imutual.co.uk

Funny how the tories argued that the suspension of brexit had nothing whatsoever to do with brexit but now the supreme court has ruled against them suddenly its because they're blocking brexit.

Make up your minds you idiots.

"Prisons are full of people who ‘disagree’ with judges."

Everyone of the most senior judges in the country agreed. Not one of them disagreed. I think Johnson shot himself in the foot because he did not put his case in writing to the judges.

And despite what some Ministers etc are implying the judges are impartial when they put on their judges hat.

The European Union is set to ask Britain to pay £14billion into the common budget, in addition to the £32billion divorce bill the UK is expected to pay when it leaves the bloc. At a meeting in Brussels on Tuesday senior Eurocrat Gert Jan Koopman, the director-general of the budget directorate, claimed Britain will have to pay extra money to the EU to cover no deal contingency plans. The UK will be expected to make the payments next year, even if Britain has formally left the bloc.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11821 ... uSszlgsrLs

Sarah wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 25 2019 9:53am

"Prisons are full of people who ‘disagree’ with judges."

Take the scenario Johnson, that is PM Johnson, is sent to prison. On the world stage England would become a laughing stock.

expressman33 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 24 2019 10:31pm

So if we have another election and Labour wins it shouldn't make any difference . The Tories can remain in power for the next four years and we can then have another election to see if that is what the people really wanted.

You're confusing an election with a referendum.
One has an effect that is immediately implemented. The other is advisory only.
That's under UK law. If you want to adopt the rules of another country like Switzerland, a referendum would be more binding.

Chadwick wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 25 2019 3:11pm

expressman33 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 24 2019 10:31pm

So if we have another election and Labour wins it shouldn't make any difference . The Tories can remain in power for the next four years and we can then have another election to see if that is what the people really wanted.

You're confusing an election with a referendum.
One has an effect that is immediately implemented. The other is advisory only.
That's under UK law. If you want to adopt the rules of another country like Switzerland, a referendum would be more binding.

How can a referendum be "advisory only" when the Prime Minister at the time said openly and clearly that he will carry out the decision of the people?

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 25 2019 3:13pm

How can a referendum be "advisory only" when the Prime Minister at the time said openly and clearly that he will carry out the decision of the people?

It's advisory because that's what our constitution says. The PM's statement has political force but is not legally or constitutionally binding.

Statements made by the Prime Minister aren't law; they're not binding and he's no longer in office anyway. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 is the law that defined the terms of the 2016 referendum. It was an advisory (non-binding) referendum according to that Act.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

I really don't know what we're still debating this 'advisory' thing. It's not even a discussion.

The referendum was advisory. That's it.
Cameron said he would abide by it. And then resigned. Subsequent governments are not bound by the decisions of their predecessors, so each PM since Cameron has been free to do as they wish.
Even when a government announces a policy, they can renege on that at any time.
Only when it is passed as law is a decision/policy binding. Unless the law is repealed.