Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
No Scottish bashing, just saying what a waste of time the SNP are. The SNP do not speak for the people of Scotland. I have a lot of Scottish friends and they hate the SNP and what they stand for.

a reply to: CJCrawley

Why should we give a toss about what a Scottish court rules?

Because right now they have made it that the legal position throughout the UK is that the prorogation was unlawful.

This will remain to be the case until it is appealed at the Supreme Court next week.

sn't this the country that voted overwhelmingly to remain and (according to the SNP anyway) would be happy to leave the Union and cleave to the EU?

You call less than 2% overwhelming...?

Anyway, wasn't there a recent ruling that suspension of parliament wasn't unlawful?

This judgement supersedes the earlier judgement.

Nothing will come of this.
Pointless waste of public money.

Nothing passed in a Scots court will have any effect on the government of the UK.
It's virtue signalling, nothing else.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If remoan had won you would be calling 2% overwhelming yes.

originally posted by: Aspie
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If remoan had won you would be calling 2% overwhelming yes.

No I wouldn't. I would be calling it a narrow victory for remain.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Nothing passed in a Scots court will have any effect on the government of the UK.

Right now it does, it means that unless the Supreme Court say otherwise then the proroguing of parliament was unlawful.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It was just under 4%, not 2%.
Thats a mjority of over 1 million people.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It was just under 4%, not 2%.
Thats a mjority of over 1 million people.

They won with 51.9% of the vote or just just over 1 million votes.

Its up to a individual to decide but if winning by 1.9% (3.8% difference between the two options) is "Overwhelming" then I guess we have different idea's on what constitutes "overwhelming" but thats down to our own personal views.

Personally I would call it a narrow victory.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It was just under 4%, not 2%.
Thats a mjority of over 1 million people.

They won with 51.9% of the vote or just just over 1 million votes.

Its up to a individual to decide but if winning by 1.9% (3.8% difference between the two options) is "Overwhelming" then I guess we have different idea's on what constitutes "overwhelming" but thats down to our own personal views.

Personally I would call it a narrow victory.

Leave won by just under 4%.
The only reason it was even as close as 4% is because of London and the most populous areas of Scotland.
London alone closed the gap to Leave by over 2m votes.
By voting area Leave won 270, Remain 129.


I'd say the victory for Leave in England was overwhelming, obviously not in Scotland and NI.

This is why what is happening in Parliament is so disgusting - MP's going against the people they represent.

a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OK, let me get this straight...

Boris is legally entitled to ask the Queen to do this, correct??

Yet this judge has decided that it's not?

How does that even begin to pass muster, and why bother, knowing that in all likelihood, it's going to be overturned and tossed?

What's gained here?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

a reply to: seagull

So yes he has the power to do it.

The legal argument made and upheld was that he basically lied about why he was doing it.

So he goes to the queen and says my advice to you is to suspend (prorogue parliament) because I kind of need a new Queens speech.

Yet the court are saying this was a lie and therefore that advice in itself was untrue and thus unlawful, because he lied the the decision to prorogue is therefore also unlawful.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OK, let me get this straight...

Boris is legally entitled to ask the Queen to do this, correct??

Yet this judge has decided that it's not?

How does that even begin to pass muster, and why bother, knowing that in all likelihood, it's going to be overturned and tossed?

What's gained here?

Some remain judges get to cause a fuss for a short while. The SNP get something else to hitch to thier grievance wagon.

originally posted by: justwokeup

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OK, let me get this straight...

Boris is legally entitled to ask the Queen to do this, correct??

Yet this judge has decided that it's not?

How does that even begin to pass muster, and why bother, knowing that in all likelihood, it's going to be overturned and tossed?

What's gained here?

Some remain judges get to cause a fuss for a short while. The SNP get something else to hitch to thier grievance wagon.

So this was a cross party effort it was not just the SNP.

Even the government have said that they are not questioning the impartiality of the Judges.

a reply to: seagull

The challenge is weather BJ gave "unlawful advice" or not when speaking to her Maj, the challenge is not about the right to prorogue

Lots of nonsense of course, people with money wasting taxpayer time and money, to the point most now just dont give a snip, apathy the perfect state of the populous from a politicians point of view.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: justwokeup

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OK, let me get this straight...

Boris is legally entitled to ask the Queen to do this, correct??

Yet this judge has decided that it's not?

How does that even begin to pass muster, and why bother, knowing that in all likelihood, it's going to be overturned and tossed?

What's gained here?

Some remain judges get to cause a fuss for a short while. The SNP get something else to hitch to thier grievance wagon.

So this was a cross party effort it was not just the SNP.

Even the government have said that they are not questioning the impartiality of the Judges.

The issue has gone way way beyond party.
Let's be clear - this was a Remain effort and has nothing at all to do with the law or parliaments oversight role. It has to do with underpinning the effort to block the will of the people.

a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

Which is why he doesn't want to release all of the Yellow paper stuff because thats just going to land him in even deeper #.

Pretty good summary there buddy.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

The law does not stop the PM from proroguing for the purposes of frustrating Parliaments efforts - even if that was his sole purpose.
So guilty of what?