O/T Democracy

[KerrAvon]

I do hope that those remaoning set of **** whits and cry babies realise just what they have done to this country and any future political arguments the party's will have can now be ruled over by the courts. Well done you total set of tossers.

Good luck fellas in the future when walking passed an attractive women and thinking to yourself "I would" because it seems that she could take you to court and say he was thinking of throwing me down on the floor and having his way with me. It seems as though without any proof at all you might be found guilty .

I think you are taking this a bit hard, Biggie.

Everybody knew why BoJo prorogued Parliament, which is why he wouldn’t submit a sworn affidavit in support of his public claim that it was a matter of routine. It’s also why the Supreme Court decision to declare the ‘routine’ prorogation is now being derided on here as being a pro-Remain decision.

[KerrAvon]

Where did I say that private schools are banned in these schools. The point is that there are comparatively much fewer than here, some with hardly any. Very little public funds go into their creation and maintenance, unlike here.

We can argue the pros and cons as much as you like but these countries can hardly be called communist which was the point I was making

So when you said that those countries had no private schools, you meant not as many as the UK? So you presumably accept that in proposing to ban private schools, Labour is taking a more extreme position than the countries you mention?

What funds do you say go into the creation and maintenance of private schools in the UK? I suspect that your Momentum Fact s Sheet may have let you down again…

You are right that we could argue the pros and cons of Labour proposing to limit the rights of people to make choices about their children’s’ education. The Pro list is going to be pretty short though.

[KerrAvon]

Now wouldn’t that be farcical asking the ECJ to rule on this. We all know the outcome so don’t bother Boris.

At the risk of spoiling the joke, I have to observe that the ECJ has no jurisdiction on matters of British constitutional law.

[KerrAvon]

The Tory Party has been somewhat divided on EEC/EU since Britain joined. There seems to be a split now between generally pro-Remain "Big Business", the usual backers of the Tories, and much of the Tory Party itself. Labour should try to force a general election as soon as possible, and stand with the Lexit (Left Exit) manifesto, ie improving workers rights, undoing previous privatisation, improving public services, etc, and ditching the Blairite politicians, and in clear opposition to the Boris "free fall" strategy

So let me get this straight. Raging waves around a slightly paranoid Guardian article that says that no deal is some sort of free market wet dream designed to deregulate and give business a free rein in this country, whereas you think that the government is at odds with business because they are pro-remain.

It’s not surprising that Labour can’t decide what it’s policy on Brexit is.

[BigLadonOS]

I think you are taking this a bit hard, Biggie.

Everybody knew why BoJo prorogued Parliament, which is why he wouldn’t submit a sworn affidavit in support of his public claim that it was a matter of routine. It’s also why the Supreme Court decision to declare the ‘routine’ prorogation is now being derided on here as being a pro-Remain decision.

Are you for real? So everyone knew why Boris did what he did but where is your proof? Other than an assumption what proof do you have?

The law deals in proof not hearsay or at least it did before today's events.

[KerrAvon]

Are you for real? So everyone knew why Boris did what he did but where is your proof? Other than an assumption what proof do you have?

The law deals in proof not hearsay or at least it did before today's events.

I'm for real, Biggie.

The decision today wasn't about whether BoJo told porkies (even if we all know that he did). It was about whether a government can suspend Parliament without a good reason.

Now it may be that BoJo had a good reason but he declined to provide any evidence concerning his reasoning preferring instead to have his lawyers argue that the court simply had no jurisdiction in the matter. Even though his reasoning was not ultimately in issue, his failure to provide any evidence on the point is telling and one from which court could draw the obvious inference.

[sawmiller]

what rancour we have here

[Lol'smate]

New Labour appointments.

One of them is a "leading Blair ally" who decided there should be no enquiry into the Iraq war, totally corrupt.

10 of the 12 Supreme Court judges were invested since 2010 i.e. when the Conservative party were in power. Appointments to the Supreme Court are made by the monarch following advice from the Lord Chancellor. The current Lord Chancellor is a Conservative MP and was appointed by the monarch on the advice of the (Conservative) Prime Minister. Can't think there is much New Labour input there.

[mikemiller]

When you say that 'wealth that was rightly taken away from the white minority ruling class', I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have forgotten about the murders, rapes and arsons that were used to enforce that.

How did the white minority achieve its position of power in the first place? Mugabe was one of the military figures who led a national liberation struggle in the developing world against the remnants of old imperialism. Other than you (!), can't think of many people who would describe him as a "Socialist" though.

Also re Brexit - "Big business" may well have a completely different political analysis than somebody running a small business/corner shop - which is probably true in this case.

You sure that you're not Kempo?

[BigLadonOS]

I'm for real, Biggie.

The decision today wasn't about whether BoJo told porkies (even if we all know that he did). It was about whether a government can suspend Parliament without a good reason.

Now it may be that BoJo had a good reason but he declined to provide any evidence concerning his reasoning preferring instead to have his lawyers argue that the court simply had no jurisdiction in the matter. Even though his reasoning was not ultimately in issue, his failure to provide any evidence on the point is telling and one from which court could draw the obvious inference.

My god man you are a total and utter nutter. The case was brought to the courts on the premise that Boris lied to the queen which is what they have given a verdict of guilty on.

I hope this is what all you antidemocratic people wanted because you have now given the law full power over any political decision that will be made from now on.

Good luck to Corbyn if he thinks he is going to get that £10 an hour living wage to pass Parliament and the law. Even if parliament do pass that law it could now be taken to the courts by the rich business men and women who will find a reason to not abide by it.

Your vote will never ever count for anything again in your lifetime or even your children or grandchildren. You and any remoaners who have backed this result or who are harpy about it will pay the price big time so well done muppets.