CelticRambler wrote: » Alas, "the people" have demonstrated conclusively that they're prepared to believe any old nonsense as long as it shows up on Facebook or Twitter, and they don't have to think about it.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » I am getting the feeling that Hard Brexiteers are going a little more silent now. Am I raving or what. Just wondered. All the usual media outlets that I have listened to for a while have moved on now. Probably waiting for the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday. Dunno.
Leroy42 wrote: » I listened to Brexitcast today (uploaded yesterday) and my god it is so annoying. The UK are facing into a constitutional crisis, with a prorogation of parliament, possible lying to the queen, current minority government and just recently the release of Yellowhammer docs that prove that at best Gove was being deliberately disingenuous about the report and probably outright lying to the public. But rather than spend time on that, Laura jumps in with "There are whispers, whispers of a deal". No evidence, no basis for it, but rather than talk about what has actually happened better to simply ignore all that and talk about stuff that might happen. And of course no mention of the fact than Johnson said only a few weeks ago that there would be no talks without the backstop being removed entirely which obviously isn't the case. Katya attempts so say what the EU position is, but always rows back. I would love someone like Peter Foster of the Telegraph to appear and lay into them like he did with the recent Choppers Brexit Podcast. Show them the fantasy of what they are passing off as news. Rant over.
Strazdas wrote: » Things are a tad awkward. The right wing press were acting as cheerleaders for prorogation.....something that could turn out to be illegal and meant lying to the Queen.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Interesting, isn't it? Hadn't thought of that really. Too much going on I think. Wonder what the Supreme Court in London might decree on Tuesday? Interesting times ahead.
lawred2 wrote: » Why are you listening to their childish tittle tattle? It's never any different. Neither of them have any inside track beyond relaying what's on Twitter.
Strazdas wrote: » I could see the Supreme Court coming down against Johnson. The Brexiteers did themselves no favours this week slagging off the Scottish judges.....I'm sure the Supreme Court judges were listening quietly in the background.
Leroy42 wrote: » I suppose I keep thinking that at some point they are going to have to deal with the reality. And its not even them not having the inside track, in fact the biggest problem is that both Laura and Katya have convinced themselves (and others apparently) that they do have the inside track when it is clear they haven't a scooby do. But how about dealing with the reality of what Brexit has become. Why are they not showing people the differences between what was promised and what is now being proposed? Why do call out Johnson on his failure to get rid of the backstop? Why not call Gove out for his lying about the Yellowhammer report? Why not call out the cabinet ministers for lying about prorogation (saying they would never stand for it). Why not run down through the fact that Johnson doesn't have the numbers to get a deal through HoC? Why not ask why, even though the HoC has voted a number of times against No Deal does Johnson still insist on it when all the polls show the public don't want it. Ah Jebus, you got me into another rant!:)
Spanish Eyes wrote: » But to be fair, a rule of law should be based on the law. And whatever about Brexiteers I do think the ruling will be based on law in the end, not anything else. Anyway, we shall see.
VinLieger wrote: » This entire post is a straw man tbh. Everything you describe was done to try and get over our history and help with integration for a future UI. Blaming people with objectively good intentions for the clusterfvck the tories have put everyone in is incredible petty and reductive. Also when priti patel suggested starving us as a negotiating strategy it was condemned by our government so get off your selective memory high horse.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The English court did not disagree on the facts, it ruled that no matter what the facts, prorogation is a matter for parliament, not the courts. I think the SC will agree with the Scots, otherwise there is no possible check on the government - they could prorogue Parliament forever per the English court, which is clearly wrong. And if they rule they can look at the facts, Johnson loses.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What is the proceedure/action if the court finds against Johnson?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Immediate recall of parliament.
An Claidheamh wrote: » So it seems you're strawmanning me. I disagree, Britain agreed to the backstop and would never have tried to completely ignore an agreement made with any other country (two in fact with the Belfast Agreement) other than Ireland. They just assumed we didn't count. This is very similar to their behaviour during the 70s/80s where the likes of the British/Thatcher knew Cosgrave/Fitzgerald were non-entities who were eager to please them, whereas Haughey got results by putting manners on them. As far as retorts to British insults, the Irish government are fairly lame and only do do if pushed. That all said, I fully agree that the Tories are 100% the cause of this mess and feel that there is little As to be gained from wasting time reasoning or engaging with them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And what then...curious as to how it works if he is found to have lied to herself.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Not a lot apparently except that he'll be savaged in parliament. Maybe they could call the Queen as a witness to prove he lied...
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » Does the Queen not have the legal power to sack a PM who has knowingly misrepresented facts to her? Whether she would actually invoke that power is another thing,
FrancieBrady wrote: » That's what I was wondering...who instigates punishment, if there is any.
Strazdas wrote: » Apparently the Director of Public Prosecutions can bring a prosecution against a serving PM if they believe they have broken the law.
S.M.B. wrote: » Half the country will demand he gets punished in some way and the other half will declare that the courts are part of the establishment that is refusing to carry out the will of the people. And round and round we go.
