We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Nov 16
09:09
Joined:
Date Joined:
27 May 11
The High Court is to rule on whether the government can begin the formal process of leaving the European Union without consulting Parliament.
Senior judges heard a challenge last month from campaigners who argue Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without MPs' approval.
The PM has promised to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017.
Its author, Lord Kerr, has told the BBC he believed it was "not irrevocable".
Judges are set to give their verdict at 10:00 GMT.
Some of the leading figures in the legal world are involved in the historic case, which is expected to be appealed against to the Supreme Court whatever the verdict.
The announcement will be made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales.
The government insists it does not need to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50, which begins two years of formal Brexit negotiations.
Gina Miller, centre, arriving at the High Court on the second dayImage copyrightAP
Image caption
Gina Miller, centre, was chosen as the lead claimant
Lord Justice ThomasImage copyrightPA
Image caption
Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, presided over the three-day hearing
It argues there is an established constitutional convention for the executive to use ancient powers of royal prerogative to withdraw from international treaties - and that the referendum result has given ministers the green light to begin Brexit.
But the claimants - led by investment manager Gina Miller - argue that rights granted by the 1972 European Communities Act cannot be taken away without the explicit approval of Parliament.
A number of MPs have also been calling for Parliament to be given a vote before Article 50 is triggered, saying the government has no mandate to decide the terms of Brexit.
But Mrs May has said their demands are akin to trying to "subvert democracy".
The government has said it is likely MPs will get to vote on the final Brexit deal reached after the negotiations - but campaigners say this is too late.
The prime minister has refused to give details of her key demands for the talks.
'Factually objective'
Among those calling for Parliament to be given a vote is the Scottish peer who wrote Article 50.
In a BBC interview, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard said he believed Article 50 was "not irrevocable", adding that the UK could choose to stay in the EU even after exit negotiations had begun.
Meanwhile the head of the civil service, Sir Jeremy Heywood, said it might be decades before the full impact of the referendum result on the UK was known.
Setting out the challenge facing Whitehall in his blog, he said Brexit had "few, if any, parallels in its complexity".
He also defended the civil service's role during the referendum campaign, when Brexit-supporting ministers were barred from seeing some documents under special rules allowing members of the government to campaign for either side.
"During the official referendum campaign, we were scrupulous in making sure that all documents issued were factually correct and objective," he said.
Exiting the EU will involve almost every government department and thousands of civil servants, he said.
'Titanic success'
Separately, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been greeted by laughter after claiming Brexit would be a "titanic success".
Speaking at the Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards, he appeared to compare leaving the EU to the cruise ship that sank in 1912 on its maiden voyage.
He said: "In the words of our great Prime Minister, Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a titanic, a titanic success of it."
After loud laughter from the audience, Mr Johnson corrected himself, adding: "We are going to make a colossal, a colossal success of Brexit."
Senior judges heard a challenge last month from campaigners who argue Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without MPs' approval.
The PM has promised to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017.
Its author, Lord Kerr, has told the BBC he believed it was "not irrevocable".
Judges are set to give their verdict at 10:00 GMT.
Some of the leading figures in the legal world are involved in the historic case, which is expected to be appealed against to the Supreme Court whatever the verdict.
The announcement will be made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales.
The government insists it does not need to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50, which begins two years of formal Brexit negotiations.
Gina Miller, centre, arriving at the High Court on the second dayImage copyrightAP
Image caption
Gina Miller, centre, was chosen as the lead claimant
Lord Justice ThomasImage copyrightPA
Image caption
Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, presided over the three-day hearing
It argues there is an established constitutional convention for the executive to use ancient powers of royal prerogative to withdraw from international treaties - and that the referendum result has given ministers the green light to begin Brexit.
But the claimants - led by investment manager Gina Miller - argue that rights granted by the 1972 European Communities Act cannot be taken away without the explicit approval of Parliament.
A number of MPs have also been calling for Parliament to be given a vote before Article 50 is triggered, saying the government has no mandate to decide the terms of Brexit.
But Mrs May has said their demands are akin to trying to "subvert democracy".
The government has said it is likely MPs will get to vote on the final Brexit deal reached after the negotiations - but campaigners say this is too late.
The prime minister has refused to give details of her key demands for the talks.
'Factually objective'
Among those calling for Parliament to be given a vote is the Scottish peer who wrote Article 50.
In a BBC interview, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard said he believed Article 50 was "not irrevocable", adding that the UK could choose to stay in the EU even after exit negotiations had begun.
Meanwhile the head of the civil service, Sir Jeremy Heywood, said it might be decades before the full impact of the referendum result on the UK was known.
Setting out the challenge facing Whitehall in his blog, he said Brexit had "few, if any, parallels in its complexity".
He also defended the civil service's role during the referendum campaign, when Brexit-supporting ministers were barred from seeing some documents under special rules allowing members of the government to campaign for either side.
"During the official referendum campaign, we were scrupulous in making sure that all documents issued were factually correct and objective," he said.
Exiting the EU will involve almost every government department and thousands of civil servants, he said.
'Titanic success'
Separately, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been greeted by laughter after claiming Brexit would be a "titanic success".
Speaking at the Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards, he appeared to compare leaving the EU to the cruise ship that sank in 1912 on its maiden voyage.
He said: "In the words of our great Prime Minister, Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a titanic, a titanic success of it."
After loud laughter from the audience, Mr Johnson corrected himself, adding: "We are going to make a colossal, a colossal success of Brexit."
Show More
did it explain the referendum act ?
or could you have checked a few facts ?
brexit will happen, and it will be legally binding as
due process will have been done.
had article 50 been triggered by may and then a challenge
had been made afterwards we would be in a mess.
it also stops these wannabe dictators seizing power in the
future under the guise of royal prerogative.
in time the brexiteers will celebrate yesterdays ruling but
its taking time for them to grasp it.
or could you have checked a few facts ?
brexit will happen, and it will be legally binding as
due process will have been done.
had article 50 been triggered by may and then a challenge
had been made afterwards we would be in a mess.
it also stops these wannabe dictators seizing power in the
future under the guise of royal prerogative.
in time the brexiteers will celebrate yesterdays ruling but
its taking time for them to grasp it.
It was a ruling on transparency to stop a Tory Diktat enacting deals to suit their own agenda that could be
totally at odds to what leavers voted for.
totally at odds to what leavers voted for.
sadly it does not stop the tories enacting whatever deal they can cobble together.
they may go hard brexit, or soft brexit and there will be no further vote
until next election.
they may go hard brexit, or soft brexit and there will be no further vote
until next election.
paddy ashdown has just said he is the slave of the people
respects the will of the people - but..............
the usual small westmincing bubble in london who know what is best for those idiots in sunderland etc
respects the will of the people - but..............
the usual small westmincing bubble in london who know what is best for those idiots in sunderland etc
we wanted to leave to stop more foreign interference in our country
now two foreigners backed by three eu supporting judges have just interfered yet again
don't you just love it
now two foreigners backed by three eu supporting judges have just interfered yet again
don't you just love it
1. We live in a representative democracy. The most likely interpretation of the pledge in leaflet was that MPs would respect the result and put their own judgement to one side.
2. You cannot rewrite constitutional law in a leaflet.
3. The noises from nearly all Remain MPs, is that they will respect the outcome of the referendum.
4. The judges' ruling is simply that you cannot alter UK domestic law through the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative is for international treaties. We enshrined EU law into UK law, through ECA 1972, so you cannot use it. Changes to domestic law have to be put through parliament.
If you think the government can change domestic law without putting it through parliament, you will find that you are advocating a dictatorship. It's seems extremely unlikely that the appeal will be successful.
5. Had the government wanted to make the referendum result binding, they would have passed a bill prior to the outcome of the referendum allowing it.
6. The right wing press are a f*cking disgrace on this issue. Deliberately failing to explain it properly and pandering to the unjustified fears of those who don't understand it. UKIP are behaving like the self-righteous brothers from Harry Enfield - getting very shouty about things that aren't going to happen.
2. You cannot rewrite constitutional law in a leaflet.
3. The noises from nearly all Remain MPs, is that they will respect the outcome of the referendum.
4. The judges' ruling is simply that you cannot alter UK domestic law through the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative is for international treaties. We enshrined EU law into UK law, through ECA 1972, so you cannot use it. Changes to domestic law have to be put through parliament.
If you think the government can change domestic law without putting it through parliament, you will find that you are advocating a dictatorship. It's seems extremely unlikely that the appeal will be successful.
5. Had the government wanted to make the referendum result binding, they would have passed a bill prior to the outcome of the referendum allowing it.
6. The right wing press are a f*cking disgrace on this issue. Deliberately failing to explain it properly and pandering to the unjustified fears of those who don't understand it. UKIP are behaving like the self-righteous brothers from Harry Enfield - getting very shouty about things that aren't going to happen.
Who owns The Sun hope it's not a Foreigner trying to interfere in our politics.
they have sold a few papers today on the back of posturing
shame on them
shame on them
There was a bill passed through parliament to make the referendum result binding.
Nov 4, 2016 -- 5:00AM, Degs wrote:
as the government's case that they can repeal laws without parliament's authority was laughablewhat were they going to repeal without going through Parliament ?
The ECA 1972 would be rendered ineffective
Even swivel-eyes like John Redwood realised that there would be issues with Art. 50 he suggested that the leaving route should be that parliament would repeal the ECA 1972 (but while constitutionally valid there are many other issues with this).
Invoking Article 50 does not "repeal" (your word) anything. Repeal of the ECA 1972 is planned via the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" which would be invoked as we actually exit the EU.
summary of the European Union referendum act 2015..
A bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.
A bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.
This Bill was passed through Parliament and the Lords.
Degs I cba arguing with you - read the judgement and the comments in the press written by adults.
show us the bit where it states this referendum will be legally binding !
hint
dont bother cos you wont find it, because it wasnt included.
hint
dont bother cos you wont find it, because it wasnt included.
jesus lfc
it is crystal clear that the referendum was not legally binding.
it is crystal clear that the referendum was not legally binding.
Once that bill was passed through parliament it was by definition in and off itself legally binding.
this is the case with all bills passed by parliament. they do not state that they are legally binding, they are legally binding simply by the very process and nature of parliament.
bill do not state that they are legally binding, the are by their very existence and remain so until parliament should bring in a bill to overturn the bill.
this is the case with all bills passed by parliament. they do not state that they are legally binding, they are legally binding simply by the very process and nature of parliament.
bill do not state that they are legally binding, the are by their very existence and remain so until parliament should bring in a bill to overturn the bill.
stop making sh1t up and go and read this
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
read section 8 (105 through 108)
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
read section 8 (105 through 108)
To simplify for Donny etc, once a bill has been passed through parliament, it is legally binding
For almost 500 years English law is what the English parliament says is the law.
For almost 500 years English law is what the English parliament says is the law.
lol
the bill to allow referenda is where you want to be looking
this will show you where you are going wrong
(The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41
the bill to allow referenda is where you want to be looking
this will show you where you are going wrong
(The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41
judges do not decide English law. The English parliament decides what is English Law.
This is what most foreign countries do not understand.
This is what most foreign countries do not understand.
Those acts of parliament confirm what I have been saying.
let's be honest - they are simply out to wreck as much of brexit that the thick northerners voted for. you know we can trust the big bosses and their supporters like dave and breeding on here.
I have to laugh at how dave and breeding back a system that allows so much cheap labour and non union workers to exist on and in such poor conditions - THE EU
I have to laugh at how dave and breeding back a system that allows so much cheap labour and non union workers to exist on and in such poor conditions - THE EU
Other countries are not the same as England. They look at England and are amazed, they do not have the same mentality.
Do you doubt this? take a look around at the rest of the world.
The Secretary of State's ease regarding his ability to give notice under Article 50 was based squarely on the Crown's prerogative power. His counsel made it clear that he does not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. He is right not to do so. Any argument to that effect would have been untenable as a matter of statutory interpretation of the 2015 Referendum Act.
That Act falls to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.
Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to be advisory as the result of a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.
It's f*cking impressive that your knowledge is greater than that of the judges, the secretary of state, and their legal team.
You should give the appeal team and theresa a call to see if you can help out.
That Act falls to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.
Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to be advisory as the result of a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.
It's f*cking impressive that your knowledge is greater than that of the judges, the secretary of state, and their legal team.
You should give the appeal team and theresa a call to see if you can help out.
Britain has the power to leave the EU without triggering A50.
Its very simple, we just leave.
Its very simple, we just leave.
Tory MP Stephen Phillips resigns over the government policy and direction,he can no longer represent the views of his constituents.
Does not matter if it's legally binding or not (it's not), because in effect it is - politically binding that is, nobody is going to overturn Brexit, it would be career suicide.
rich privileged elite from rich privileged elite political background interferes with british democracy - now we know !
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/brexit-legal-challenge-gina-miller-argues-defending-democracy-is-the-best-way-to-spend-my-money-a3387101.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/brexit-legal-challenge-gina-miller-argues-defending-democracy-is-the-best-way-to-spend-my-money-a3387101.html
Think you have this the wrong way round Theresa May's government tried to interfere with democracy YDSC
horrible witch is getting plenty of stick in the papers,
nicely summed up in the Express
nicely summed up in the Express
Are you all for Foreign managers, owners and players running our football teams?Surely we could play football and manage and own our teams
for far less money?
for far less money?
6 months ago: "we demand that UK courts should be the ones to decide on UK legal matters."
Now: "These judges are the enemy!!!"
Now: "These judges are the enemy!!!"
I think leavers were after a Hitleresque type of character to enact their wishes unfortunately they ended up with Theresa May.
Does this mean we have to stop telling people to go home for the time being?
When I lived in Holland German far right wingers were attacking Turks in racially motivated attacks in Germany
when Germans visited Holland as lots do on their vacations the Dutch kept telling them "Go Home!" I hope
this starts happening to Brits holidaying in Europe it might make them realize there should be no room
for this far right rhetoric in this country.
when Germans visited Holland as lots do on their vacations the Dutch kept telling them "Go Home!" I hope
this starts happening to Brits holidaying in Europe it might make them realize there should be no room
for this far right rhetoric in this country.
This might allay your fears a little mobo.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/
https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/
we know why they want to come to the UK thanks
Nov 4, 2016 -- 7:15AM, Ron-Russian wrote:
horrible witch is getting plenty of stick in the papers,nicely summed up in the Express
you really are a POS - if you weren't a huge loser BF would have banned you from this forum years ago
two foreigners interfering in our democracy self interest
the woman comes from a foreign privileged elite political bacground
nothing in common with most people in this country
the woman comes from a foreign privileged elite political bacground
nothing in common with most people in this country
that is the best you can do dave - he loves the veiled threat
Welsh Government @WelshGovernment
The Counsel General intends to make an application to intervene in the proposed Article 50 appeal before the Supreme Court #brexit
The Counsel General intends to make an application to intervene in the proposed Article 50 appeal before the Supreme Court #brexit
Haven't read the thread but had this emailed to me.
The real issue is the confusion about Sovereignty. It is "The People" that are Sovereign. This is reflected in International Law, because the Laws of Nations are based on the Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms of the individual.
Parliament is not "Sovereign". This is a very dangerous assumption, that infers no restraints or limits upon its power. Parliament does not have Divine Right. It is constrained, it is limited, therefore it cannot be "Sovereign" As Lord Acton said:
“Limitation is essential to authority. A government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited.”
That is what the Nuremberg Trials said too, when you think about it, because the argument that what Hitler and the Nazis did, was "legal" because they "didn't break the Law" is absolute hogwash. This is the assumption of Divine Right, the implementation of the lawless State, where "The Law is what 'we' say it is", and Government cannot simply create Law to suit whatever it wishes to do (something the EU today, is actually doing, and it is why every member Nation must get the heck out of the EU asap).
This is what those so called "Judges" yesterday, were declaring - that Parliament is our Master, and NOT our SERVANT! It's a declaration that Parliament can do whatever the heck it likes!
It is the exact same assumption, that we have fought Civil Wars over, executed a King over, had Revolutions over, had Uprisings over, and have fought tooth and nail, including in foreign wars, to oppose, because it is everything we have ever stood against as a Nation, for CENTURIES!
Yet these dangerous imbeciles are attempting to slip it in via the back door of a COURT?
Make no mistake, and I am being deadly serious in this, IF THIS NONSENSE STANDS, THEN IT IS A DECLARATION OF WAR ON THE BRITISH PEOPLE!
. ------------------------------------------------
As posted in
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/04/brexit-shakespeare-dead-right-law...
The real issue is the confusion about Sovereignty. It is "The People" that are Sovereign. This is reflected in International Law, because the Laws of Nations are based on the Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms of the individual.
Parliament is not "Sovereign". This is a very dangerous assumption, that infers no restraints or limits upon its power. Parliament does not have Divine Right. It is constrained, it is limited, therefore it cannot be "Sovereign" As Lord Acton said:
“Limitation is essential to authority. A government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited.”
That is what the Nuremberg Trials said too, when you think about it, because the argument that what Hitler and the Nazis did, was "legal" because they "didn't break the Law" is absolute hogwash. This is the assumption of Divine Right, the implementation of the lawless State, where "The Law is what 'we' say it is", and Government cannot simply create Law to suit whatever it wishes to do (something the EU today, is actually doing, and it is why every member Nation must get the heck out of the EU asap).
This is what those so called "Judges" yesterday, were declaring - that Parliament is our Master, and NOT our SERVANT! It's a declaration that Parliament can do whatever the heck it likes!
It is the exact same assumption, that we have fought Civil Wars over, executed a King over, had Revolutions over, had Uprisings over, and have fought tooth and nail, including in foreign wars, to oppose, because it is everything we have ever stood against as a Nation, for CENTURIES!
Yet these dangerous imbeciles are attempting to slip it in via the back door of a COURT?
Make no mistake, and I am being deadly serious in this, IF THIS NONSENSE STANDS, THEN IT IS A DECLARATION OF WAR ON THE BRITISH PEOPLE!
. ------------------------------------------------
As posted in
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/04/brexit-shakespeare-dead-right-law...
JD certainly has a way of putting things bigmo
"Face it, we Brexiteers have enjoyed more than four deliriously happy months bathing in bitter Remainer tears, feeding on their sorrow like misery-sucking vampires, relishing every moment of their denials, their tantrums, their toys-cast-from-prams. So it’s only natural that with the roles temporarily reversed, the Remaintards should seize their brief moment in the sun and begin crowing as if somehow those three lefty ponces in ermine (or whatever it is that left-wing High Court Judges wear: thongs? Gimp suits?) were now going to stop us exiting the EU."
"Face it, we Brexiteers have enjoyed more than four deliriously happy months bathing in bitter Remainer tears, feeding on their sorrow like misery-sucking vampires, relishing every moment of their denials, their tantrums, their toys-cast-from-prams. So it’s only natural that with the roles temporarily reversed, the Remaintards should seize their brief moment in the sun and begin crowing as if somehow those three lefty ponces in ermine (or whatever it is that left-wing High Court Judges wear: thongs? Gimp suits?) were now going to stop us exiting the EU."
Other countries are not the same as England. They look at England and are amazed, they do not have the same mentality
yes they view us as island monkeys.
they once sent one to hartlepool and they killed ti thinking he was a black man
yes they view us as island monkeys.
they once sent one to hartlepool and they killed ti thinking he was a black man
the monkey was hanged because the locals thought it was a French spy, according to legend.
I'll hear nothing bad said about the wise people of Hartlepool - they led from the front with the Brexit vote.
Every one a hero.
I'll hear nothing bad said about the wise people of Hartlepool - they led from the front with the Brexit vote.
Every one a hero.
Britain has the power to leave the EU without triggering A50.
Its very simple, we just leave.
id like to see it.
our economy would grind to a halt.
of course we would still let goods in.....but no way can goods get past eu customs...so they will get turned back.
Its very simple, we just leave.
id like to see it.
our economy would grind to a halt.
of course we would still let goods in.....but no way can goods get past eu customs...so they will get turned back.
bigmo
prob best not to pay any attention to the likes of breitbart
their ultra right wing agenda has no interest in "the people", it is only interested in creating civil unrest in the hope that dictatorship is imposed.
prob best not to pay any attention to the likes of breitbart
their ultra right wing agenda has no interest in "the people", it is only interested in creating civil unrest in the hope that dictatorship is imposed.
the monkey was hanged because the locals thought it was a French spy, according to legend.
I'll hear nothing bad said about the wise people of Hartlepool
true to form then
I'll hear nothing bad said about the wise people of Hartlepool
true to form then
FFS Jockey ...
... it was a spy.
And it didn't speak a word of English
... it was a spy.
And it didn't speak a word of English
as far as attacks on judges are concerned, remember that Turkey's Erdogan has attacked the judges in his desire to making his country an islamic caliphate.
reading twitter.
interesting that some right wing are really not happy.
responding in an inciting manner....civil unrest.
makes you wonder how different they actually are to the religion they love to hate?
interesting that some right wing are really not happy.
responding in an inciting manner....civil unrest.
makes you wonder how different they actually are to the religion they love to hate?
and the proposed ukip leader shot herself in the foot today regarding the turkish judges.
some people seriously are too stupid to be in such positions.
thats the state of this country.
we will make a titanic success of it no doubt.......
some people seriously are too stupid to be in such positions.
thats the state of this country.
we will make a titanic success of it no doubt.......
yes they view us as island monkeys.
I suggest you travel a bit more then
I suggest you travel a bit more then
yes they view us as island monkeys.
Well ok, there is the moderately widespread term "Inselaffen" in German, and maybe other languages have similar terms to describe UK citizens, but that's more of an endearing term really. It's because we love you, not because we consider you weird ass monkeys or anything like that. A little bit peculiar at times maybe with your courtroom wigs, boar in peppermint sauce, driving on what is clearly the wrong lane, sports that have a tea break and the use of imperial units. Nonetheless, the UK and its citizens are held in very high regards for consistently and greatly contributing towards human development over many centuries.
Well ok, there is the moderately widespread term "Inselaffen" in German, and maybe other languages have similar terms to describe UK citizens, but that's more of an endearing term really. It's because we love you, not because we consider you weird ass monkeys or anything like that. A little bit peculiar at times maybe with your courtroom wigs, boar in peppermint sauce, driving on what is clearly the wrong lane, sports that have a tea break and the use of imperial units. Nonetheless, the UK and its citizens are held in very high regards for consistently and greatly contributing towards human development over many centuries.
Martin McGuinness ‘refuses to rule out Sinn Fein tasking seats Westminster to stop brexit
Cell
| Cell 1 | Cell 2 |
| Cell 3 |
Just wondering, does "taking back control" mean politicising the judiciary and turning judges into yes men? And blaming foreigners for everything perceived to be wrong in society? There's a precedent for that.
Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage 12h12 hours ago
My fear is we now get half Brexit. Establishment will try and lock us inside single market. Would be a total betrayal!
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/794459871831851008
My fear is we now get half Brexit. Establishment will try and lock us inside single market. Would be a total betrayal!
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/794459871831851008
What about the leaflets the Remain side posted around nearly every household in
the country explaining about the consequences of coming out & benefits of staying
in the EU?
They even cheated by spending more than they were allowed on that little project
the country explaining about the consequences of coming out & benefits of staying
in the EU?
They even cheated by spending more than they were allowed on that little project
Leaflets mean nothing. Chances are the judges never even saw them. If we were to take every politician's promise of manifesto pledge at face value then the courts would be full of MPs being sued.
Just doesn't matter. The law is the law; and that's all the 3 judges looked at.
Just doesn't matter. The law is the law; and that's all the 3 judges looked at.
The Conservative MP whose shock resignation has plunged Theresa May into a ‘Brexit by-election’ told friends his party had become “Ukip-lite”, it has been claimed.
Stephen Phillips stunned Westminster by quitting immediately as an MP, blaming “irreconcilable policy differences” between himself and the Government for his decision.
He recently accused Ms May of “tyranny” by planning to ignore Parliament when she triggers the Article 50 notice for leaving the EU – despite backing Brexit himself.
No.10’s determination to try to overturn this week’s decisive High Court ruling that MPs and peers must first give their consent – by appealing to the Supreme Court – was said to be the “final straw”.
Mr Phillips had also spoken out against the dangers to the economy of a ‘hard Brexit’ supporting continued membership of the single market.
However, the now-departed MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, in Lincolnshire is also known to have been deeply unhappy about other aspects of Ms May’s premiership.
Friends said he was also highly critical of the Government’s harsh stance on child refugees and its plans to effectively cut international aid, by switching some to attempts to bolster post-Brexit trade.
One told Sky News that Mr Phillips believed the Conservatives now had “Ukip-lite" values, adding: “This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP.”
Jon Trickett, Labour’s national campaign co-ordinator, said: “Losing one Tory MP in a resignation over her policies may have been a misfortune when Mr Cameron stood down.
“To lose a second one over her Heathrow policy was a significant blow. But now to lose a third only a fortnight later over Brexit amounts to a leadership crisis.”
And Liberal Democrat Party President Sal Brinton said: “I think there will be many backbench Conservative MPs who are feeling the same about this Conservative Brexit Government today.”
In a brief resignation statement, which answered few questions, Mr Phillips wrote: “It has become clear to me, over the last few months, that my growing and very significant policy differences with the current Government mean I am unable to properly represent the people who elected me.
“This decision has been a difficult one and I hope that everyone will respect the fact that I have tried to act in the best interests of all my constituents.”
Despite the blow to Ms May, the Tories will be strong favourites to win again, as they enjoyed a whopping majority of 24,115 over Labour last year, with Ukip a close third – in a strongly pro-Leave seat.
Nigel Farage appeared to scotch suggestions that he might be the Ukip candidate in the by-election expected last month – but leadership contender Suzanne Evans said she would attempt to be.
Mr Phillips’ friends also made known that he had informed Downing Street on Wednesday of his intention to resign, before the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court.
He had not met the Prime Minister over the threat, but had turned down repeated requests by Conservative whips for a meeting.
A Conservative party spokesman said: “Stephen Phillips has been a valuable member of parliament since 2010 and we are sorry that he has chosen to step down. We thank him for his hard work and we wish him every success in the future
A tory with some morals
goodman nice to see..
Stephen Phillips stunned Westminster by quitting immediately as an MP, blaming “irreconcilable policy differences” between himself and the Government for his decision.
He recently accused Ms May of “tyranny” by planning to ignore Parliament when she triggers the Article 50 notice for leaving the EU – despite backing Brexit himself.
No.10’s determination to try to overturn this week’s decisive High Court ruling that MPs and peers must first give their consent – by appealing to the Supreme Court – was said to be the “final straw”.
Mr Phillips had also spoken out against the dangers to the economy of a ‘hard Brexit’ supporting continued membership of the single market.
However, the now-departed MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, in Lincolnshire is also known to have been deeply unhappy about other aspects of Ms May’s premiership.
Friends said he was also highly critical of the Government’s harsh stance on child refugees and its plans to effectively cut international aid, by switching some to attempts to bolster post-Brexit trade.
One told Sky News that Mr Phillips believed the Conservatives now had “Ukip-lite" values, adding: “This is not the basis upon which he stood as an MP.”
Jon Trickett, Labour’s national campaign co-ordinator, said: “Losing one Tory MP in a resignation over her policies may have been a misfortune when Mr Cameron stood down.
“To lose a second one over her Heathrow policy was a significant blow. But now to lose a third only a fortnight later over Brexit amounts to a leadership crisis.”
And Liberal Democrat Party President Sal Brinton said: “I think there will be many backbench Conservative MPs who are feeling the same about this Conservative Brexit Government today.”
In a brief resignation statement, which answered few questions, Mr Phillips wrote: “It has become clear to me, over the last few months, that my growing and very significant policy differences with the current Government mean I am unable to properly represent the people who elected me.
“This decision has been a difficult one and I hope that everyone will respect the fact that I have tried to act in the best interests of all my constituents.”
Despite the blow to Ms May, the Tories will be strong favourites to win again, as they enjoyed a whopping majority of 24,115 over Labour last year, with Ukip a close third – in a strongly pro-Leave seat.
Nigel Farage appeared to scotch suggestions that he might be the Ukip candidate in the by-election expected last month – but leadership contender Suzanne Evans said she would attempt to be.
Mr Phillips’ friends also made known that he had informed Downing Street on Wednesday of his intention to resign, before the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court.
He had not met the Prime Minister over the threat, but had turned down repeated requests by Conservative whips for a meeting.
A Conservative party spokesman said: “Stephen Phillips has been a valuable member of parliament since 2010 and we are sorry that he has chosen to step down. We thank him for his hard work and we wish him every success in the future
A tory with some morals
goodman nice to see..
99% of Daily Express readers say the High Court ruling was a "scandalous betrayal"
of the British people
of the British people
but what do the readers say of the weather?
the express is nothing but an extreme right wing michael fish wannabee
the express is nothing but an extreme right wing michael fish wannabee
the three judges should be dragged to the wool sack and face a fair trial before being found guilty!!!
NICOLA Sturgeon has told how David Cameron shrugged his shoulders and told her “don’t be silly” after she warned him he might lose the EU referendum. 
why does the 1% still buy the paper
is he waiting for madeline to be found ?
is he waiting for madeline to be found ?
I think Maddie is buried daily express editors office
Playing for time, planning their next move.
Things are getting dirty.
Yep next
Things are getting dirty.
Yep next
Corbyn now says labour won't back activating Article 50...unless ACCESS to the single market it Guaranteed.
brexitears dont care about single market as long as we leave eu
thats what they voted for , nothing to do with racism or immigration
thats what they voted for , nothing to do with racism or immigration
Everyone knew what the vote meant, why won't the traitors just accept it.
as if anyone would have even bothered voting if people knew on winning a complete
and utter pr1ck like Corbyn would get a chance to stop it happening.
as if anyone would have even bothered voting if people knew on winning a complete
and utter pr1ck like Corbyn would get a chance to stop it happening.
It's either the single market with NO freedom of movement
or
No single market at all
simple as that
or
No single market at all
simple as that
they didnt even know it wasnt binding
its not x- factor or the ant and dec show
its not x- factor or the ant and dec show
Looks like our friends in Germany may have a way out for the May government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/germanys-leading-academics-urge-angela-merkel-to-block-brexit-a7394791.html
Time to work together for the common cause.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/germanys-leading-academics-urge-angela-merkel-to-block-brexit-a7394791.html
Time to work together for the common cause.
ACADEMICS!!!!
BMW & Mercedes boards in panic, hasten on their way to merkel's office as we speak - 'do not fk this up for us Merkel' they are shouting.
BMW & Mercedes boards in panic, hasten on their way to merkel's office as we speak - 'do not fk this up for us Merkel' they are shouting.
Looks like there may be a problem
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/729154/Brexit-Jean-Claude-Juncker-Angela-Merkel-German-UK
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/729154/Brexit-Jean-Claude-Juncker-Angela-Merkel-German-UK
1 month later
Round 2 at the Supreme court
another loss incoming.
Round 2 at the Supreme court
another loss incoming.
Do not be fooled by Corbyn and the Labour Party when they say they want to maintain the single market. They don't, what they want is to maintain immigration. This is their motive and the only one but Corbyn is a very tricky and devious individual and is surrounded by sinister colleagues, they know they mustn't be clear on their true motives.
lfc have you been on the sherry early doors or do you just think everybody who doesn't agree with the your potty ideas is sinister
anxious I think it's a fair description of people who hate England and the monarchy.
Sinister dear me, when has Jeremy said he hates England and the Monarchy , in fact I heard say on I think the queens 90th that she was wonderful and had done fantastic public service for the country
yes he was very civil, he speaks softly. he is being very civil and speaking even more softly now on this issue.
but civility is not welcome as far as I am concerned, because look at his views on the monarchy, what would he do. look at his views on the referendum result and what would he do.
do not trust Corbyn and labour when they speak softly, they don't deserve to be trusted when they do.
but civility is not welcome as far as I am concerned, because look at his views on the monarchy, what would he do. look at his views on the referendum result and what would he do.
do not trust Corbyn and labour when they speak softly, they don't deserve to be trusted when they do.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539