Brexit Wars 3



Maybe you could go see some of the Spanish disgusting ‘entertainment ‘ ?


The ever-awful Leadsom hiding truth from people:

Documents warning of food, fuel and medicine shortages after a no-deal Brexit should be kept secret because they will scare people, a government minister says.
Andrea Leadsom, the business secretary, signalled Boris Johnson will defy parliament’s order to release the Operation Yellowhammer dossier - arguing the public was better left in the dark.
“I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is the absolutely worst thing that can happen,” Ms Leadsom said.



FIAT - hi,
Just to show that you and the BBC were talking absolute rubbish.
Illegal is anything specifically against the law
Unlawful is something defined as not conforming to ,permitted by or recognised by law.
So, as the prorogation was not contrary to a specific law it cannot be termed ‘illegal’.
The judges have given an opinion that it is ‘unlawful’ and it will be up to the UK Supreme Court to rule on this next week.
On a lighter note ( as you Groupies are so up your own a…) and should lighten-up!
Another definition is that unlawful is against the law …illegal is a sick bird!


And where did the BBC use the word “illegal” ?


JW - hi,
Ask FIAT who quoted the BBC earlier


Well you and he were wrong… they said ‘unlawful’ right from the start… as I said hours ago.
Why bother to post something when you are clueless on the facts?

Even Threadbare said:
“Unlawful” the BBC headlines read, Fake News will always be rightfully called out…well done Fynne

What a pillock.


JW post


What about it?


Jar, something that isn’t ‘permitted’ by law…that’s illegal isn’t it?!?

Also the Scottish ruling isn’t an ‘opinion’…it’s their ruling…and it applies in England too.

The Supreme court can overrule the Scottish decision however. At the moment the legal position is that BoJo unlawfully misled the Queen into proroguing Parliament.

Perhaps we should all start chanting: “Lock him up!!” :wink:


They used ‘illegal’ again on the 6pm news…someone should complain to ‘Points of View’…or their MP!! (that’ll keep em busy :wink:)


And why didn’t they choose an court in England?
… not like the Scottish to be biased against Westminster! …

Use of the courts to “control” the government is wrong… it sets seriously a bad precedent for the future.
It’s not clever … it highly irresponsible!
… imo



The High Court in England was on holiday.

We are in a Union by the way… hence any UK court could be used.
I know you Brexiteers are a bunch of English nationalists too however.


That’s what ‘someone’ in No.10 said…and they had to backtrack after their legal bigwig threw a fit.

We are a ‘United Kingdom’ (at the moment) and the legal system in each jurisdiction of the Union carries equal validity. A Scottish ruling applies to England…unfortunately for Brexiteers. There is always the chance that the Supreme Court may set aside the ruling on Tuesday…if not we shall have to decide where to ‘Lock him up’!!


Link ? … as your oft to ask others?


Why did Scotland’s judges get involved?

This case was brought in a Scottish court because at the time the High Court in England was on holiday.

But that does not diminish the effect of the ruling, as the case was against the actions of the Westminister government which, within the devolution settlement, affects the whole of the UK.

So the ruling in Edinburgh is binding on the UK government - although this is by no means the end of the legal battle since the case will now be appealed to the UK Supreme Court which will make a definitive decision.

It is also likely to hear arguments arising from decisions in similar cases brought at the High Court in London under English law and the Northern Ireland High Court.



I did post that the Scottish court had found the prorogation to be “illegal”. This is what was reported live on BBC News as the news broke. The BBC subsequently corrected their report to say “unlawful”. The first report was a journalistic error. I have explained this earlier. I know very well the distinction in law between the two terms.

I don’t think that it makes it any better for the Johnson administration because the court found that the claimed grounds were false and the intention was to stymie debate in parliament. You, JAR, are grabbing at a straw.

Frog in a tree


The government is refusing to publish internal communications relating to the proroguing of parliament.

If it smells like a cover up, most likely it is…

There will be a leak at some point I guess.

Frog in a tree


13 August - The group go to the Court of Session in Edinburgh and Lord Doherty agrees to hear arguments from both sides in September

From your own link … so English high courts have been “on holiday” … for a month

“Prat” was the word you used I believe :face_with_hand_over_mouth:


Interesting to see the Brexit biddies denigrating Scottish justice. What makes them feel superior to our Scottish compatriots!

It all fits the pattern of narrow minded English nationalism.

Frog in a tree


Oili -hi,
No, the legal position is that it is under appeal.
Chant what you like m8.