The Brexit Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder where Parliament is going with this?




Vote as follows, another Govt loss

Grieve still having his 3-year tantrum, nothing much to see here. Completely lost it. Can't wait for the election, he will never bother the HoC ever again!

Will be funny if Cummings is right in this instance. A Queen's Counsel lawyer (Grieve) not understanding the law? You couldn't make it up. :ROFL:

In response to Dominic Grieve’s rumoured plans to request the Government hand over private communication about prorogation to Parliament, Cummings said:

“For a supposedly adequate lawyer who loves the ECHR, Grieve doesn’t seem to realise that his request for private messages is blatantly illegal and will be rejected by the Cabinet Office. We love the rule of law in No10.”
 
Grieve still having his 3-year tantrum, nothing much to see here. Completely lost it. Can't wait for the election, he will never bother the HoC ever again!

Will be funny if Cummings is right in this instance. A Queen's Counsel lawyer (Grieve) not understanding the law? You couldn't make it up. :ROFL:

Why would it be illegal? They will all have government issued phones and laptops.

On top of which, the refusal of obeying an order from the Queen won’t go down well.

oh, and Grieve wasn’t just a QC, he was the Attorney General of England and Wales and Advocate General of NI, I suspect he might know more about the law than Banks’ agent.
 
Why would it be illegal? They will all have government issued phones and laptops.

On top of which, the refusal of obeying an order from the Queen won’t go down well.

oh, and Grieve wasn’t just a QC, he was the Attorney General of England and Wales and Advocate General of NI, I suspect he might know more about the law than Banks’ agent.

I'm not a lawyer but the EU has very strong privacy protections, I imagine this is the general area of law to which Cummings is most likely referring.

 
I did, now you try and answer, tell you what, you can have a sentence in which to answer, just no use of the word “but”.
You did not answer yes or no.

"No, never have", is not following the prescriptions I gave you, which would be the same bogus prescription to tried to force down my gullet.
 
I'm not a lawyer but the EU has very strong privacy protections, I imagine this is the general area of law to which Cummings is most likely referring.

What privacy rights do you think you have over a company or Government issued phone/laptop/ipad etc?
 
@Chris_the_Brit

It looks like your question was asked in the debate and from the answer it seems that both official and private devices are covered by the Civil Service code.

In response attorney general Geoffrey Cox asked what legal right the government would have to require its employees to "give up private email accounts and personal mobiles".

He said if there is no legal right, the humble address may not be enforceable.

Grieve, however pointed out that "these are government employees and in the course of their work it is their duty to observe the civil service code and to comply with its requirements".


Cummings is already in contempt of parliament so there is the possibility he might refuse to cooperate, but the ramifications won’t be good for Bojo if he does.
 
Ok, done: Yes, because politicians are lying schits.

You’re a bit deluded then (and wrong) as the question related to the current legislation, not anything the politicians might do in the future.

Fact, the current parliamentary legislation process does not stop the brexit process nor attempt to revoke art. 50.
 
You’re a bit deluded then (and wrong) as the question related to the current legislation, not anything the politicians might do in the future.
And I'm sure May's tenure was also not an attempt to stop the brexit process as far as you're concerned. ;)
 
And I'm sure May's tenure was also not an attempt to stop the brexit process as far as you're concerned. ;)

May was quite vocal at achieving her version of Brexit, it would have led to the UK leaving the EU. Others didn’t like her method of doing so, but it doesn’t mean she attempted to stop Brexit, she just tried to stop the extremist version.
 
Another pointer to how the shortsightedness of Bojo and agent Cummings is coming back to hurt them, they lost the disclosure vote by 9 votes.

count the (ex)Tories who voted in favour of the disclosure.

710923
 
“Humble Address” Breaches Article 10 of the Human Rights Act

Remainers in parliament have passed a motion to present a Humble Address to the Queen with the aim of forcing the government to reveal communications with journalists. Downing Street says that “under no circumstances will No. 10 staff comply with Grieve’s demands regardless of any votes in Parliament”. Guido has notified those named in the humble address, with whom he has communicated, that he expects them to protect his rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and notify him in advance of any action or inaction which might potentially prejudice his rights under the Act.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act states

Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 guarantees the absolute right of journalists to “to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority”. Ironically Grieve was always very keen on this right being incorporated into UK law, it ultimately allows people to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights…
 
Parliament isn't intended to be a direct representation of the people. But's let's assume it were. The people have chosen a new parliament since the referendum therefore we can argue that the current parliament represents the current will of the people. That means the people either don't really want to leave the EU or at the very least they don't want to leave without a deal.

Yup. And notice how the Brexiteers are relying on unelected entities - BoJo, the House of Lords, the Queen - to do their bidding because the one entity that was actually elected by the public isn't doing what they want it to.

Fine, it might not be legally binding, but nevertheless the will of the people have spoken, and anyone genuinely interested in the integrity of the country, the democracy and the ability of parliament to govern would respect the wishes of the people and get Brexit over and done with. If the Queen stops idiots from ruining Brexit, she's serving the interests of the country and the democratic will of the people inhabiting it simultaneously.

So why'd the Brexiteers repeatedly vote down the withdrawal agreement, which would have seen Brexit already happen? By Brexiteer reasoning they're directly disrespecting the "will of the people".
 
I'm glad that parliament is being suspended. These MP feckers now want to pass a bill to stop us parking on pavements!!

Where the **** else is there to park in England?!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X