Non League Matters - The Continuation of Tonys english Football Site 



  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Non Football Related: General Chat:
Brexit - Again

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 Next page Last page  View All


Yatesman
First Team Star

Sep 9, 2019, 9:46 AM

Posts: 1444
Location: A Wee Toon in the Scottish Borders
Team(s):

Post #101 of 418 (1291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Yatesman] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
Another view of yesterdayís pro-Brexit yobs.

They behave remarkably like the yobs who follow the England football team around the world.

https://twitter.com/...421368002895877?s=21

Please explain exactly how half a dozen pushers and shovers ( who may have been police agent provocateurs....hmmm!) have any relevance to the result to
leave the EU as proscribed by the 2016 referendum....


Looking forward to this answer...LOL!


Actually meant prescribed, not proscribed but point remains that the actions of half a dozen numpties in 2019 is irrelevant to the result of the referendum of 2016......unless someone can explain otherwise !


coops
First Team Sub

Sep 11, 2019, 10:09 AM

Posts: 1176
Location: Black Country
Team(s): Tamworth

Post #102 of 418 (1138 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Towlawtom] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

Yes but at least we will be free, able to take control of our borders, Make our own laws and get rid of all those unelected bureaucrats LaughLaugh


Unelected bureaucrats like Dominic Cummings who is basically running the government at the moment?


Tykeoldboy
Chelsea Transfer Target


Sep 11, 2019, 1:47 PM

Posts: 3266
Location:
Team(s): Doncaster Rovers, Everton, Mablethorpe

Post #103 of 418 (1079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [coops] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

Yes but at least we will be free, able to take control of our borders, Make our own laws and get rid of all those unelected bureaucrats LaughLaugh


Unelected bureaucrats like Dominic Cummings who is basically running the government at the moment?


The business of running the country continues whether or not there is a government and that job is the responsibility of Mark Sedwill who is the head of the Civil Service, but not a politician.



The feeling of utter devastation when you pick up your mug and realise you already finished your tea.


Part-Timer
Chelsea Transfer Target

Sep 11, 2019, 1:56 PM

Posts: 4522
Location: Huntingdonshire
Team(s): Brentford, Bradford City, Peterborough United, Yaxley

Post #104 of 418 (1073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tykeoldboy] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To

Yes but at least we will be free, able to take control of our borders, Make our own laws and get rid of all those unelected bureaucrats LaughLaugh


Unelected bureaucrats like Dominic Cummings who is basically running the government at the moment?


The business of running the country continues whether or not there is a government and that job is the responsibility of Mark Sedwill who is the head of the Civil Service, but not a politician.

It's parliament that has been prorogued not government. Ministers will still be working as hard as ever in their departments.


jon b
First Team Star

Sep 11, 2019, 3:41 PM

Posts: 2984
Location: Dronfield
Team(s): SUFC, SWFC etc

Post #105 of 418 (1037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Part-Timer] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Ministers will still be working as hard as ever in their departments.


In theory, it's great for Ministers to be hard at work in their Departments.

Unfortunately, if you're talking of the Chris Graylings of this world, you'd rather they lazed around chilling and doing nothing rather than busily spreading disaster with all they touch. Frown

.


jon b
First Team Star

Sep 11, 2019, 4:17 PM

Posts: 2984
Location: Dronfield
Team(s): SUFC, SWFC etc

Post #106 of 418 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tykeoldboy] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To

Yes but at least we will be free, able to take control of our borders, Make our own laws and get rid of all those unelected bureaucrats LaughLaugh


Unelected bureaucrats like Dominic Cummings who is basically running the government at the moment?


The business of running the country continues whether or not there is a government and that job is the responsibility of Mark Sedwill who is the head of the Civil Service, but not a politician.


I suppose the argument is that Dominic Cummings is some sort of supercharged Alastair Campbell/Malcolm Tucker hatchet man pulling Boris' strings and running the show. Personally, I'm not convinced that is actually the case. Any Minister with a bit of backbone and self respect can take the Jo Johnson/Amber Rudd option and walk out if they disagree with the way the ship is being steered, irrespective of who's doing the steering.

I'm also not convinced that Cummings is a tactical and strategic genius.

For instance, I don't understand what they expected to gain from the decision to prorogue.

The opponents of No Deal are deeply split between Remainers and those MPs willing to Brexit but not without a Deal. This split has been one reason why the Commons has found it so difficult to find a majority for any course of action. I would have expected an unprorogued Commons to have remained the ineffective talking shop that it has been for months and months.

However, the decision to prorogue has managed the difficult feat of uniting the various anti No Deal factions and resulted in the run of defeats Boris has suffered.

Proroguing Parliament looks like a Baldrick cunning plan that in reality is both a conspiracy and a cock-up.

.


007Dale
First Team Star

Sep 11, 2019, 4:51 PM

Posts: 1715
Location:
Team(s): St Albans City, Leicester City

Post #107 of 418 (1006 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jon b] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

For instance, I don't understand what they expected to gain from the decision to prorogue.

The opponents of No Deal are deeply split between Remainers and those MPs willing to Brexit but not without a Deal. This split has been one reason why the Commons has found it so difficult to find a majority for any course of action. I would have expected an unprorogued Commons to have remained the ineffective talking shop that it has been for months and months.

However, the decision to prorogue has managed the difficult feat of uniting the various anti No Deal factions and resulted in the run of defeats Boris has suffered.

Proroguing Parliament looks like a Baldrick cunning plan that in reality is both a conspiracy and a cock-up.

.


Agree. It was perfectly possible to predict the fallout by also leaving the Remainers time to do exactly what they did last week.

Had he suggested a General Election first off, he wouldnít have píeed off 20-odd members of his parliamentary party and given the momentum to Remain.

However, if he can cling on until the eventual General Election I feel certain heíll win a majority.


leohoenig
Administrator

Sep 12, 2019, 6:59 AM

Posts: 13535
Location: Outer Cheltenhamshire
Team(s): Cheltenham Town

Post #108 of 418 (913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [007Dale] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

https://bylinetimes.com/...nsons-leave-backers/



Fat AND Pompous.
The proof that you can have too much of a good thing
Now blogging at http://www.leohoenig.com



northstandexile
First Team Regular

Sep 12, 2019, 5:25 PM

Posts: 1412
Location: Mansfield
Team(s): Mansfield Town

Post #109 of 418 (844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leohoenig] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Does it really matter if you tell porkies to the Queen?


Tykeoldboy
Chelsea Transfer Target


Sep 12, 2019, 6:05 PM

Posts: 3266
Location:
Team(s): Doncaster Rovers, Everton, Mablethorpe

Post #110 of 418 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [northstandexile] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Does it really matter if you tell porkies to the Queen?


I'm not sure if the reigning UK monarch is still allowed to have someone taken to the gallows to be hung drawn and quartered just because they have been insulted or lied to.



The feeling of utter devastation when you pick up your mug and realise you already finished your tea.

(This post was edited by Tykeoldboy on Sep 12, 2019, 6:06 PM)


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Sep 12, 2019, 6:46 PM

Posts: 5370
Location:
Team(s):

Post #111 of 418 (808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tykeoldboy] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...


Sale Holmfield
First Team Regular

Sep 12, 2019, 6:59 PM

Posts: 1394
Location: Sale
Team(s): Altrincham, Conwy Borough

Post #112 of 418 (794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...

Probably because, naive as we are, most people expect a government to act within the law, so it is much more worthy of note when one has not.


PaulC
Man City Transfer Target!


Sep 12, 2019, 7:00 PM

Posts: 11669
Location: Ayrshire, Midlothian
Team(s): AFC Darwen, Troon, Ayr Utd, Burnley

Post #113 of 418 (794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...


It had plenty of publicity. Perhaps you werenít paying attention.

However, Gina Millerís case was not that Johnson had lied but that prorogation was an abuse of power, The Scottish court concluded that Johnson had not told the queen his true reason for prorogation. Quite different. He isnít being accused, by the way. The Scottish Court of Session has concluded he DID lie.

As an aside, its interesting reading the English reaction to the Scottish court case. Most people seem to think that English law is UK law and the Scottish judgment is a bit of a side show.

Lots of people are saying that because the English court found against the appellants the Supreme Court will do the same. They even think itís an English court.

The truth is, Scots Law and English Law are equals. The UK Supreme Court, with Scottish and English judges on it must consider the Scottish verdict in line with Scots law.

What the English court decided is an irrelevance.


(This post was edited by PaulC on Sep 12, 2019, 7:02 PM)


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Sep 12, 2019, 7:20 PM

Posts: 5370
Location:
Team(s):

Post #114 of 418 (779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PaulC] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

It got far less publicity and generated far less comment from certain quarters because the judgement did not go against the government. It is as simple as that.

And I know perfectly well that the cases were not about 'lying'. These accusations came from politicians and the media.


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Sep 12, 2019, 8:25 PM

Posts: 5370
Location:
Team(s):

Post #115 of 418 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sale Holmfield] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...

Probably because, naive as we are, most people expect a government to act within the law, so it is much more worthy of note when one has not.

But what law? There is no statute, only precedent. The English court's judgement was that it is not the courts' business to judge.


Ronsdog
First Team Star


Sep 12, 2019, 8:25 PM

Posts: 2668
Location: Sarf London
Team(s): Lowestoft Town, Crystal Palace

Post #116 of 418 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leohoenig] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To


Perhaps not as clear cut as reported......

https://fullfact.org/...omy/short-positions/

.......and wasn't it the bankroller of the remain campaign , one George Soros, that made over £100m from betting against the £ during the ERM fiasco?

We all enjoy a punt so what was your point Leo?


007Dale
First Team Star

Sep 12, 2019, 8:26 PM

Posts: 1715
Location:
Team(s): St Albans City, Leicester City

Post #117 of 418 (733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The Supreme Court will find in the Governments favour; and this week will prove to be something of an unnecessary side show.

Itís at least given the Remoaners something to crow on about, given they never get to celebrate actual election victories.


Yatesman
First Team Star

Sep 12, 2019, 8:27 PM

Posts: 1444
Location: A Wee Toon in the Scottish Borders
Team(s):

Post #118 of 418 (731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PaulC] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...


It had plenty of publicity. Perhaps you werenít paying attention.

However, Gina Millerís case was not that Johnson had lied but that prorogation was an abuse of power, The Scottish court concluded that Johnson had not told the queen his true reason for prorogation. Quite different. He isnít being accused, by the way. The Scottish Court of Session has concluded he DID lie.

As an aside, its interesting reading the English reaction to the Scottish court case. Most people seem to think that English law is UK law and the Scottish judgment is a bit of a side show.

Lots of people are saying that because the English court found against the appellants the Supreme Court will do the same. They even think itís an English court.

The truth is, Scots Law and English Law are equals. The UK Supreme Court, with Scottish and English judges on it must consider the Scottish verdict in line with Scots law.

What the English court decided is an irrelevance.


I haven't had time to get fully up to speed but I understand that the Scottish Judges were obliged to draw this conclusion because the UK Gov't didn't offer any evidence to the contrary or alternative explanatuion to the charge of lying laid before them.

Because they are Judges and NOT investigators, if there was NO evidence presented by the defence to the contrary they are obliged to judge that as the charges are uncontested the only conclusion they can draw is that they must be true.

It's not the same as them being factually true, just evidentially true.

It's why there will be an appeal, the Gov't will present it's side and the case will fail in the Supreme Court due to the impossibility of proving the lie.

This is how I understand it with what I've read.


Mr. T
Chelsea Transfer Target


Sep 12, 2019, 8:29 PM

Posts: 5370
Location:
Team(s):

Post #119 of 418 (727 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronsdog] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Multiply the Soros windfall by 10...


PaulC
Man City Transfer Target!


Sep 12, 2019, 9:07 PM

Posts: 11669
Location: Ayrshire, Midlothian
Team(s): AFC Darwen, Troon, Ayr Utd, Burnley

Post #120 of 418 (690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Yatesman] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To
Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...


It had plenty of publicity. Perhaps you werenít paying attention.

However, Gina Millerís case was not that Johnson had lied but that prorogation was an abuse of power, The Scottish court concluded that Johnson had not told the queen his true reason for prorogation. Quite different. He isnít being accused, by the way. The Scottish Court of Session has concluded he DID lie.

As an aside, its interesting reading the English reaction to the Scottish court case. Most people seem to think that English law is UK law and the Scottish judgment is a bit of a side show.

Lots of people are saying that because the English court found against the appellants the Supreme Court will do the same. They even think itís an English court.

The truth is, Scots Law and English Law are equals. The UK Supreme Court, with Scottish and English judges on it must consider the Scottish verdict in line with Scots law.

What the English court decided is an irrelevance.


I haven't had time to get fully up to speed but I understand that the Scottish Judges were obliged to draw this conclusion because the UK Gov't didn't offer any evidence to the contrary or alternative explanatuion to the charge of lying laid before them.

Because they are Judges and NOT investigators, if there was NO evidence presented by the defence to the contrary they are obliged to judge that as the charges are uncontested the only conclusion they can draw is that they must be true.

It's not the same as them being factually true, just evidentially true.

It's why there will be an appeal, the Gov't will present it's side and the case will fail in the Supreme Court due to the impossibility of proving the lie.

This is how I understand it with what I've read.


Iím afraid you cannot present new evidence at the Supreme Court.

The role of the Supreme Court is to examine the verdict based on the evidence at the time of the case. It is not a retrial. Johnson has had hisbopportunity to present his evidence.

Johnson was requested by the court to submit a sworn affadavit explaining his actions. He failed to do so. No civil servant was willing to swear to anything either.

It seems to me clear that the Court of Session was right to deduce from this that Johnson and his civil servants were unwilling to perjure themselves and that consequently he did lie about his motives.


Ronsdog
First Team Star


Sep 12, 2019, 9:30 PM

Posts: 2668
Location: Sarf London
Team(s): Lowestoft Town, Crystal Palace

Post #121 of 418 (667 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mr. T] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Multiply the Soros windfall by 10...


Thanks for pointing out my error.

I think the point is well and truly madeWink


Yatesman
First Team Star

Sep 12, 2019, 10:28 PM

Posts: 1444
Location: A Wee Toon in the Scottish Borders
Team(s):

Post #122 of 418 (639 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PaulC] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To
Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...


It had plenty of publicity. Perhaps you werenít paying attention.

However, Gina Millerís case was not that Johnson had lied but that prorogation was an abuse of power, The Scottish court concluded that Johnson had not told the queen his true reason for prorogation. Quite different. He isnít being accused, by the way. The Scottish Court of Session has concluded he DID lie.

As an aside, its interesting reading the English reaction to the Scottish court case. Most people seem to think that English law is UK law and the Scottish judgment is a bit of a side show.

Lots of people are saying that because the English court found against the appellants the Supreme Court will do the same. They even think itís an English court.

The truth is, Scots Law and English Law are equals. The UK Supreme Court, with Scottish and English judges on it must consider the Scottish verdict in line with Scots law.

What the English court decided is an irrelevance.


I haven't had time to get fully up to speed but I understand that the Scottish Judges were obliged to draw this conclusion because the UK Gov't didn't offer any evidence to the contrary or alternative explanatuion to the charge of lying laid before them.

Because they are Judges and NOT investigators, if there was NO evidence presented by the defence to the contrary they are obliged to judge that as the charges are uncontested the only conclusion they can draw is that they must be true.

It's not the same as them being factually true, just evidentially true.

It's why there will be an appeal, the Gov't will present it's side and the case will fail in the Supreme Court due to the impossibility of proving the lie.

This is how I understand it with what I've read.


Iím afraid you cannot present new evidence at the Supreme Court.

The role of the Supreme Court is to examine the verdict based on the evidence at the time of the case. It is not a retrial. Johnson has had hisbopportunity to present his evidence.

Johnson was requested by the court to submit a sworn affadavit explaining his actions. He failed to do so. No civil servant was willing to swear to anything either.

It seems to me clear that the Court of Session was right to deduce from this that Johnson and his civil servants were unwilling to perjure themselves and that consequently he did lie about his motives.


The Supreme Court is essentially an appeal court and as such new evidence can be presented if presented for the Judges' consideration at the start of proceedings.
It has to meet certain criteria and generally ( though NOT exclusively) has to be something that could not have been presented at the original trial.
In a case of this importance it is my contention that the judges would be sympathetic to new evidence being presented.

It was a big mistake of Johnson's not to properly engage with the Scottish trial.

In general, I think Judges have to be careful not to be political and to not get involved in matters that are better dealt with at the ballot box.


TroubleAtMill
Reserve Team Sub

Sep 13, 2019, 7:12 AM

Posts: 427
Location:
Team(s):

Post #123 of 418 (578 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Yatesman] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

This man in the question time audience sums it up perfectly https://mobile.twitter.com/.../1172274896711442434


Part-Timer
Chelsea Transfer Target

Sep 13, 2019, 4:34 PM

Posts: 4522
Location: Huntingdonshire
Team(s): Brentford, Bradford City, Peterborough United, Yaxley

Post #124 of 418 (482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Yatesman] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Appealing to the courts in this instance seems a little desperate to me. The convention is that the Prime Minister advises the monarch when to prorogue Parliament. There is no law that the PM has to make a reasonable case when doing so. The monarch is just a rubber stamp. The monarch may ask why and may even counsel against it but that is as far as it should go. There should be no veto and so whether the PM has given honest reasons is neither here nor there. Much as I deplore this prorogation it is right that the decision is made by an elected PM (and, yes, there are issues around that in Boris Johnson's case but he holds that position as a result of a recognised process with plenty of precedents) and not an individual in an inherited role.


PaulC
Man City Transfer Target!


Sep 13, 2019, 5:46 PM

Posts: 11669
Location: Ayrshire, Midlothian
Team(s): AFC Darwen, Troon, Ayr Utd, Burnley

Post #125 of 418 (458 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Part-Timer] Brexit - Again [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

A rare intelligent analysis of the Court of Sessions judgment by our media.

https://threadreaderapp.com/...252249667592193.html

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 Next page Last page  View All
 
 


free hit counters

Search for (options) HOSTED BY SUMMIT SOCCER v.1.2.3