Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
clubchamp98 said:
It does seem very odd though as Boris is just relaying advice from the legal eagles in his government to the Queen.
You would think they could see this coming.
Or they were just trying it on.
Click to expand...
Well, it has been done a couple of times before!

And the advice he received was (supposedly!) that it was ok to do so.

Bur the unanimous decision of The Supreme Court was indeed that he was simply trying it on!
 
Lord Tyrion said:
It's posturing and point scoring. Pretty pathetic and not endearing themselves to the public.

MPs really should record and watch back how they look in the HoC and watch it with people not involved. They live in a bubble and don't seem to realise how bad it all looks.
Click to expand...

I've just been transfixed watching it in my hotel room for the last hour, it cost me an hour's drinking time at the bar 😠
Absolutely superb entertainment, they are like a bunch of spoilt school children shaking their heads theatrically and making all sorts of odd sounds. Unbelievable stuff.

Surrender bill...I haven't laughed so much at politics in years 🤣🤣🤣
 
Foxholer said:
Neil was probably specifically refering to Brexit legislation! There's still plenty of other work to be done by/in Parliament!
Click to expand...
Apparently not...only Brexit exists/matters.
The bills that were going through Parliament before such as the domestic abuse bill, for example. Seems to be left as important Brexit 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️
 
pauldj42 said:
Make your mind up eh!
On the 10th September you agreed I’d proved my point, now I’m accused by you of deliberately misinterpreting his post.

I was never confused, the ONLY point I made was that he called remainers losers and not for the first time.
Click to expand...
Just give up on this as you are making yourself look silly. You are wrong and others have explained that to you. Just let it go now.
 
clubchamp98 said:
Yes that does need explaining in my opinion.
How can three senior judges say it’s none of the courts business !
Then eleven to none say it’s illegal.

Have they actually said what law was broken?
Click to expand...

The 3 judges at the English “trial” are all more senior than any of the 11 Supreme Ct judges... makes you wonder doesn’t it?
 
Foxholer said:
Well, it has been done a couple of times before!

And the advice he received was (supposedly!) that it was ok to do so.

Bur the unanimous decision of The Supreme Court was indeed that he was simply trying it on!
Click to expand...
What seems wrong to me is that it appears the Supreme Court has created a new law when their role is to interpret laws. I may well be wrong here but isn't it parliaments job to create laws.
 
SocketRocket said:
Just give up on this as you are making yourself look silly. You are wrong and others have explained that to you. Just let it go now.
Click to expand...
Amazing you can answer posts directed to others but not those in direct response to you. :rolleyes:

Personally I believe it’s only good manners to answer a post when in reply to me, if you don’t want a response, don’t quote me.
 
pauldj42 said:
Make your mind up eh!
On the 10th September you agreed I’d proved my point, now I’m accused by you of deliberately misinterpreting his post.

I was never confused, the ONLY point I made was that he called remainers losers and not for the first time.
Click to expand...
Re the bold bit...Twaddle! I've been consistent!
You have (deliberately?) (mis)interpreted that post too!
My 'Challenge (not 'point'!) proven' was simply that! No interpretation of either your nor SR's meaning involved! And that was confirmed in a subsequent reply to SR, where he explained what he meant by 'losers' in that post - which I accept, but you don't seem to!

FWIW. Remain voters (me among them) lost; therefore they/we were/are losers! If you wish to (mis!)interpret that, then there's no hope for an end to this complete waste of time! I have no further comment for you.
 
Foxholer said:
Re the bold bit...Twaddle! I've been consistent!
You have (deliberately?) (mis)interpreted that post too!
My 'Challenge (not 'point'!) proven' was simply that! No interpretation of either your nor SR's meaning involved! And that was confirmed in a subsequent reply to SR, where he explained what he meant by 'losers' in that post - which I accept, but you don't seem to!

FWIW. Remain voters (me among them) lost; therefore they/we were/are losers! If you wish to (mis!)interpret that, then there's no hope for an end to this complete waste of time!
Click to expand...
Go back and read all your replies, your brain is twaddled.
 
SocketRocket said:
What seems wrong to me is that it appears the Supreme Court has created a new law when their role is to interpret laws. I may well be wrong here but isn't it parliaments job to create laws.
Click to expand...
No new 'Law' has been created.

But, if you heard/watched the AG's session at the Despatch Box, a 'new principle'!

The 'new law' phrase has probably been used to 'dumb down' that concept, similar to the 'unlawful/illegal' issue that has been misused by many.
 
Is there a set time for the HoC to stop tonight, the last hour has been completely going round in circles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
8K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top