Nigel Farage speaking to Gina Miller BBC....

strange rambling post, not sure what you mean

Nov 6, 2016 -- 2:41PM, rogerthebutler wrote:

Nov  6, 2016 --  2:37PM, donny osmond wrote:i thought farage was a democratwhat part of democracy does this gravytrainer not understand ?Probably the bit where a cabal of rich kids and three far-from-neutral judges filibuster the will of 17.4 million people.

There would be very little delay to May's timetable if the government accepted the court's decision and immediately introduced legislation.  When the Supreme court agrees with the High Court, there won't be time for legislation to pass and allow May to give Art. 50 notice in March.

The truth seems to be that May doesn't like courts and judges and takes setbacks personally.  She was constantly making stupid mistakes when Home Secretary, once even being unable to read a calender properly and almost allowing the odious Abu Hamza to escape proceedings.

and almost allowing the odious Abu Hamza to escape proceedings.

Just like Labour did for the best part of 20 years.

labour have nothing to do with mays dealings with the courts

thats a different issue

the conservatives can introduce a simple bill to trigger article 50
there need be no other reason for the bill and no mention of single markets
nor immigration. they have a majority and many labour mps will support them.

why she chooses not to do so is baffling

she risks the supreme court passing comment as to negotiations if others
ask for further powers to be considered during the appeal..

donny I'm fairly sure a bill would be amended to say that single market access is a red line.

The implications of that who knows, but there is half a chance of getting a deal agreed in the Art. 50 negotiations if we stay in the single market.  There is no chance of a completely new trade deal being agreed in that timescale as that would involve complex negotiations and unanimous agreement.

ffs theres some loons about even if the remoaners pass a bill in the commons without demanding a say on the bills contents ,there,ll be comforted by the fact its long odds on that the lords will send any bill back to be amended to include some of the things corbyn,cleggy ,souberry,clarke,and the rest of the mp remoaners want in

they can try to amend it but the tory majority can see it through as a narrow bill.


6 month timescale could have been through by end of march.


canada took 7 years to negotiate a deal , we wouldnt be done any favours by french
and germans and any other could veto it, so best not leave it in first place if we can
get a decent deal.

if we have to hard brexit then so be it, but there are numerous better options for us to try first.

if mps reject the bill they will be removed at a general election

if unelected lords try to block it, they cant, they can merely delay

canada took 7 years to negotiate a deal , we wouldnt be done any favours by french
and germans and any other could veto it, so best not leave it in first place if we can
get a decent deal.


we wouldn't be done any favours by the Germans? What are they going to do, do serious damage to their car industry just to punish us?

All MPs who defy their constituents and vote against any Brexit deal will be out. That is fairly simple to understand surely?

This Court decision is a great thing. It will complete the exercise in recovering our democracy that was started on June 23rd.

The Remainers are laughing now, but they will be defeated at the ballot box, or afterwards in a bloodbath.

brexit will hit german car sales to uk whatever the terms of brexit

indeed they are already hit by currency fluctuation

an extra 10% tariff would easily be absorbed by the rip off dealers in the uk

mother theresa has already give assurances to nissan which suggests she is ready to allow
tariff free access to german cars post brexit so long as the deal is reciprocated

junker has been telling the german car manufacturers to f off - think he might be going somehow? Merkel going deaf due to the screams of the manufacturers  'leave the uk alone you silly ....'    haha

What are they going to do, do serious damage to their car industry just to punish us?

Presumably you are referring to the German cars made in Britain ie when the UK leaves the single market without a trade deal, the German cars made in the UK would be subject to tariffs if exported to Europe?  You can't possibly be suggesting that Liam Fox's free trade Britain would be placing tariffs on German imports to the UK.

Brexit voters understood that the EU were taking the position that the UK would be offered on concessions upon an out vote (Junkers etc) and still chose to vote that way anticipating that the EU would not cut off its nose to spite its face.

For this reason I am confused as to why the remainers continue to insist that we did not know what we voting for, even with an MPs vote to enact article 50 they will not know what they are voting for as negotiations will not start prior to Article 50.

It makes me nauseous listening to the likes of Anna Soubry pretending that the will of the people will be implemented, this whole vote thing is an artifice to  weaken the UK negotiating position giving the EU representatives the opportunity to continue to refuse concessions so that the remainer MPs can say that knowing whats on the table they cannot possibly vote for it.

We all know that negotiation is horse trading and we dont know what is on either parties get/give lists, I thought May had done quite well putting pro-Brexit people in charge of negotiations and am far happer with them doing their bidding for me rather than a bunch of two faced MPs pretending that they are enacting the will of the people when their real motive is to at worst (in their opinion) maintain membership albeit in a different wrapping

TrainStopper please understand that the UK has no "cards" or "positions".  Two years after article 50, we are out facing trade tariffs and non tariff barriers.  Anything other than that will be what the 27 decide to give us, not what we decide to give them.

we all know it is a wrecking spree - they have never been able to swallow the fact that the thick sundurlanders voted  cut off their dear giant corrupt gravy train

As long as Brexit stops millions from  the EU coming to work in England that will be a success. They won`t like that, but if Germany and France and Poland and Spain and Greece are not able to look after themselves that is too bad

unfortunately times up.

Nobody who is a member of these great nations should want to come to England, and England should not go running after new friends.

it is too much work to ward off their influence.

dave 1357, really the UK has no cards or positions? we have the fifth largest economy in the world, once the posturing is over and done with they will negotiate IMO.

had the 5th largest, we are currently 6th

why do brexitears claim to know what they voted for and then go on to show they clearly did not

They will have to ask us nicely.

Its simple, the EU knows if Britain stops taking in their unemployed then the hole farce of open borders will collapse, 10 years max.

I'm now pretty convinced that May is going to call an election early and so are the markets on here.

It seems pretty obvious that her government is very keen to be seen as keeping the interests of the hard brexit brigade onside as they see this as being central to winning.

They need the adaptability and stupidity of the British people, that's what they are relying on.

that's what Germany and the rest are relying on, they have been given a shock and are still hoping that the British will be too cowardly to leave, lets see.

The most rational approach, as Dominic Cummings suggested, is not to appeal, and move forward pushing it through parliament.

but this would play badly with the frothing loons who don't understand that the referendum was not legally binding (it could have been like Cleggy's AV referendum in 2011) and that we don't live in a direct democracy.

that wouldn't matter if she intended to put it through and not call a GE until 2020, because no-one would remember that she declined the appeal once it went through (which it will)

Our best outcome would be if millions of remainers would leave Britain for whichever country would take them, there are many, 27, who cant stop them?
I went to Poland once, very dull.

the referendum was legally binding.

stop. you've already had it explained to you.

you do yourself no favours by failing to admit that you got that wrong.

There has never in the history of Britain, been a bill that has been passed through parliament that was not legally binding.

the bill made it legally binding to HAVE the referendum.

it was not legally binding to enact the result of referendum.

can you see the difference?

ffs stop frothing and listen,theres a majority of remoaners in the commons most have already said they wont vote for or accept a straight bill for leaving the EU,they want an outline of what mays is going to ask for [ any cynic might think junker and mertel are writing cleggys, corbyns, remoaners script ]and even then if the remoaners get to meddle with the bill the lords and ladies will want their twopeneth,THERE IS NO SIMPLE WE,RE TRIGGERING ARTICLE 50 COME WHAT MAY,bill getting through the remoaners in the commons,capiche,get it,

Here are Philip Hammonds words on the 2nd reading of the EU referendum bill in the House of Commons:

"Mr. Speaker, this is a simple but vital piece of legislation.It has one clear purpose: to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum

i dont see how tories win from calling early election, they could increase majority
but waiting until 2020 with new boundaries (2018) is surely best for them !

The most rational approach, as Dominic Cummings suggested, is not to appeal, and move forward pushing it through parliament.

yes because all along Cummings wants free movement of people that is why he wouldn't bring his group and Leave.EU together.

let's see what nigel had to say on the issue today....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

If English nationalism wasn't outlawed you could suggest that Brexiteers might stop buying German cars.

You are claiming your country back so give it a hand by buying its products.

Another suggestion is dont holiday abroad,you have a magnificent country,travel around it and enjoy.

Remember its your money that has kept the EU afloat.

Burton-Brewers 06 Nov 16 18:00 
The most rational approach, as Dominic Cummings suggested, is not to appeal, and move forward pushing it through parliament.

yes because all along Cummings wants free movement of people that is why he wouldn't bring his group and Leave.EU together.


no.

He didn't want to have anything to do with Leave.EU or Farage's group because the anti-immigration message was particularly off-putting for leave marginal voters. It was tactically correct to separate the official campaign from these sorts of messages. Leave probably would have lost otherwise. It definitely would have lost if combined with a decent campaign from Remain.

Cummings wants VERY different things to the majority of leave voters, but he's been quite clear on leaving the single market and stopping unskilled migration.

He didn't say that, he said the politicians lied. No where in the bill which was passed through parliament and the lords does it say that the referendum was advisory.

Do not trust these foreign lawyers, they do not understand English law.

UKIP who are a one policy party pulled in 4 million votes at the GE, 4 million anti immigration voters, fast forward to the referendum and 17 million voted out of the EU, there was not suddenly 13 million extra anti immigrant voters, they voted for other reasons, and those other reasons have to be reflected in the type of Brexit May gives Britain meaning that doesn't include a pull up the drawbridge type of hard brexit.

^ poor logic there.

many who vote tory and labour are anti immigration, that is why you have the extra millions voting brexit.

may has to think about what is best for the long term future of tory party plus her own legacy

this is why she cut a deal to become unopposed leader of tory party when boris would not

both the conservative and labour party wanted remain. many tory and labour voters disagreed.
Why?

Scandanavian_haven

You need to take into consideration the high turnout and those Leavers who never vote at the GE.
Many Labour voters also abandoned the Labour Party due to Corbyn not backing the Leave campaign.
Most of the Labour working class votes will want some priority for UK workers. One would assume.

But yes many of the Tory Leavers will accept the 4 freedoms of the Single Market.

lfc considering you think the referendum was legally binding when you've clearly had it explained to you by somebody far more intelligent, that it wasn't, I'm not sure you understand good from bad logic

You have it right there lfc1971

In our electoral system, people vote for parties not policies scandanavian.

People voted in to the referendum in good faith, thinking that the majority vote would be acted on by parliament.

What this judgement is saying is a referendum has no legal basis, it is only advisory to parliament.

The law needs to be amended to make referendums legally binding on parliament.

As it is all referendums up to this point must also have been advisory.

There is a clear of honesty here.

lack of honesty

scandinavian if thats true why since the day of the defeat have the remoaners been complaining of huge increases in hate crime,immigrants been told in the street to pack up and go home,etc,etc ,which if true which the remoaners assure it is would suggest the brexiteers voted not just for no more coming but getting shot of alot who are already here,remoaners cant have their cake and eat it

that's very rude scandanivian.

the referendum act allows for referendums to be legally binding if
it is declared so in the bill that enacts it

this one was not , others have been

i doubt we will have any more uk referenda as public has proved it cannot be controlled

I think many realised that it was not legally binding but thought it elementary that with it being politically binding that it would still be honoured.


Of course it will probably still be honoured but on the terms that the Remain camp desire.

donny osmond  • November 6, 2016 6:23 PM GMT 
the referendum act allows for referendums to be legally binding if
it is declared so in the bill that enacts it
this one was not , others have been

I was not aware of this Donny, I doubt many people were either. This is a dishonest trick

that is not correct Donny. there has never been a referendum in British history that was not binding. and they do not say that they are legally binding.
they are by the very process of having gone through parliament

its not the case.

The referendum was only to stop further immigrants, nothing about immigrants already here, so they stay as far as I am concerned.

can we have a few examples of a referendum that was not legally binding and that said it would not be.

ebul, most people are just finding this out

some folk did mention it pre vote, and zen master is correct , imo,

that it should be honoured


to honour it, the government need a simple act of parliament, and mps need to
push it through

didnt stop remoaners saying 1000,s were stopped in the streets by brexiteers and told to go home,the same remoaners now telling us breiteers didnt vote for a block on immigrants

under what circumstance would a referendum not be legally binding?
I can`t think of one, I suppose it is possible I read it somewhere.

I agree Donny.

All immigrants who came in legally through the EU have a right to be here.

Illegals who smuggled their way in, do not.

Exactly

Remainers want it both ways.

Leavers = xenophobes/racists

Immigration was not the main concern

ffs,ffs,ffs,ffs the remoaners dont want a simple act of parliament ,they want a bill in which may puts down her strategy and they want to debate them if they disagree with them,what part of that do people not understand

the terms will be in the hands of mother theresa , and tory grandees

we might get a surprise, we might not

zenmaster does what remoaners seem incapable of doing rearranges nail,hits head,on the

He didn't want to have anything to do with Leave.EU or Farage's group because the anti-immigration message was particularly off-putting for leave marginal voters.

rubbish VoteLeave knew they were going to lose the referendum, and that's why they changed course in the last 2 weeks of canvassing. Instead of banging on about the financial implications of Brexit, as they did for the first 10 weeks, Boris Johnson finally woke up and realised that pointing out the problems of immigration was the only way they would win and Cummings was bleating about it. It was only the anti-immigration that finally won the day.

you see would Britain go to the trouble of asking people to vote, only to say sorry we only wanted your advice, it does seem a little strange for anyone to think that could have been the idea behind holding a referendum
Does that make sense? I suppose anythings possible.

All of it first time poster.

Parliament can vote on our way of leaving, but they are morally obligate to leave the EU.

obligated

cleggy ,farron and co havnt got a moral bone in their body

cleggy farron and co dont have a leg to stand on neither ....

the terms will be in the hands of mother theresa , and tory grandees


Remain MP's (80% of Parliament) need to agree to these terms. Will they? not on your nelly unless we Remain in the Single Market.

*Remain with Single Market membership may i clarify

they sacrifice their seats at next election to remain in single market for an extra 2 years ?

Why would they sacrifice their seats if as the Remainers are now saying, the vote to leave the EU was not a vote to Leave Single Market membership?

This clearly shows what a rat Cameron was...no wonder he resigned. He has left it to others to explain to the people of this country

this referendum was not legally binding.

Gina Millar has spotted the legal loophole.

Here is a second quote from the reading of the EU referendum bill

"But whether you favour being in or out we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision on our membership should be taken by the British people

Not by Whitehall beaurocrats, certainly not by Brussels eurocrats. not even by Government ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber

The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged

This Bill puts that to right and I commend it to the chamber"

the bill was passed through parliament and the Lords.

Once that bill passed through parliament it became legally binding.

One would have thought so lfc1971, but I am not a lawyer.

Haven't see lfc for a while, think the penny has finally dropped

or maybe he's put his rod away for the night.

The technicality of whether it's legally binding or not is not even remotely relevant anyway as the referendum is Politically binding, there is no way it is going to be blocked so no point getting hung up on it.

zen

thats the risk they face, who knows how it plays out

but its interesting

I see scandanavian.

Lfc

I hear you and have an understanding that Acts of Parliament are open to interpretation. It works both ways though and you can use this loophole to your advantage if you ever want to challenge whether Acts of Parliament are legally binding or not.

I have been saying for years that they are not.
1. Statutes and Acts are only given the force of law by the consent of the governed.

When do the governed ever give consent?

no read the words of the 2nd reading of the EU referendum bill.
there is not and never was any intention that this was to be advisory..

the words are about this being a decision for the British people alone and made specific reference that.

Donny

Those MP's  could assume that 33 million people voted in the EU referendum but only 10 million wanted to leave the membership of the Single Market.

If that is the case, do they believe they are on the right side of the argument or the wrong side to black anything that means the UK loses membership of the Single Market?

I think i know the answer.

*block

to think that the referendum was merely advisory is quite simply so ludicrous as to be not even worth arguing. It is impossible that it would have been.

All Acts of Parliaments will have lawful loopholes.

I have always thought this.

So it appears May has to make the decision to honour the will of the people,

or decide that leaving the single market is too damaging to this country. So Brexit will not be honoured.

hmmm?

I think this whole thing stinks!

Nov 8th Trump wins US election after several attempts to derail the process through "recounts" etc
Dec Teresa May goes to Supreme Court and loses.
March 2017 Article 50 is not made by that time
All summer long the govt attempt to put a package that all M.Ps can sign up to. This fails and talk of a further referendum is mentioned.
All the time that this is going on Farage has used the time wisely recruiting prospective MP's.
Election called May 2018
UKIP wins a large number of seats in the North of England thus enabling Teresa May, with her own M.P's to start article 50.
The U.S, under Trump very quickly signs an open trade agreement. This no leaves a faltering Europe on the sideleines.
2020 The Euro, under deep financial pressures with both the Spanish and Italian economies crashing, collapses.

"now"

The EU will never agree to us having access to the single market, unless we accept immigration.

We wont need it.
a) we will have a free trade agreement with the States and Europe will be falling over themselves to have one with the US/UK trade block

b)Vast areas of Europe will not be worth trading with. They will be struggling

theres always room to look for loopholes in laws as english is such a strange language

during his impeachment bill clinton suggested that the definition of the word "is" made a difference

smartie3 • November 6, 2016 7:15 PM GMT

Nov 8th Trump wins US election after several attempts to derail the process through "recounts" etc
Dec Trump nukes Rome in a twitter argument with a man called Ron Pope
ends

fixed

First part correct!
WD Trump

First part definitely correct!