RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Geoffrey Cox. Absolutely shameless.

Has he per chance been asked to publish his legal advice that went before Liz?

You wouldn't believe the number of things he "wasn't permitted to disclose".

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
Has he per chance been asked to publish his legal advice that went before Liz?

You wouldn't believe the number of things he "wasn't permitted to disclose".

I saw his performance on Channel 4 news this evening and I didn't think I'd be shocked, not for the first time I was wrong

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You wouldn't believe the number of things he "wasn't permitted to disclose".

I saw his performance on Channel 4 news this evening and I didn't think I'd be shocked, not for the first time I was wrong

Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

bruce wrote:I didn't have you all down as being such sensitive souls.

Which Tyler wrote:

bruce wrote:I didn't have you all down as being such sensitive souls.

Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

bruce wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

bruce wrote:I didn't have you all down as being such sensitive souls.

Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

Or you could say that linking what was said to violence or incitement to violence as a massive stretch, and those showing faux outrage are only doing so for political purposes. You could also say that those raising the murder to score political points is distasteful to say the least.

Stones of granite wrote:

bruce wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

Or you could say that linking what was said to violence or incitement to violence as a massive stretch, and those showing faux outrage are only doing so for political purposes. You could also say that those raising the murder to score political points is distasteful to say the least.

I'm not convinced that it is that big a stretch. Unless you think that those MPs who are receiving death threats to themselves and their children are telling lies, it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between the language used by our Charlatan-in-Chief and these threats. Of course, correlation is not causation, but it is certainly far from being a stretch.

Banquo wrote:Lol, Tories can't even go to their own conference

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I saw his performance on Channel 4 news this evening and I didn't think I'd be shocked, not for the first time I was wrong

Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

Very true, I mentioned Cox because at that point he had yet to be eclipsed by BJ.

I was sort of shocked - even though I shouldn't have been, I fully expected them to brazen it out - but to see it, the performance (for that was what it was), the simulation of someone who had nothing whatever to be ashamed of - indeed, apparently, it was the opposition who should have apologised for bringing the case to court.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I saw his performance on Channel 4 news this evening and I didn't think I'd be shocked, not for the first time I was wrong

Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

bruce wrote:
Just so happens to have a camera crew in attendance...

bruce wrote:
Just so happens to have a camera crew in attendance...

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

Very true, I mentioned Cox because at that point he had yet to be eclipsed by BJ.

I was sort of shocked - even though I shouldn't have been, I fully expected them to brazen it out - but to see it, the performance (for that was what it was), the simulation of someone who had nothing whatever to be ashamed of - indeed, apparently, it was the opposition who should have apologised for bringing the case to court.

I think it was proof positive that he's given up on any sort of a deal with the EU.
If you to find 20+ opponents to take your side in a vote; that was... not a sensible way of attracting them.

I think his plan had been that the prorogation meant a new session, so he could bring up May's deal (possibly with a cosmentic change) as a sop - but that's backfired a tad.
He knows he's not going to get enough out of the EU to otherwise count as "substantially different"; so that's a non-starter now (because he wasn't even trying to until the Benn Act passed - not to mention that it was always verging on the impossible even with good will).

He's in full-on election campaigning mode now; and only interested in motivating his base (as per the Banon playbook) - even if it leads to more death-threats, or even if it leads to more deaths; just so long as they're not deaths on his side.

Dominic Grieve:
...I was struck by the fact that in the leaked document his opinion is referred to as believing [Prorogation] is constitutional, when I had understood from comments he made as far back, I think, as July, when Prorogation was first being mooted in order to achieve a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, that he considered that such an act would be unconstitutional. I wonder therefore whether this is not one issue that he ought to clarify.

Geoffrey Cox:
...It was being mooted some weeks ago that Parliament might be prorogued from the beginning of September or even earlier until 31 October. I say straightaway to him that if that had been the proposition, I could not have stayed in the Cabinet while it was done.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is set to ask the Queen to prorogue parliament as soon as this weekend under plans to help the prime minister deliver a Queen’s Speech on October 14.

Ministers are informally sounding out the Supreme Court before making another attempt to suspend parliament. Last week the court upended an earlier attempt to prorogue parliament, ruling that it was unlawful.

Boris Johnson wants the Commons to wind up on Tuesday so that he can press ahead with the planned Queen’s Speech. Ministers are insisting that it will take at least three working days to prepare the Palace of Westminster for the event marking a new session.

The installation of a throne in the House of Lords as well as security logistics mean that Tuesday is the latest day on which parliament can remain sitting, they claim.

However, Labour is insisting that the Commons sit until at least a week today. That would ensure that Mr Johnson would have to take what would be only his second prime minister’s questions. It would also give MPs an opportunity to force him to apologise for dismissing as “humbug” claims that his language was being cited by those making death threats.

The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Johnson’s initial prorogation was void because he had failed to explain why parliament needed to be suspended for five weeks. Giving the ruling, Baroness Hale of Richmond, president of the court, said: “This was not a normal prorogation.”

With ministers anxious to avoid provoking another row, suspending parliament for less than a week before the Queen’s Speech will be much less controversial as it is in line with precedent.

An initial proposal to suspend parliament tomorrow was quickly abandoned after informal soundings with the court and other key figures, according to one of those consulted.

Ministers will be particularly keen to avoid exposing the Queen to further political controversy.

Mr Johnson phoned the Queen shortly after last week’s ruling, which nullified the initial prorogation. He is said to have apologised.

Mr Johnson has so far limited his criticism to the ruling itself after being warned by Robert Buckland, the justice secretary, and Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, to avoid impugning the motives of the 11 judges.

However, the prime minister has made it clear that he believes the ruling must trigger a wider review of the constitutional settlement and the accountability of the judiciary. He used a weekend interview to suggest that Britain was on a course towards a US model, where appointees to the Supreme Court would have to be confirmed by politicians.

The Queen’s Speech is supposed to outline the legislative programme for the next session. Mr Johnson, who does not have a Commons majority, has no chance of delivering any of the bills that will be announced. He is keen to showcase his priorities before an election as well as to force opposition parties to vote against a series of measures, particularly on crime.

However, the debates will allow opposition parties to table a series of amendments, including on Brexit. None would have any substantive force.

Prior to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act the loss of a vote on a Queen’s Speech would have triggered a general election since it was obvious that the government no longer had a majority.

A defeat for Mr Johnson’s legislative programme later this month will not collapse his government, although it will strengthen his argument that the present parliament should end.

Sandydragon wrote:FFS. Totally shameless.