- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,564
- Reaction score
- 2,176
- Country
Government loses on both aspects. Ruling is that it was unlawful
Does it matter that we have a lying, dishonest Prime Minister?
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
Busy day but had to jump on to see a few people here do a s3x wee with excitement over the ruling.
Oh dear I put my hands up I was adamant they would rule this lawful not just for the simple fact that's a massive game changer for litigation In parliament for years to come now.
All i hope is when parliament is resumed we find a solution instead of more ****ing about pointing fingers and dragging of heels sort it out you bunch of c's.
Oh dear I put my hands up I was adamant they would rule this lawful not just for the simple fact that's a massive game changer for litigation In parliament for years to come now.
All i hope is when parliament is resumed we find a solution instead of more ****ing about pointing fingers and dragging of heels sort it out you bunch of c's.
I was of the same view, but I am pleased that the rule of law has been upheld...
Even quitters should rejoice in that!
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Cameron 2015.
Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband:
Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband:
I find it sad the UK has got to the point where peoples moral compass is so bent out of shape they are angry when the supreme court rule to uphold democracy.
And ironic because Brexiteers want parliament to get back sovereignty.
Well parliament has got back sovereignty
Ah, somebody doesn't like the decision...
A decision that upholds the democracy that quitters wanted...
So what is it that quitters usually say?
'Accept it and move on'
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
Ah, somebody doesn't like the decision...
A decision that upholds the democracy that quitters wanted...
So what is it that quitters usually say?
'Accept it and move on'
No I said above noone is beyond the law. It's a decision that must be accepted as the issue here is whether or not it was a political or legal matter. I dont believe this should be a case for courts to now start ruling on political matters.
I agree it seems Boris was now 'illegally' attempting to put an end to stalemate and of course as a remainer you want your remainer mps in there causing as much sht as possible to stop Brexit be honest ffs. So of course you are happy for the result..
This is what I mean pro remain are just as desperate to stop Brexit anyway possible. Meanwhile our country is a laughing stock it's not because of Brexit it's because of the remain and opposition hanging this out as long as possible to break the will or swing a ge to Labour.
Had remainers accepted the vote and moved on we would be out by now and you know it. Anyway get back to school pipsqueak.
Agreed...
And in their ruling the supreme court reiterated that...
Nope
He was trying to force something through parliament that parliament doesn't agree with...
What do you understand by the term 'parliamentary democracy'?
Could you tell us whether the ERG voted to leave or not when given the opportunity to do so?
Edit: At least you finally agree that the UK is a laughing stock
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
What's the point of parliament if they dictate? Isnt that a dictatorship?
Answers on a postcard...
Totally not true.
Withdrawal Agreement or No deal would both mean years of negotiations.
The court has ruled it was a legal matter.
Or do you know better than 11 supreme court judges.
You've got that a rse about face...
Parliament had legal votes on the issue, but it was that tin pot dictator bojo who illegally closed down parliament!
The law has found him out, and you should be grateful for that!
Not true
This court case was 100% about stopping a PM from pushing through a no deal Brexit without being debated.
Do you think a Prime minister should be allowed to do things without parliament debating it.
Do you think parliament would have voted for a no deal?
Sponsored Links
