Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

Neatly avoiding the fact that both the English and NI High Courts have dismissed the case as being "Clearly, politically motivated".

The definitive answer will come on Tuesday from the Supreme court, because that's what it is, thanks to Mr Blair.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with all this. Remainers will leave absolutely no stone unturned in their fanatical quest to circumvent the 2016 referendum result of course. Quite what the judiciary are doing dealing with matters of State between the Government, Parliament and Queen seems questionable to me though. If this is to happen will I get the chance, as per the US, to vote for these officials? Because at the moment they are self-appointing and clearly overriding the wishes of the majority of the electorate. That isn't what democracy's about. That's what dictatorship is about.

This is something which, whilst it seems a matter of joyous celebration to remainers on this passing issue, actually has far-reaching implications.

The UK's democracy will be damaged as a result if they are allowed to intervene in these matters.

The final court of judgement on such political issues is the ballot box. Which of course we are being denied at present.

[Lordo]

Neatly avoiding the fact that both the English and NI High Courts have dismissed the case as being "Clearly, politically motivated".

The definitive answer will come on Tuesday from the Supreme court, because that's what it is, thanks to Mr Blair.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with all this. Remainers will leave absolutely no stone unturned in their fanatical quest to circumvent the 2016 referendum result of course. Quite what the judiciary are doing dealing with matters of State between the Government, Parliament and Queen seems questionable to me though. If this is to happen, will I get the chance, as per the US, to vote for these officials? Because, at the moment, they are self appointing and clearly overriding the wishes of the majority of the electorate. That isn't what democracy's about. That's what dictatorship is about.

This is something which, whilst it seems a matter of joyous celebration to remainers on this passing issue, actually has far-reaching implications.

The UK's democracy will be damaged as a result if they are allowed to intervene in these matters.

The final court of judgement on such political issues is the ballot box. Which of course we are being denied at present.

all the judge asked for is a written statement to say what they asked for is what was discussed in government and nobody will sign it forobvious reasons.

but you are right the scottish court has more power, if it feels like it not only can it hold manchild in contempt but also it can pp and send the letter on his behalf.

the english court said it is outside its competence. and the supreme court wil lmake a judgement on that too. we are talking about a government in power behaving criminally amd the court decides it is outside its competence. of course the ironuy of all this is that the supreme court wil lonly look at both decisions and decide where the law was applied correctly. it can come to a decision that both courts arrived to the correct decision. the reason for this is that english laew is not the same a scottish law. did you know that our laws are not exactly the same. so much for the myth that we are controlled by the eu law.

don't you love it when lie after lie surfaces. do you not feel empowered by this knowledge?

its a funny old world innit?

[Londonrake]

Neatly avoiding the fact that both the English and NI High Courts have dismissed the case as being "Clearly, politically motivated".

The definitive answer will come on Tuesday from the Supreme court, because that's what it is, thanks to Mr Blair.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with all this. Remainers will leave absolutely no stone unturned in their fanatical quest to circumvent the 2016 referendum result of course. Quite what the judiciary are doing dealing with matters of State between the Government, Parliament and Queen seems questionable to me though. If this is to happen, will I get the chance, as per the US, to vote for these officials? Because, at the moment, they are self appointing and clearly overriding the wishes of the majority of the electorate. That isn't what democracy's about. That's what dictatorship is about.

This is something which, whilst it seems a matter of joyous celebration to remainers on this passing issue, actually has far-reaching implications.

The UK's democracy will be damaged as a result if they are allowed to intervene in these matters.

The final court of judgement on such political issues is the ballot box. Which of course we are being denied at present.

all the judge asked for is a written statement to say what they asked for is what was discussed in government and nobody will sign it forobvious reasons.

but you are right the scottish court has more power, if it feels like it not only can it hold manchild in contempt but also it can pp and send the letter on his behalf.

the english court said it is outside its competence. and the supreme court wil lmake a judgement on that too. we are talking about a government in power behaving criminally amd the court decides it is outside its competence. of course the ironuy of all this is that the supreme court wil lonly look at both decisions and decide where the law was applied correctly. it can come to a decision that both courts arrived to the correct decision. the reason for this is that english laew is not the same a scottish law. did you know that our laws are not exactly the same. so much for the myth that we are controlled by the eu law.

don't you love it when lie after lie surfaces. do you not feel empowered by this knowledge?

its a funny old world innit?

I earlier commented that your posts are clouded by prejudice (well, among other things )

The High Court in London's judgement was that the subject of Johnson's prorogation of parliament was "Not a matter for judges". Do you see what I mean? Probably not.

The NI high court said that the case was "political and not legal". Do you see what I mean? Probably not.

You persist with the Scottish pronouncement because it suits you agenda, which is par for remainers.

Let's wait until Tuesday. Even then, should the pronouncement reflect the Scottish ruling I will still persist in my belief that this is not a matter for judges and to accept that is a slippery slope to a significant degradation in democracy within the UK.

As far as EU law is concerned ECJ judgements have priority over national institutions.

Do you still not see what I meant by "ignores valid points"?

But - you will just keep on churning this stuff out. Ad infinitum.

Like I said. Take a day or two off. To use an ancient expression - get a life?

[Kikapu]

Neatly avoiding the fact that both the English and NI High Courts have dismissed the case as being "Clearly, politically motivated".

The definitive answer will come on Tuesday from the Supreme court, because that's what it is, thanks to Mr Blair.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with all this. Remainers will leave absolutely no stone unturned in their fanatical quest to circumvent the 2016 referendum result of course. Quite what the judiciary are doing dealing with matters of State between the Government, Parliament and Queen seems questionable to me though. If this is to happen, will I get the chance, as per the US, to vote for these officials? Because, at the moment, they are self appointing and clearly overriding the wishes of the majority of the electorate. That isn't what democracy's about. That's what dictatorship is about.

This is something which, whilst it seems a matter of joyous celebration to remainers on this passing issue, actually has far-reaching implications.

The UK's democracy will be damaged as a result if they are allowed to intervene in these matters.

The final court of judgement on such political issues is the ballot box. Which of course we are being denied at present.

all the judge asked for is a written statement to say what they asked for is what was discussed in government and nobody will sign it forobvious reasons.

but you are right the scottish court has more power, if it feels like it not only can it hold manchild in contempt but also it can pp and send the letter on his behalf.

the english court said it is outside its competence. and the supreme court wil lmake a judgement on that too. we are talking about a government in power behaving criminally amd the court decides it is outside its competence. of course the ironuy of all this is that the supreme court wil lonly look at both decisions and decide where the law was applied correctly. it can come to a decision that both courts arrived to the correct decision. the reason for this is that english laew is not the same a scottish law. did you know that our laws are not exactly the same. so much for the myth that we are controlled by the eu law.

don't you love it when lie after lie surfaces. do you not feel empowered by this knowledge?

its a funny old world innit?

I earlier commented that your posts are clouded by prejudice (well, among other things )

The High Court in London's judgement was that the subject of Johnson's prorogation of parliament was "Not a matter for judges". Do you see what I mean? Probably not.

The NI high court said that the case was "political and not legal". Do you see what I mean? Probably not.

You persist with the Scottish pronouncement because it suits you agenda, which is par for remainers.

Let's wait until Tuesday. Even then, should the pronouncement reflect the Scottish ruling I will still persist in my belief that this is not a matter for judges and to accept that is a slippery slope to a significant degradation in democracy within the UK.

As far as EU law is concerned ECJ judgements have priority over national institutions.

Do you still not see what I meant by "ignores valid points"?

But - you will just keep on churning this stuff out. Ad infinitum.

Like I said. Take a day or two off. To use an ancient expression - get a life?

Politics and legality does go hand in hand, absolutely, therefore if there are questionable movement by any politician and if it can’t be resolved politically, then naturally, it will be solved by the courts.

[Londonrake]

Politics and legality does go hand in hand, absolutely, therefore if there are questionable movement by any politician and if it can’t be resolved politically, then naturally, it will be solved by the courts.

No, they don’t. There’s a deliberate and sensible separation between the executive and judiciary (plus the church for that matter), which operate independently of each other. So far, both the English and Irish High Courts have supported that view, saying that prorogation is a matter for the government, Queen and parliament, not the courts. Ipso facto, this is politically motivated vexatious litigation and not a matter for unelected judges to resolve.

What the UK’s moving towards is basically a US system (thanks largely to Blair and the odious, self opinionated Mr Bercow) mimicking two of their worst features. The first where you have a gridlock between the President of one party and a Congress of the other, making governance inoperable. The second, where the losing party attempts to sue it’s way to power, impeding the government at every turn. This isn’t just a Brexit related situation, it will have far reaching consequences in the future. Bercow will rightly go down in history as having responsibility for much of this vain glorious motivated destruction.

[Kikapu]

Politics and legality does go hand in hand, absolutely, therefore if there are questionable movement by any politician and if it can’t be resolved politically, then naturally, it will be solved by the courts.

No, they don’t. There’s a deliberate and sensible separation between the executive and judiciary (plus the church for that matter), which operate independently of each other. So far, both the English and Irish High Courts have supported that view, saying that prorogation is a matter for the government, Queen and parliament, not the courts. Ipso facto, this is politically motivated vexatious litigation and not a matter for unelected judges to resolve.

What the UK’s moving towards is basically a US system (thanks largely to Blair and the odious, self opinionated Mr Bercow) mimicking two of their worst features. The first where you have a gridlock between the President of one party and a Congress of the other, making governance inoperable. The second, where the losing party attempts to sue it’s way to power, impeding the government at every turn. This isn’t just a Brexit related situation, it will have far reaching consequences in the future. Bercow will rightly go down in history as having responsibility for much of this vain glorious motivated destruction.

Of course there are separation of powers, therefore the judiciary can be used whenever the executive or legislature implements policies that may not be legal. If not the courts, who else is going to prevent such policies other than the voice of the people in the next election. Granted, my views are mainly based on the USA system, but the fact that the Irish, English and the Scottish high courts agreed to hear the cases put to them regarding prorogation only confirms courts do play part in politics. The fact that not all courts come to the same conclusion is irrelevant.

[Lordo]

brexshitters have reached a moment where anything which they don't like is wrong. look at the facts.
1. There is a separation of law and politics.
2. politics create the law.
3. this does not mean politicians are above the law.
4. there are differences in english and welsh law and scottish law.
5. the judgement in scotland was based on one simple fact. the claim was that what manchild gave the queen was a lie. the reason for prorogation as given by manchild was that he wishes to formulate the next parliament.
6. the judge asked for a written evidence to confirm this. indeed if a minister or a civil service individual could be found to sign such a paper, the judge would throw the case out. as yet not a single minister or a civil service individual was prepared to sign the written evidence.
7. the reason was that if subsequently was proven that they lied to the court, they would go to prison.
8. so why has nobody signed such a statement? because they know it is lie. i mean thus government and their advisors are incompetent and so incompetent that they made no attempt to cover what they were they were doing.
9. so why pretend to say the purpose of the prorogation was one thing when it was not?
10 the reason is that prorogation should not have taken for than a few days, tops 1 week. instead in order to get 5 weeks and if the mps did not take the precaution earlier in forcing the government not be able to prorogue till 31st of october, they decided to lump in the prorogation with political conferences.
11. so why did they simply not ask for a recess for conferences and prorogue the parliament for a week.
12. the answer is simple, whilst the mps have no say in proroguing they do have a say in recessing and they would not have voted to have recess before 1st of november.

this government reminds me of the naughty children at school who gather together to try and work out what they can get away with and maximise disruption because they did not like attending lessons.

unfortunately your average brexiters is hooked on their 17.4 million votes to berxit and feel robbed if we do not have n0-deal brexit. when no deal brexit was never part of the picture in 2016, when article 50 was triggered or 2017. there were 4 million of the 17.3 million pibol who voted for brexit but corbyn type brexit. there were also 16.1 million people who voted to remain.

logically as the 4 million labour voters would never accept no deal brexit and are nearer to remain as they believe in being in customs union and free trade area, surely we have in reality 18.1 million who want very soft brexit or remain and 13.4 million who want hard brexit.

the brexshitters can take their no deal and shove it where the sun does not shine. they will enjoy it.

[Londonrake]

Politics and legality does go hand in hand, absolutely, therefore if there are questionable movement by any politician and if it can’t be resolved politically, then naturally, it will be solved by the courts.

No, they don’t. There’s a deliberate and sensible separation between the executive and judiciary (plus the church for that matter), which operate independently of each other. So far, both the English and Irish High Courts have supported that view, saying that prorogation is a matter for the government, Queen and parliament, not the courts. Ipso facto, this is politically motivated vexatious litigation and not a matter for unelected judges to resolve.

What the UK’s moving towards is basically a US system (thanks largely to Blair and the odious, self opinionated Mr Bercow) mimicking two of their worst features. The first where you have a gridlock between the President of one party and a Congress of the other, making governance inoperable. The second, where the losing party attempts to sue it’s way to power, impeding the government at every turn. This isn’t just a Brexit related situation, it will have far reaching consequences in the future. Bercow will rightly go down in history as having responsibility for much of this vain glorious motivated destruction.

Of course there are separation of powers, therefore the judiciary can be used whenever the executive or legislature implements policies that may not be legal. If not the courts, who else is going to prevent such policies other than the voice of the people in the next election. Granted, my views are mainly based on the USA system, but the fact that the Irish, English and the Scottish high courts agreed to hear the cases put to them regarding prorogation only confirms courts do play part in politics. The fact that not all courts come to the same conclusion is irrelevant.

It is relevant. You’re ignoring the pronouncements that the litigation was not a matter for the judiciary and by implication should not have been brought before them. They are affairs of State which should be resolved by the peoples’ elected representatives. If necessary, after all political parties have aired their “cases” and had a General Election. The courts have no place in this process. If judges are to make such decisions I want a say in their election to office. Otherwise we’re in the same situation nationally as with the EU. Unelected and remote officials, making important decisions affecting our lives, knowing they’re not accountable to the people. In essence, dictatorship.

There is no “voice of the people”. The opposition are using the government’s lack of a majority and the (LD’s) FTPA to hold both them and the electorate to ransom. Despite Corbyn demanding an election 50 times this year latest reports suggest that will continue (Blair is pulling his strings) until Brexit is “resolved”. Clearly, in the current parliamentary climate that means cancelled. I don’t regard that as democratic. They can’t run forever and, sooner or later, they will have to face the people they supposedly represent.

[Londonrake]

Lordo. “Brexshitters” just highlights your juvenile attitude. If you want sensible replies you should make an effort to grow up. Otherwise go play with the kids again.

[Lordo]

Lordo. “Brexshitters” just highlights your juvenile attitude. If you want sensible replies you should make an effort to grow up. Otherwise go play with the kids again.

when people call remainer remoaners, i can call them any shit i like. dispute what posted. tell me which bit is wrong. who died and made you are not grammar or enlglish language police.

learn to debate or you become a master debater. ironic really ain it, unless of course you don't understand what a master debater is.
perhaps you have either not been here long enough or not paid attention to what is posted.

i never instigate verbal abuse on anybody, i simply reply to it. you give me shit you will get double shit return. its only fair ifact i am rather generous. if i went by what commonly believed by the terrgs that 1 tergg is worth a thousand terggs i shoudl dish out a thousand times the shit.