So I openly admit I was full of hope when Boris took over, I brushed aside all the detractors and put their comments down to sour grapes, fear and political ignorance. Unless Boris has something up his sleeve it saddens me to admit "He's made a complete pigs ear of everything."

@dick_turpin i've always said if he had anything about him he wouldn't have ran away after the referendum but manned up and lead the Tories. Looks like the Tories & Labour have leaders that are un-electable.

@dekkzz78 But that was the point. He was suppose to lead, he did get tough with the descenters but clearly, these days, nobody in this country wants a leader. They say they do but they don't really and the courts are now willing plunge the country even further down the sewer and people think that's OK because it suites their short sighted views. If Boris had said he was revoking article 50 I'd have been happy with that, at least it would have ended. But we're no better off, nothing has changed.

@dick_turpin @dekkzz78 and others think that's OK because they believe that the rule of law still has a place in modern society.

@rpcutts @dekkzz78 And if the Scottish court (I wonder why they went to Scottishland?) had thrown it out then it wouldn't have been "Rule of law" and if the High court throws it out on Tuesday it won't be "Rule of law" sounds to me like the referendum all over again. "It's not legally binding"

@dick_turpin @dekkzz78 well, you're right, it's not legally binding, just because you say things that are true in a sarcastic way doesn't make them false.

So for one point, the Scottish court got involved because, for now, they are still part of the UK.

And to the other point, no, despite how you seem to enjoy projecting what my opinions are. If thy had found in favour of the government, which I feel they probably should have, then yes thet would have been rule of law.

@rpcutts @dekkzz78 I have no idea what your political views are. If anything they're a mystery to me as one minute I think your on one side and the next I think you're on the other. I can only respond to what you write how I feel or at least a response in terms of how I feel to what is written, if that makes sense?

ok, mate, my appols.

but please understand that a phrase like

" had thrown it out then it wouldn't have been "Rule of law" and if the High court throws it out on Tuesday it won't be "Rule of law" "

Comes across as complete bad faith. So I get riled.

_standing down_ 😘

(I'm a conservative, I believe in these institutions and these mechanisms and hate to see them trampled under the weight of populism.)


@rpcutts Hmm? OK, I apologise. I think what I was trying to say was, the phrase "Rule of law" at the moment, in this whole cesspool is meaningless. yet *some* people (Not necessarily you) bandy it around as some sort of argument winning stick.

P.S. Yes, I do mean the High Court.

@dick_turpin but to the point, it's hard to see the Supreme Court deciding that this is a legal matter, honstly can't see it.

Bottom line for me is that it was a political move. (Completely against convention, which, as a rule, I think should be frowned upon and discoouraged). But our constitioin a is unorganised, spread out, and in this case, as far as I know, unwritten. So for the scottish cout to declare it unconstitutional in the eyes of the law is a heckin stretch. The Supremes won't.

@rpcutts And there was me thinking the High Court would throw it out because otherwise they would have had to sent the Rozzers round to Liz's house. 🤣

Sign in to participate in the conversation

General purpose mastodon instance