@wajoma saidThe court ruled it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason "let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
Now when are we going to hear a retraction from ewe about this so called 'lie' you accuse Johnson of in the OP.
The lie was in telling ERII there was.
@wolfgang59 saidA quote from your own post:
The court ruled it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason "let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
The lie was in telling ERII there was.
"The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful."
Unlawful does not equal a lie. Not presenting a reason does not equal presenting a lie. Also let's remember it was in effect a few days rather than 5 weeks because it was conference season anyway.
From the same post:
"You will have to ask her for more details but I'll take her word for it."
I suggest that rather than making up your own accusations of lies you take your own advice.
By your own words wolfgang, by your own words.
@wolfgang59 saidThe attorney general said otherwise and the ruling by the SC was a retrospective administrative application. So there was no law in place which he broke at the time of speaking to the queen.
You will have to ask her for more details but I'll take her word for it.
Oh yes you said he lied to the queen then ignored my reply on that bit...why was that?
25 Sep 19
@wolfgang59 saidYou need to look up the definition of “lie” in the dictionary, or maybe Wikipedia.
The court ruled it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason "let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".
The lie was in telling ERII there was.
Meanwhile stop being a forum baiting tit.
25 Sep 19
@wajoma saidKeep watching I think you’ll find all of the decisions Boris makes come from a vacuum.
You think decisions like this are made in a vacuum. There would have been a team of lawyers working on it. Might even be appealed yet, it's an example of how convoluted and mired 'law' has become.
But hey, you're a state worshipper, we just need more of it.
He’s not the brightest button in the tin, he relies on his affable idiot persona because it’s his actual persona.
And there seems to be some ghosts from his time as London Mayoral days that might put an end to him.
@wolfgang59 saidIt is the House of Lords, at least in effect. The Law Lords can override their own decisions and Parliament can do what it wants to.
It's called a Supreme Court for a reason.
No appeals, no taking it to the House of Lords.
The irony with this is that Johnson's basically done the only thing possible. Parliament is in deadlock with Leavers trying to scupper any deal involving residual links to the EU and the Remainers are trying to scupper any deal not involving residual links to the EU. What's required is a resolution and it's not obvious to me that any resolution is not better than continued paralysis.
If, as someone above stated, the Attorney General gave advice to Johnson that he could do it then he's followed the quality control procedure, so I don't think accusations of lying carry any real weight.
So, while I'm still left wondering how Boris Johnson managed to become Primeminister and am still agnostic on the whole issue of British membership of the EU, this is objectively the right thing to do. Had May gone for the same move all that would have been different would have been who was complaining about it.
@divegeester saidSo you are saying that he told the Queen that the reason for the 5 week proroguing was to stop parliament from scrutinising his Brexit strategy / lack of strategy. I mean, I wasn’t there in the room but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say he misled his ass off about his reasons. The Borisophiles can waffle till their even bluer in the face, but the grown ups figured out what happened a while back and the SC concur’s with our findings.
The attorney general said otherwise and the ruling by the SC was a retrospective administrative application. So there was no law in place which he broke at the time of speaking to the queen.
Oh yes you said he lied to the queen then ignored my reply on that bit...why was that?
@kevcvs57 saidShag doody for brains recently employed the tired old internet message board cliche' 'Dunning Kruger' tactic. What we see here is the opposite of that, it's not that kev thinks he smarter than he actually is, he thinks that everyone else his dumber than they actually are. No one here has a lower opinion of pollies than I (already in the least 10 trusted professions in any poll you care to name), but it is wrong to think they are stupid.
Keep watching I think you’ll find all of the decisions Boris makes come from a vacuum.
He’s not the brightest button in the tin, he relies on his affable idiot persona because it’s his actual persona.
And there seems to be some ghosts from his time as London Mayoral days that might put an end to him.
These people have managed to attain a position by beating off the opposition, by being slier, more crafty, more devious, they have to be smart enough to get others on board for their cause, they have to build the right team around themselves. As much as I loathe to admit it, they're not idiots. Even Kim Jung Un must surely need his wits about him, there would be nobody to appeal to if a few generals decided they were the right guys for the spot.
And so it goes for his next post where he thinks the Queen is some poor little old lady whose had the wool pulled over her eyes by the 'idiot' Johnson.
You don't think she has her own team of advisers keeping her up to date with precisely the political state of the country and her role in it?
kev logic 🙄
@divegeester saidThe Supreme Court does not make the law.
The attorney general said otherwise and the ruling by the SC was a retrospective administrative application. So there was no law in place which he broke at the time of speaking to the queen.
Oh yes you said he lied to the queen then ignored my reply on that bit...why was that?
They have not created new law.
Their ruling is that he broke the law.
Get over it.
26 Sep 19
@divegeester saidResorting to insults again just reinforces your position as a forum idiot.
Meanwhile stop being a forum baiting tit.
@wajoma saidYou really are showing an ignorance of British politics here, Boris is not an ideas man, he’s a buffoonish photo op man, if you want to know where the sly and crafty skulduggery is coming from google Dominic Cummings he’s credited with running and winning the Brexit referendum campaign, hint, he’s not a pollie.
Shag doody for brains recently employed the tired old internet message board cliche' 'Dunning Kruger' tactic. What we see here is the opposite of that, it's not that kev thinks he smarter than he actually is, he thinks that everyone else his dumber than they actually are. No one here has a lower opinion of pollies than I (already in the least 10 trusted professions in any ...[text shortened]... her up to date with precisely the political state of the country and her role in it?
kev logic 🙄
As for the queen she holds a rubber stamp in the shape of a sceptre, I’m sure she knew he was misleading her but it would have to be a much more extreme scenario for her to break with the constitutional settlement and not rubber stamp whatever the privy council lays in front of her.
So thanks for the wajoma waffle but I’m enlightened not one little bit.
27 Sep 19
@wolfgang59 saidAnswer this one:
I was answering two different questions in this
thread and unfortunately you have not the wit to follow.
Have ewe accused Johnson of lying to the queen?
wolfgang: "Boris found guilty of lying to the Queen!"
27 Sep 19
@deepthought saidThe Supreme Court replaced the Law Lords 10 years ago.
It is the House of Lords, at least in effect. The Law Lords can override their own decisions and Parliament can do what it wants to.