Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

(25-01-2017 13:25 )Matt77 Wrote:  Am I the only one who just disregards the poorly thought through stream of consciousness nonsense that wackawoo posts (always with his customary atrocious spelling and grammar)?.....

Are you telling me that Gina Miller is not an imigrant? that is, the woman born in Guyana, then British Guyana, is not an imigant into the UK? Nor the other person she bought the case with? I posted months ago that irony amused me.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...pid1959495

The supreme court itself told you and everybody that the PM did not need parliaments approval to trigger article 50, what bit about that don't you people understand? She had every lawful right to do exatly that and they even stated it. I might be dyslexic, but I can read a simple statemant such as

"While the court agreed that the Government do generally have "prerogative" power - the power to act without consulting parliament."

You keep telling yourselves and everybody else that this has nothing to do with Brexit at all and is only about sovoreignty, and I'll show you a bunch of liars including the millionaire investment banker.

Remainers in denial again

Personaly though, I think this vote is a damn good thing to finnish it off once and for all. It there's a shock blocking of article 50, the we can carry on as usual, albeit huminlated and would be known as a laughing stock to the world and certinaly not a demographic country any more. If it goes to Brexit, then time will out, the world could end for Britian as a lot of remainers would have it, or it could be the best thing Britian as done since keeping out of the Euro.

Either way it will be the end of it, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE REST OF THE G'DAMN WORLD HAS BEEN WANTING AND WAITING FOR FOR MONTHS

Anger is an energy.

(25-01-2017 07:48 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  Yesterday's ruling has also wound up that horrible Sturgeon creature which can only every be a good thing.

Nicola Sturgeon is wonderful. Other politicians could learn a lot from her. Plus she isn't anti-UK as some people think, she's pro-Scotland.

A lot of English people have told me that they wished they could vote for her.

(25-01-2017 16:14 )wackawoo Wrote:  The supreme court itself told you and everybody that the PM did not need parliaments approval to trigger article 50

No the Supreme Court didn't say that. They said the opposite.

You are simply too stupid to understand the judgement. I suggest you read it through again (several times) until you manage to comprehend what the judges were saying, which is that the Government does have "prerogative" power, but such a power could NOT be used to trigger article 50.

I know you're stupid, but if you read the judgement enough times the truth will eventually dawn on you.

(25-01-2017 00:24 )wackawoo Wrote:  

Quote:While the court agreed that the Government do generally have "prerogative" power - the power to act without consulting parliament. But the Supreme Court decided that in this case the government must pass an act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 .

Their main reason was that when the UK joined the EU, the Union was able to create UK laws - and that can only be reversed with legislation . They also decided an act of parliament would be necessary because the rights of UK citizens would change

I also read the bullshit the woman was coming out with today when she was moaning about the hate emials etc, that is was absolutely nothing at all to do with Brexit, go tell that to the marines.

Perhaps the saddest thing here is not your continued inability (or more likely refusal) to grasp the crux of the Supreme Court judgement, which was in itself a reaffirming of an original High Court decision, but it is the flippant, apparent condoning of hate emails and death threats that a person has received for standing up for the UK's democratic processes. In doing so you demonstrate your contempt for those democratic and constitutional processes and the rule of law. Sadly I'm afraid symptomatic of the way Britain has become a less tolerant, nastier place to live following the referendum result and the emboldening of the far right

(25-01-2017 19:28 )brummie Wrote:  but it is the flippant, apparent condoning of hate emails and death threats that a person has received for standing up for the UK's democratic processes.

In doing so you demonstrate your contempt for those democratic and constitutional processes and the rule of law. Sadly I'm afraid symptomatic of the way Britain has become a less tolerant, nastier place to live following the referendum result and the emboldening of the far right

There is no where a single statement regarding 'condoning' any hate emails or death wishes to any one, any where, in anything I (or others) have posted.

Britian is, was and always shall be one of the most tolerant places in the world there is; you have been so brain washed and indoctrinated into thinking anything that appears to vote against monirities or immigrants is some form of rampant nationalist racism, that simply is not the case and simply is not there, ie, your one of the remaners that tried to throw around the race card in an ingenuous attempt to over turn the Brexit vote; ignoring (delieberately so) it's not a bout race but about size of country to size of population.

That post has to be the single most ingenuinely, out right and obviously untrue post I've seen on here, and believe you me, that takes some doing.

You should recieve a forum award at the end of the year for that.

Shame on you.

(25-01-2017 20:02 )wackawoo Wrote:  That post has to be the single most ingenuinely, out right and obviously untrue post I've seen on here, and believe you me, that takes some doing.

You obviously don't proof-read your own posts, then.

(25-01-2017 16:24 )tony confederate Wrote:  No the Supreme Court didn't say that. They said the opposite.

You are simply too stupid to understand the judgement. I suggest you read it through again (several times) until you manage to comprehend what the judges were saying, which is that the Government does have "prerogative" power, but such a power could NOT be used to trigger article 50.

I know you're stupid, but if you read the judgement enough times the truth will eventually dawn on you.

You do realise there is a reason 3 upheld the governments claim right?

Try reading BOTH sides and stop your cherry picking.

Quote:It is common ground that UK domestic law will change as a result of the UK ceasing to be party to the EU treaties and the rights enjoyed by UK residents granted through EU law will be affected

Quote:The fact that withdrawal from the EU would remove some existing domestic rights of UK residents also renders it impermissible for the Government to withdraw from the EU Treaties without prior Parliamentary authority

However:

Quote:Lord Reed, with whom Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agree, considers that the effect which Parliament has given to EU law under the ECA is inherently conditional on the application of the EU treaties to the UK and therefore on the UK’s membership of the EU. The ECA does not impose any requirement or manifest any intention in respect of the UK’s membership of the EU. It does not therefore affect the Crown’s exercise of prerogative powers in respect of UK membership

Quote:Lord Carnwath observes that service of notice under Article 50(2) will not itself change any laws or affect any rights but is merely the start of an essentially political process of negotiating and decisionmaking within the framework of that article. The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form

In a nut shell, there have been some EU laws past that may affect the rights of UK citizens, three of the judges state these are not relavent enough to effect the royal perogative, the others, dissagree.

That is why it has to go to parliament.

So no I am indeed correct.


Should I return and start calling you stupid? No wait, I've grown up, calling names is so very 6 year old.

(25-01-2017 20:12 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(25-01-2017 20:02 )wackawoo Wrote:  That post has to be the single most ingenuinely, out right and obviously untrue post I've seen on here, and believe you me, that takes some doing.

You obviously don't proof-read your own posts, then.

Yes I do, my point stands, even having read all your posts that, like with this one, are more interested in sniding at me than actual points raised.

Ah I see, by referring to her 'moaning' about hate emails as 'bullshit' you're merely saying you don't believe her. Apologies for the confusion. However I bow to your superior use of untruths in claiming that it was the remainers who played the race card when in fact scaremongering over immigration, even in the face of facts pointing out the net benefit from EU migration, was a central plank of the Brexit case. Who can forget freaky Farage and his poster, never realised he was actually a remainer playing the race card.

(25-01-2017 20:25 )wackawoo Wrote:  You do realise there is a reason 3 upheld the governments claim right?

You are wrong as usual. None of the judges "upheld the goverments claim". A minority of judges can't uphold anything.

The court acts as a whole and by a vote of 8 to 3 they rejected the Government's case. It really doesn't matter what the exact vote was. The simple fact is that the case was decided against the Government and they have no further appeal. Is that hard to understand?