It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Traitors will attempt to bring down UK government next week

page: 10
32
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Interesting thanks for the link.

I would assume then that if they're not going to push that button then it must mean that they're confident that he will respect the Benn-Bill. I don't know if you caught it but there was a interesting interview with Dominic Grieve the former attorney general where he outlined what he thinks could happen if Boris wasn't to abide by the Bill. Essentially he said he would be taken to court, senior civil servants would walk out in protest and that the Queen would probably have no choice after that to suspend him. Which is mental, I can't even think how that would happen, constitutionally the queen suspending the PM would be huge.

Interesting times even if we might not agree one what is happening, what is happening is nonetheless very interesting.




posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I would assume then that if they're not going to push that button then it must mean that they're confident that he will respect the Benn-Bill.

I think it more a case of Swinson and others not being prepared to give Corbyn his chance in the big chair.
I have no interest in the musings of Dominic Grieve.



Interesting times even if we might not agree one what is happening, what is happening is nonetheless very interesting.

Agreed although I'd prefer it to be less interesting with more progress , they should either accept a General Election which would be a "peoples vote" or let us move forward and get it done.

Further delay only risks deeper divisions and more uncertainty , 3 years is more than long enough further delay is just delay for delay's sake.

This situation was predicted if the March exit was delayed.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I can't even think how that would happen, constitutionally the queen suspending the PM would be huge.

This has to be a bit of Grieve fantasy. It would be "bringing the Queen into politics" with a vengeance, a prospect which made Remainers virtuously shocked when they thought Boris was going to do it.
I can tell you the last time that happened. It was in 1834, when William IV dismissed Viscount Melbourne and replaced him with Sir Robert Peel. I'd have to look it up, but that may have been the event which created the nickname "silly Billy".


edit on 30-9-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Opposition parties will not call for a vote of no confidence in the government to topple the PM this week, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson has said.
www.bbc.co.uk...


Corbyn's comment:

Speaking after cross-party talks, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he will back a motion "at a point we can win it and take no-deal off the table".


Shows how utterly rotten the traitors are. Total misuse of Parliament. Votes of no confidence should not be timed for effect or 'chances of winning'. Replacing a Govt should not be a political move. It should only be done for good reason. Otherwise it's the job of the people at election time.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Opposition parties will not call for a vote of no confidence in the government to topple the PM this week, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson has said.
www.bbc.co.uk...


Corbyn's comment:

Speaking after cross-party talks, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he will back a motion "at a point we can win it and take no-deal off the table".


Shows how utterly rotten the traitors are. Total misuse of Parliament. Votes of no confidence should not be timed for effect or 'chances of winning'. Replacing a Govt should not be a political move. It should only be done for good reason. Otherwise it's the job of the people at election time.


........wont be happening any time soon then
....with reference to Corbyn's remark.

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I can't even think how that would happen, constitutionally the queen suspending the PM would be huge.

This has to be a bit of Grieve fantasy. It would be "bringing the Queen into politics" with a vengeance, a prospect which made Remainers virtuously shocked when they thought Boris was going to do it.
I can tell you the last time that happened. It was in 1834, when William IV dismissed Viscount Melbourne and replaced him with Sir Robert Peel. I'd have to look it up, but that may have been the event which created the nickname "silly Billy".



A more recent example would be the Australian situation in 75. Not exactly the same but still a use of powers largely regarded as ceremonial.

I broadly agree however that the circumstances where it would get that far are pretty far fetched. Emergency legislation is a much more likely outcome if Johnson did attempt to ignore or circumvent the Benn Act.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot
Thank you for that example. I'm not well acquainted with Australian political history.


edit on 30-9-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I don't know if you caught it but there was a interesting interview with Dominic Grieve the former attorney general where he outlined what he thinks could happen if Boris wasn't to abide by the Bill. Essentially he said he would be taken to court, senior civil servants would walk out in protest and that the Queen would probably have no choice after that to suspend him. Which is mental, I can't even think how that would happen, constitutionally the queen suspending the PM would be huge.
Interesting times even if we might not agree one what is happening, what is happening is nonetheless very interesting.


Makes you wonder just WHO's in charge of the UK ?

# The government and PM voted for by the people?

# Dominic Grieve with his law qualifications?

# The High court?...... and then the

# Supreme court (with strong links to the EU)?


If it turns out that Boris gets his wings clipped an there is a further extension

we know we will be well and truly stitched up by the EU and we will be no

different from the other countries who have had their feet held to the flames.


June 1992 The Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty but by May 1993 they

had been bribed back into the fold.


June 2001 The Irish rejected the Nice Treaty.....but by October 2002 had

been coerced into changing their mind.


June 2005 The French and Dutch voted against the new European Constitution

and wound up having to change theirs instead.


June 2008 The Lisbon Treaty was rejected by the Irish and once again Brussels

'special pressure' was applied .....16 months later it was approved.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: sapien82
just saying isnt lying to the queen or being dishonest to the queen , not considered being a traitor ?


The use of the word "Traitor" in this thread seems to come down to what side of the political divide you fall onto rather Than what does actually constitute a traitor.

ie, it is traitorous for the opposition to talk about tabling a vote of no confidence in the government this week but it was perfectly okay for the government to do it a few weeks ago. Again, depending on who you agree with seems to dictate who is and is not a traitor.

Personally I don't think anyone is acting as a traitor, and I don't think that kind of language is helpful.


Engaging with foreign opponent's of the British govt and assisting those opponent's to thwart the policy and objectives of the British govt. The language is accurate. These people simply hold thier higher allegiance to a foreign power and are acting in its service. No reason to pretend otherwise.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Oh shut up you fool. Your defending a government who has abused the constitution and the queen



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





Yes it does.

It's in many ways a fairly lousy constitution but it does have one.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





Yes it does.

It's in many ways a fairly lousy constitution but it does have one.


Provide a link so i can read it then.

Oh, there is nothing in writing is there.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





Yes it does.

It's in many ways a fairly lousy constitution but it does have one.


Provide a link so i can read it then.

Oh, there is nothing in writing is there.


Actually quite a lot of is written.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





Yes it does.

It's in many ways a fairly lousy constitution but it does have one.


Provide a link so i can read it then.

Oh, there is nothing in writing is there.


Actually quite a lot of is written.


Show me.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





It might not be codified but we do have a constitution.

I think you know this



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





Yes it does.

It's in many ways a fairly lousy constitution but it does have one.


Provide a link so i can read it then.

Oh, there is nothing in writing is there.


Actually quite a lot of is written.


Show me.



Links at the bottom.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





Yes it does.

It's in many ways a fairly lousy constitution but it does have one.


Provide a link so i can read it then.

Oh, there is nothing in writing is there.


Actually quite a lot of is written.


Show me.



Links at the bottom.

en.m.wikipedia.org...




Wiki is not an official document as far as i know.

So where is the official copy of The Constitution ? If you want The U.S. one i can link it.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





It might not be codified but we do have a constitution.

I think you know this


You have to love how certain brexit supporters who continually go on about returning sovereignty to the UK are now trashing the very institutions of that sovereignty.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ziplock9000




Your defending a government who has abused the constitution


Britain doesn't have a constitution.

What is does have is a set of principals.





It might not be codified but we do have a constitution.

I think you know this


The U.S. Constitution.

constitutionus.com...

Please supply ours so i can read it.
edit on 30-9-2019 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join