New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Despair

They are appealing it. As is their right.

If the appeal upholds the lower court's ruling then yes.
Do I need you to tell me what is going on here? Gina Miller recently took us to court again ( Soros money) in England - that judge rightly found that it was a political matter not the laws business.

''We are getting into murky constitutional waters when the courts seek to strike down a Crown decision to prorogue Parliament through the exercise of a prerogative power that the judiciary in the past would have considered beyond their purview. But, as with much law in this area, there are disagreements among judges. The decision of the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule the suspension of Parliament unlawful was followed within hours by reasons from the High Court in London as to why it was not.''


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/09/12/prerogative-power-executive-not-matter-courts/
 

FakeName

Governor
Do I need you to tell me what is going on here? Gina Miller recently took us to court again ( Soros money) in England - that judge rightly found that it was a political matter not the laws business.

''We are getting into murky constitutional waters when the courts seek to strike down a Crown decision to prorogue Parliament through the exercise of a prerogative power that the judiciary in the past would have considered beyond their purview. But, as with much law in this area, there are disagreements among judges. The decision of the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule the suspension of Parliament unlawful was followed within hours by reasons from the High Court in London as to why it was not.''


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/09/12/prerogative-power-executive-not-matter-courts/
I cite facts. You cite opinion.

And what the hell is your point about "Soros money"?
 

Days

Commentator
I cite facts. You cite opinion.

And what the hell is your point about "Soros money"?
you cited the legal opinion of a court in Scotland and she cited the legal opinion of a court in London.

She has been going for a law degree in the Sussex region, I believe, so she would need to be up to snuff on these matters.

*when posting back and forth with QT, try to bear in mind the time difference.
 
you cited the legal opinion of a court in Scotland and she cited the legal opinion of a court in London.

She has been going for a law degree in the Sussex region, I believe, so she would need to be up to snuff on these matters.

*when posting back and forth with QT, try to bear in mind the time difference.
The waters are getting very muddy with Remoaner desperation breaking down our constitution every which bloody way they please and because of the disgusting bias of our Remoaner Speaker, getting away with it. They were even caught singing the Red Flag commy anthem in Parliament after they were supposed to leave the Commons, the other day.

This prorogation btw only cuts four days of Parliament sitting since we are into the Party Political conference season - so Parliament wasn't sitting for most of the next five weeks anyway unlike John Major's prorogation 20 years ago, of six weeks of Parliamentary time, so that he didn't have to answer questions from MPs over a 'cash for questions' scandal.

Lots a love xxx
 

FakeName

Governor
you cited the legal opinion of a court in Scotland and she cited the legal opinion of a court in London.

She has been going for a law degree in the Sussex region, I believe, so she would need to be up to snuff on these matters.

*when posting back and forth with QT, try to bear in mind the time difference.
I voted a news article she cited an opinion piece.

Good point about the time zones though.

What I said was factually correct though.
 

Days

Commentator
I voted a news article she cited an opinion piece.

Good point about the time zones though.

What I said was factually correct though.
The legal opinion of the court in Scotland came out in a court ruling... while the legal opinion of the court in London came out in response to the court ruling; but they are substantively exactly that; the legal opinions of two different courts.

... those people don't much care if it is an appeal or a prosecution, they sit behind the high desks, to them, their opinion matters more than the law; or I should say; to them, well, their opinion is the law. I'm betting the court in London is going to have more sway in this matter.

this is a kind of rare case where opinion matters more than the facts, because those opinions are the state of affairs; how the UK is being ruled.
 
I voted a news article she cited an opinion piece.

Good point about the time zones though.

What I said was factually correct though.
We know what the Scottish court found and tat both the Northern Irish and the English courts disagree; stating that this is a political matter not a legal one.

Gina Miller's argument was that Boris lied to the Queen in order to prorogue Parliament but since no-one outside the Privy Council can or will even know what Boris said the whole this is a nonsense -- and how the fu'ck she gets her bloody Remoaner cases in front of the courts so fast is a bloody miracle. The other Brexit court case; that we actually left on the 29th March 2019, just keeps getting pushed back and pushed back ---
 
The legal opinion of the court in Scotland came out in a court ruling... while the legal opinion of the court in London came out in response to the court ruling; but they are substantively exactly that; the legal opinions of two different courts.

... those people don't much care if it is an appeal or a prosecution, they sit behind the high desks, to them, their opinion matters more than the law; or I should say; to them, well, their opinion is the law. I'm betting the court in London is going to have more sway in this matter.

this is a kind of rare case where opinion matters more than the facts, because those opinions are the state of affairs; how the UK is being ruled.
I posted a very educated opinion piece from the Telegraph.
 

Days

Commentator
It is about the separation of powers, I would say.
which is really strange over there, we have no idea what your constitution considers lawful power of state for your monarchy. Over here they teach that the queen is just a figurehead; but that doesn't seem to cover it at all. Does the queen have to sign off on legislation for it to become law?
 
which is really strange over there, we have no idea what your constitution considers lawful power of state for your monarchy. Over here they teach that the queen is just a figurehead; but that doesn't seem to cover it at all. Does the queen have to sign off on legislation for it to become law?
Yes but not actually, it rarely requires her to personally sign anything, the executive now holds that power; The Royal Prerogative.

There is criticism, from both sides, of how this Queen has not played, as was the role of all Monarchs before her, the part of a referee as she should over such matters as politicians are now facing.

I do worry now because people are no longer behaving themselves in respect of our constitution, as they did not all that long ago - hooligans in Westminster! and I fear they will insist on a coded constitution but is there any politico today that you would trust to write it? Nope - none that I would either, nor do I even trust many of our so called constitutional experts of the day. With luck the next Speaker of the House will be correct but again I fear that Bercow has done so much damage to that seat in the last 10 yrs that all trust in its impartiality has gone.

There is a Remainer Coup in Parliament at the moment - Boris has lost his majority and asked for a GE which because of the Fixed Term Act ( 5 yrs) the opposition must agree to before the 5 yrs is up. Remainers being the majority in Parliament now have said NO - no because they know they would lose since the country wants OUT. Then the Remainers drafted bills to halt ( extend to January 2020 but in 2020 The Lisbon Treaty kicks in= no more Nation States in the EU ) Brexit and a No deal which the Speaker, if he had been impartial would never have allowed - The Speaker is a Remainer!
 

Days

Commentator
Yes but not actually, it rarely requires her to personally sign anything, the executive now holds that power; The Royal Prerogative.

There is criticism, from both sides, of how this Queen has not played, as was the role of all Monarchs before her, the part of a referee as she should over such matters as politicians are now facing.

I do worry now because people are no longer behaving themselves in respect of our constitution, as they did not all that long ago - hooligans in Westminster! and I fear they will insist on a coded constitution but is there any politico today that you would trust to write it? Nope - none that I would either, nor do I even trust many of our so called constitutional experts of the day. With luck the next Speaker of the House will be correct but again I fear that Bercow has done so much damage to that seat in the last 10 yrs that all trust in its impartiality has gone.

There is a Remainer Coup in Parliament at the moment - Boris has lost his majority and asked for a GE which because of the Fixed Term Act ( 5 yrs) the opposition must agree to before the 5 yrs is up. Remainers being the majority in Parliament now have said NO - no because they know they would lose since the country wants OUT. Then the Remainers drafted bills to halt ( extend to January 2020 but in 2020 The Lisbon Treaty kicks in= no more Nation States in the EU ) Brexit and a No deal which the Speaker, if he had been impartial would never have allowed - The Speaker is a Remainer!
wow that is really messed up

I'm speechless
 
wow that is really messed up

I'm speechless
It is worse than I portray but so complex that it is impossible to unravel in even a few thousand words. Even if we do get out this whole country has been undone, as it was, every single stitch, some of which were over 1000 years old, and remolded into the EU model for all nation states - They still talk about counties and boroughs but in fact they are just facades for we are now split into admin EU regions and sub regions and sub sub regions - A lot of our taxes go to the EU of which some they give back telling us exactly what we must do with it and then put up an EU logo, as if they had bloody paid for it. The old admins may no longer perform their functions but put all services and ect out to tender within the whole of the EU = nothing is ours anymore, absolutely nothing - we have been gutted and truly are an occupied state.
 

Days

Commentator
It is worse than I portray but so complex that it is impossible to unravel in even a few thousand words. Even if we do get out this whole country has been undone, as it was, every single stitch, some of which were over 1000 years old, and remolded into the EU model for all nation states - They still talk about counties and boroughs but in fact they are just facades for we are now split into admin EU regions and sub regions and sub sub regions - A lot of our taxes go to the EU of which some they give back telling us exactly what we must do with it and then put up an EU logo, as if they had bloody paid for it. The old admins may no longer perform their functions but put all services and ect out to tender within the whole of the EU = nothing is ours anymore, absolutely nothing - we have been gutted and truly are an occupied state.
The global elite have a mission statement:

Mine.... All mine!
 
The global elite have a mission statement:

Mine.... All mine!
We know that all modern politicos, if they want to get anywhere, must get into bed with the devil, so we can't expect our perfect divorce but ... it is 1) possible that Boris can get around the Irish backstop in a deal and or 2) actually use EU legal supremacy to leave on the 31st Oct - which could take us over into the land of the law - International law.
 

FakeName

Governor
We know what the Scottish court found and tat both the Northern Irish and the English courts disagree; stating that this is a political matter not a legal one.

Gina Miller's argument was that Boris lied to the Queen in order to prorogue Parliament but since no-one outside the Privy Council can or will even know what Boris said the whole this is a nonsense -- and how the fu'ck she gets her bloody Remoaner cases in front of the courts so fast is a bloody miracle. The other Brexit court case; that we actually left on the 29th March 2019, just keeps getting pushed back and pushed back ---
Turns out your supreme Court agrees with me:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that Boris Johnson suspended UK Parliament unlawfully. The landmark decision was unanimous."
https://www.cnn.com/uk/live-news/boris-johnson-supreme-court-ruling-dle-intl/index.html

The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261
 
Turns out your supreme Court agrees with me:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that Boris Johnson suspended UK Parliament unlawfully. The landmark decision was unanimous."
https://www.cnn.com/uk/live-news/boris-johnson-supreme-court-ruling-dle-intl/index.html

The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261
Tony Blair's Supreme Court of collaborators who by art 9 of the Bill of Rights [1689] have broken our constitution in favour of a foreign power.
 
Top