Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Almost certainly. There are a lot of different parts to brexit. The free market,immigration, political and economic union.They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.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.
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?
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
Yes Tommy, every 'round here already knows you're an authoritarian. That's pretty much the only way you can take peoples freedom away.Almost certainly. There are a lot of different parts to brexit. The free market,immigration, political and economic union.They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.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.
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?
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
Yes they are furious. We didnt vote for brexit to have british courts make decisions on british points of law.
British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
They make me sick if I am honest. good on David Lammy and I hope he gets support.
How am I taking peoples freedom away ? Discuss the facts and leave the emotion to the thickoes.Yes Tommy, every 'round here already knows you're an authoritarian. That's pretty much the only way you can take peoples freedom away.Almost certainly. There are a lot of different parts to brexit. The free market,immigration, political and economic union.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?
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
Yes they are furious. We didnt vote for brexit to have british courts make decisions on british points of law.
British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
They make me sick if I am honest. good on David Lammy and I hope he gets support.
How am I taking peoples freedom away ? Discuss the facts and leave the emotion to the thickoes.Yes Tommy, every 'round here already knows you're an authoritarian. That's pretty much the only way you can take peoples freedom away.Almost certainly. There are a lot of different parts to brexit. The free market,immigration, political and economic union.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?
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
Yes they are furious. We didnt vote for brexit to have british courts make decisions on british points of law.
British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
They make me sick if I am honest. good on David Lammy and I hope he gets support.
Not really. You posted an opinion piece from a partisan source. Its a bit distanced from actual fact.How am I taking peoples freedom away ? Discuss the facts and leave the emotion to the thickoes.Yes Tommy, every 'round here already knows you're an authoritarian. That's pretty much the only way you can take peoples freedom away.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
Yes they are furious. We didnt vote for brexit to have british courts make decisions on british points of law.
British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
They make me sick if I am honest. good on David Lammy and I hope he gets support.
I just posted an article that stated, "David Lammy may be fighting for a wholly undemocratic cause."
You replied with, "good on David Lammy."
Well, there you are. You support undemocratic causes.
They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?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? 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.
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.
They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?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? 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.
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.They cant get their head around it being a big opinion poll with no constitutional basis.Pretending again, I see. Why do libs have to pretend to know something about an issue they know nothing about?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? 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.
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?
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.
I love France,go there every year. Its a beautiful country.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.
