Government to ask Queen to suspend Parliament

[RAyMO]

3 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

have you seen the shenanigans that's gone on, people briefing against and using the services of a foreign Govts behind the back of Her Majesty's Govt if we could still send people to the tower there would be no room left, - it would be full of remainers, such as Theresa May, Olly Robins, Dominic Grieve, Hilary Benn, Philip Hammond, the Anna Soubrys of this world etc...

I was setting aside the Brexit bit. I was merely wondering what the constitutional implications would be to deliberately misleading the queen to invoke a power? if and I agree its a big if the supreme court found as such.

Edited September 11, 2019 by RAyMO

[Setton]

15 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Best of three, don't know why you do this to yourself.

for ten points why did they choose to go through the Scottish courts instead of English one.

It'll now go to the supreme court and all found to be legal and correct.

 

 

Because your predictions have been so reliable 

As of right now, Johnson has broken the law and suspended parliament illegally. Parliament must be recalled, today. 

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

have you seen the shenanigans that's gone on, people briefing against and using the services of a foreign Govts behind the back of Her Majesty's Govt if we could still send people to the tower there would be no room left, - it would be full of remainers, such as Theresa May, Olly Robins, Dominic Grieve, Hilary Benn, Philip Hammond, the Anna Soubrys of this world etc...

Hmm

Can you show me which of those have been found to have broken the law and deliberately misled the sovereign? 

[stevewinn]

2 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I was setting aside the Brexit bit. I was merely wondering what the constitutional implications would be to deliberately misleading the queen to invoke a power? if and I agree its a big if the supreme court found as such.

It would result in Boris resigning and that would be that.

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Because your predictions have been so reliable 

As of right now, Johnson has broken the law and suspended parliament illegally. Parliament must be recalled, today. 

well, lets remind ourselves the reason why they used the Scottish courts, because they stood a better chance of getting this ruling because Scottish Law is different to English Law. the SNP wanted to pit the Scottish courts against the English courts. as you know they like the old Braveheart crap. in the eyes of the Scottish Nationalist its a win win for them. more fool the other MP's who fell for it.

So, when the Supreme court rules lawful, what do you think the SNP line will be.

your that hell bent on Brexit that you cant see the wood for the trees.

get with the programme son.

 

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Hmm

Can you show me which of those have been found to have broken the law and deliberately misled the sovereign? 

C'mon, You think Philip Hammond et'al using the Services of the EU legal services to draft the Hilary Benn Bill, and also seeking the green light from EU Commission/council, for an extension to Article 50. So, briefing against Her Majesty's Govt who are actively engaged in negotiations with the EU.

imagine if in Trumps trade war with China, senators where plotting and using the services of a foreign power to legislate and brief against their own govt.

You'd have to bring them in front of court to prove it, but that's what's gone on so far.  i'd think the word traitors is apt.

[L.A.T.1961]

47 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

More than likely, but but it would be interesting to see what unfolds if they decided the PM deliberately misled the Queen. that would be an interesting constitutional issue.

do they still have the Tower?

One potential outcome will be how the legalities of suspending parliament are viewed. Was parliament actually suspended or not?

If it is found that suspension did not happen, as it was unlawful, then we are still technically operating under the old parliamentary session. There can be no queens speech.

If this is the case the original 'May deal' cannot be used and voted on again in parliament without meaningful and significant changes.

If Brussels were hoping that this was still a possibility, to bring back the old May deal again, if this court case favours remainers then it would be taken off the table as an option.

Either prorogation was legal and valid or it is not. I don't see how the suspension could be used as a method to return the old deal intact, as it would be seen as another vote on the old deal, if there is no new session of parliament?

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by L.A.T.1961

[RAyMO]

13 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Either prorogation was legal and valid or it is not. I don't see how the suspension could be used as a method to return the old deal intact, as it would be seen as another vote on the old deal, if there is no new session of parliament?

haven't read of anyone suggesting old may deal in tact. Rather ideas I have read refer to agreement  as amended by tories and labour in conjunction, or with the NI only backstop which was never voted on either.

[itsnotoutthere]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/10/britons-want-brexit-referendum-respected-poll-reveals-public/

More than half of British adults believe the result of the 2016 referendum should be respected, and Brexit delivered, says a new poll.

Fifty four per cent agree the referendum result should be respected, the survey by ComRes found. Just 25 per cent disagreed and 21 per cent didn’t know. Of those who voted Remain in 2016, more than a third (35 per cent) said they now wanted Brexit delivered.

[L.A.T.1961]

6 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

haven't read of anyone suggesting old may deal in tact. Rather ideas I have read refer to agreement  as amended by tories and labour in conjunction, or with the NI only backstop which was never voted on either.

 

That would require the WA to be reopened which Brussels have said will not happen. Their approach is, if pushed, to adjust the seperate letter outlining future ambitions for a trade deal. As this is not legally binding then it would not be seen as a substantive change. 

By objecting to the current prorogation the chances of a no deal are increased as the options available to avoid this are reduced.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/31/will-start-work-alternative-arrangements-current-deal-ratified/  

 

 

[RAyMO]

6 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

That would require the WA to be reopened which Brussels have said will not happen.

The NI only bit was the EU original offer which May never put to Parliament for fear of the DUP. I believe the EU have already suggested they would be open to going back to the original agreement before May converted it to a UK backstop.

Edited September 11, 2019 by RAyMO

[itsnotoutthere]

 

[L.A.T.1961]

15 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

The NI only bit was the EU original offer which May never put to Parliament for fear of the DUP. I believe the EU have already suggested they would be open to going back to the original agreement before May converted it to a UK backstop.

I guess we will find out one way or the other but I am thinking that the anti-prorogation case will have consequences, if it finds against the government, beyond it's original narrow objective. As did the Gina Miller case. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by L.A.T.1961

[itsnotoutthere]

 

[Setton]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

 

 

.

C'mon, You think Philip Hammond et'al using the Services of the EU legal services to draft the Hilary Benn Bill, and also seeking the green light from EU Commission/council, for an extension to Article 50. So, briefing against Her Majesty's Govt who are actively engaged in negotiations with the EU.

imagine if in Trumps trade war with China, senators where plotting and using the services of a foreign power to legislate and brief against their own govt.

You'd have to bring them in front of court to prove it, but that's what's gone on so far.  i'd think the word traitors is apt.

For all you claim to despise them, you'd make a great politician. 

Completely avoiding the question. 

[Duke Wellington]

5 hours ago, stevewinn said:

It would result in Boris resigning and that would be that.

well, lets remind ourselves the reason why they used the Scottish courts, because they stood a better chance of getting this ruling because Scottish Law is different to English Law. the SNP wanted to pit the Scottish courts against the English courts. as you know they like the old Braveheart crap. in the eyes of the Scottish Nationalist its a win win for them. more fool the other MP's who fell for it.

So, when the Supreme court rules lawful, what do you think the SNP line will be.

your that hell bent on Brexit that you cant see the wood for the trees.

get with the programme son.

 

C'mon, You think Philip Hammond et'al using the Services of the EU legal services to draft the Hilary Benn Bill, and also seeking the green light from EU Commission/council, for an extension to Article 50. So, briefing against Her Majesty's Govt who are actively engaged in negotiations with the EU.

imagine if in Trumps trade war with China, senators where plotting and using the services of a foreign power to legislate and brief against their own govt.

You'd have to bring them in front of court to prove it, but that's what's gone on so far.  i'd think the word traitors is apt.

If the English Court overrules the Scottish one it might be a blessing in disguise.

Civil disorder from Catholics in Scotland who want to break away from the UK would allow a national emergency to be implemented. Thats Parliament totally shut down until after Brexit.

Edited September 11, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

If the English Court overrules the Scottish one it might be a blessing in disguise.

Civil disorder from Catholics in Scotland who want to break away from the UK would allow a national emergency to be implemented. Thats Parliament totally shut down until after Brexit.

I cant see why we can't declare a nation emergency anyway. The remoaners keep telling us. Cliff edge. No food. No medicine. So lets agree with them because if that isnt a national emergency i dont know what is. So when we declare a nation emergency and shut down till after brexit. They cant exactly argue against it.  because we can turn around and say you told us.

On Scotland. I love the fact that without Scotland 's LEAVE votes the referendum would have been Remain. SNP stay quiet about that dont they.

One could say and rightly so. Were LEAVING because of Scotland. Oh dear.

[Setton]

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I cant see why we can't declare a nation emergency anyway. The remoaners keep telling us. Cliff edge. No food. No medicine. So lets agree with them because if that isnt a national emergency i dont know what is. So when we declare a nation emergency and shut down till after brexit. They cant exactly argue against it.  because we can turn around and say you told us.

Yeees... 

Except you can't declare a national emergency so that you can cause it... 

Besides, you have to ask for that extension now anyway. Can't wait to see Boris' face when he has to swallow his pride and obey the law. 

Or on his way to prison. Either works for me. 

[Space Commander Travis]

19 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/10/britons-want-brexit-referendum-respected-poll-reveals-public/

More than half of British adults believe the result of the 2016 referendum should be respected, and Brexit delivered, says a new poll.

Fifty four per cent agree the referendum result should be respected, the survey by ComRes found. Just 25 per cent disagreed and 21 per cent didn’t know. Of those who voted Remain in 2016, more than a third (35 per cent) said they now wanted Brexit delivered.

I wonder about that 21%. Did they not know because they're a bit thick, and they had no idea what this "brexit" might be, or were they so fed up with the whole business by now that their attitude is just "I don't bloody care any more!"? I can sympathise with the latter.

[stevewinn]

10 hours ago, Setton said:

Yeees... 

Except you can't declare a national emergency so that you can cause it... 

Besides, you have to ask for that extension now anyway. Can't wait to see Boris' face when he has to swallow his pride and obey the law. 

Or on his way to prison. Either works for me. 

why cant we declare a national emergency? you've told us we need to, with all the scare stories. make your mind up.

[stevewinn]

oh dear, with the German economy teetering on recession down to its 15% drop in exports to the UK. Merkel. fear a competitive UK. which is totally out of the control of Brussels and ultra competitive. (who'd have thought hey, little old insignificant blighty)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/11/angela-merkel-stresses-danger-of-britain-becoming-singapore-on-thames-no-deal

 

In related News.

Irish cider and beer maker C&C Group, whose brands include the Magners and Bulmers ciders, as well as Tennants lager, said it will seek admission to London’s FTSE and discontinue its Irish stock market listing, simultaneously switching its financial reporting from euros to sterling from October 7, the company announced this morning.

 

[Space Commander Travis]

53 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

. Merkel. fear a competitive UK. which is totally out of the control of Brussels and ultra competitive.

In what ways are you expecting England to be competitive with Germany, since nearly all British industries are foreign owned (often by Germany) and are always the first to be closed down if the foreign owner isn't making as much profit as they wanted? Are you anticipating these being bought out by British (English) companies, or perhaps nationalised, as soon as Brexit happens and the German owners pull out? For example, is there a queue of British would-be owners a mile long queueing out of the door to buy Rolls-Royce or Mini (sorry, MINI) as soon as BMW pulls out, or Bentley as soon as Volkswagen does? What about Jaguar Land Rover? Will Tata still want to continue ownership?  

[Space Commander Travis]

Quote

Antonia Romeo

 

✔@AntoniaRomeoUK

 

Antonia Romeo? What a top name. Is her brother named Alfa? 

[Space Commander Travis]

 

Quote

 

P&O Ferries

 

✔@POferries

 

 

P&O Ferries to launch new freight service connecting Calais with Tilbury and London. This will strengthen its position as the leading enabler of trade flows across the English Channel. http://www.poferries.com/en/pr-contact/press-release/11.09.2019-P&O-Ferries-to-launch-new-freight-service-connecting-Calais-with-Tilbury-and-London …

“On the other hand, it will improve the fluidity on the Channel, especially in the event of a No Deal Brexit. 

 

 

It will improve fluidity in the Channel? Well, that's good to know.  

Edited September 12, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[stevewinn]

Despite BREXIT.

This really shouldnt be happening. (according to the Remainers)

 

 

[stevewinn]

Why, why why Should the EU prosper. £15.5Billion better spent here. Remoaners like handing our money to the EU. Brexiteers would rather spend it on the NHS, Police, Schools and social services, and job creation here in the UK. Britain First.

 

[stevewinn]

Hey,..............No, No, NO, this cant be true.