After Gina Miller's challenge of 2016 and May's Election 'loss' of 2017

And you could add Jeremy bottling his lifelong held beliefs, and Vince desperately trying to reignite his party.

Interestingly the Gina Miller case is part of the case put forward by the English Democrats saying that we actually left on 29th March. As I understand it, in much the same way that May cannot agree a deal without parliamentary approval (based on the Miller case), so she cannot agree an extension. Court case in a few weeks but with one or two exceptions the media refuse to give any coverage to it.

It is an interesting point Nebs!

I also think Gina Miller has done the country a big favour. Parliament should be sovereign!

This issue came up during the most recent extension, Bill Cash getting his knickers in a twist over the legal small print and it appears that there are two ongoing cases …..

Now, many of you will know about the Judicial Review case brought by solicitor and Chairman of the English Democrats, Robin Tilbrook, against the manner of the decision by Theresa May to extend the Article 50 process beyond the 29th of March 2019 – a case that is progressing through the court system right now.

But has anyone heard of a similar case being brought by a former Tory MP and Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, Barry Legg, who is now the Chairman of the Eurosceptic Bruges Group.

Writing in the Telegraph, Tory Eurosceptic MP Bill Cash, wrote:

"I warned Donald Tusk before the European Council that there was likely to be a challenge in the UK Courts. This is now underway, in the name of Barry Legg, former Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, following discussions with QCs and former judges. It attacks the statutory instrument for extension of time as ultra vires and void."

https://www.economicvoice.com/another-brexit-article-50-court-case/

You could have got Brexit if the government actually understood what these two things meant, they didn't, and now Brexit is massively up against it.

The Gina Miller decision basically meant you had to seek a majority, not just do what you want and not listen to anyone else, and the election was the end of the idea of hard Brexit, as there was no majority for any form of Brexit, therefore you had to seek the majority across the house for what could be done going forward together, this wasn't done and is now why Brexit is failing and hasn't happened as yet. If you'd gone with one of the softer approached that almost certainly had a majority then, and maybe even today (though less clear now) Brexit would have happened on the 29th March, but for whatever reason May thought she could still go on and do whatever she liked listening to no-one.

The only person she listens to is her husband.

I would also like to know how much revenue his companies receive from the tax payer.