Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

I think you underestimate my understanding of this. I get what you are saying, but like everything in Brexit, you can only compare what the UK currently have to what the UK will have if they leave the EU.

The reality is that a Brexit would require a complete re-negotiation of fishing rights, with uncertain outcomes. Some of these rights extend back to the Middle Ages and banning foreign vessels from UK waters may well be incompatible with international law.

Such negotiations may harm trading relationships with Europe. At present the UK exports around 80% of its wild-caught seafood, with four of the top five destinations being European countries.

Remaining in the EU also has big benefits for the marine ecosystems that the fishing industry ultimately relies on. The Habitats Directive protects key habitats and species such as reefs and Atlantic salmon, while the Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive commit EU members to restore and protect the environment. It seems unlikely that the UK’s current Conservative government, at least, would continue similarly progressive measures after a Brexit.

This was already moving in the right direction dating as far back as 2017, where prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew would gain the right to vote after a British compromise offer was accepted in 2017 by the Council of Europe. The problem however is that Brexit has taken this and completely exploded it into something far greater than it is. It's sensationalism and it's just another weak excuse that doesn't hold water yet so many people believe it's an epidemic.

And with regards to taking back your borders, you will actually lose way more control if you leave the EU with no deal. This is a leave belief about an immigration threat that has been grossly overstated. Ending the free movement of people will equally end access to the other aspects of the single market that have done so much to benefit Britain economically for the past two and a half decades.

I hear your points Dodgy and I know you are passionate about this, but I personally believe that leavers are looking too far into what they believe is the promised land. There is a sort of 'Ah look lads we'll sort it out when the time comes but lets cross the line first'.

You have got to think of what you have now verses what you will not have my severing the various parts involved to make the whole. I'm honestly not on here to piss people off. I'm too old for that. I just want people to consider all aspects of a departure.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Do you have proof or is this speculative on your part? If it's the former, then please share your proof. If it's the latter, then it's only your opinion and it's more than likely bias.

So be careful when you use words like undeniable.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Like I said, had the vote gone the other way by the same proportions Nigel has said he would be fighting it all the way. In the real world that is what happens when you have two opposing points of view on something so important. What is happening now is not unexpected.

There's no such thing as "the will of the people". Democracy is a moving feast.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

It wasn't unlawful until there was a law to make it unlawful


Don't worry, here comes anothern 9th October

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Proof ?

Yes... it happened.

Stay awake !

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

That law as you call it, originated from the verdict. If you understand the principles of precedent and case law, you cannot make such a mistake. So from now on no pm can ever use the power to prorogue given to him/her for political purposes.
The power to prorogue already had a lawful basis, but how far it extended, i.c. what it may be used for, has been further defined by the vruling of the supreme court.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

So what was this new law then? Have they not just more clearly defined the boundaries of existing law?

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Not a new law, but an amendment to the existing law in my opinion.

When the Attorney General gave legal advice to Mr Johnson about being able to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks, at that time it was lawful you heard him say so in PMQ's when he was being grilled by the opposition). Remember, the last time parliament was prorogued was back in 1997 when John Major was PM and he wanted to suppress the report into the conservatives 'cash for questions' row. John Major prorogued parliament for 3 weeks but no one took the matter to court saying John Major abused his position as PM.

All the Supreme Court have done is effectively modified the existing law by making it more clearly defined what the PM can and cannot do when it comes to proroguing parliament.

NOTE: It was the Attorney General during his grilling at PMQ's which stated that the Supreme Court had created a 'new law'.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

What has been the effect of all this legal jiggery pokery in practical
terms?
Boris is still ploughing on, he has not modified his intentions one
jot so far? And recieved no rebuke from their supremnessess
for his response to them??
What this sham LEGAL? attempt to bring the electorate to heel has
illustrated to the public is the lengths the establishment will go
in order to get their way??
Regards Donkeyman!

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

The one that makes parliamentary prerogative a decision for the courts, when it never was before