Post-Brexit Thread

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Agree 100% and then blame HMG for the 'delays and confusion'.

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

[QUOTE=papa smurf;35876746]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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 .

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Osem

Agree 100%.

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

You can't agree with it 100% because it contains incorrect information as I've pointed out. Gina Miller is British, she's not a foreign national. She grew up in the UK and was born in a British colony, British Guiana.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Rubbish ,there has been no delay and if there is it's of the governments own making by trying buck against the UK's constitution.The only reason it's gone to the supreme court is because the government refused to accept the verdict and the only reason it's in court in the first place is because the government are trying to assume powers they do not have and should not ever have .
What is clear is that the whole referendum and the result has been handled with such gross incompetence from the people who we trust to do right by us that it certainly does not bode well for any negotiations to follow.

[Ramrod]

A supposed outpouring of online hatred against Jo Cox, a murdered MP, was exaggerated

In the month after the killing at least 25,000 people sent more than 50,000 tweets celebrating her death or praising her murderer, Thomas Mair, Hope Not Hate said.

Britain’s largest newspapers leapt to publish the shocking findings. The story was shared far and wide. Angela Eagle, a Labour MP, cast its conclusions as “staggering and appalling”. The news struck as Britain was coming to terms with an increase in hate crimes. The discovery that such hateful attitudes were not isolated, and that tens of thousands of members of the public were willing to voice them openly, was deeply troubling.

Yet the story was wrong. An investigation by The Economist has found that Hope Not Hate misrepresented the findings of its own report when first releasing it to the press.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.
Seriously.......some remainers are p*ss*ng on our legs and telling us that it's raining

Because she will be instructed to by Parliament

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=martyh;35876853]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 .

you seem a little vexed and desperate to air your biased point of view don't stop its quite amusing


When your at the bottom looking up, the main question you should ask may not be ‘how do I get out of this hole?’ In reality, the main question might be ‘how do I get rid of the shovel that I'm using to dig it?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

A supposed outpouring of online hatred against Jo Cox, a murdered MP, was exaggerated

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 1andrew1

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

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 .I also think it's a dangerous term to bandy about without just cause because we will become ignorant to it (as is starting to happen) and when 'hate crime' does happen it will be ignored

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by martyh

Because she will be instructed to by Parliament

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

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Tariff free trade deals is a red herring, it makes no real difference if something costs 5% more for instance, the thing not covered by trade deals, tariff free or not is services which is something no one yet seems to concerned about, they're going to be though, very concerned.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

---------- 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

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

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.

Or more specifically that clod Cameron told us whatever the result was that was binding -of course he stupidly thought remain would win.

[papa smurf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW1zZ4EufkE

Article 50 invoked immediately by Cameron, not Parliament (June 2016)