On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to get
itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that. It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of touch with
reality.

On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to get
itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that. It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of touch with
reality.


We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate will
have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The incompetent
boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist
or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to discard all Leave
voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting rid
of Boris Johnson before the election, but since the man does not have
the integrity to tender his resignation that won't be possible.

On 26/09/2019 10:10, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that.
It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of
touch with
reality.

We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate will
have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The incompetent
boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist
or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to discard all Leave
voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting rid
of Boris Johnson before the election

That's a Labour fantasy. The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris. Labour knows that he is immensely more popular with the public
than the 'elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist', and is
therefore extremely dangerous to their election prospects. They would
love to see the end of Boris; they can't win unless they gat it.

But they won't.

but since the man does not have
the integrity to tender his resignation that won't be possible.

Why should he resign? He ventured into uncharted waters, which even the
English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't have
done it.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:10:25 +0100, The Todal
wrote:

snip

or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to discard all Leave
voters.

What about nearly as many Remain voters. Do they cease to exist and
their point not matter, just because of a 50%+1 type result?

What would have been better for Leave would have been to stop all the
BS and lies (or not start in the first place), be honest with the
reasons and justification (or lack thereof) and just admit it was a
gamble they thought would work and should make the lives of 'most
people' better (hopefully the whole point after all).

If they couldn't convince the 1/3rd of the electorate that
specifically voted to Remain and nearly the same again who didn't vote
at all (many like me who wouldn't because there was 1) no reason to
vote Leave but not sure if Leave *might* be better for 'most people')
then this would have been a done deal by now and we would all be
enjoying the benefits, or all (at least) suffering in the same boat.

An Uncle was offered double glazing many years ago and the first quote
was £20K or summat. He said it was too much so they went away and came
back with £12k. 'Still too much' so they came back with their
super-special-supervisor-approved-deal of £8k but he said 'Nope, too
expensive, I can't afford it' (he could). It went quiet for a few
weeks then they contacted him with a 'managers deal' of £6k and he
told them to fcuk off.

The point being if they could have done it in the first place for £6k
then why didn't they offer it to him at that in the first place? (we
know the answer of course).

And it's like Brexit, if they had started off with some truths, truths
that would really affect most people in the positive (not what was
considered BS by some then and has been proved to be so by many more
since) then maybe, just maybe more people would have listened and more
of the millions that didn't vote at all may have voted for Leave?

Of course, if there are no genuine (rather than fanatics on a crusade
or racist / blinkered / clairvoyant etc) reasons to Leave ...

Cheers, T i m

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
The Todal wrote

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion.
You can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.

Better than not having them sign up to anything. At least you then have
some fire you can hold their feet to.

Thats not what a parliamentary democracy is about.

Oh, but it is.

Like hell it is. A real parliamentary system isnt about the
individual's party telling each MP how they must vote and
forcing them to vote the way the party orders them to.

Votes in Parliament are not usually free votes except on matters of
conscience.

And yet there are countless examples of individual
MPs crossing the floor on all sorts of issues. Corbyn
has done that at least a hundred times on all sorts
of issues and it makes sense to do that when some
war criminal like Blair decides to **** over Iraq etc.

Boris has also crossed the floor on a number of occasions too.

Toeing the party line is essential if any government or opposition is to
function properly.

Bull****.

MPs are elected on the basis of their party's manifesto

And on the local issues relevant to the MP's constituency
that the MP says when door knocking their constituency.

and are expected both by their electorate and their party to do what the
party says.

Only by those who dont have a clue about
what a real parliamentary democracy is about.

And with the question of a no deal brexit,
that isnt even spelt out in the party manifesto,
and when the previous party leader who wrote
that manifesto, there isnt even the manifesto
to hold the party MPs too.

In general of course they do. The consequence if they don't is a rather
short political career.

How odd that Corbyn managed to get to be the
Labour leader after crossing the floor so often.

Boris too.

It is likely that any new MPs will toe the party line for a significant
time before they become rebellious.

Not with such a divisive issue as brexit.

They will.

They havent and wont, you watch.

They will have been elected on the basis of their party's manifesto
pledges on which they will have been campaigning.

And its very unlikely that the new manifestos will say unambiguously
what that party will do if a no deal brexit is inevitable except with
the LimpDims. Labour is unlikely to even state unambiguously
that they will leave or remain.

It would be utterly hypocritical to do anything else.

You'll see...

The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general
election where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more properly
representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.

You'll never know until you try.

But the risk of trying is an even worse unviable govt than there is now.

Nevertheless, the country desperately need to try.

Thats far from clear. The EU may well refuse any request for
an extension and the UK may well leave the EU on 29-Oct by
default. And it isnt even feasible to have a general election
before then anyway, even if parliament does decide to have one.

With the Remain vote hopelessly split between Labour, the LibDems, the
Greens and the SNP, the route is open for the Conservatives, who are
leading considerably in the polls, possibly in cahoots with the Brexit
Party, to waltz through the middle and clear up.

But given that there are so many remainers in the Tory party,
the result could well be an even bigger mess in parliament
than currently and no possibility of a Tory/LimpDim coalition
this time given that the Limp/Dims are so rabidly remain now.

The Tories are committed to leave.

Even that isnt clear after a general election.

The LibDems are committed to remain. Ne'er the twain shall meet. There
will be no Tory/LibDem coalition, that much is absolutely clear.

It isnt absolutely clear at all if for example the brexit
party doesnt end up with even a single MP and both
the Torys and the LimpDims arent actually stupid
enough to allow Corbyn to be the govt by default.

And even a Tory/Brexit party coalition is unlikely with a general
election after 29-Oct which has seen a no deal brexit by default.

It won't be necessary then. If we've left without a deal, the Brexit
Party ceases to have anything to offer. Its voters will all switch to the
Tories, and there will be nothing more for the Tories to gain.

That is what is putting the fear of God up that nice Mr Corbyn, even if
he does dress it up in holy no-deal prevention clothes.

The real reason he wont support a general election now is that
he knows that Boris gets to set the date and will have it after the
29-Oct with the no deal brexit happening completely automatically.

He doesn't want a general election full stop. His party would be
decimated. He's therefore looking round for any excuse at all to avoid an
election, and a no-deal Brexit is just a convenient one at the moment.

Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows? What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present. It needs to deal with
more than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a
general election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory
party.

The country isn't being governed, and can't be governed given the
current state of the parties.

Its doing fine with all but the brexit issue.

No it isn't. If the government doesn't have a majority, it can't get its
legislation through.

Corse it can with legislation that the other partys agree with.

That in the past would always, and very sensibly, have resulted in a
general election.

And then you lot went for fixed term parliaments
which changed things completely in that regard.

Actually, the last Conservative Party manifesto said it would repeal the
Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which is, as we've seen by the current
impasse, a very faulty piece of legislation, and can be used in ways that
were clearly not anticipated.

And clearly they didnt do that. Less clear if thats because the DUP
whose votes they would need to do that is the reason for that.

That's what the country desperately needs,

The last thing the country needs an even more
ungovernable country than there is currently.

That's why we need a general election.

But that is very likely to deliver just that given how
badly both Labour and the Torys are doing in the
polls and how well the LimpDims are doing.

Particularly now that the LimpDims are now so
unambiguous about revoking Article 50 and
the fact that half the country are remainers.

whatever the end result, but is being prevented from having by Labour
whose only interest is self-interest.

Corse Boris isnt doing anything like that, eh ?

By doing what exactly?

By proroguing parliament and refusing to ask for any extension
so he can rightly claim that he has delivered brexit.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out
to be all bluster and bluff.

That's wishful thinking on your part.

Nope, yours is with your claim about what
a general election now would produce.

I haven't said what a general election will produce.

Yes you did with making the country governable again.

It's in its nature that no-one knows but can only speculate about it.

And yet you said that there needs to be a general
election to make the country governable again.

It's not 'bluster and bluff' if others conspire to prevent you doing
what you sincerely want and try very hard to do.

There is no conspiracy when parliament chooses to force Boris to ask for
an extension.

Of course there is. Everything in Parliament is MPs conspiring to do
something or other.

Thats not conspiring, thats doing what parliament does.

It's how it works.

It isnt even ignoring the referendum if they are stupid enough to believe
that more time will produce a viable brexit deal.

I don't think anyone believes it will.

Those attempting to force an extension obviously do.

We've made no real progress towards a deal acceptable to both sides
despite three years of discussion and deadlock already. It's time the
whole matter was brought to a conclusion.

Those that are attempting for force another extension obviously
feel differently about that. Thats parliamentary democracy for you.

Nor will a temporary delay be held against him.

Hard to predict what the voters will
do. May got that drastically wrong.

It's not his fault, you see.

It remains to be seen if the voters see it that way.

If it was in his hands but did nothing then there would be grounds for
complaint. Trying to do something he said he would but being frustrated
at every turn by others is rather different.

Irrelevant to what a general election might achieve now.

Frustration by vacillating Labour and the Liberal Undemocrats I think
will rebound on them rather than on Boris.

Also hard to predict, particularly if there is a real demographic
effect and there is no longer a majority in favour of brexit.

So you say. But I think you're wrong now, and you were certainly proved
wrong in the only vote that mattered.

Or even enough who assumed that the result of
the referendum would be to remain and who will
now vote in a general election once that realise that
there are so many in favour of brexit and want to
ensure that doesnt happen by voting LimpDim.

Which splits the Remain vote even further.

Nope, not now that only the LimpDims are very
unambiguously in favour of revoking Article 60.

That only helps the Conservatives.

Bull**** with Boris so unambiguously a leaver.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.

You're not very good at reading body language, are you?

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one. It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that? It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

Not if there's no general election. And almost certainly not if there
is.

That last is nothing even remotely like almost certain.

Have you looked at the polls recently?

Yep.

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 20:20:04 UTC+1, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:30:19 +0100, Tim Streater

The second will have to get longer each year, sure. No doubt the
Supreme Court can ordain that.

it is good to see the increasing rise of practical common sense
in this forum
i prefer adjusting the orbit, thus allowing those who believe in
the sacrosanct nature of the long honoured second be not
conflicted in their noble religion nor daunted in their loyalty
to mother earth

I think we should have a referedum on it to make it clear and simple for all

On 2019-09-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to get
itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that. It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of touch with
reality.


We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate will
have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The incompetent
boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist
or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to discard all Leave
voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting rid
of Boris Johnson before the election, but since the man does not have
the integrity to tender his resignation that won't be possible.

Check the opinion polls. There has been a dramatic surge of support for the
Conservatives since he became PM and his prorogation of Parliament hasn't
harmed his support one bit. By the very nature of current circumstances, any
increase in support will have a polarising effect which no doubt explains your
low opinion of him. Nevertheless, the worst thing they could do would be to
rid themselves of him. He is well placed to prevent The Brexit Party from
splitting the Conservative vote.

As things currently stand, any election is going to be between the Conservative
Party and the Liberal Democrats. Labour has made sure of that.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:41:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the senile asshole's endless troll****

....and nothing's left!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:10, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate
to get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that.
It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of
touch with
reality.

We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate
will have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The
incompetent boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser
and extremist or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to
discard all Leave voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will
get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting
rid of Boris Johnson before the election

That's a Labour fantasy.Â* The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris.Â* Labour knows that he is immensely more popular with the public
than the 'elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist', and is
therefore extremely dangerous to their election prospects.Â* They would
love to see the end of Boris; they can't win unless they gat it.

But they won't.

That's a Tory fantasy. Boris has always been much more popular with Tory
voters than with the electorate at large.

And - oh dear, poor BJ. It's leaking away.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rsal-0cx3dmlbz

A third of voters €” 33 per cent €” now believe that the prime minister is
competent, according to the latest YouGov survey for The Times. That is
down from 41 per cent three weeks ago. At that time 52 per cent also
believed that he was strong, but that figure, too, has fallen, to 46 per
cent.

Sixty-one per cent of voters believed Mr Johnson to be decisive at the
start of the month but only 54 per cent do now.




but since the man does not have the integrity to tender his
resignation that won't be possible.

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even the
English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't have
done it.


Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable. It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable you are driven to the
conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has
offered no explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing
the House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should
have the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:10, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an
election
when the national interest is crying out for one. It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that? It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that.
It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of
touch with
reality.

We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate will
have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The incompetent
boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist
or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to discard all Leave
voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will get the most
support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting rid
of Boris Johnson before the election

That's a Labour fantasy. The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris. Labour knows that he is immensely more popular with the public
than the 'elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist', and is
therefore extremely dangerous to their election prospects. They would
love to see the end of Boris; they can't win unless they gat it.

But they won't.

That's a Tory fantasy. Boris has always been much more popular with Tory
voters than with the electorate at large.

And yet he did manage to be mayor, twice.

And - oh dear, poor BJ. It's leaking away.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rsal-0cx3dmlbz

A third of voters €” 33 per cent €” now believe that the prime minister is
competent, according to the latest YouGov survey for The Times.

What matters is that Corbyn is much worse.

That is down from 41 per cent three weeks ago. At that time 52 per cent
also believed that he was strong, but that figure, too, has fallen, to 46
per cent.

Still leaves Corbyn for dead on all of those.

Sixty-one per cent of voters believed Mr Johnson to be decisive at the
start of the month but only 54 per cent do now.

Still leaves Corbyn for dead on all of those.

but since the man does not have the integrity to tender his resignation
that won't be possible.

Why should he resign? He ventured into uncharted waters, which even the
English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into difficulties,
and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable. It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable

It isnt.

you are driven to the conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court
judgment) that he has offered no explanation let alone a reasonable
explanation for proroguing the House for a long period.

He doesnt need to, because its non justiciable,

His behaviour is inexcusable.

Plenty disagree.

He should have the courage to resign,

He's not that stupid.

but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would never resign.

How odd that he did when Foreign Minister.

On 2019-09-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:10, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate
to get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that.
It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of
touch with
reality.

We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate
will have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The
incompetent boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser
and extremist or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to
discard all Leave voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will
get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting
rid of Boris Johnson before the election

That's a Labour fantasy.Â* The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris.Â* Labour knows that he is immensely more popular with the public
than the 'elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist', and is
therefore extremely dangerous to their election prospects.Â* They would
love to see the end of Boris; they can't win unless they gat it.

But they won't.

That's a Tory fantasy. Boris has always been much more popular with Tory
voters than with the electorate at large.

And - oh dear, poor BJ. It's leaking away.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rsal-0cx3dmlbz

A third of voters €” 33 per cent €” now believe that the prime minister is
competent, according to the latest YouGov survey for The Times. That is
down from 41 per cent three weeks ago. At that time 52 per cent also
believed that he was strong, but that figure, too, has fallen, to 46 per
cent.

Sixty-one per cent of voters believed Mr Johnson to be decisive at the
start of the month but only 54 per cent do now.




but since the man does not have the integrity to tender his
resignation that won't be possible.

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even the
English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't have
done it.


Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable. It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable you are driven to the
conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has
offered no explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing
the House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should
have the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

Remind me once again who advised Boris Johnson that he could prorogue
Parliament?

On 26/09/2019 10:50, Incubus wrote:

Check the opinion polls. There has been a dramatic surge of support for the
Conservatives since he became PM and his prorogation of Parliament hasn't
harmed his support one bit. By the very nature of current circumstances, any
increase in support will have a polarising effect which no doubt explains your
low opinion of him. Nevertheless, the worst thing they could do would be to
rid themselves of him. He is well placed to prevent The Brexit Party from
splitting the Conservative vote.

As things currently stand, any election is going to be between the Conservative
Party and the Liberal Democrats. Labour has made sure of that.

It won't be a two-horse race, I think that much is certain. It will be
between the Conservatives and Brexit on one side versus Labour, the
LibDems, the Greens and the SNP on the other. There seems no
possibility of any agreement between the Remain parties to avoid
splitting the Remain vote, and that only benefits the Conservatives and
Brexit. They may split each other's Leave vote, but it depends on when
the election finally comes, and on what the situation is then with
regard to Brexit.

If we leave the EU without a deal at the end of October, Boris will
hoover up all the Leave votes, and would waltz any subsequent election.

On 26/09/2019 11:53, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:10, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate
to get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that.
It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of
touch with
reality.

We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate
will have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The
incompetent boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser
and extremist or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to
discard all Leave voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will
get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting
rid of Boris Johnson before the election

That's a Labour fantasy.Â* The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris.Â* Labour knows that he is immensely more popular with the public
than the 'elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist', and is
therefore extremely dangerous to their election prospects.Â* They would
love to see the end of Boris; they can't win unless they gat it.

But they won't.

That's a Tory fantasy. Boris has always been much more popular with Tory
voters than with the electorate at large.

And - oh dear, poor BJ. It's leaking away.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rsal-0cx3dmlbz

A third of voters €” 33 per cent €” now believe that the prime minister is
competent, according to the latest YouGov survey for The Times. That is
down from 41 per cent three weeks ago. At that time 52 per cent also
believed that he was strong, but that figure, too, has fallen, to 46 per
cent.

Sixty-one per cent of voters believed Mr Johnson to be decisive at the
start of the month but only 54 per cent do now.




but since the man does not have the integrity to tender his
resignation that won't be possible.

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even the
English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't have
done it.


Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable. It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable you are driven to the
conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has
offered no explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing
the House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should
have the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

Remind me once again who advised Boris Johnson that he could prorogue
Parliament?


Dominic Cummings?

The Attorney General, too, but he refuses to disclose the full text of
his advice. Which was probably "I think you'll get away with it but
there is likely to be a major court challenge. Ultimately it's a
political decision."

On 2019-09-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:53, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:10, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate
to get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe that.
It's
difficult to take anything you say seriously if you are that out of
touch with
reality.

We'll see whether I'm right, in the fulness of time. The electorate
will have a difficult choice to make, that's certainly true. The
incompetent boorish Etonian, the elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser
and extremist or the arrogant Head Girl of the Lib Dems who wants to
discard all Leave voters. I think ultimately the Labour manifesto will
get the most support.

The Tories would do a lot better if they could find a way of getting
rid of Boris Johnson before the election

That's a Labour fantasy.Â* The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris.Â* Labour knows that he is immensely more popular with the public
than the 'elderly Marxist terrorist sympathiser and extremist', and is
therefore extremely dangerous to their election prospects.Â* They would
love to see the end of Boris; they can't win unless they gat it.

But they won't.

That's a Tory fantasy. Boris has always been much more popular with Tory
voters than with the electorate at large.

And - oh dear, poor BJ. It's leaking away.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rsal-0cx3dmlbz

A third of voters €” 33 per cent €” now believe that the prime minister is
competent, according to the latest YouGov survey for The Times. That is
down from 41 per cent three weeks ago. At that time 52 per cent also
believed that he was strong, but that figure, too, has fallen, to 46 per
cent.

Sixty-one per cent of voters believed Mr Johnson to be decisive at the
start of the month but only 54 per cent do now.




but since the man does not have the integrity to tender his
resignation that won't be possible.

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even the
English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't have
done it.


Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable. It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable you are driven to the
conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has
offered no explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing
the House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should
have the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

Remind me once again who advised Boris Johnson that he could prorogue
Parliament?


Dominic Cummings?

The Attorney General, too, but he refuses to disclose the full text of
his advice. Which was probably "I think you'll get away with it but
there is likely to be a major court challenge. Ultimately it's a
political decision."

"Probably".

For all we know, it was probably the best advice in the world.

In article ,
says...

Votes in Parliament are not usually free votes except on
matters of conscience. Toeing the party line is essential if any
government or opposition is to function properly. MPs are elected on
the basis of their party's manifesto and are expected both by their
electorate and their party to do what the party says. In general of
course they do. The consequence if they don't is a rather short
political career.


Funny - it seems to have been Corbyn's speciality, and it
doesn't seem to have stunted *his* political career.

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 20:46:53 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


What matters is

**** from normally evolved humans' ngs, you abnormal trolling senile
Australian asshole!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly. It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately. With
such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was clearly
wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful. It took the
Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no precedent,
and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable you are driven to the
conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has
offered no explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing
the House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should
have the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable. It was perfectly excusable. No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either justiciable
or unlawful. And in those circumstances, it is clearly not a resigning
matter, however much you would like it to be.

On 26/09/2019 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said
that the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly.Â* It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately.Â* With
such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was clearly
wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful.Â* It took the
Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no precedent,
and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay. Once you concede that the
issue is justiciable you are driven to the conclusion (as stated
clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has offered no
explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing the
House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should have
the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable.Â* It was perfectly excusable.Â* No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either justiciable
or unlawful.Â* And in those circumstances, it is clearly not a resigning
matter, however much you would like it to be.


Maybe his legal representation was incompetent. Did the government
lawyers not bother to prepare the second limb of the case, in case they
lost on "non justiciable"?

Or, more likely, Boris didn't want to lie under oath because he knew his
motive was to stop the debate about Brexit in the Commons. He pretended
to the world that prorogation was simply a routine matter, nothing to do
with Brexit. Then in the Commons yesterday he whinged and ranted about
how the court's decision has obstructed Brexit. He gave the game away,
didn't he? He can fool some of the people some of the time. He can
probably fool his Leave zealots indefinitely. The rest of the electorate
is rapidly losing faith in the Incredible Sulk.

In article ,
The Todal wrote:
An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.

Rather obvious to those who see it, isn't it?

Nothing to do about what is good or not for the country. All about saving
Boris's arse.

Anyone so stupid as to take on parliament knowing how they had voted
recently as regards no deal deserves to fail. Even more so when he
alienated so many of his own party.

Perhaps some like one who gambles against such odds.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Grik-bustard™ wrote:
And who is to *lead* this new Labour
government? The bearded uncharismatic pleb Corbyn???

Good to know your requirements for a PM.

Clean shaven.
Can influence people
Upper class.

--
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/09/2019 15:20, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said
that the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly.Â* It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately.
With such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was
clearly wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful.Â* It took
the Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no
precedent, and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay. Once you concede that the
issue is justiciable you are driven to the conclusion (as stated
clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has offered no
explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing the
House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should have
the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable.Â* It was perfectly excusable.Â* No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either
justiciable or unlawful.Â* And in those circumstances, it is clearly
not a resigning matter, however much you would like it to be.


Maybe his legal representation was incompetent. Did the government
lawyers not bother to prepare the second limb of the case, in case they
lost on "non justiciable"?

Or, more likely, Boris didn't want to lie under oath because he knew his
motive was to stop the debate about Brexit in the Commons. He pretended
to the world that prorogation was simply a routine matter, nothing to do
with Brexit. Then in the Commons yesterday he whinged and ranted about
how the court's decision has obstructed Brexit. He gave the game away,
didn't he? He can fool some of the people some of the time. He can
probably fool his Leave zealots indefinitely. The rest of the electorate
is rapidly losing faith in the Incredible Sulk.


Alternately, he knew if he lost it would enhance his standing with the
public- which it has- and further show the depths to which the Remainers
will stoop. Corbyn hasn't still won't risk an election, there have been
calls to dumb/reform the Supreme Court (a Labour invention). Plus the
Remainers are still chasing their tales- with Margaret Becket and the
pervert's friend Harriet Harman both being offered up as alternatives to
Corbyn.

All in all, Boris (who I never really rated) is playing a blinder.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/09/2019 15:20, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said
that the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly.Â* It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately.
With such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was
clearly wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful.Â* It took
the Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no
precedent, and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay. Once you concede that the
issue is justiciable you are driven to the conclusion (as stated
clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has offered no
explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing the
House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should have
the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable.Â* It was perfectly excusable.Â* No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either
justiciable or unlawful.Â* And in those circumstances, it is clearly
not a resigning matter, however much you would like it to be.

Maybe his legal representation was incompetent. Did the government
lawyers not bother to prepare the second limb of the case, in case they
lost on "non justiciable"?

You'll have to ask them I'm afraid.

Or, more likely, Boris didn't want to lie under oath because he knew his
motive was to stop the debate about Brexit in the Commons.

But it wasn't entirely or even necessarily mainly. He wanted the
current session of Parliament, which is already the longest since
goodness knows when, to come to an end, and he wanted a new session and
a Queen's speech in which he, as a new Prime Minister, could set out his
government's programme. Motives and reasons are not usually simple,
single issues. They're a combination. And who's to say, apart from
him, in what proportion?

He pretended
to the world that prorogation was simply a routine matter, nothing to do
with Brexit. Then in the Commons yesterday he whinged and ranted about
how the court's decision has obstructed Brexit.

I don't think he did. What he said had obstructed Brexit was the
'Surrender Act' purporting to take no deal off the table and dictating
letters for him to sign.

He said little about the Supreme Court judgement except to say he
disagreed with it but would abide by it.

He gave the game away, didn't he?

Actually, I don't think he did because I don't think he said what you
think you heard.

He can fool some of the people some of the time. He can
probably fool his Leave zealots indefinitely. The rest of the electorate
is rapidly losing faith in the Incredible Sulk.

Ah, sticks and stones time again, I see.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

On 26/09/2019 15:20, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said
that the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly.Â* It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately.
With such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was
clearly wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful.Â* It took
the Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no
precedent, and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay. Once you concede that the
issue is justiciable you are driven to the conclusion (as stated
clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has offered no
explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing the
House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should have
the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable.Â* It was perfectly excusable.Â* No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either
justiciable or unlawful.Â* And in those circumstances, it is clearly
not a resigning matter, however much you would like it to be.


Maybe his legal representation was incompetent. Did the government
lawyers not bother to prepare the second limb of the case, in case they
lost on "non justiciable"?

Or, more likely, Boris didn't want to lie under oath because he knew his
motive was to stop the debate about Brexit in the Commons. He pretended
to the world that prorogation was simply a routine matter, nothing to do
with Brexit. Then in the Commons yesterday he whinged and ranted about
how the court's decision has obstructed Brexit. He gave the game away,
didn't he? He can fool some of the people some of the time. He can
probably fool his Leave zealots indefinitely. The rest of the electorate
is rapidly losing faith in the Incredible Sulk.

It is extraordinary how you imagine all sorts of scenarios excecpt the
most obvious one.
The supreme court is 100% hard line remain, set up by Tony Bliar to stop
te lords interfering with EU treåty signing and they looked for any way
they could make a case that Boris acted unlawfully and have made an
complete mess of it as a result, and Cox was right, and they were biased
and wrong?


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

In message , Norman Wells
writes




Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no
precedent, and no apparent unlawfulness.

Have you ever thought of becoming a Supreme Court judge? Or don't you
have the Latin for The Judging?


--
Ian

On 26/09/2019 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.


What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.

























le

Brian Reay wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:20, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said
that the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly.Â* It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately.
With such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was
clearly wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful.Â* It took
the Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no
precedent, and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay. Once you concede that the
issue is justiciable you are driven to the conclusion (as stated
clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has offered no
explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing the
House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should have
the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable.Â* It was perfectly excusable.Â* No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either
justiciable or unlawful.Â* And in those circumstances, it is clearly
not a resigning matter, however much you would like it to be.


Maybe his legal representation was incompetent. Did the government
lawyers not bother to prepare the second limb of the case, in case they
lost on "non justiciable"?

Or, more likely, Boris didn't want to lie under oath because he knew his
motive was to stop the debate about Brexit in the Commons. He pretended
to the world that prorogation was simply a routine matter, nothing to do
with Brexit. Then in the Commons yesterday he whinged and ranted about
how the court's decision has obstructed Brexit. He gave the game away,
didn't he? He can fool some of the people some of the time. He can
probably fool his Leave zealots indefinitely. The rest of the electorate
is rapidly losing faith in the Incredible Sulk.


Alternately, he knew if he lost it would enhance his standing with the
public- which it has- and further show the depths to which the Remainers
will stoop. Corbyn hasn't still won't risk an election, there have been
calls to dumb/reform the Supreme Court (a Labour invention). Plus the
Remainers are still chasing their tales- with Margaret Becket and the
pervert's friend Harriet Harman both being offered up as alternatives to
Corbyn.

All in all, Boris (who I never really rated) is playing a blinder.


Brian, step away from the crack pipe!

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That's a Labour fantasy. The Tories know they have a proven winner in
Boris.

A winner with members of the Tory party. A very different matter from
being a winner with Tory voters.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Brian Reay wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.


What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.


Politicians promise all manner of things that they dont follow through on,
OM, such as the Dementia Tax, for example. What matters, though, is the law
and the law says the referendum result is merely advisory. HTH.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 26/09/2019 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

If you have a point, do make it.

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.

At the time of the referendum, though, the government had a working
overall majority in the Commons and so could push through most of its
policies.

On 26/09/2019 15:59, Stephen Cole wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.


What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.


Politicians promise all manner of things that they dont follow through on,
OM, such as the Dementia Tax, for example. What matters, though, is the law
and the law says the referendum result is merely advisory. HTH.

Do please quote the bit of the EU Referendum Act that says that.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:37:29 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Grik-bustard™ wrote:
And who is to *lead* this new Labour
government? The bearded uncharismatic pleb Corbyn???

Good to know your requirements for a PM.

Clean shaven.
Can influence people
Upper class.

Yes. Exactly so.

Not some grubby little Islington bolshevik.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:41:17 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.

Which, under normal circumstances, the government controls.

On 26 Sep 2019 14:59:32 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Brian Reay wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

Perhaps you'd remind us of what the leave campaign 'promised'?

BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.


What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.


Politicians promise all manner of things that they don’t follow through on,
OM, such as the Dementia Tax, for example. What matters, though, is the law
and the law says the referendum result is merely advisory.

Which law?

HTH.

It doesn't.

On 26/09/2019 15:39, Brian Reay wrote:
Plus the Remainers are still chasing their tales


Freudian slip?

Its all an emotional narrative



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 26/09/2019 15:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Norman Wells
writes

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no
precedent, and no apparent unlawfulness.

Have you ever thought of becoming a Supreme Court judge? Or don't you
have the Latin for The Judging?

I don't think it's open to all and sundry, or even to me. You have to
be appointed under a secretive sort of establishment procedure by the
Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations
from a selection commission, and you have to have held high judicial
office (judge of the Supreme Court, English High Court or Court of
Appeal, Northern Irish High Court or Court of Appeal, or Scottish Court
of Session) for at least two years, or have held rights of audience at
the higher courts of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland for at least
fifteen years.

Personally, I can't be arsed going through all that just to become one.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:09:26 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-basturd®™", farted again:


Yes. Exactly so.

Not some grubby little Islington bolshevik.

Your incurable psychosis noted.

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:11:13 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-basturd®™", farted again:


Which law?

Take a guess, retard!

HTH.

It doesn't.

Of course not, retard!

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:10:15 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-basturd®™", farted again:


BTW, the government can implement very little. It is the HoC at the end of
the day which does.

Which, under normal circumstances, the government controls.

A clinically insane retard and asshole like you should NEVER use the word
"normal"!

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is extraordinary how you imagine all sorts of scenarios excecpt the
most obvious one.
The supreme court is 100% hard line remain, set up by Tony Bliar to stop
te lords interfering with EU treåty signing and they looked for any way
they could make a case that Boris acted unlawfully and have made an
complete mess of it as a result, and Cox was right, and they were biased
and wrong?

Are you saying those 11 judges were all hand picked remain supporters?
Willing to subvert their duty to their political views?

Or could you just be thinking everyone is like yourself?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.