Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2084 of 2586 < 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 >

Topic Locked

Maine Eagle USA 11 Sep 19 11.43am
Originally posted by steeleye20 Scottish judges rule Boris Johnson's prorogation unlawful - bong!!!! Can they reconvene? Anyone's guess - is there anything Johnson can do right? Haha. Hope all those Tories who voted for this tosser are loving the epic fail that is his premiership. Every single vote has gone against him, now this. Comedy. Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.
Alert a moderator to this post

Maine Eagle

USA 11 Sep 19 11.43am

Originally posted by steeleye20

Scottish judges rule Boris Johnson's prorogation unlawful - bong!!!!

Can they reconvene?

Anyone's guess - is there anything Johnson can do right?

Haha. Hope all those Tories who voted for this tosser are loving the epic fail that is his premiership.

Every single vote has gone against him, now this.

Comedy.

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 11 Sep 19 12.04pm
Originally posted by Maine Eagle Haha. Hope all those Tories who voted for this tosser are loving the epic fail that is his premiership. Every single vote has gone against him, now this. Comedy. He can always appeal to the European Court of Justice (satire).
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 11 Sep 19 12.04pm

Originally posted by Maine Eagle

Haha. Hope all those Tories who voted for this tosser are loving the epic fail that is his premiership.

Every single vote has gone against him, now this.

Comedy.

He can always appeal to the European Court of Justice (satire).

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Sep 19 12.18pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 He can always appeal to the European Court of Justice (satire). Unfortunately though nothing will happen until the Supreme Court has considered the case and by the time they get to give their judgement he would have achieved at least, some, if not all or most, of his objective. He might get a slap on the wrist and have established a precedent but that's not going to make a lot of real difference. I see this as a diversion and not actually very useful. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court decide to give their judgement within hours. We can only hope. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Sep 19 12.18pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

He can always appeal to the European Court of Justice (satire).

Unfortunately though nothing will happen until the Supreme Court has considered the case and by the time they get to give their judgement he would have achieved at least, some, if not all or most, of his objective. He might get a slap on the wrist and have established a precedent but that's not going to make a lot of real difference.

I see this as a diversion and not actually very useful.

Unless, of course, the Supreme Court decide to give their judgement within hours. We can only hope.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 11 Sep 19 12.23pm
Three Scottish judges say that Boris was unlawful in proroguing parliament for political reasons. Gina Miller had her case thrown out because the English court also said this was political however they did want to get involved. These cases will now end up in the Supreme Court and I have no idea what they will decide. However I hope common sense prevails and the court declines to get involved. Of course Boris' reasons are political and so were all the previous Prime Ministers, John Major prorogued parliament as he didn't want an embarrassing report to be published whilst it sat. It's one of the privileges of the PM. There is a fine line between a court interpreting the law and making law which is the responsibility of parliament. In a recent case a wife was denied a divorce because it was under 2 years. The court sympathised with her plight but made the valid point that Parliament should decide as this was a complex issue and there was a danger of the court making a ruling on an individual case which would have unforeseen consequences to others. In other words parliament should debate take views from the public frame a law debate that law make changes as it goes through Parliament until the thing is done. If we are going to start changing our constitution by putting restrictions on what the PM can and can't do this should not be done in the pressure cooker of ya boo politics. I would hope that this would be a subject to be looked at along with the fixed term parliament act as a whole rather than a narrow court case. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 11 Sep 19 12.23pm

Three Scottish judges say that Boris was unlawful in proroguing parliament for political reasons.

Gina Miller had her case thrown out because the English court also said this was political however they did want to get involved.

These cases will now end up in the Supreme Court and I have no idea what they will decide. However I hope common sense prevails and the court declines to get involved.

Of course Boris' reasons are political and so were all the previous Prime Ministers, John Major prorogued parliament as he didn't want an embarrassing report to be published whilst it sat. It's one of the privileges of the PM.

There is a fine line between a court interpreting the law and making law which is the responsibility of parliament.

In a recent case a wife was denied a divorce because it was under 2 years. The court sympathised with her plight but made the valid point that Parliament should decide as this was a complex issue and there was a danger of the court making a ruling on an individual case which would have unforeseen consequences to others.

In other words parliament should debate take views from the public frame a law debate that law make changes as it goes through Parliament until the thing is done.

If we are going to start changing our constitution by putting restrictions on what the PM can and can't do this should not be done in the pressure cooker of ya boo politics.

I would hope that this would be a subject to be looked at along with the fixed term parliament act as a whole rather than a narrow court case.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 11 Sep 19 1.07pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You would take your wife to a hurricane devastated country would you? Not pause for a moment and maybe change your plans? Your analogy doesn't work though does it? While it's in no-one's interest for the UK to leave without a deal no-one wants it to drag on any longer either. So by forcing it off the table it puts the pressure onto the EU to try hard to find something that will enable our Parliament to accept. It also puts pressure on Johnson to try too as unless he does he won't be PM for much longer. So a better analogy would be that your car salesman faces the sack unless he manages to find a deal on a car that you can accept. So you are both motivated. show me where I said Id take her to a hurricane devastated country, give you a clue I didnt.. Why do the EU care if we have a deal or not....according to you they dont need us so deal or no deal, they couldnt care less...according to the likes of you we are the ones going to suffer, not them, so they can just let us 'crash out' with no deal, why do they care?
Alert a moderator to this post

the silurian

The garden of England.(not really) 11 Sep 19 1.07pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You would take your wife to a hurricane devastated country would you? Not pause for a moment and maybe change your plans?

Your analogy doesn't work though does it?

While it's in no-one's interest for the UK to leave without a deal no-one wants it to drag on any longer either. So by forcing it off the table it puts the pressure onto the EU to try hard to find something that will enable our Parliament to accept. It also puts pressure on Johnson to try too as unless he does he won't be PM for much longer.

So a better analogy would be that your car salesman faces the sack unless he manages to find a deal on a car that you can accept. So you are both motivated.

show me where I said Id take her to a hurricane devastated country, give you a clue I didnt..
Why do the EU care if we have a deal or not....according to you they dont need us so deal or no deal, they couldnt care less...according to the likes of you we are the ones going to suffer, not them, so they can just let us 'crash out' with no deal, why do they care?

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 11 Sep 19 2.03pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC I'm unable to fully talk about my work in an open context. I work with supposed refugees on a daily basis. In private, you learn a lot. In public these people are all victims. For example, speaking to one I was dealing with recently he told me he was South African and was here for a better life. In his asylum case he is from the Congo fleeing civil war - I'm not supposed to know that but I have a friend. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I see it every day. I reported it to my boss and they shrugged their shoulders. There is a conflict of interests when we are paid by numbers - quantity means funding. I have been incredibly tempted to report the whole thing to immigration but people will lose their jobs and I doubt I will be thanked. Do some research on whistleblowers in Ireland and you will see what I mean. I will admit this outright on here - I'm not sure anyone on here works with asylum seekers. I have been for a few years now and I am increasingly anti-immigration to the point of disliking even the individuals. Yet tomorrow I will meet a new batch. I would say straight off the boat but many fly with airlines I couldn't afford. There was an interesting Dublin incident recently that illustrates this. A taxi driver sexually assaulted a passenger - turned out his entire identity was fake. When the authorities investigated they found that over 80 percent of foreign taxi drivers in Dublin had fake papers and were not genuine asylum seekers at all. They had been paying for fake papers and having them stamped by a corrupt Gard (policeman). I believe the charge was 300 euro. The Gard has not been charged yet. Here is some independent proof on this: [Link] Worryingly there have been no investigations in the rest of the country. Here is a general piece on asylum seekers but it is not the mail or the express or anything like that. [Link] And here is an EU political journal that talks about what the US customs thinks of the EU - along with some interesting stats on Syrian passports. [Link] On a personal note, I interviewed three Algerians last year. All were posing as Syrians. I finished the interview with 'why are you seeking asylum from Algeria?'. 'Life is very hard there.' We kept them on our programme. Funding for three refugees - genuine or not, not our problem. I guess people will do anything for a better life and I find it hard to blame them. So when you meet your next Syrian asylum seeker just have a little think. And yes, I meet genuine ones every day too Having worked for Border Force for 28 years I can concur with everything in your post
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 11 Sep 19 2.03pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I'm unable to fully talk about my work in an open context. I work with supposed refugees on a daily basis. In private, you learn a lot. In public these people are all victims.
For example, speaking to one I was dealing with recently he told me he was South African and was here for a better life. In his asylum case he is from the Congo fleeing civil war - I'm not supposed to know that but I have a friend. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I see it every day. I reported it to my boss and they shrugged their shoulders. There is a conflict of interests when we are paid by numbers - quantity means funding.
I have been incredibly tempted to report the whole thing to immigration but people will lose their jobs and I doubt I will be thanked.
Do some research on whistleblowers in Ireland and you will see what I mean.
I will admit this outright on here - I'm not sure anyone on here works with asylum seekers. I have been for a few years now and I am increasingly anti-immigration to the point of disliking even the individuals. Yet tomorrow I will meet a new batch. I would say straight off the boat but many fly with airlines I couldn't afford.
There was an interesting Dublin incident recently that illustrates this. A taxi driver sexually assaulted a passenger - turned out his entire identity was fake. When the authorities investigated they found that over 80 percent of foreign taxi drivers in Dublin had fake papers and were not genuine asylum seekers at all. They had been paying for fake papers and having them stamped by a corrupt Gard (policeman). I believe the charge was 300 euro. The Gard has not been charged yet.

Here is some independent proof on this:

[Link]

Worryingly there have been no investigations in the rest of the country.

Here is a general piece on asylum seekers but it is not the mail or the express or anything like that.

[Link]

And here is an EU political journal that talks about what the US customs thinks of the EU - along with some interesting stats on Syrian passports.

[Link]

On a personal note, I interviewed three Algerians last year. All were posing as Syrians. I finished the interview with 'why are you seeking asylum from Algeria?'.
'Life is very hard there.'
We kept them on our programme. Funding for three refugees - genuine or not, not our problem.
I guess people will do anything for a better life and I find it hard to blame them. So when you meet your next Syrian asylum seeker just have a little think. And yes, I meet genuine ones every day too

Having worked for Border Force for 28 years I can concur with everything in your post

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 11 Sep 19 2.09pm
Originally posted by becky If they are looking at conscripting all 18-35 year olds, this will mean all those young people will get even more chance to live and work in the EU - whether they want to or not! Hope Maple'skids enjoy it
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 11 Sep 19 2.09pm

Originally posted by becky

If they are looking at conscripting all 18-35 year olds, this will mean all those young people will get even more chance to live and work in the EU - whether they want to or not!

Hope Maple'skids enjoy it

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 11 Sep 19 2.16pm
Originally posted by becky If they are looking at conscripting all 18-35 year olds, this will mean all those young people will get even more chance to live and work in the EU - whether they want to or not! Never going to happen....ask Wissie
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 11 Sep 19 2.16pm

Originally posted by becky

If they are looking at conscripting all 18-35 year olds, this will mean all those young people will get even more chance to live and work in the EU - whether they want to or not!

Never going to happen....ask Wissie

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 11 Sep 19 3.18pm
Originally posted by Spiderman Hope Maple'skids enjoy it Oh for heaven's sake. Look up in the sky, someone has written 'credulous'. Really. Flippin false news really gets my goat. It's so laughable I can't believe people post it. I also wonder from where it originates, in whose interest may it be to cut European military cooperation off at the knees, hmmm. But, to put you out of your misery: Recently a claim about supposed plans for an EU army has been going viral again on Facebook. The post claims that Britain will be forced to join an EU army unless the UK leaves the EU. It includes a screenshot of a 2016 article in the Express reporting then-armed forces minister Penny Mordaunt saying this during the EU referendum campaign. The text accompanying the image suggests this EU army will use some form of conscription. Both claims are incorrect. The UK could not be “forced” to participate in EU military policies even if we stay in the EU. Whether or not EU nations wish to create an “EU army”, and regardless of what that might actually entail, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security or defence. On issues like this, member countries effectively have a veto, so the UK would only take part if it chose to. There are no formal plans in place for an EU army, and so there are no “EU regulations” on drafting people into it. The EU does have various policies for defensive and security cooperation. For example, under the Common Security and Defence Policy, EU countries can pool military funding and resources. The UK participates in military operations through this policy. The EU has also established Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) a strategy which aims to “jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations” which the UK has chosen not to participate in.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Sep 19 3.18pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Hope Maple'skids enjoy it

Oh for heaven's sake. Look up in the sky, someone has written 'credulous'. Really.

Flippin false news really gets my goat. It's so laughable I can't believe people post it. I also wonder from where it originates, in whose interest may it be to cut European military cooperation off at the knees, hmmm.

But, to put you out of your misery:

Recently a claim about supposed plans for an EU army has been going viral again on Facebook.

The post claims that Britain will be forced to join an EU army unless the UK leaves the EU. It includes a screenshot of a 2016 article in the Express reporting then-armed forces minister Penny Mordaunt saying this during the EU referendum campaign.

The text accompanying the image suggests this EU army will use some form of conscription. Both claims are incorrect.

The UK could not be “forced” to participate in EU military policies even if we stay in the EU.

Whether or not EU nations wish to create an “EU army”, and regardless of what that might actually entail, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security or defence. On issues like this, member countries effectively have a veto, so the UK would only take part if it chose to.

There are no formal plans in place for an EU army, and so there are no “EU regulations” on drafting people into it.

The EU does have various policies for defensive and security cooperation. For example, under the Common Security and Defence Policy, EU countries can pool military funding and resources. The UK participates in military operations through this policy.

The EU has also established Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) a strategy which aims to “jointly develop defence capabilities and make them available for EU military operations” which the UK has chosen not to participate in.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 11 Sep 19 3.21pm
Originally posted by Maine Eagle Haha. Hope all those Tories who voted for this tosser are loving the epic fail that is his premiership. Every single vote has gone against him, now this. Comedy. If only there was some way that the Tory voters could have worked out that Mr Johnson is capable of maintaining a poker face whilst telling enormous lies. Maybe some previous history for example - I always make sure I take references when hiring. I am sure that then they would not have got themselves into this mess.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Sep 19 3.21pm

Originally posted by Maine Eagle

Haha. Hope all those Tories who voted for this tosser are loving the epic fail that is his premiership.

Every single vote has gone against him, now this.

Comedy.

If only there was some way that the Tory voters could have worked out that Mr Johnson is capable of maintaining a poker face whilst telling enormous lies. Maybe some previous history for example - I always make sure I take references when hiring. I am sure that then they would not have got themselves into this mess.

Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019 11 Sep 19 3.44pm
Poll of NI voters: Leave the UK and join ROI 51% Remaining in the UK 49% (Lord Ashcroft, 30/8-2/9)
Alert a moderator to this post

Invalid user 2019

11 Sep 19 3.44pm

Poll of NI voters:

Leave the UK and join ROI 51% Remaining in the UK 49% (Lord Ashcroft, 30/8-2/9)

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 11 Sep 19 3.52pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Scottish judges rule Boris Johnson's prorogation unlawful - bong!!!! Can they reconvene? Anyone's guess - is there anything Johnson can do right? But that would only be unlawful in Scotland - and Parliament is in England - so maybe just the Scottish constituency MP's have to reconvene to comply with the law? A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 11 Sep 19 3.52pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Scottish judges rule Boris Johnson's prorogation unlawful - bong!!!!

Can they reconvene?

Anyone's guess - is there anything Johnson can do right?

But that would only be unlawful in Scotland - and Parliament is in England - so maybe just the Scottish constituency MP's have to reconvene to comply with the law?

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Topic Locked

Page 2084 of 2586 < 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors