Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Interesting to read a Guardian article about likely amendments proposed to the WA. One apparently is going to be to take leaving without a FTA at the end of the transition period off the table.
So the same geniuses who thought we should negotiate a WA without the option of walking away now think we should do the same with the FTA. An entirely pointless endeavour IMO and Boris should either force an election or wait them out. Because we are not likely to get a sensible WA with the current parliament.
So the same geniuses who thought we should negotiate a WA without the option of walking away now think we should do the same with the FTA. An entirely pointless endeavour IMO and Boris should either force an election or wait them out. Because we are not likely to get a sensible WA with the current parliament.
Bussolini said:
Mothersruin said:
Not when he did it.
...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
It was illegal when he did it. ...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
There was no bias - it was a unanimous decision of eleven of the brightest legal minds in our country.
Leicester Loyal said:
In my opinion he still is playing a blinder? Ever since day 1 I said he'd go for Parliament vs. The People and nothing has changed my mind on this. He'd abided by the rules and hasn't broken any laws.
On the other hand you were saying he had no intention of getting a deal, was going to take us out regardless, was a bare faced lying about the Brexit negotiations that were taking place etc.
We can keep arguing on here all day, but every single poll being taken has Boris winning by 10% or more. The longer this goes on, the more that will increase, so it's perfectly fine by me. Once he gets re-elected and takes us out, you will sit on here crying that he's a liar, he's a dictator, he's a nazi and
he is unelected.
Soak it up people, it won't be long now!
Totally deluded. He’s messed up at every point. As I’ve said before, given the opposition, you or I could win the election. His “strategy” has been woeful to date, and he’s failed to do what he promised to do, what he’d die in a ditch to avoid etc etc. And you were the one asking people to admit they got it wrong a week or so ago when you though he was going to avoid the extension and get Brexit done. At least have the decency to admit that you were the one that was wrong. On the other hand you were saying he had no intention of getting a deal, was going to take us out regardless, was a bare faced lying about the Brexit negotiations that were taking place etc.
We can keep arguing on here all day, but every single poll being taken has Boris winning by 10% or more. The longer this goes on, the more that will increase, so it's perfectly fine by me. Once he gets re-elected and takes us out, you will sit on here crying that he's a liar, he's a dictator, he's a nazi and
he is unelected.
Soak it up people, it won't be long now!
Stuart70 said:
ElectricSoup said:
She was a woman, so not to be trusted, and was wearing a spider.
There.
Misogynist, creep or both?There.
(Hint: it was the "There" which was meant to give the game away.)
Vanden Saab said:
Bussolini said:
Mothersruin said:
Not when he did it.
...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
It was illegal when he did it. ...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
There was no bias - it was a unanimous decision of eleven of the brightest legal minds in our country.
In any case, it was ruled unlawful (by the highest court in the land), which means, well, it was unlawful (ab initio).
Alpinestars said:
Vanden Saab said:
Bussolini said:
Mothersruin said:
Not when he did it.
...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
It was illegal when he did it. ...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
There was no bias - it was a unanimous decision of eleven of the brightest legal minds in our country.
In any case, it was ruled unlawful (by the highest court in the land), which means, well, it was unlawful (ab initio).
Vanden Saab said:
Alpinestars said:
Vanden Saab said:
Bussolini said:
Mothersruin said:
Not when he did it.
...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
It was illegal when he did it. ...and given the extreme bias shown by one of the SC judges, it still possibly wasn't.
There was no bias - it was a unanimous decision of eleven of the brightest legal minds in our country.
In any case, it was ruled unlawful (by the highest court in the land), which means, well, it was unlawful (ab initio).
king stshow, the whole nightmare. Have some dignity.Burwood said:
illegal is forbidden by the law and unlawful means simple there is no law dealing with the issue
I'm not sure that's 100% correct. The SC decided that Johnson's act was unlawful, i.e. against the law. They did not invent new law, although they can in a way. They decided on statutes and common law already in existence. If the SC decides, and without dissent, then there's little room for argument. They know stuff.
Derek Smith said:
Burwood said:
illegal is forbidden by the law and unlawful means simple there is no law dealing with the issue
I'm not sure that's 100% correct. The SC decided that Johnson's act was unlawful, i.e. against the law. They did not invent new law, although they can in a way. They decided on statutes and common law already in existence. If the SC decides, and without dissent, then there's little room for argument. They know stuff.
May be one of our resident barristers could explain it better.
Vanden Saab said:
Derek Smith said:
Burwood said:
illegal is forbidden by the law and unlawful means simple there is no law dealing with the issue
I'm not sure that's 100% correct. The SC decided that Johnson's act was unlawful, i.e. against the law. They did not invent new law, although they can in a way. They decided on statutes and common law already in existence. If the SC decides, and without dissent, then there's little room for argument. They know stuff.
May be one of our resident barristers could explain it better.
Bussolini said:
Vanden Saab said:
Derek Smith said:
Burwood said:
illegal is forbidden by the law and unlawful means simple there is no law dealing with the issue
I'm not sure that's 100% correct. The SC decided that Johnson's act was unlawful, i.e. against the law. They did not invent new law, although they can in a way. They decided on statutes and common law already in existence. If the SC decides, and without dissent, then there's little room for argument. They know stuff.
May be one of our resident barristers could explain it better.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff