Counsellors are on hand and ready to take your calls.

[Phoenall]

Brexit court defeat for UK government - BBC News

Bigots across the nation in despair.

I heard this back when the vote very first happened, then nothing more so I figured it was a "rumor."
How is Parliament situated? Will they allow the Brexit to continue?

The majority of MPs voted remain. But I doubt that they would flat out block brexit as that would not be acceptable. The smart money would be pushing the government for assurances on the terms. if they ditched the closed borders they would get access to the markets that are so important.
Ironically the pound rallied today on news of the courts ruling.

It is all down to the European court of Justice to decide if parliament needs to hold debates or not, and their ruling will be final. Guess what that will be, and how it will affect Scotland and Wales

 

[montelatici]

Brexit court defeat for UK government - BBC News

Bigots across the nation in despair.

I'm sure there's a post out there from a Statist that doesn't contain a logical fallacy, but I haven't seen it.

5 days....tick tok....Say G'bye Clinton scum.

The fascist pig supports a sexual assaulting orange clown. Figures.

 

[miketx]

Hurry! You only have 5 more lying days left!

 

[montelatici]

Hurry! You only have 5 more lying days left!

Another one of the useful idiots with the IQ of a rock.

Lying? LOL

"Professional truth-seekers have never seen anything like Trump, surely the most compulsive liar to seek high office. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact has rated 76 percent of his statements lies — 57 percent false or mostly false, and another 19 percent “Pants on Fire” fabrications. Only 2 percent — 2 percent! — of his assertions were rated true, and another 6 percent mostly true. Hillary Clinton, who is not exactly known for fealty to the facts, had a 28 percent total lie score, including a mere 1 percent Pants on Fire."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/lord-of-the-lies.html?_r=0

 

[miketx]

Hurry! You only have 5 more lying days left!

Another one of the useful idiots with the IQ of a rock.

Lying? LOL

"Professional truth-seekers have never seen anything like Trump, surely the most compulsive liar to seek high office. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact has rated 76 percent of his statements lies — 57 percent false or mostly false, and another 19 percent “Pants on Fire” fabrications. Only 2 percent — 2 percent! — of his assertions were rated true, and another 6 percent mostly true. Hillary Clinton, who is not exactly known for fealty to the facts, had a 28 percent total lie score, including a mere 1 percent Pants on Fire."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/lord-of-the-lies.html?_r=0

Quoting the NYT? Now that is rich. LOL! Yes, you are liar. All of you shills. It's all you know how to do, and of late you have been doing a bad job of that.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Why do right-wing fascist/racists have to open their big fat mouths?

 

[montelatici]

Hurry! You only have 5 more lying days left!

Another one of the useful idiots with the IQ of a rock.

Lying? LOL

"Professional truth-seekers have never seen anything like Trump, surely the most compulsive liar to seek high office. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact has rated 76 percent of his statements lies — 57 percent false or mostly false, and another 19 percent “Pants on Fire” fabrications. Only 2 percent — 2 percent! — of his assertions were rated true, and another 6 percent mostly true. Hillary Clinton, who is not exactly known for fealty to the facts, had a 28 percent total lie score, including a mere 1 percent Pants on Fire."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/lord-of-the-lies.html?_r=0

Quoting the NYT? Now that is rich. LOL! Yes, you are liar. All of you shills. It's all you know how to do, and of late you have been doing a bad job of that.

Figured you would complain when I didn't use your main news source.

 

[montelatici]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Why do right-wing fascist/racists have to open their big fat mouths?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Hurry! You only have 5 more lying days left!

Another one of the useful idiots with the IQ of a rock.

Lying? LOL

"Professional truth-seekers have never seen anything like Trump, surely the most compulsive liar to seek high office. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact has rated 76 percent of his statements lies — 57 percent false or mostly false, and another 19 percent “Pants on Fire” fabrications. Only 2 percent — 2 percent! — of his assertions were rated true, and another 6 percent mostly true. Hillary Clinton, who is not exactly known for fealty to the facts, had a 28 percent total lie score, including a mere 1 percent Pants on Fire."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/lord-of-the-lies.html?_r=0

Quoting the NYT? Now that is rich. LOL! Yes, you are liar. All of you shills. It's all you know how to do, and of late you have been doing a bad job of that.

Instead writing someone is a liar why don't you provide links to show the other poster how wrong they are?

Never mind!

Go on and remember to add " Liberal Parasite ' and " You're the spawn of Satan " while at it!!!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Why do right-wing fascist/racists have to open their big fat mouths?

No, MikeTx is the typical poster that offer nothing to counter your links with except their opinion...

Also let me be factual and tell you that the poster you are dealing with is not going to offer anything except the typical nonsense from Trump voting trolls!

 

[montelatici]

I enjoy making Trump supporters look like the fools they are. Since they aren't too bright, it's easy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Pretending? Pretending what exactly?

You seem to think you know something that I don't. What would that be?

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?

"
Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?"

Cameron's flagship EU referendum Bill hit by warning it is not legally binding and next government could just ignore it | Daily Mail Online

"
David Cameron’s flagship promise to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU would not be legally binding, officials have warned"

This was from 2013, you'd have thought Daily Mail readers would pay attention to what they read, right?

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work? - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

"It is likely that the notification would be done by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers. But arguments that Parliament should – or even would have to – give its consent have gained currency since the referendum."

Either way, the govt doesn't have to do it, even if it has the powers. The referendum was never legally binding.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Pretending? Pretending what exactly?

You seem to think you know something that I don't. What would that be?

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?

"
Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?"

Cameron's flagship EU referendum Bill hit by warning it is not legally binding and next government could just ignore it | Daily Mail Online

"
David Cameron’s flagship promise to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU would not be legally binding, officials have warned"

This was from 2013, you'd have thought Daily Mail readers would pay attention to what they read, right?

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work? - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

"It is likely that the notification would be done by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers. But arguments that Parliament should – or even would have to – give its consent have gained currency since the referendum."

Either way, the govt doesn't have to do it, even if it has the powers. The referendum was never legally binding.

They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.
52/48 is hardly a resounding mandate and in the normal world should lead to a second referendum. I would hope that clever people are working on this scenario right now.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Interesting, the courts in England thwart right wing whackery just as they do in the US.

 

[Phoenall]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Pretending? Pretending what exactly?

You seem to think you know something that I don't. What would that be?

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?

"
Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?"

Cameron's flagship EU referendum Bill hit by warning it is not legally binding and next government could just ignore it | Daily Mail Online

"
David Cameron’s flagship promise to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU would not be legally binding, officials have warned"

This was from 2013, you'd have thought Daily Mail readers would pay attention to what they read, right?

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work? - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

"It is likely that the notification would be done by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers. But arguments that Parliament should – or even would have to – give its consent have gained currency since the referendum."

Either way, the govt doesn't have to do it, even if it has the powers. The referendum was never legally binding.

They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.
52/48 is hardly a resounding mandate and in the normal world should lead to a second referendum. I would hope that clever people are working on this scenario right now.

So according to you if the Welsh or Scots voted by that sort of figure you would not accept the result and demand another vote. Or does that only work if it suits you at the time.
What will you do when the European court of Justice overrules the verdict and says the British government can invoke royal prerogative and impose article 50. Will you look stupid for argueing against what you have been argueing for since last Christmas.

 

[MisterBeale]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Pretending? Pretending what exactly?

You seem to think you know something that I don't. What would that be?

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?

"
Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?"

Cameron's flagship EU referendum Bill hit by warning it is not legally binding and next government could just ignore it | Daily Mail Online

"
David Cameron’s flagship promise to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU would not be legally binding, officials have warned"

This was from 2013, you'd have thought Daily Mail readers would pay attention to what they read, right?

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work? - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

"It is likely that the notification would be done by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers. But arguments that Parliament should – or even would have to – give its consent have gained currency since the referendum."

Either way, the govt doesn't have to do it, even if it has the powers. The referendum was never legally binding.

They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.
52/48 is hardly a resounding mandate and in the normal world should lead to a second referendum. I would hope that clever people are working on this scenario right now.

Sure, give it more time.

I'd like to see that.

It's really a race you see. Folks can be manipulated and brainwashed, but the economics and reality of circumstance can only be fought off for so long. The realities on the ground are deteriorating by the day.

Do you really think a second vote would be more favorable?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So what you are saying is you are an authoritarian against democracy?

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Pretending? Pretending what exactly?

You seem to think you know something that I don't. What would that be?

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?

"
Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?"

Cameron's flagship EU referendum Bill hit by warning it is not legally binding and next government could just ignore it | Daily Mail Online

"
David Cameron’s flagship promise to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU would not be legally binding, officials have warned"

This was from 2013, you'd have thought Daily Mail readers would pay attention to what they read, right?

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work? - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

"It is likely that the notification would be done by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers. But arguments that Parliament should – or even would have to – give its consent have gained currency since the referendum."

Either way, the govt doesn't have to do it, even if it has the powers. The referendum was never legally binding.

They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.
52/48 is hardly a resounding mandate and in the normal world should lead to a second referendum. I would hope that clever people are working on this scenario right now.

Sure, give it more time.

I'd like to see that.

It's really a race you see. Folks can be manipulated and brainwashed, but the economics and reality of circumstance can only be fought off for so long. The realities on the ground are deteriorating by the day.

Do you really think a second vote would be more favorable?

Almost certainly. There are a lot of different parts to brexit. The free market,immigration, political and economic union.

Most people would want to retain the free market because of its importance to our economy.

A majority, big majority of the older population, would probably want some curbs on immigration .

And the overwhelming majority would back some sort of compromise.

The problem is that the EU wont allow the first without taking the second and are playing hardball over the third.

This leaves the government in a real bind because they have committed to both the first and second,

The last thing they want to do is outline the whole to Parliament where they would be laughed at.

Essentially its open markets or closed borders and the question is which one the government goes for.

 

[miketx]

Our government will soon be going for closed borders like it should. I suggest you move to France so you can experience the muslim openness of that first hand.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Our government will soon be going for closed borders like it should. I suggest you move to France so you can experience the muslim openness of that first hand.

I love France,go there every year. Its a beautiful country.

 

[MisterBeale]

The vote was a vote set up by the Democratically elected govt of the UK that was not a binding vote. Everyone with half a brain knew it wasn't binding. Everyone with half a brain knew the UK govt would have to vote on this.

They voted because they WANTED the UK govt to have MORE POWERS, and not they're pissed because the UK govt has to vote on something. WTF?

You can't deal with people like this.

Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?

Pretending? Pretending what exactly?

You seem to think you know something that I don't. What would that be?

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

"The bill neither contained any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor did it say explicitly that the referendum is only advisory. On November 3, 2016, the High Court in London ruled that the referendum is only advisory, also known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?

"
Brexit Referendum Is Non-Binding. UK Parliament Not Voters has Final Say?"

Cameron's flagship EU referendum Bill hit by warning it is not legally binding and next government could just ignore it | Daily Mail Online

"
David Cameron’s flagship promise to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU would not be legally binding, officials have warned"

This was from 2013, you'd have thought Daily Mail readers would pay attention to what they read, right?

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work? - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

"It is likely that the notification would be done by the Prime Minister under prerogative powers. But arguments that Parliament should – or even would have to – give its consent have gained currency since the referendum."

Either way, the govt doesn't have to do it, even if it has the powers. The referendum was never legally binding.

They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.
52/48 is hardly a resounding mandate and in the normal world should lead to a second referendum. I would hope that clever people are working on this scenario right now.

Sure, give it more time.

I'd like to see that.

It's really a race you see. Folks can be manipulated and brainwashed, but the economics and reality of circumstance can only be fought off for so long. The realities on the ground are deteriorating by the day.

Do you really think a second vote would be more favorable?

Almost certainly. There are a lot of different parts to brexit. The free market,immigration, political and economic union.

Most people would want to retain the free market because of its importance to our economy.

A majority, big majority of the older population, would probably want some curbs on immigration .

And the overwhelming majority would back some sort of compromise.

The problem is that the EU wont allow the first without taking the second and are playing hardball over the third.

This leaves the government in a real bind because they have committed to both the first and second,

The last thing they want to do is outline the whole to Parliament where they would be laughed at.

Essentially its open markets or closed borders and the question is which one the government goes for.

The Brexit legal challengers should drop the embarrassing facade that they are all about defending parliamentary sovereignty
Hugh Bennett: The Brexit legal challengers should drop the embarrassing facade that they are all about defending parliamentary sovereignty | BrexitCentral
When people voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty, it was to end this insidious process of legislation by proclamation from Brussels, not to see it perpetuated by the use of frivolous legal technicalities on rights to vote in European Parliament elections, with some grotesque parody of “parliamentary sovereignty” conjured up as a smokescreen to obscure the mounting machinations aimed at undermining Brexit altogether.


In practical terms, there is obviously a fear that this ruling will lead to the triggering of Article 50 being delayed beyond March 2017. Should the appeal to the Supreme Court fail, Brexit Secretary David Davis has confirmed that the Government expects to have to pass a full Act of Parliament in order to trigger Article 50. This would have to navigate not only the Remain-backing Commons, but also the overwhelmingly pro-Remain Lords.


Labour MP David Lammy has already stated that he will “absolutely not be voting to trigger Article 50”, and defeated Labour leadership contender Owen Smith has called on his party to attach an amendment to the Bill to force a full second referendum on whether the UK should leave after all. The attempted passage of an Article 50 Bill would almost inevitably descend into open season for the rearguard Remainers to erect every possible hurdle in its way.


Ultimately, the law is the law and should be judged independently of extraneous political circumstances, as controversial as that may end up being in constitutional terms. But the cabal who have brought the case to court should at least drop their farcical pretence that they are a band of non-partisan constitutional law enthusiasts who have somehow been drawn together by a passion for the finer points of a 17th century legal precedent and its implications for a subtle diplomatic process point.


David Lammy may be fighting for a wholly undemocratic cause, but at least he is being sincere about it.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...tary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf