Suspending Parliament was unlawful, court rules

Not running scared of an election, not enabling Johnson. Because, amazingly they don't trust a guy who lied to the press, parliament, his ministers and now the Queen, to be honest about his intentions. They suspect he'll use an election to force a no deal brexit to happen by the timer running out, let him request the extension he is legally required to, and then with that extra time we can have another election

Good lord, not everything is bait or some hidden agenda or conspiracy...

Oh wow that would be TERRIBLE...!

I now live in an era where having regular votes is seen as, or twisted into, a 'bad' thing... elections are probably gonna be gone by the time I'm dead... for being 'undemocratic' no doubt...

No, it doesnt. As i have repeatedly said it has no majority, no internal agreement, no control of the house and not even an elected head. No one in their right mind can try and contend they have a mandate for anything but to call an election.
My argument is against your draconian use of the term 'will of the people' as i have already laid out. Aside from it being a commonly used phrase my dictators and autocrats it is also wrong considering a minority of the population of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted for this dumb idea.

You don't want really want to go on holiday, if you are not willing to try any destination. For you holiday is a nice to have. For someone who really wants to go on holiday, then they are open to any means necessary.

In the same vein, some MPs see Brexit as a “nice to have”. They are not in a hurry and can spend the next decade extending and debating how to leave. For others, Brexit is a must and they want to leave, deal or no deal.

As I said before, if an MP is not willing to leave the EU deal or no deal, then they should leave their job and let someone else do that job. In any other occupation, these people would have been sacked for gross incompetence.

The Prime Minister has offered an election twice and the MPs have run scared because they are scared of the consequence. If they are as bold as they claim, they would have had an election and faced the people, who put them there. Look at Gauke, Grieve, Rudd, Boles and many other MPs, they are scared because their local Associations are ready for them during the next GE.

No, What you're capable of understanding (because you finally admitted after ping pong of painful posts) but refuse to fully comprehend is Labour and Teresa May's government wanted the exact same thing , a according to their own words.

They have acted dishonestly, the labour manifesto was a dishonest document. They can say they dont want no deal but really they mean they dont want brexit. I'd have more respect for them if they openly said this. Get off the fence and make your pledge to the country.

Borris Johnson does not want no deal anyway, no deal has never been realistically on the table and wont be unless we get a brexit party majority, which will never happen in a million years.

This is clearly wrong on every level. Aside from the fact Johnson has repeatedly threatened it (only a truely cowardly cur makes threats he doesnt intent to follow through on) his entire cabinet, more or less, want no deal. Never mind the rather simple fact that London only has a small say in it now, unless they stop ****ing around and actually make some headway in getting a deal the default option is no deal.

Try not to jinx it. Equally they need not get in but simply weaken the major players enough to establish themselves as the king maker. We will finally be run by a bunch of far right swivel eyed loons with that **** farage at their head. Welcome to brexit.

The final deal that May's government wanted and the final deal that Labour wants are two different things. They can't compromise on a middle ground so neither with support the other.

We've gone over this before, you're right. Labour will do whatever it can to stall and delay the government's objective if it doesn't align with their own. That's how the opposition works. It doesn't mean that they don't want Brexit, rather that they don't want May's (or Johnson's) visions of Brexit. If neither PM wants X, Y and Z that Labour want then Labour won't support them.

What's the alternative? Negate the sovereignty of parliament, declare that the executive can suspend democracy if it doesn't suit them?

Be realistic. If someone wants to go on holiday they are going to try and get the best holiday they can. That's the situation that MPs are in right now. They're not going to give up and default on a crap holiday just for the sake of it.

"You can support something in principle but not support it by any means necessary." - Do you accept this statement, yes or no?

Not running scared of an election, not enabling Johnson. Because, amazingly they don't trust a guy who lied to the press, parliament, his ministers and now the Queen, to be honest about his intentions. They suspect he'll use an election to force a no deal brexit to happen by the timer running out, let him request the extension he is legally required to, and then with that extra time we can have another election

Oh wow that would be TERRIBLE...!

I now live in an era where having regular votes is seen as, or twisted into, a 'bad' thing... elections are probably gonna be gone by the time I'm dead... for being 'undemocratic' no doubt...

We wouldn’t need a third referendum.

The only reason we need a second referendum is because the result of the first one wasn’t specific enough. Even if 52% of the country voted to Leave, how do we know whether or not they approve of a no-deal scenario? How do we know whether or not they approve of the Irish backstop? We don’t.

A second referendum, with a Leave option that is attached to a particular deal (or indeed WTO terms) would provide a sufficiently clear instruction from the people to the government as to what their immediate action should be, so as not to need a third referendum. The first one failed to do this.

The point is to determine opinion in a more representative and meaningful way than opinion polls.


Notwithstanding your complete lack of understanding of the issue - yes. Scottish politicians could propose legislation that would mean independence for Scotland. It would, of course, be defeated in parliament due to the relatively small number of Scottish MPs who favour independence. The next step would be secession from the Union, which would have serious ramifications if opposed by Westminster. Although I don't know why I'm bothering to explain any of this. You'll still respond with some vacuous non sequitur.

So why are you opposed to having a second referendum now that so much has changed?
Do you think that we should not have elections every five years because "the people have spoken" and to have another vote that could lead to a different result would be "undemocratic"?
*smh* ffs, this is precisely why important decisions should not be put to the people. The people are idiots.

I never said they didnt?
I do find it rather amusing you cant actually address the point though but instead resort to this petty victimhood and whataboutery. I mean seriously the argument of 'but they did it too' is something primary school people use. Do better.

Are you unaware of what a super majority is? Its not exactly an obscure concept when it comes to matters of supreme national importance.

The point would be, as it always is, gauging the public desire for a particular constitutional change - for instance if we finally acknowledge that right to rule is a load of garbage and talk about becoming a republic, that would justify a referendum. However, and I don't know how many times I have to say this before you actually read and comprehend it, referenda in British politics are not binding, they do not require that parliament then act and do that regardless of whatever else happens. There may be a moral demand that the referendum result is enacted but it is not legally obligated to do so. For it to be legally obligated to enact the result, a supermajority should be required, as it is in other democracies.