Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And again, you seem to be wrong on that, too. I tend to trust judges' interpretation of law over you.

But not the judges of the Divisional Court in London who dismissed the case against Boris' prorogation on 6th Sept? 

Not the judgement of the Belfast High Court who also dismissed the case?

Only the Judges in the Court of Session, Edinburgh? Correct?

We await your view on the Supreme Court...

PS

I suppose if they agree with the Scots you'll elevate their view to a position loftier than my own which is fair enough as I'm not a lawyer, yet if the Supreme Court agrees with the London and Belfast Courts you'll ignore the judgement of those fine custodians of British jurisprudence. I never after all saw you eulogise our judges of the United Kingdom when they upheld Boris' prorogation haha!!

Edited by DieselDaisy
Addendum post scripta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But not the judges of the Divisional Court in London who dismissed the case against Boris' prorogation on 6th Sept? 

Not the judgement of the Belfast High Court who also dismissed the case?

Only the Judges in the Court of Session, Edinburgh? Correct?

We await your view on the Supreme Court...

Dismissal is not the same as being found not guilty. And at the very least this indicates a legal dissens, far from how you presented the case to be clear-cut constitutionally. What I am saying is simply that your attempts at coming across as some kind of constitutional expert here got torpedoed. Makes it harder to trust you on other topics regarding British legal matters. Not that I would suggest anyone should trust you on anything, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Dismissal is not the same as being found not guilty. And at the very least this indicates a legal dissens, far from how you presented the case to be clear-cut constitutionally. What I am saying is simply that your attempts at coming across as some kind of constitutional expert here got torpedoed. Makes it harder to trust you on other topics regarding British legal matters. Not that I would suggest anyone should trust you on anything, really.

The mechanism of prorogation is legal constitutionally: this is what I referred to. I note well that you have not quoted any of my posts, as this would confirm that fact.

Your attempts and tremendous effort to find ways in which I erred are enjoyable to watch but a bit obsessive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The mechanism of prorogation is legal constitutionally: this is what I referred to. I note well that you have not quoted any of my posts, as this would confirm that fact.

 

33 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is entirely irrelevant to discuss prorogation as a phenomenon when everybody else is discussing Boris Johnson's particular misuse of prorogation to advance his political goals. But maybe you were just so apoplectic about something you had read on twitter that you decided to respond to that here on mygnrforum? You tend to do that more and more also. Like you are losing the ability to keep discussions separate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

 

But I didn't mention that. This is your argument picking up on previous posts by me, in which you deem I erred legally because of subsequent events with more information than I possessed at the time, the posts in question being,

On 8/28/2019 at 11:29 AM, DieselDaisy said:

Prorogue, and she has to act in accordance with the advice of her government. Prorogation is actually standard, determining the end of a parliamentary session and the state opening of a new one. 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 11:42 AM, DieselDaisy said:

De jure it is only the royal prerogative which can prorogue parliament. By convention however the royal prerogative is excised at the behest of the government.

 

On 8/28/2019 at 11:53 AM, DieselDaisy said:

What is going to happen is the Queen will prorogue parliament circa 9th September, until new state opening on 14th October, acting on advice of her government. 

NB., I wasn't aware the passing of the European Withdrawal Bill in the above.

On 8/28/2019 at 12:18 PM, DieselDaisy said:

Boris can because it is perfectly constitutional. It is deft - I agree - but perfectly legal. John Major did something similar in 1997 during the cash-for-questions debacle.

 

On 8/28/2019 at 2:39 PM, DieselDaisy said:

It is perfectly constitutional: every time a parliamentary session ends, parliament is prorogued. 

 

On 8/28/2019 at 2:58 PM, DieselDaisy said:

 

Just to give your some idea of how frequent prorogation is, it always proceeds the annual state opening of parliament which has occurred since the 14th century!!

PS

Just to clarify,

- remainers don't understand how parliamentary sessions and prorogation works

 

Everything above is factually correct. Everything focuses on the simple mechanism of prorogation which was misunderstood by remainers, but you will note well I used the term ''deft'' which is in accordance with my summary that Boris has broken the ''spirit'' of parliamentarianism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

:lol:

Well I couldn't for instance have known about the European Withdrawal Bill (which anyhow Boris may ignore) as it was passed after I made that post. I've never claimed to be in possession of the powers of a clairvoyance. Thanks for the laughing ball head though. Usually as good a notification as any when your attempts to discredit me have utterly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well I couldn't for instance have known about the European Withdrawal Bill (which anyhow Boris may ignore) as it was passed after I made that post. I've never claimed to be in possession of the powers of a clairvoyance. Thanks for the laughing ball head though. Usually as good a notification as any when your attempts to discredit me have utterly failed.

Again, you were wrong in making it appear as Boris Johnson's prorogation was legally uncontroversial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, you were wrong in making it appear as Boris Johnson's prorogation was legally uncontroversial. 

I said the mechanism of prorogation was legally uncontroversial. I even provided you with a little history lesson in the above quotes. This of course you have  completely ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I said the mechanism of prorogation was legally uncontroversial. 

 

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It is entirely irrelevant to discuss prorogation as a phenomenon when everybody else is discussing Boris Johnson's particular misuse of prorogation to advance his political goals. But maybe you were just so apoplectic about something you had read on twitter that you decided to respond to that here on mygnrforum? You tend to do that more and more also. Like you are losing the ability to keep discussions separate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is entirely irrelevant to discuss prorogation as a phenomenon when everybody else is discussing Boris Johnson's particular misuse of prorogation to advance his political goals. But maybe you were just so apoplectic about something you had read on twitter that you decided to respond to that here on mygnrforum? You tend to do that more and more also. Like you are losing the ability to keep discussions separate.

A lot of people were discussing prorogation as if it was some strange extra-constitutional power, somewhat akin to Hitler's Enabling Law (although, to digress, that was not that extra-constitutional). This is really another one of your massive strawmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

The PM of Luxembourg trying to dictate to Great Britain. :lol:

Nothing less than Junker's dodgy tax haven.

Junker turned Lux into a cesspit of tax avoidance offering liabilities at 1% before becoming President of the European Commission and therefore the most powerful man in the EU! You'll not hear any of this in remainer parlance of course, including among the usual suspects on this forum because, 'cooperation, solidarity, peace, brotherhood, 'better together'....''  - and Dazey's extra five bob per hour.

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Err, not here they weren't. Is space and time getting the better of you?

I might not have specifically been replying to anyone here. I sometimes do that: reply to third party discourse. I do it for trivial stuff like films and ''celebs'' also. Although I believe some of the original posts were in conversation with Padme and were not incongruent with the discussing underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nothing less than Junker's dodgy tax haven.

Junker turned Lux into a cesspit of tax avoidance offering liabilities at 1% before becoming President of the European Commission and therefore the most powerful man in the EU! You'll not hear any of this in remainer parlance of course, including among the usual suspects on this forum because, 'cooperation, solidarity, peace, brotherhood, 'better together'....''  - and Dazey's extra five bob per hour.

It always raises a chuckle seeing the leaders of Mickey Mouse countries attempting to lay down the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I might not have specifically been replying to anyone here. I sometimes do that: reply to third party discourse.

I figured, which is why I wrote, "But maybe you were just so apoplectic about something you had read on twitter that you decided to respond to that here on mygnrforum? You tend to do that more and more also. Like you are losing the ability to keep discussions separate." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first BoJos video tweet made me wonder why someone as vain as Trump only tweets text? But then I figure its some version of class consciousness - wherein his base has limited bandwidth and would therefore prefer text only. Does everyone in UK have access to enough bandwidth for video updates fro the leader? Or is he showing his elitism in posting a video update?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What an incompetent clown :lol:

I heard that he got fired as a journalist for faking quotes. Remarkable how such an untrustworthy bozo can exploit weaknesses in your democracy to attain a position well outside of his capacity. 

Then you don't know much about some of the former incumbents of 10 Downing Street if you think Boris is somewhat unprecedented here. It wasn't that long ago we had Blair of Iraq, sexed up dossiers et al. fame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, soon said:

At first BoJos video tweet made me wonder why someone as vain as Trump only tweets text? But then I figure its some version of class consciousness - wherein his base has limited bandwidth and would therefore prefer text only. Does everyone in UK have access to enough bandwidth for video updates fro the leader? Or is he showing his elitism in posting a video update?

I have no idea what you mean. My phone is a piece of crap yet even I can access those twitter videos and youitube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...