Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35876734)

Do you seriously believe that city corporations, private citizens and foreign UK residents like Gina Miller who nobody had previously ever heard of, are suddenly such passionate defenders of the Westminster model of democracy that they're prepared to chuck great piles of their own money at "defending" it? Why do you think Miller demanded the government accept the ruling at the high court and not appeal to the Supreme Court? Because the real truth is, she doesn't give two short smegs for our constitutional arrangements and doesn't understand that once the balance of power between Crown and Parliament has been challenged, history itself demands that it be settled at the highest level. Instead, she dim-wittedly suggested that the government should be "honourable" and not pursue an appeal. The base ignorance of it from someone who took it upon herself to challenge the very basis of the British constitution is shocking.

That balance is at the very heart of what Britain is. Families in these islands shed each others' blood over it. That makes this Supreme Court case very necessary and important, without altering the fact that the process was triggered by bad motives the plaintiffs have not had the courage to own up to.

Of course this court case isn't going to prevent the UK leaving; of course that is not its stated aim. The whole point of this action, and others like it (there is a ludicrous attempt in the courts of the Irish Republic at the moment, trying to engineer a way for the ECJ to have its say on the process) is to delay Brexit for as long as possible, in the hope the country will go to hell in a handcart in the meantime. Arch-remainers know they can't openly demand a referendum re-run right now, but if the polls shift dramatically then they will have the pretext they're hoping for.

Delay, delay, delay and hope something turns up. That's what it's all about.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35876720)

Yous asked who's idea ?
i answered
"It's the idea of all those who think Parliament should have no say and judging by this forum it's the idea of most leavers"

---------- Post added at 06:35 ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 ----------



you have dug your self into this hole crawl out with dignity

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35876851)

Agree 100%.

What all this isn't about is protecting our democracy.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35876734)

Do you seriously believe that city corporations, private citizens and foreign UK residents like Gina Miller who nobody had previously ever heard of, are suddenly such passionate defenders of the Westminster model of democracy that they're prepared to chuck great piles of their own money at "defending" it? Why do you think Miller demanded the government accept the ruling at the high court and not appeal to the Supreme Court? Because the real truth is, she doesn't give two short smegs for our constitutional arrangements and doesn't understand that once the balance of power between Crown and Parliament has been challenged, history itself demands that it be settled at the highest level. Instead, she dim-wittedly suggested that the government should be "honourable" and not pursue an appeal. The base ignorance of it from someone who took it upon herself to challenge the very basis of the British constitution is shocking.

That balance is at the very heart of what Britain is. Families in these islands shed each others' blood over it. That makes this Supreme Court case very necessary and important, without altering the fact that the process was triggered by bad motives the plaintiffs have not had the courage to own up to.

Of course this court case isn't going to prevent the UK leaving; of course that is not its stated aim. The whole point of this action, and others like it (there is a ludicrous attempt in the courts of the Irish Republic at the moment, trying to engineer a way for the ECJ to have its say on the process) is to delay Brexit for as long as possible, in the hope the country will go to hell in a handcart in the meantime. Arch-remainers know they can't openly demand a referendum re-run right now, but if the polls shift dramatically then they will have the pretext they're hoping for.

Delay, delay, delay and hope something turns up. That's what it's all about.

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35876849)

How can she invoke article 50 if she is legally blocked from doing so?
In addition we have Tony Blair, John Major, Nick Clegg, Tim Farron etc, etc, vowing to do their best to block it and get a second referendum. Then we have the ongoing legal challenge (and others in the pipeline). On top of that we have Soros in the wings who is no doubt pumping money into pro EU pressure groups.
Buy you are right. Nothing to worry about, May has said that her March deadline will be adhered to, so we can all kick back and chill. :erm:
Seriously.......some remainers are p*ss*ng on our legs and telling us that it's raining:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35876746)

So your not going to answer the question ,instead your going to keep quoting the Express and Mail which leaves us with no alternative but to assume that you agree with the inaccurate rubbish you copy and paste from those rags ,so that is the evidence wanted and the article you copied in post 3225 i will assume you agree with ,which in turn means you are completely wrong in thinking the court cases where trying to overturn the result as the Express article you copied stated and like most of your posts makes no sense whatsoever .

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35876859)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35876866)

The surge in hate crimes described in The Observer's headline also looks a bit dubious, according to BBC programme More or Less which spoke to the charity concerned. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08504ln

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35876861)

Because she will be instructed to by Parliament

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35876868)

I'm not sure there has been a surge in hate crime at all ,i think that people are using the term 'hate crime' to cover what would normally be a vocal disagreement .

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35876768)

Absolutely correct. Having tariff free trade deals, continuing co-operation on security and intelligence, together with protection for British citizens working in the EU and EU citizens working here is all we need. We certainly do not want to be saddled with EU laws, free movement and the sheer bureaucracy of this undemocratic institution called the EU.

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35876876)

Hopefully! But it shouldn't have even come to that since she was instructed to by the population of the UK. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------


No, no......there was definitely a surge in hate crime.......the left wing press told us that there was :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35876899)

Actually, she was advised by the majority of the population of the UK, as the Referendum was advisory. ;)

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35876902)

You can wink at me all you want m8. We were told by both the government and the remain campaign leaders that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the EU and that's what would would happen. We were'nt told that it was 'advisory'. They were quite specific. I'm waiting.