Maybe someone should tell the returning MPs not to bother then? DOH!! Or ask those already there ‘if their journey was really necessary’?
Honestly you couldn’t make up this shit? I mean can it get any dafter?
I think ‘dafter’ is the superlative of ‘daft’ - but it doesn’t look right!
Technically prorogueing Parliament at the time of the party conferences is convention and happens annually. Some more days are required before the Queen’s speech then a new session of Parliament is opened. That is normal procedure. What the Remain alliance argued was the Government’s intention, which they presumed was to stifle Brexit debate (for which they have had over 3 years to do), was the reason and that is unlawful.
They are confusing the technicality of prorogation with the supposed intention of prorogation. So I guess the real reason is whether you support Brexit or not. If the prorogation was brought about by Remainers for the same period, it would be perfectly lawful.
Well we know who doesn’t support Brexit, it’s the elitist classes and the political establishment, the latter of whom are desperate to maintain ties with the EU parliament for reasons which have been mentioned here before.
The 11 ‘wise’(?) men should also look at the legitimacy of Remain MP’s who ignore the democratic right of their Leave constituents by lying to them, and in so doing override their wishes.
It sounds like you are having trouble with activist judges there too. The crappy thing is these activists judges are at the highest level of your country. What’s the recourse for challenging these judges?
With all 11 of them agreeing and the judgement unanimous, I guess that’s it; there’s no way anyone can challenge 11 judges. I’m afraid the judiciary is like all other bodies in this country - dumb or dysfunctional.
And all of those judges got to where they are by doing the bidding of their masters. The entire system both in the UK and the US is completely broken. We have the same problems here.
Imagine what the hypocrites would be saying if this was happening in Russia?
European Court of Human Rights.
It’s ok, it sounds good anyway…
So the concept itself of prorogation is not unlawful, but doing so for improper motivation, say to stifle parliament from doing their job, IS…
That’s a nice acknowledgment of our sitting Supreme Court…
Nevertheless, at least here in the US, the SCOTUS is the last word.
Exactly that - to put BoJo on the defensive and simultaneously humiliate him. I’m really having a go on Twitter this morning, for example:
quote Bloody HELL prime minister, you were on fire! Even TBM was never better at the DB. You were knocking the self-serving, agenda-driven, opportunistic traitors (and they are!!) down like so many ninepins. Respect, Sir. And I agree - the judgement WAS wrong.
BTW, the Remainers, especially the female ones, are really touchy about the term Surrender Act though - I WONDER why? lol unquote
'The Prime Minister keeps referring to the “surrender act,” much to the anger of the opposition benches who are interrupting him by shouting “disgusting!” whenever he uses the term.
Now here’s something that’ll make us Brexiters’ hair curl??
Note how they all laugh at May (behind her back) while the charlatans are quaffing vintage wine, bought by the taxpayers, toward the end of the vid.
We’re getting out just in time - go Boris, go!!
Unelected people bossing you around. Isn’t that why you wanted Brexit in the first place!?
It’s Boris’s word for the amendment (I think that’s the right word - or Bill?) which Hilary Benn got passed to take the no deal option ‘off the table’. In context, that’s a bit like giving your trump card to your opponent; it ensures that your opponent will win the game.
Who’s the opponent in this context, and the one/ones who will now win???
The EU? The bureaucrats of Brussels.