


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

snackweasle
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:00 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by snackweasle » Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:35 pm

Ah Democracy....
It means anything I say it means.
Our form of democracy is only democracy for those few voters who live in a marginal constituency (probably at most 50 out of 650 constituencies in total).
Where I live , and where most people live, it doesn't matter whether I vote or not as the first past the post system will mean that my vote counts for absolutely nothing and I may as well have stayed in.
The resulting parliamentary system is weighted to produce a two party state. It certainly isn't able to cope with the result of a referendum, which doesn't break down on party lines, which is why it wasn't a good idea to have one in the first place, particularly as it was to settle internal conservative party divisions.
A complex question like EU membership and the 40yrs worth of laws that are tied up in it cant be boiled down to a yes/no answer. Its like asking if religion is a good thing... yes or no.
Of course 17.4 million people voted... for £350 million to the NHS etc, and we were never told of the possibility of no deal being forthcoming, with its consequent cessation of Interpol and co-operation over security, let alone the delay through Calais/Dover which will last for as long as it takes to sort out, and means that goods with short sell by dates will become scarce (not only bacon and cheese but also insulin too).
Our auto industry is going to take a good whack, and its baffling that anyone from Sunderland with its dependence upon Nissan would wish to damage their own job prospects...
The MPs merely reflect the myriad of different positions that the public has. A general election will probably yield another hung parliament, and that wont help.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6129
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:36 pm

snackweasle wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:35 pm
A general election will probably yield another hung parliament, and that wont help.
A far better option than having Corbyn as an unelected caretaker prime minster, in cohorts with Janette Krankie. The opposition parties don't have the bottle to face an election otherwise they would have taken the chance last week when offered.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:52 am

snackweasle wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:35 pm
Ah Democracy....
and means that goods with short sell by dates will become scarce (not only bacon and cheese but also insulin too).

You have already been told and assured that medical supplies wil NOT be a problem as they have flights ready to go if need be. But hey, keep on throwing incorrect mud.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:31 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:[
Ah Democracy....
and means that goods with short sell by dates will become scarce (not only bacon and cheese but also insulin too).

You have already been told and assured that medical supplies wil NOT be a problem as they have flights ready to go if need be. But hey, keep on throwing incorrect mud.
Presume you can find something official to back yourself up here?

You tend to have trouble backing yourself up so I won’t hold my breath.

P.S. Does anyone know what “incorrect mud” looks like?
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:27 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
snackweasle wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:35 pm
Ah Democracy....
and means that goods with short sell by dates will become scarce (not only bacon and cheese but also insulin too).

You have already been told and assured that medical supplies wil NOT be a problem as they have flights ready to go if need be. But hey, keep on throwing incorrect mud.
Is that why Stephen Barclay, Brexit Secretary, is now begging the EU for bilateral deals with various countries, particularly France (frictionless trade?) because the UK’s preparations are incomplete?
Just trying to remember that phrase . . . “holding all the . . .”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11836 ... ews-uk/amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:20 am

Darlogramps wrote:
EDJOHNS wrote:[
Ah Democracy....
and means that goods with short sell by dates will become scarce (not only bacon and cheese but also insulin too).

You have already been told and assured that medical supplies wil NOT be a problem as they have flights ready to go if need be. But hey, keep on throwing incorrect mud.
Presume you can find something official to back yourself up here?

You tend to have trouble backing yourself up so I won’t hold my breath.

P.S. Does anyone know what “incorrect mud” looks like?
EDJOHNS has gone awfully quiet when asked to provide evidence to back himself up.

Again.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Post Reply