Supreme Court
 

On 24/09/2019 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:24, Pancho wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:02, Stephen Cole wrote:
Supreme LOL, more like.

Bercows demanding Parliament meet ASAP, PMQs tomorrow? :-D

The ****s really hit the fan here. Quite remarkable scenes.


Not really being following but AIUI unlawful means not authorized by
law, where as illegal means forbidden by law.

So strictly speaking Boris isn't compelled to do anything with regard
to this ruling.

Presumably MPs, if the had any backbone, could unilaterally reopen
parliament with out BoJo's authorization, but as you say lol!

No, the judge has ruled the prorogation was in fact 'ultra vires' in
this instant, and has offered the remedy that it 'never happened'.
This leaves Bercow in charge of a remain parliament to effectively do
what they like with no popular mandate.





Parliament was voted in after the brexit vote so they have the latest
mandate available.

You do recall the election to get a majority so that May could get
brexit through that saw her lose loads of seats.

Hardly a mandate to leave.

Supreme Court
 

On 2019-09-24, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:24, Pancho wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:02, Stephen Cole wrote:
Supreme LOL, more like.

Bercows demanding Parliament meet ASAP, PMQs tomorrow? :-D

The ****s really hit the fan here. Quite remarkable scenes.


Not really being following but AIUI unlawful means not authorized by
law, where as illegal means forbidden by law.

So strictly speaking Boris isn't compelled to do anything with regard
to this ruling.

Presumably MPs, if the had any backbone, could unilaterally reopen
parliament with out BoJo's authorization, but as you say lol!

No, the judge has ruled the prorogation was in fact 'ultra vires' in
this instant, and has offered the remedy that it 'never happened'.
This leaves Bercow in charge of a remain parliament to effectively do
what they like with no popular mandate.





Parliament was voted in after the brexit vote so they have the latest
mandate available.

You do recall the election to get a majority so that May could get
brexit through that saw her lose loads of seats.

Hardly a mandate to leave.

Both parties promised to respect the result of the referendum. It is
absolutely a mandate to leave.

Supreme Court
 

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 14:34:52 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-24, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:24, Pancho wrote:
On 24/09/2019 11:02, Stephen Cole wrote:
Supreme LOL, more like.

Bercows demanding Parliament meet ASAP, PMQs tomorrow? :-D

The ****s really hit the fan here. Quite remarkable scenes.


Not really being following but AIUI unlawful means not authorized by
law, where as illegal means forbidden by law.

So strictly speaking Boris isn't compelled to do anything with regard
to this ruling.

Presumably MPs, if the had any backbone, could unilaterally reopen
parliament with out BoJo's authorization, but as you say lol!

No, the judge has ruled the prorogation was in fact 'ultra vires' in
this instant, and has offered the remedy that it 'never happened'.
This leaves Bercow in charge of a remain parliament to effectively do
what they like with no popular mandate.





Parliament was voted in after the brexit vote so they have the latest
mandate available.

You do recall the election to get a majority so that May could get
brexit through that saw her lose loads of seats.

Hardly a mandate to leave.

Both parties promised to respect the result of the referendum. It is
absolutely a mandate to leave.

Although I wouldn't be so sure of what that actually means as it's politition talk.

Supreme Court
 

"Incubus" wrote in message ...
..

Both parties promised to respect the result of the referendum. It is
absolutely a mandate to leave.

===

Unfortunately they don't understand the concept of democracy!

Did you read that 11 of those judges are Remainers???

Supreme Court
 

On 24/09/2019 18:25, Ophelia wrote:
"Incubus"Â* wrote in message ... .

Both parties promised to respect the result of the referendum.Â* It is
absolutely a mandate to leave.

===
Â*Â* Unfortunately they don't understand the concept of democracy!

Â*Â* Did you read that 11 of those judges are Remainers???


It was no different to the Nazi Volksgerichtshof.

Fitting, given Labour's policies.

..

Supreme Court
 

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...

Did you read that 11 of those judges are Remainers???


Possibly they'd tried to balance it up a bit, but found that not enough
leave supporters had actually passed the exams.

But that's just a guess.


michael adams

....

Supreme Court
 

On 24/09/2019 18:25, Ophelia wrote:
"Incubus"Â* wrote in message ... .

Both parties promised to respect the result of the referendum.Â* It is
absolutely a mandate to leave.

===
Â*Â* Unfortunately they don't understand the concept of democracy!

Â*Â* Did you read that 11 of those judges are Remainers???

I think if you ask anyone whether they have the power to decide,
especially if there's no-one who can gainsay them, they're pretty well
bound to agree that they do.

Supreme Court
 

On 2019-09-24, Ophelia wrote:
"Incubus" wrote in message ...
.

Both parties promised to respect the result of the referendum. It is
absolutely a mandate to leave.

===

Unfortunately they don't understand the concept of democracy!

Did you read that 11 of those judges are Remainers???

I did read that. No surprise there!