Cable Forum
Page 41 of 369 « First 3137383940 41 424344455191141 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708171)

1andrew1 27-09-2019 13:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Failure to reach a Brexit deal would be the sole responsibility of the UK, the president of the European Commission has said.

Jean-Claude Juncker insisted he and the EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier were doing all they could to secure an agreement because it would be a catastrophe for both Britain and Europe if there was no divorce settlement in place.
He also warned that negotiating a future trade deal would not be easy in the event of a no-deal.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexi...cid=spartanntp

Carth 27-09-2019 13:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36011957)
We are in a state of "national crisis" is it too much to ask?
You'd have thought that after all the crying and bickering about losing a few days, they'd have been quite willing to work a day or two extra to catch up on the business they (allegedly) needed to urgently discuss.

Perhaps they all find it much easier to go home and use Twitter & Facebook? :rolleyes:

Sephiroth 27-09-2019 13:19
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36011956)
You're wrong, I don't need to look it up

/Response
Boris did nothing illegal. He acted unlawfully which is quite different. Acting illegally is obviously unlawful. Acting unlawfully in the context of the SC ruling means acting against the public interest or social convention; no statute was breached.

papa smurf 27-09-2019 13:49
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36011962)
You'd have thought that after all the crying and bickering about losing a few days, they'd have been quite willing to work a day or two extra to catch up on the business they (allegedly) needed to urgently discuss.

Perhaps they all find it much easier to go home and use Twitter & Facebook? :rolleyes:
Astounding isn't it they come back wednesday at 11-30 and pack up for a long weekend at 5-30 on thursday,perhaps they should be dragged back to court to explain what exactly trumps a "national crisis".

Maggy 27-09-2019 15:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Maybe they are heading back to their constituent offices to conduct a surgery and talk to their supporters..

ianch99 27-09-2019 15:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36011974)
Maybe they are heading back to their constituent offices to conduct a surgery and talk to their supporters..
Where some of them will need to increase the security measures in case they are attacked by Brexit supporters:

Jess Phillips: MP warned to 'be afraid, be very afraid' in death threats after office attacked

papa smurf 27-09-2019 16:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36011979)
Where some of them will need to increase the security measures in case they are attacked by Brexit supporters:

Jess Phillips: MP warned to 'be afraid, be very afraid' in death threats after office attacked
The chap who called the window a fascist has been charged.

mrmistoffelees 27-09-2019 16:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36011963)
Boris did nothing illegal. He acted unlawfully which is quite different. Acting illegally is obviously unlawful. Acting unlawfully in the context of the SC ruling means acting against the public interest or social convention; no statute was breached.

'What law did Boris Johnson break?
Boris Johnson's prorogation did break the law, but it broke constitutional, not criminal law.

By preventing Parliament's right to hold the government to account, he broke the rules governing how the UK functions.

What he did was "unlawful" - meaning it wasn't permitted or conforming to the law. But it is not "illegal" - which would mean forbidden by law.'

From the Brexiteer red top....

At no point did i say he had done something illegal....

OLD BOY 27-09-2019 17:38
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36011938)
But the Law Society in their glossary define unlawful as "illegal or contrary to social convention" Not that it matters as however you try and spin it the actions of the Prime Minister (Government??) were found lacking by the highest court in the land.
It does matter, because people are trying to suggest that he committed a criminal offence, which he did not. That isn't spin, it's about stating the facts correctly. Much as you would like to 'lock him up'.

pip08456 27-09-2019 17:39
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36011983)
'What law did Boris Johnson break?
Boris Johnson's prorogation did break the law, but it broke constitutional, not criminal law.

By preventing Parliament's right to hold the government to account, he broke the rules governing how the UK functions.

What he did was "unlawful" - meaning it wasn't permitted or conforming to the law. But it is not "illegal" - which would mean forbidden by law.'

From the Brexiteer red top....

At no point did i say he had done something illegal....
You can keep going as long as you want. You cannot find a law that was broken, otherwise post the statute.

OLD BOY 27-09-2019 17:45
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36011956)
You're wrong, I don't need to look it up

/Response
He did not commit any criminal offence. Does that clarify it for you?

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36011830)
Not my "opinion", it’s a fact (even if you do mix them up sometimes).

If a new law was "invented" on Tuesday, could you please show the legislation that "invented’ this law, as laws can only be created or changed by an Act of Parliament or Secondary legislation through statutory instruments (which can only be raised by the Government).

The Judiciary can’t "invent" laws.

You may find this helpful - https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/
It's called 'case law', isn't it?

pip08456 27-09-2019 18:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Interesting times ahead.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-27/...robert-peston/

Carth 27-09-2019 18:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Taken from above link . .

Quote:
"Trying to find a compromise candidate, a national unity candidate, is too complicated, especially in the time we have. Whether people like it or not, the temporary prime minister has to be Corbyn."
At the risk of a few facetious replies, just how low can they stoop to get their own way :D :D

jfman 27-09-2019 18:51
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
It's been known to everyone for some time that those who oppose Brexit have to put up a PM.

Hugh 27-09-2019 18:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36011996)
He did not commit any criminal offence. Does that clarify it for you?

---------- Post added at 17:45 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------



It's called 'case law', isn't it?
Not in this case*

https://www.ft.com/content/871bbd5e-...2-9624ec9edc59
Quote:
The Supreme Court did not create a new area of law, as its US counterpart had done in establishing a precedent of judicial review in 1803 with Marbury v Madison. The UK decision is instead a fundamental reassertion of constitutional principles.
*;)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23.
Page 41 of 369 « First 3137383940 41 424344455191141 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum