Brexit

[clubgop]

He's got previous form with fish.

Oh he likes fish, no wonder Flaggot doesn't like him.

[StCapps]

Trump is cool with diversity

Bullshit. He told American citizens born in the US to ''go back home'' because they are brown.

Trump isn't anti-environment

Bullshit. He says climate change is a Chinese hoax and put an oilman in charge of the EPA.

He told Americans to "go back home and then come back and show us how it's done" because they hate America, has nothing to do with skin color. Just because they happen to not be white doesn't make the comments about race.

Rick Perry is doing a great job and climate change alarmism is a hoax. That doesn't mean he hates the environment.

[Montegriffo]

Boris just can't catch a break...

Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.

A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move.

The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit.
The UK government said it will appeal against the ruling to the Supreme Court in London.

The Court of Session decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week that Mr Johnson had not broken the law.

But it is currently unclear what impact the judgement will have on the current five week suspension of Parliament - a process known as proroguing - which started in the early hours of Tuesday.
MPs are not scheduled to return to Parliament until 14 October, when there will be a Queen's Speech outlining Mr Johnson's legislative plans. The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October.

Mr Johnson has previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament, and that it was "nonsense" to suggest he was attempting to undermine democracy.

But the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and that he had therefore effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."The group of more than 70 largely pro-Remain MPs and peers behind the legal challenge were headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who called for Parliament to be immediately reconvened following the ruling.

She added: "We feel utterly vindicated and I would be confident that the UK Supreme Court will uphold this decision."

The parliamentarians appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session after their original challenge to the suspension of Parliament was dismissed by judge Lord Doherty last week.

Lord Doherty said Mr Johnson had not broken the law by proroguing Parliament, and that it was for MPs and the electorate to judge the prime minister's actions rather than the courts.

But the three Inner House judges said they disagreed with Lord Doherty's ruling because this particular prorogation had been a "tactic to frustrate Parliament" rather than a legitimate use of the power.

One of the three judges, Lord Brodie, said: "This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities.

"It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference."

And Lord Drummond Young said that the UK government had failed to show a valid reason for the prorogation, adding: "The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny.

"The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament."

[Montegriffo]

If the supreme court upholds the decision that he misled Her Majesty can we cut off his head?
Think of the ratings...

[StCapps]

Boris just can't catch a break...

Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.

A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move.

The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit.
The UK government said it will appeal against the ruling to the Supreme Court in London.

The Court of Session decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week that Mr Johnson had not broken the law.

But it is currently unclear what impact the judgement will have on the current five week suspension of Parliament - a process known as proroguing - which started in the early hours of Tuesday.
MPs are not scheduled to return to Parliament until 14 October, when there will be a Queen's Speech outlining Mr Johnson's legislative plans. The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October.

Mr Johnson has previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament, and that it was "nonsense" to suggest he was attempting to undermine democracy.

But the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and that he had therefore effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."The group of more than 70 largely pro-Remain MPs and peers behind the legal challenge were headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who called for Parliament to be immediately reconvened following the ruling.

She added: "We feel utterly vindicated and I would be confident that the UK Supreme Court will uphold this decision."

The parliamentarians appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session after their original challenge to the suspension of Parliament was dismissed by judge Lord Doherty last week.

Lord Doherty said Mr Johnson had not broken the law by proroguing Parliament, and that it was for MPs and the electorate to judge the prime minister's actions rather than the courts.

But the three Inner House judges said they disagreed with Lord Doherty's ruling because this particular prorogation had been a "tactic to frustrate Parliament" rather than a legitimate use of the power.

One of the three judges, Lord Brodie, said: "This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities.

"It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference."

And Lord Drummond Young said that the UK government had failed to show a valid reason for the prorogation, adding: "The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny.

"The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament."

The Scots don't want to leave the EU and are out to throw Boris under the bus? Shocked I say! Absolutely Shocking! Who ever could have seen that coming?

[Montegriffo]

The Scots don't want to leave the EU and are out to throw Boris under the bus? Shocked I say! Absolutely Shocking! Who ever could have seen that coming?

Not many saw it coming since the previous ruling in the lower courts favoured Boris.

London voted to remain as well, do you think that is going to sway the Supreme Court ruling next Tuesday?

Despite your accusations of political bias in the British legal system, the main point here is that Boris was ruled to have broken the law.
If he refuses to return to the Queen to ask for Parliament to re-open it he could be charged with contempt of court carrying up to 2 years in jail.

Parliament would then have plenty of time to scrutinise the Yellowhammer report that the courts ruled he must make public last week.


So in summary,
If Boris refuses to ask the EU for an extension if no withdrawal agreement is made by 31st Oct - jail.
If Boris refuses to release Yellowhammer report into the consequences of a no-idea Brexit - jail.
If Boris refuses to re-open Parliament (provided the SC upholds the Scottish ruling) - jail.

Your move Boris...

[StCapps]

The Scots don't want to leave the EU and are out to throw Boris under the bus? Shocked I say! Absolutely Shocking! Who ever could have seen that coming?

Not many saw it coming since the previous ruling in the lower courts favoured Boris.

It's Scotland dumb-dumb. It's like the 9th Circuit ruling against Trump, be real. Is your Supreme Court stacked with people from London or Scotland, if not, that will go nowhere fast.

[Montegriffo]

The Scots don't want to leave the EU and are out to throw Boris under the bus? Shocked I say! Absolutely Shocking! Who ever could have seen that coming?

Not many saw it coming since the previous ruling in the lower courts favoured Boris.

It's Scotland dumb-dumb. It's like the 9th Circuit ruling against Trump, be real.

It's not. Supreme court judges are not political appointments in the UK.
Let's see what happens on Tuesday when it goes to the UK Supreme Court.
If it is ruled illegal there as well Boris could always appeal to the European courts.

[StCapps]

Not many saw it coming since the previous ruling in the lower courts favoured Boris.

It's Scotland dumb-dumb. It's like the 9th Circuit ruling against Trump, be real.

It's not. Supreme court judges are not political appointments in the UK.
Let's see what happens on Tuesday when it goes to the UK Supreme Court.
If it is ruled illegal there as well Boris could always appeal to the European courts.

Okay, so I exaggerated a little, but not a lot. The point remains. Claiming to be unbiased doesn't actually make it possible though, just because they aren't political appointments doesn't mean politics doesn't enter it to it, they are human beings.


Boris appealing to Euro courts would be hilarious, but it won't get passed the UK Supreme Court.

[Montegriffo]

Only time will tell...
I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to try and predict what the UK SC is going to say and I'm following every word as it unfolds.