Edinburgh petition dismissed

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-benn-act-petition-dismissed-by...

Brilliant! Does this mean he can ignore that disgusting labour traitor bill set up by benn and cooper?

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.

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.

[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.

i told you Jo was befuddled

& you can C&P all you want

The Advocate General has set out clearly and unequivocally the Prime Minister’s intention to

comply with his statutory duties under the 2019 Act.

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.

Send a letter big deal Angoose, your traitor crew's time is up

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

just to clarify; case lost & kicked out

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

Pretty sad state of affairs that it requires court proceedings for the PM to finally admit that he will comply with the law.

Oct 7, 2019 -- 1:56PM, Angoose wrote:

Pretty sad state of affairs that it requires court proceedings for the PM to finally admit that he will comply with the law.

Pretty sad that mps go against 70% of their electorate and bring in a law in 24 hours to block brexit, Uganada politics!

[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.

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

keep up the C&P; they lost

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

Then change the law.

new laws

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.

the clan have appealed; they're obviously not as confident as the Judge & angoose

Oct 7, 2019 -- 7:24PM, akabula wrote:

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.

Exactly

Is this going to drag on forever

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.

Yes God forbid that Boris should do what the electorate voted for.

Cherry wants to count how many smurfs actually shuffled behind her along the High Street last Saturday

must be wetherspoons

Give that man a cigar.

looking at what's been inadvertently leaked tonight; Bozo at last playing hardball with the bureaucrats
tock tick

hes under pressure in landen , and now in scotland

then the trump calls will come out too

then he surrenders...

Whats been leaked Bap. Been playing poker all night so not saw the news.

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

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.

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.

...

if he can say they are being awkward without his bidding then its
a different ball game

i have no idea what he's up to; i did - but that went out the window a couple of week ago. There is definitely something afoot though cos the commies are panicking. I wanted to see us at least threaten the arrogant bureaucratic twàts with some financial grief though & that's now happening. Something the commies always forget when trotting the "crashing" out scenario is that if it happens; we won't be the only ones who suffer pain

I thought the court ruling was simply that he must ask for an extension beyond the original date.
Not sure how long a delay was stipulated but I doubt it mentioned 'not being awkward'.

court hasnt ruled him to do owt

he has told court he will obey benn act and spirit of act

court decided they dont need to make a ruling on him as his promise to do so
will suffice


others are appealling as they dont trust his word and want to escalate to a
higher court

talking of escalation
TOCK TICK

Do you mean the Surrender Act yhtl?