Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
oh dear
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 45
|
By:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-benn-act-petition-dismissed-by-court-of-session-1-5019014
|
|
By:
Brilliant! Does this mean he can ignore that disgusting labour traitor bill set up by benn and cooper?
|
|
By:
Yvette Cooper mp of Castleford near me, 70% vote leave and she goes totally against them, and they say don't use the word traitor? that is the very definiton of the word.
|
|
By:
Jo Maugham QC
✔ @JolyonMaugham The Judge has decided that because the Government accepts that it will send the letter and not frustrate the purpose of the Act, it is "neither necessary nor appropriate" to make orders. |
|
By:
  |
|
By:
[42] In my opinion, it is neither necessary nor appropriate that either of the orders for
which Mr O’Neill moved at the hearing should be granted. Importantly, Mr O’Neill did not suggest that, on their face, the averments in paragraph 8 of the answers fell short of encapsulating what would have to be done in order to ensure compliance by the first respondent with his obligations under and in terms of the 2019 Act. I agree. In particular, consider that the averments (and the intentions of the Prime Minister as set out by Mr Webster) confirm the position to be that (a) the first respondent is subject to the obligations of the 2019 Act; (b) in the event of neither of the conditions in section 1(1) or (2) being satisfied, the first respondent will comply with section 1(4) no later than 19 October 2019; and (c) that he will not frustrate the purpose of the 2019 Act or the purpose of any of its provisions. In other words, there can be no doubt that the first respondent now accepts that he must comply with the requirements of the 2019 Act and has affirmed that he intends to do so. |
|
By:
i told you Jo was befuddled
|
|
By:
& you can C&P all you want
|
|
By:
The Advocate General has set out clearly and unequivocally the Prime Minister’s intention to
comply with his statutory duties under the 2019 Act. |
|
By:
This judgement would strengthen the court's hand should the PM fail to do what he has committed to the court that he will do.
|
|
By:
Send a letter big deal Angoose, your traitor crew's time is up
|
|
By:
of course; that's why Jo & his clan started the case. They & you have no idea what he will do; otherwise why start the case they have just lost
|
|
By:
just to clarify; case lost & kicked out
|
|
By:
even more clarification - if needed?
All along the clan have said they don't trust Bozo; so they keep trying to make him conform to their whims, & some even wanted a jail sentence to run alongside this judgement. This time they lost', & the defence is - well he's said he'll comply so we trust him |
|
By:
Pretty sad state of affairs that it requires court proceedings for the PM to finally admit that he will comply with the law.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
[45] I would add only this. I approach matters on the basis that it would be destructive of
one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown for the Prime Minister or the government to renege on what they have assured the court that the Prime Minister intends to do. As the Advocate General’s note of argument says: “As already noted, the Prime Minister is well aware of his duty to obey the law, including the frustration principle, and is and will continue to be advised in the usual way on any issues as to the lawfulness of his proposed actions.” Extremely embarrassing that a sitting PM requires to be reminded of his legal obligations. |
|
By:
the law that took 5 hours to legislate? The law that Bercow contrived to make? Btw; he's being saying he will l "comply with the law" for weeks. The crew didn't believe him; but now you & they do? Funny old world |
|
By:
keep up the C&P; they lost
|
|
By:
extremely embarrassing that a sitting Parliament won't adhere to the Countrys vote & uses legal skullduggery & making new laws to try & make sure the vote won't be adhered to
|
|
By:
Then change the law.
|
|
By:
new laws
|
|
By:
Extremely embarrassing that a sitting PM requires to be reminded of his legal obligations.
Maybe we should be reminding the Traitors that voted through the Surrender Act that the electorate voted Leave. |
|
By:
the clan have appealed; they're obviously not as confident as the Judge & angoose
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Is this going to drag on forever
 |
|
By:
they have to appeal because he can turn round and say he changed his mind
due to changing circumstances the higher the court he gives assurances to, the greater the comeback should he fail to carry out his promise its like when he admitted to lying to the queen in the prorogation case, a bit of a forced own goal. |
|
By:
Yes God forbid that Boris should do what the electorate voted for.
|
|
By:
Cherry wants to count how many smurfs actually shuffled behind her along the High Street last Saturday
 |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
must be wetherspoons
|
|
By:
Give that man a cigar.
|
|
By:
looking at what's been inadvertently leaked tonight; Bozo at last playing hardball with the bureaucrats
tock tick |
|
By:
hes under pressure in landen , and now in scotland
then the trump calls will come out too then he surrenders... |
|
By:
Whats been leaked Bap. Been playing poker all night so not saw the news.
|
|
By:
an internal memo of sorts has found it's way out of N10 & it's pretty scathing. A bit of if you scratch our back & if you don't; expect no favours trade wise from the back of the queue. Even the Beeb are getting convinced no-deal is on the way
|
|
By:
I wonder if Boris can veto his own proposal for an extension?
Or has he an ally in the EU who'll do it for him. |
|
By:
i dont think he can veto his own request.
he can get somebody else, or threaten to be awkward so they are reluctant, but if he is seen to have caused the veto or seen to have been awkward he has broken his promise in court, which judge is trusting him to carry out. ... |