So now what.....

[victor]

What "law" has he ACTUALLY broken?

[medsec222]

Such a hysterical outburst that Boris 'lied to the Queen'. Where is the evidence for this. The conversation was between Boris and the Queen, so anything else is purely guesswork. Proroguing for a Queen's speech is perfectly legitimate, although it seems very likely that he had an underlying motive. But again, where is the evidence for this. Is Boris Johnson the only MP in Parliament who has underlying motives? I think not.

[jenniren]

Such a hysterical outburst that Boris 'lied to the Queen'. Where is the evidence for this. The conversation was between Boris and the Queen, so anything else is purely guesswork. Proroguing for a Queen's speech is perfectly legitimate, although it seems very likely that he had an underlying motive. But again, where is the evidence for this. Is Boris Johnson the only MP in Parliament who has underlying motives? I think not.

Couldn't have said it better medsec.

[Workingman]

What "law" has he ACTUALLY broken?

No law was "broken" that is why what he did was not described as illegal, but the result of his actions was the same / similar so it was described as unlawful.

Think murder (illegal) v manslaughter (unlawful): the result is that someone dies. Murder is a deliberate act to kill someone. Manslaughter could result from, say, two people fighting over the control of a gun: the gun goes off and one lies dead. Both are punishable as offences.

Meds, Jen, I am assuming that the 11 justices of the Supreme Court had, you know, just a little bit of evidence in order to come to their decision - just a tad. I could be wrong, of course. They could have tossed a €1 coin till they got 'heads' 11 in a row - that's why it took all weekend. Yup, that must be it, it was done on a coin toss as there simply was no evidence. Not one iota. Not a jot. Remainers, every single one.

[medsec222]

Frank, the conversation between Boris Johnson and the Queen would have been entirely confidential. For all we know Boris could have laid all his cards on the table during that conversation, not that I am implying that the Queen was party to his reasoning or ulterior motives. I am just pointing out that there is no way that we or anyone else could know whether Boris Johnson had lied or not. I doubt that anyone from the Supreme Court would have have the audacity to telephone HM and ask for a transcript of the conversation. The Queen is impartial and has to remain so.

[medsec222]

And on the subject of shameful, dishonest, untruthful, behaviour, Boris Johnson need look no further than those MPs in front of him and behind him who have canvassed on the doorsteps on a manifesto of leaving the EU, have been elected by those they have canvassed, have then ensconced themselves in their comfortable positions in Parliament drawing their well paid salaries, and from that point onwards, have quite deliberately attempted to thwart and overturn the referendum result of 17.4 million of their voters and to skuttle Brexit by any means they possibly can. They are the dishonest ones. They have wasted three years of valuable negotiating time with the EU. They could have got behind the Government in order to achieve the best possible deal and an orderly exit for our country. But no. They didn't like the way we noted. As Suff said previously, if you don't want to accept the answer, don't pose the question.

[Suff]

And Suff is still of that opinion.

However I have changed my mind a bit. There is a new Referendum I would get behind.

Deal
No Deal

Which would end all the posturing and set the scene for the next round of whatever we do.

It respects the referendum results and ends, forever, the argument about what the people actually voted for.

[Workingman]

So let's see.

After the election the Tories and the £1bn bribed DUP had 327 seats - a working majority.

On the first time of asking May's deal lost by 230 votes, on the second by 149 and on the third by 58. So please tell me, you Brexiteer mathematical geniuses, who was it who failed to get May's deal through?

Was it all the other parties put together who were in a minority, or was is some moderate Tories, along with the ERG, who voted against it? Just asking.

And do please note: they were not voting against Brexit, they were voting against May's Withdrawal Agreement, which many on both sides saw as offering a way to an unworkable Brexit.

[Suff]

And who is blustering and making excuses now.

The government wants to deliver on the vote of the people. The parliament doesn't want to do that so they cast doubt on what the people actually voted for.

I say ask the people, you ramble on about history and May and the Tories and how bad they are.

It is simple. Go back and Ask the people. Don't assume.

Of course putting words in the mouths of the voters is so easy isn't it. Especially if you do not want to do what they say.

So it is simple. Don't go around saying "yes they voted to leave but they didn't really mean leave that way" . Ask them which way then get on and DO it.

Of course that will remove the excuses, the bluster, the outright lies and the shenanigans.

Something Parliament doesn't want to do.

[medsec222]

This whole shameful episode has occurred because David Cameron offered a referendum and was shocked at the result he got. His answer to that was to scuttle away and to leave someone else to clean up the mess. The result of this has led to a toxic Parliament, a toxic country, and in some cases, even toxic families. Whatever happens next, either general election or second referendum, it needs to happen quickly. The House of Commons on a further downward trajectory would be a sight so disheartening that the majority of people in this country would not wish to witness it.