Br-ex-ilection 2019

[coldel]

I had to chuckle - good marketing team at BK it seems 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by coldel

[Adrian@TORQEN]

15 hours ago, Ekona said:

As before though, this election is really about Brexit, nothing else. Don’t kid yourselves that anything else will change at all in the next 5 years otherwise, regardless of who wins. 

Did you actually read the Conservative manifesto? 

 

Here's the link from their website: https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

 

Check page 48:

 

 

"We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays."

 

Does this mean Boris Johnson's decisions could not be ruled illegal, the only person with this status in UK, or am I reading it wrong? Forget 2000 years of legal precedent, the human rights laws, any equality considerations or any new law made by MPs? How about the separations of powers? As I read it, the ancient rights of royal prerogative could/would be used to overrule the parliament, so that the government and Prime Minister could act illegally, without any chance of stopping it.

 

Remember when he tried to close Parliament for 5 weeks at a time of crisis, being ruled illegal? Or when May wanted to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary consent?

 

Not a law specialist, but I'd love to hear what the specialists are saying about this paragraph with regards to the judicial reviews.

 

Anything but Corbyn you say? 

 

[coldel]

I think its well documented I dislike Boris, but apparently the suspension of parliament was unlawful, not illegal. Will leave you guys to argue the semantics of that one.

 

Its still anyone but anyone for me. Wheres Brewster when you need him to tick none of the above...

 

Looks like the Green party for me 

[Maggz]

31 minutes ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

Did you actually read the Conservative manifesto? 

 

Here's the link from their website: https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

 

Check page 48:

 

 

"We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays."

 

Does this mean Boris Johnson's decisions could not be ruled illegal, the only person with this status in UK, or am I reading it wrong? Forget 2000 years of legal precedent, the human rights laws, any equality considerations or any new law made by MPs? How about the separations of powers? As I read it, the ancient rights of royal prerogative could/would be used to overrule the parliament, so that the government and Prime Minister could act illegally, without any chance of stopping it.

 

Remember when he tried to close Parliament for 5 weeks at a time of crisis, being ruled illegal? Or when May wanted to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary consent?

 

Not a law specialist, but I'd love to hear what the specialists are saying about this paragraph with regards to the judicial reviews.

 

Anything but Corbyn you say? 

 

The fact that Johnson prorogued the parliament in crunch time was enough for me. And seeing that they're publicly promising a look at the "broader aspects of our constitution" and the fact the Tories will be updating the Human rights act scares the bejesus out of me. 

 

I also don't get this concept of needing to like the party leader to vote for a party. Votes should be based on policy and track record of the party, not charisma and how well people speak or look. I mean, cmon, when was the last time anyone really liked a politician?

[coldel]

I think that leaders, not only here but in many other 'democracies'  are acting more and more on their own powers than going with a cabinet consensus and still able to stay in role - Boris is a dangerous individual in that respect, someone that is for example openly racist and able to still hold the highest office shows that.

 

And yes, there have been politicans that people liked, they might not necessarily been on the front benches but there are.  

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Still waiting to be shown why Corbyn is "unelectable", some facts and links would be amazing. I genuinely want to understand.

[Maggz]

52 minutes ago, coldel said:

I think that leaders, not only here but in many other 'democracies'  are acting more and more on their own powers than going with a cabinet consensus and still able to stay in role - Boris is a dangerous individual in that respect, someone that is for example openly racist and able to still hold the highest office shows that.

 

And yes, there have been politicans that people liked, they might not necessarily been on the front benches but there are.  

In Boris's case you're right. If nothing else, his rhetoric is so bad that he's normalising open racism and bigotry, so if for no other reason,  he should be prevented the PM job just because of that. 

I'm trying to be objective and look at the wider picture, but in his case, ... Yeah, we probably shouldn't do that 

[coldel]

1 hour ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

Still waiting to be shown why Corbyn is "unelectable", some facts and links would be amazing. I genuinely want to understand.

I think anyone is electable, if enough people align with them, but I don’t think there are for Corbyn who is like Boris polarising.
 

If you want to understand I would just collate headlines and follow the trend, ultimately it’s about perception if you are talking purely about “electability”

[Ekona]

See, I read that part of the Conservative manifesto as saying that there does need to be a review for the sake of not dragging stuff through the courts, as parliament and government should have more defined limits on what they can and cannot do. Technically what Boris did was right, but a court judged it differently which then put the queen in a sticky situation as ultimately she said it was okay, even though that’s not really a thing as the monarchy don’t get involved in that level any more. A clear definition would mean that there’s no more fudging or opposition parties voting against stuff or dragging decisions through the courts just to make a point, whether they’re right or wrong. 
 

We’ve had a lot of tricky state vs government vs court questions with the whole Brexit thing, questions that no one ever thought would need to be asked. Makes sense to clear them all up for the future, whatever that means. 

[Maggz]

4 minutes ago, Ekona said:

Technically what Boris did was right, but a court judged it differently

How can it be right, when all 11 judges ruled differently? So what you're saying is that a politician knows better, than all 11 judges who devoted their life to their profession? 

 

This makes absolutely zero sense to me

 

6 minutes ago, Ekona said:

which then put the queen in a sticky situation as ultimately she said it was okay

Judges didn't put the queen in a sticky situation, Johnson lied to her and the nation and probably apologized to her as well. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ekona said:

A clear definition would mean that there’s no more fudging or opposition parties voting against stuff or dragging decisions through the courts just to make a point, whether they’re right or wrong

Royals are only involved as a formality, we have a parliamentary democracy, and not a monarchy. You maybe don't like that fact, but it's still fact. What Johnson did, was taken advantage of a procedural formality and used it to try and force his hard brexit threat as a negotiating position with the EU (which is moronic anyway), and prevent the parliament having a say. He literally used her name, status and position for his failed strategy, and made a fool of himself. And the one thing the courts are always....is right. That's why we have them, to tell the retarded plebs like us, what right is and what wrong is. 

 

12 minutes ago, Ekona said:

tricky state vs government vs court questions with the whole Brexit thing, questions that no one ever thought would need to be asked

Nothing tricky about it, just a government who's trying to bend laws and procedures to their benefit, and then telling people their own courts and parliament are against them. I mean if this wasn't the UK, and this would happen in a younger democracy, or a dodgier democracy like Turkey, the world would report that they're preparing a coup. 

What did they say or do to convince you that the only layer of our system who can interpret and decide on what's wrong and not, is your enemy? 

[docwra]

Maggz is bang on and the concern that Adrian raised is very real. 

 

After the constant lying and misrepresentation and silencing the media protests removing the power of the courts is the next step in the dictator playbook. Scary times.  
 

[Ekona]

Royals may be a formality these days, but the fact they’re still involved at all needs changing. I don’t see anything wrong with looking at how the intricacies of court/monarchy/parliament is currently and looking for changes for clarity going forward. How can that be a bad thing?

[Maggz]

23 minutes ago, Ekona said:

Royals may be a formality these days, but the fact they’re still involved at all needs changing. I don’t see anything wrong with looking at how the intricacies of court/monarchy/parliament is currently and looking for changes for clarity going forward. How can that be a bad thing?

Because the motivation is to reduce the powers of parliament, and courts, and increase the power the government has. Johnson wants to make sure that next time he lies to the queen, the parliament, and the population, abuses his power and tries to force through, whatever he's trying to force through, that no one will be able to stop him. 

 

That's how it can be a bad thing. It's a power grab, and not a review of how we can all live happier and fairer. 

[Ekona]

But that works both ways, for any government. Let’s not forget parliamentary sovereignty will always apply too. 
 

Besides which, something like that would take aaaaaaaaaages to do, so that’s another pledge to add to the list of ‘sh*t that won’t get done because Brexit is happening’. 

[Stutopia]

4 hours ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

Still waiting to be shown why Corbyn is "unelectable", some facts and links would be amazing. I genuinely want to understand.

The newspapers said so. Derrrrrrr!!!!

[Ekona]

I would argue that he’s unelectable on the basis he’s up against the most polarising Tory leader for many years who has a history that’s dark and twisted, who has been caught in court trying to force his own version democracy of democracy on the people, and who was hardly the most popular of mayors when in charge of London, who is in charge of a party that has cut and cut and cut, and yet Corbyn’s party STILL lags behind in the polls by some margin. 
 

That makes no sense if you look at it logically. If you can’t be ahead by miles in the face of that, you’ve got real issues with public perception. See also, Hilary Clinton. 

[Stutopia]

I think unpopular is different to unelectable. Trump is totally unelectable, inasmuch as he has no diplomatic skills, no understanding of any kind of economics, none of the law, none of the damage his divisive rhetoric causes to society as a whole or even basic politking. None of these things stopped him being popular.

[Maggz]

Trump is a TV reality star which was hot in the 80s as a builder (not really but ok). People were tired of politicians, and elected "the hottest" businessman, ignoring several bankruptcies, unpaid workers, dodgy deals for land, etc. I keep joking that Kardashians are next, the kid billionaire, I bet she knows how to make America billions. It's a middle finger to the establishment. In the UK we're cheering for the establishment whilst watching them destroying public services and selling it to private companies while we have the biggest numbers of food banks, and poor people in a few decades, and doubled the countries debts during the period... crappy book balancing if you ask me. 

 

I'm no Corbyn fan and I'm not saying who to vote for, I'm saying who brought us here. Big difference

[Ekona]

I guess it’s perspective. For me, austerity was desperately needed at the time and whilst I know it’s been hard for many, it was a necessary evil. I saw my own industry (prison service for those that don’t know) stripped to literally dangerous staffing levels, but I could still see the bigger picture. 
 

If that affected you personally then you’ll have a different viewpoint to mine, I know. If you had family queuing up at food banks then you’ll despise the government, and I can totally see why. Without Brexit I may well be considering a different vote tbh, but as it’s still here I know who I feel is best placed to get us out ASAP. 

[Adrian@TORQEN]

This general election is about more than just Brexit. Brexit wont be done by January 31st, just as it hasn’t be done in July or October. Brexit will take 10-15 years to sort out, for a properly negotiated deal with EU, and specially if the people won’t be asked again in a referendum based on the information we know now. 

 

This general election is about having a fairer society, for being able to put food on the table, to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering, to take care of our planet for our kids and future generations, it’s for dealing child poverty, homelessness and mental health issues, for dealing with violent crimes and home brewed terrorism and so much more.

 

It’s time we started carrying about everyone in the society and close the divide between us, generated by the fat cats, newspapers and a selected number of politicians. 

 

Do the right thing, Dan, think it through again.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

12 hours ago, Ekona said:

Let’s not forget parliamentary sovereignty will always apply too. 

No, it won’t, you’re missing  the point, it’s a prerogative that can be used to overrule the parliament, just as he tried, after lying to the queen. We’re in very dangerous territory if the judicial review won’t be available anymore. 

[Umster]

After the Andrew Neil malarkey, not sure how anyone could justify voting for Boris. Andrew has raised some valid points and is probably the first person to hold our PM to account, but he's too busy taking selfies will day time TV presenters. 

 

BJs behaviour has made my mind up, I know which of the 2 evils is lesser. 

[Adrian@TORQEN]

2 minutes ago, Umster said:

Andrew has raised some valid points and is probably the first person to hold our PM to account

We're being played again, Umair. It's worse than that. 

 

Andrew Neil is the chairman of Press Holdings Media Group, aka Spectator, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil

https://www.linkedin.com/company/press-holdings-media-group/about/

https://media.info/organisations/names/press-holdings

 

Boris worked for the Spectator from 1999 to 2005, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

 

The Spectator is owned by Barclay Brothers, very ardent Brexit supporters, well, for a reason:

https://novaramedia.com/2019/12/04/predatory-poisonous-vacuous-to-understand-boris-johnson-start-with-the-spectator/

 

What Andrew Neil did here is just some entry music, drum roll for Boris:

https://apple.news/AN5jcf3I3Sq6Jp5sDsmu2lQ

 

This is just for show, Boris will definitely come for the interview, I have no doubt in that, and he will argue that of course he's trustworthy because he said he was happy to be interviewed by anyone and here he is. And everyone will tune in and lap up every word because the whole thing's been so hyped up.

[coldel]

2 hours ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

 

This general election is about having a fairer society, for being able to put food on the table, to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering, to take care of our planet for our kids and future generations, it’s for dealing child poverty, homelessness and mental health issues, for dealing with violent crimes and home brewed terrorism and so much more.

 

I think everyone wants that, but, don't think current Labour are a for the people Labour. Corbyn grew up very well off, great education, so on and so forth yet tries to convince voters he is one of the working class. Over three quarters of Labour members are ABC1, Momentum was started by a Cambridge uni student with an MBA and the membership is anything but working class. There is a reason that Labour strongholds are not voting Labour anymore, its because some are working out that Corbyn is not all he seems. 

 

That is not to say though that I will vote Tory, actually of all the parties that is the one I am least likely to vote for.

 

I honestly think I might vote Green for the sake of it!

[Adrian@TORQEN]

I'm sure by now you've seen this leaked document from the Treasury, impartial civil servants, yet part of current government:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-boris-johnson-brexit-deal-leaked-government-documents-election-a9235326.html

https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-jeremy-corbyn-says-treasury-document-proves-there-will-be-n-ireland-checks-11879518