Brexit - It's Still On!

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 12:55 AM

Good you are doing it again, why bother with allowing votes. The ruling class eh, carry on.

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 12:57 AM

How's the Bobexit thread going?

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

They are there to PROTECT the people

Wrong

**Bettyboo** · 07-04-2019, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The UK is not a PLC. Governments exist to protect the population and provide safety, security and the best possible lifestyle for that population. The government serves the people - all the people, it is NOT a board of directors serving shareholders. That is why the people allow governments to exist in the first place. Countries are not businesses and this stupid, ignorant, and evil idea that they are has caused untold suffering.

Your satire is superb, Bobbie. When chatting to a colleague of mine, also Irish (did his postgraduates on British colonialism at Trinity/Cambridge), the concept of the British Empire/US Empire/EU Empire as PLCs that rape the world in the name of governments/institutions for the benefit of a small proportion of 'elites' never gets mentioned; I mean why would the top historians on the subject be interested in history and known facts...

If your comment was not comedy then you have a very serious problem with reality.

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Your satire is superb, Bobbie. When chatting to a colleague of mine, also Irish (did his postgraduates on British colonialism at Trinity/Cambridge), the concept of the British Empire/US Empire/EU Empire as PLCs that rape the world in the name of governments/institutions for the benefit of a small proportion of 'elites' never gets mentioned; I mean why would the top historians on the subject be interested in history and known facts...

If your comment was not comedy then you have a very serious problem with reality.

What on earth are you talking about?

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

I hope your masters degree efforts aren't in a business subject.

Shareholders elect a board of directors to serve their interests. Stakeholders in the nation i.e. the electorate elect a government for the same purpose.

You retain the prize for most ignorant poster on any political thread on TD. If I was to ask for a deliberate example of sheer ignorance of the structure and meaning of British government I could not get a more perfect example than yours. You idiot!

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

If your comment was not comedy then you have a very serious problem with reality.

Of course he has a problem, he thinks he's above the populous. He's in Tech, dabbling in decisions but divorced of reality that affect most people in the UK which is where he gets his holier than thou attitude. He could do with a little time on the ground but then ... nah whats the point. He comes across all edumacated and (like Cy and Gent) likes to look down on posters on here using language which presents them as racists and idiots oh and more but really...

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

I presume that revocation can be done relatively quickly by the executive

No, it can't. It requires the legislature to revoke. Is there no end to your ignorance of the Westminster system?

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

No, it can't. It requires the legislature to revoke. Is there no end to your ignorance of the Westminster system?

He didn't specify time, how long is quickly. It could be done in days...

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 01:22 AM

Where's the crayon, matches, lighter fuel, fluffies, law books, no one has ever studied law on here except Bob - all hail the Bob. Bob ...Bob

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 01:30 AM

Is Bob a Foolbag sock?

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

You're welcome to demonstrate that the executive lacks discretionary power to revoke per its discretionary power to extend, or alternatively use royal prerogative. Your foolishness assumes that the same legislation is required to revoke as to invoke.

Asssumes? That's the constitution, that same constitution you continue to prove your absolute and complete ignorance of. I don't need to prove what already exists and has done for centuries, if you insist that something new has been introduced without anyone noticing then it's up to you to prove that. As for the ridiculous idea of using the royal prerogative, anyone even tangentially informed of how British Government works would realise why that's impossible.

owever, as you asked, here you go, genius, what do you think of this?

It might be thought to be somewhat strange that prerogative could be used to extend the Article 50 process but could not be used to notify the start of the process, or indeed revoke such a notification. Any sense of strangeness may fade when the nature and role of the prerogative in domestic law is considered. The treaty prerogative is a general power possessed by the crown in domestic law and exercised on the international plane. Case law has established that the general power is constrained if it conflicts with any Act.This means that the power to notify under Article 50, and revoke that notification, are certainly included within the treaty prerogative – just as the power to agree new law at EU level is included – but those powers could not be exercised due to the ECA, EUNoWA and EUWA.

The remaining question is obviously whether the treaty prerogative power to extend the Article 50 process (which is certainly encompassed within the general treaty prerogative) can be exercised. The answer to that question involves ascertaining whether an extension would frustrate the intention of parliament in any Act.

The first Acts to consider are EUNoWA and EUWA. Unlike revocation, it is not at all obvious that a short extension would frustrate those Acts. On the contrary, to the extent that such an extension permits a smoother achievement of what parliament clearly intended in passing those Acts (which is to leave the EU), the exercise of the prerogative in this case to secure a short extension would not appear to frustrate those Acts in any way.
Furthermore, the very fact that parliament conferred a power on ministers to change the exit day as a matter of domestic law suggests that exercising the prerogative in a way consistent with that power is very unlikely to be considered to frustrate the intention of parliament as expressed in EUWA. Indeed, this is what appears to be envisaged in the final sentence of the extract from paragraph 95 of Miller above.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how using the prerogative to continue membership of the EU on a temporary standstill basis could frustrate the intention of parliament in the ECA. Nor would it seem to frustrate any of the other Acts mentioned in the Miller litigation, and in the original post on this blog that precipitated that litigation by Barber, King and Hickman.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019...nd-article-50/

As I know you're incapable of understanding these complex arguments what it says is that Royal Prerogative can constitutionally be used to extend article 50 but not to initiate it or revoke it.

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

You're welcome to demonstrate that the executive lacks discretionary power to revoke per its discretionary power to extend, or alternatively use royal prerogative. Your foolishness assumes that the same legislation is required to revoke as to invoke.

I'll say it again, it could be done in days - Bob knows better because he breathes the rules unlike most here

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Jack meoff

Is Bob a Foolbag sock?

I think they are some kinda Uni circle jerk, Bob's the one who clearly is more committed to the stimulants given the posting time - we all had a go when younger but i don't recall trying to be such a superior twit

**foobar** · 07-04-2019, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Jack meoff

Is Bob a Foolbag sock?

Still chasing shadows Jacko?

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by foobar

Still chasing shadows Jacko?

Have I got this right? He thinks that you are pretending to me even though I've been on this forum 11 years longer than you? Is that what he's on about? Fck me, we really do have some mental dregs on this forum

**NamPikToot** · 07-04-2019, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Have I got this right? He thinks that you are pretending to me even though I've been on this forum 11 years longer than you? Is that what he's on about? Fck me, we really do have some mental dregs on this forum

So Foo's not your sock Bob, not even when you're disassociated pissed?

**foobar** · 07-04-2019, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Have I got this right? He thinks that you are pretending to me even though I've been on this forum 11 years longer than you? Is that what he's on about? Fck me, we really do have some mental dregs on this forum

That is only part of it, apparently you, me, luigi and someone called sid are all the same person.

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by foobar

That is only part of it, apparently you, me, luigi and someone called sid are all the same person.

Ah well, sid, eh? Say no more! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Eh. Eh?

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 02:25 AM

Foolbag set up DrBob username as a sleeper in 2006 .

**DrB0b** · 07-04-2019, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Oh the irony, of referring to "complex arguments" as if they're facts. That's the difference between us - you have an oddball approach of reading an opinion and if you like it you deem it a fact.

As for referring to "ignorance of the UK constitution", are you suggesting you have an indepth knowledge of the centuries of case law that form it?

May was given discretion to trigger article 50 by the 2017 Act. Whether new legislation is required for her to again use her discretion is a matter of legal debate which is very unlikely to ever be tested due to the political fallout it would cause.

She was given the power to invoke art 50 by an act of the legislature, she needs an act of the legislature to revoke it. That’s what the Miller case was about. This is basic stuff, as is the knowledge that there far more to the constitution than just case law.

**Troy** · 07-04-2019, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Switch

It seems that France or Netherlands might veto the UK request for another extension. Unless of course, they have been primed by Juncker to put the frightened on Mrs May?

Netherlands? That seems strange to me. Where did you hear that?

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 02:37 AM

Do you still have a strong Oirish accent Bob?
Or do you speak proper cockney now considering the years you've loved living the dream in Slough?

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 03:01 AM

9pm
Lights out.

**Jack meoff** · 07-04-2019, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by foobar

Still chasing shadows Jacko

As long as you are riding squirrels cock, will end in tears when Reachy raymundo the forum mong finds out !

Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions