Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

lvader

phillw wrote: »

So you think these two ideas

We're not proroguing to prevent scrutiny
The supreme count has allowed parliament to scrutinize

aren't in conflict?

Or are you saying that his slippery nature of making it appear he is saying something that he isn't, is the cause of this misunderstanding?

I'd be interested in why you think he prorogued.

What Scrutiny? They are preventing the government from governing.

phillw

lvader wrote: »

What Scrutiny?

Being able to ask questions in parliament for a start. Like they did today.

lvader wrote: »

They are preventing the government from governing.

No they aren't, you're making it up again.

lvader wrote: »

He didn't need to lie, he used his PM powers under the advise that it was entirely legal. The high court agreed with this. The Supreme court created by Tony Blair in 2009 took a different view.

And the scotish court, so 2 against 1.

You're confusing that he didn't think he would need to justify in court, for why he actually did it.

When questioned in public he has always said that it was for the queen's speech, the supreme court disagreed with the evidence put forward to support what he had said in public.

lvader

phillw wrote: »

Being able to ask questions in parliament for a start. Like they did today.



No they aren't, you're making it up again.

Not that I heard many questions, it was mostly gobble gobble. But how is the government able to govern if it can't pass law.

phillw

lvader wrote: »

Not that I heard many questions, it was mostly gobble gobble.

There were a lot of good questions, but I take your point that the answers were just a lot of vacuous waffle.

lvader wrote: »

But how is the government able to govern if it can't pass law.

What laws is it trying to pass? Government doesn't have a right to pass laws without scrutiny, or we wouldn't need house of commons. If they put forward a good bill then I'm sure the commons would vote for it.

The person who is most responsible for preventing Boris passing law is Boris.

He's lying in the commons now, but parliamentary privilege means that's ok.

Conina

phillw wrote: »

He's lying in the commons now, but parliamentary privilege means that's ok.

Telling the house that they are cowards for not tabling a no-confidence vote or allowing an election isn't lying when that is exactly what the house are doing, and it is because they know that their jobs wouldn't survive an election so Boris is right and you are, as usual, wrong.

MaxiRobriguez

Conina wrote: »

Telling the house that they are cowards for not tabling a no-confidence vote or allowing an election isn't lying when that is exactly what the house are doing, and it is because they know that their jobs wouldn't survive an election so Boris is right and you are, as usual, wrong.

So if they vote for a general election after the no-deal threat passes, are they still cowards, or is your self entitled, lazy, destructive PM perhaps the very obvious liar he so is?

It's clear as day why they rejected general election and won't vote no confidence, it's because Johnson is completely untrustworthy. Once he is bound by tight legislation, an election will follow.

BikingBud

Boris:

"All that matters to them is an obsessive desire to overturn the referendum result."

Seems a very astute observation and also covers a large proportion on the people that post on here.

What do people on here really want?

Their own way? or
To ensure democracy is delivered and seen to be delivered?

Seems a lot are trying like hell to dress up the former as the latter.

Tromking

Well done Remainer MP’s.
They've dragged Boris back to Parliament only for him to hand their asses back to them tonight.

buglawton

Conina wrote: »

Telling the house that they are cowards for not tabling a no-confidence vote or allowing an election isn't lying when that is exactly what the house are doing, and it is because they know that their jobs wouldn't survive an election so Boris is right and you are, as usual, wrong.

Exactly, the braying Opposition has No Confidence... in itself.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

OK. Let's try again. You said that the accusation of lying was implicit. That's after you actually said that Boris was judged to have lied and that’s when you started backtracking. Then you resort to the dictionary and give us a different meaning to explicit and claim that the accusation wasn't clear and exact. I've no idea what dictionary you’re using but explicit does not mean that at all.

Why not quit before you make yourself look even sillier?

Try as many times as you like. Boris lied about his reasons for suspending parliament. If the Supreme Court believed him they would have found in the government's favour because suspending parliament to allow a Queen's speech and bring forward the government's exciting legislative programme is perfectly legitimate.

They didn't believe him and found against him which rather implies they think he's a liar and his position bogus.

Try not to get too hung up on the dictionary (you're wrong about that too OED - Explicit - Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. Yes you've learnt something about the English language but your key takeaway should be that Boris lied and was called out.

The Supreme Court judges must have felt somewhat vindicated when he stood up in parliament and immediately started ranting about brexit rather than his, now postponed, exciting legislative programme.