Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Regarding your second paragraph, are you saying that people should not have a view with regard to the judicial process getting involved with Parliamentary process? As I have said, you are quite happy to rail against those who are happy with leaving the EU, yet you think that it is wrong for others to be in any way critical of the judicial process. Hypocrite. There are prefectly reasonable grounds for an argument to be advanced that the Judicial system of the courts should be outwith the working of Government.

Ignoring yet more of your barbed and aggressive nonsense...

People can have a view on anything they like, but it doesn't make that view legally or constitutionally correct, as is the case with your view of the legitimacy of May's view on the Royal Prerogative being used in the context of Article 50. As like her, that view has been proved to be wrong by the highest court in the land. You've now moved on to suggesting that the Courts should have no place in deciding the validity of the Govt's view, which is precisely why we have a Parliamentary democracy in the first place. To avoid dictatorial decision making.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Ignoring yet more of your barbed and aggressive nonsense...

People can have a view on anything they like, but it doesn't make that view legally or constitutionally correct, as is the case with your view of the legitimacy of May's view on the Royal Prerogative being used in the context of Article 50. As like her, that view has been proved to be wrong by the highest court in the land. You've now moved on to suggesting that the Courts should have no place in deciding the validity of the Govt's view, which is precisely why we have a Parliamentary democracy in the first place. To avoid dictatorial decision making.

Barbed and agressive, yeah that's you, not me.

No point really, FLHD. Logical and reasoned discussions are not within your ambit. Not going to answer any more of what you post. No point.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Here we go its getting nasty by number 25 yet again!
can he please read the rules of this new thread by the moderator at the top please?

He aimed that rant at me, not 25 - for me having the temerity to say that the hypocrisy of the general Leave stance on the democratic process when it came to the Brexit case made me cringe. It tipped him and so he's responded with dogs abuse, as he generally does.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Barbed and agressive, yeah that's you, not me.

No point really, FLHD. Logical and reasoned discussions are not within your ambit. Not going to answer any more of what you post. No point.

Your choice put me on ignore then, thanks in advance.

I'll let others decide who was the one posting aggressive and uncalled for abuse in this exchange.

 

[Joey66]

Ignoring yet more of your barbed and aggressive nonsense...

People can have a view on anything they like, but it doesn't make that view legally or constitutionally correct, as is the case with your view of the legitimacy of May's view on the Royal Prerogative being used in the context of Article 50. As like her, that view has been proved to be wrong by the highest court in the land. You've now moved on to suggesting that the Courts should have no place in deciding the validity of the Govt's view, which is precisely why we have a Parliamentary democracy in the first place. To avoid dictatorial decision making.

the court case spelt out it was nothing to do with article 50 - it was parliamentary procedure over hundreds of years DC should have made the referendum law it would have saved the country a fortune - all what is happening is that Brexit is going through both houses now !

 

[Joey66]

He aimed that rant at me, not 25 - for me having the temerity to say that the hypocrisy of the general Leave stance on the democratic process when it came to the Brexit case made me cringe. It tipped him and so he's responded with dogs abuse, as he generally does.

thats ok if its youlol no joking the mods have put this thread back up for a civil debate or if you care to read the top post its a trial it got way to personal last time from remainers, and outers just a kind point as people will moan if it bites the dust again!

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

You seem to believe that the government 'lost' in court, when the reality is that a point of law regarding the way parliament and the government operates was clarified. This clarification now exists for all PM's to come and will affect governments of whatever hue. It's not a win/lose, it just sets the process straight.......

The Govt was challenged in Court, and lost

They then refused to accept the High Courts ruling and went to the Supreme Court, and lost again.

You can dress it up as a constitutional clarification if you wish mate.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

thats ok if its youlol no joking the mods have put this thread back up for a civil debate or if you care to read the top post its a trial it got way to personal last time from remainers, and outers just a kind point as people will moan if it bites the dust again!

Tell that to your mate Joey, he acted in the same manner in the last thread. We have never fell out, and Pete and I sparred with little line crossing either. Anyway, I hope he's slapped me on ignore, job sorted

 

[Joey66]

Tell that to your mate Joey, he acted in the same manner in the last thread. We have never fell out, and Pete and I sparred with little line crossing either. Anyway, I hope he's slapped me on ignore, job sorted

Why is he my mate ? lets be sensible

 

[Joey66]

The Govt was challenged in Court, and lost

They then refused to accept the High Courts ruling and went to the Supreme Court, and lost again.

You can dress it up as a constitutional clarification if you wish mate.

Yes I expected them to lose on both counts - why the labour government , and not a city banker did not carry this out would have scored Labour brownie points just a thought?

 

[peteblue]

Yes I expected them to lose on both counts - why the labour government , and not a city banker did not carry this out would have scored Labour brownie points just a thought?

Labour didn't do it because they have used exactly the same process themselves, and would want to be able to use it again in the future.This is why I said it's not a case of losing or winning, but of clarification.......

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Yes I expected them to lose on both counts - why the labour government , and not a city banker did not carry this out would have scored Labour brownie points just a thought?

That would have made Labour to be the "Enemy of the People" in the Mail and Express though mate.

Politically that would have been a bad call imo.

May should have simply conceded the point in the first place, and she'd have been respected for it imho. As it was her stance added to the divisive nature of the issue.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Labour didn't do it because they have used exactly the same process themselves, and would want to be able to use it again in the future.This is why I said it's not a case of losing or winning, but of clarification.......

The Royal Prerogative can still be used though that's not changed, it was the fact that the invoking of Article 50 removed or changed citizens rights that was the prime reason it was deemed not to be suitable in this case, and it should be therefore debated in the House.

 

[peteblue]

That would have made Labour to be the "Enemy of the People" in the Mail and Express though mate.

Politically that would have been a bad call imo.

May should have simply conceded the point in the first place, and she'd have been respected for it imho. As it was her stance added to the divisive nature of the issue.

It was a stupid position for her to originally take.....politically it worked out for her, but more by chance than design.....

 

[peteblue]

The Royal Prerogative can still be used though that's not changed, it was the fact that the invoking of Article 50 removed or changed citizens rights that was the prime reason it was deemed not to be suitable in this case, and it should be therefore debated in the House.

Which is what I said, it has been clarified.......