Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful

We're dealing with someone who said their research was done away from what the mainstream media was telling them, then when questioned what this research was, came back with, "broadsheet newspapers, the BBC, and my mate Phil who voted Leave."

That's the problem with remainers, Phil has never been mentioned as a source.
 
The worse case scenario - of course we are prepared for it. We have been stock piling for sometime.

No that's what will happen, stockpiling for how long, it's not going away.

You hear about the queues at Dover or Calais and how many miles of queues could rapidly build up but the government suggest it's only for a short time, maybe three months - why would the queues suddenly disappear, there will still be the same restrictions.
The only reason the queues may lessen is that transporters and exporters will decrease their exports/imports to and from the UK because they don't want their drivers and trucks to be held up in endless queues costing them a fortune. The UK may no longer be worth the hassle.
 
Not really because I'm not using the Prime Minster as a reason not to have another vote. You're claiming that the "will of the people" must be enacted even though there's tons of evidence that the electorate were misled in the first instance, and we're now three years on from the last vote which is a lot of time in politics.

So Cameron was misleading the people when he said it would be an in out referendum? To remain or come out altogether?
 
So Cameron was misleading the people when he said it would be an in out referendum? To remain or come out altogether?
What has that got to do with the price of cheese? We're talking about how the "will of the people" is used as an argument whenever Brexit is discussed, especially when there's mention of having a second referendum, when clearly it isn't the will of "THE people" if it only represents less than 30% of the population who voted to Leave.
 
What has that got to do with the price of cheese? We're talking about how the "will of the people" is used as an argument whenever Brexit is discussed, especially when there's mention of having a second referendum, when clearly it isn't the will of "THE people" if it only represents less than 30% of the population who voted to Leave.

It was the terms of the referendum set out in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Also, this was the leaflet sent through everyone's doors. A very pro remain leaflet.

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../517014/EU_referendum_leaflet_large_print.pdf
 
Anyone see Kuenssberg on BBC 6 o clock news? She looked very haggard, stressed and on edge, clearly lost the twinkle in her eye. Also has some weird thing going on with her left lower lip when speaking.

It’s obvious the push back on her from last week has had an effect. I’m glad.
 
Ugh the pound has crashed quite badly. And it's getting worse day by day.
Buying foreign currency has been a painful experience for a while, and it’s got gradually worse.....save for just after the ‘no no-deal’ bill was passed...when there was a brief rally
 
It was the terms of the referendum set out in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
Also, this was the leaflet sent through everyone's doors. A very pro remain leaflet.

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../517014/EU_referendum_leaflet_large_print.pdf
30% of the population. Three-zero. Trente percent. Treinta percento. That's the amount of the population of this country who voted to Leave. Not 52%, not a majority. A majority vote and a majority that shows the will of the people are two completely different things. Claiming to represent the will of the people is bad enough with such a fine margin of error but when it can only be categorically proven that less than 30% - a minority - voted for it, it becomes impossible to listen to or read the excuse and keep a straight face. Quoting whataboutisms and unrelated articles to the discussion at hand doesn't change that.

It's like I'm saying one thing but you're only hearing your own argument because you don't have a retort to what I'm saying. We really would be better off with an argument about why the colour of my pants means we should send more money to the EU every week.
 
Anyone see Kuenssberg on BBC 6 o clock news? She looked very haggard, stressed and on edge, clearly lost the twinkle in her eye. Also has some weird thing going on with her left lower lip when speaking.

It’s obvious the push back on her from last week has had an effect. I’m glad.
She's upset because Boris probably will be too busy with parliament this week to give her his Johnson.
 
30% of the population. Three-zero. Trente percent. Treinta percento. That's the amount of the population of this country who voted to Leave. Not 52%, not a majority. A majority vote and a majority that shows the will of the people are two completely different things. Claiming to represent the will of the people is bad enough with such a fine margin of error but when it can only be categorically proven that less than 30% - a minority - voted for it, it becomes impossible to listen to or read the excuse and keep a straight face. Quoting whataboutisms and unrelated articles to the discussion at hand doesn't change that.

It's like I'm saying one thing but you're only hearing your own argument because you don't have a retort to what I'm saying. We really would be better off with an argument about why the colour of my pants means we should send more money to the EU every week.

The terms of the referendum was voted on, and was passed into law. After the referendum, the terms of the departure was voted into law saying that we would leave on the 29th March 2019 with or without a deal.
You can question the wisdom of this, but it really doesn't matter if it's agreed upon legally and offered to the electorate in a one off democratic vote.
 
30% of the population. Three-zero. Trente percent. Treinta percento. That's the amount of the population of this country who voted to Leave. Not 52%, not a majority. A majority vote and a majority that shows the will of the people are two completely different things. Claiming to represent the will of the people is bad enough with such a fine margin of error but when it can only be categorically proven that less than 30% - a minority - voted for it, it becomes impossible to listen to or read the excuse and keep a straight face. Quoting whataboutisms and unrelated articles to the discussion at hand doesn't change that.

It's like I'm saying one thing but you're only hearing your own argument because you don't have a retort to what I'm saying. We really would be better off with an argument about why the colour of my pants means we should send more money to the EU every week.

Out means out!

End of.
 
30% of the population. Three-zero. Trente percent. Treinta percento. That's the amount of the population of this country who voted to Leave. Not 52%, not a majority. A majority vote and a majority that shows the will of the people are two completely different things. Claiming to represent the will of the people is bad enough with such a fine margin of error but when it can only be categorically proven that less than 30% - a minority - voted for it, it becomes impossible to listen to or read the excuse and keep a straight face.

With Labour, LibDem and SNP and several Tory MPs all being either neutral, pro remain or pro 2nd Referendum, I’d say only c30% of parliament is also pro leave right now.

Tide has turned.
 
Anyone see Kuenssberg on BBC 6 o clock news? She looked very haggard, stressed and on edge, clearly lost the twinkle in her eye. Also has some weird thing going on with her left lower lip when speaking.

It’s obvious the push back on her from last week has had an effect. I’m glad.
Her lover has just been deemed unlawful. She must be going through hell. ;)
 
That's the problem with remainers, Phil has never been mentioned as a source.

What about Phil's Sissy Sauce

FilPhilSauce-300x168.jpg
 
But you said you researched outside of the mainstream papers? Broadsheets are mainstream papers, and you don't get much more mainstream than the BBC.

Unless you're fact checking what you're being told by other people, it's not reliable research at all.

You keep telling people to "research", said that they had to do it outside of mainstream papers, and now you're telling us that your research were the same mainstream papers you were telling people to avoid, and what we can only assume was a bunch of random people of unknown reliability.

As the only bit of research you've apparently done outside of the mainstream media, I'm very interested in what exactly these people who voted leave and remain told you? For someone who apparently had their opinion so drastically changed by their research, particularly the research that took place outside of the mainstream media, it strikes me as incredibly odd that this research consisted solely of a few chats. You've seemingly not fact checked any of it, because you've not managed to come with some proper sources for these things you've been told that affected you so greatly.

Have you got anything concrete? Something that's not, "my mate said..."?
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
The most thorough demolition job i have seen on the Caf. Ease off on the fella now, let him lick his wounds.
 
The terms of the referendum was voted on, and was passed into law. After the referendum, the terms of the departure was voted into law saying that we would leave on the 29th March 2019 with or without a deal.
You can question the wisdom of this, but it really doesn't matter if it's agreed upon legally and offered to the electorate in a one off democratic vote.
Yeah
The terms of the referendum was voted on, and was passed into law. After the referendum, the terms of the departure was voted into law saying that we would leave on the 29th March 2019 with or without a deal.
You can question the wisdom of this, but it really doesn't matter if it's agreed upon legally and offered to the electorate in a one off democratic vote.
Ah, yes if course, the terms of the referendum and the promises that were made to the electorate. Thanks for posting the extensive Remain leaflet earlier, as a way of thanks allow me to post some Leave pledges during the run up to the referendum.

17300-s3eh5p.jpg

london-uk-1st-feb-2019-a-passer-by-looks-at-a-billboard-in-finsbury-park-north-london-showing-a-quote-by-the-vote-leave-campaign-from-april-2016-a-group-calling-themselves-led-by-donkeys-are-crowdfunding-a-campaign-named-lets-paste-these-tweets-all-over-britain-hiring-billboards-across-the-country-to-show-quotes-and-tweets-of-brexit-related-promises-by-politicians-and-other-statements-by-prominent-brexiteers-credit-imageplotter-news-and-sportsalamy-live-news-RH6HG1.jpg


ledbydonkeys.jpg3_.jpg


Because it's a good thing the electorate weren't deceived in any way. Just because Cameron says it's a "once in a lifetime" referendum doesn't make it so. This wasn't a referendum based on evidence, it was based on gut instinct. Much like the other vote we have every 5 years. 5 years is a long time for something to happen. So is 3 especially now our country is firmly in the shitter and seems intent on plunging itself further down the pan simply because "the will of the people". Plus you must appreciate the "once in a lifetime" comment was heavily influenced by the Scottish Indy Ref.

Out means out!

End of.
But, yeah, it basically means "gerronwiffit" doesn't it?
 
With Labour, LibDem and SNP and several Tory MPs all being either neutral, pro remain or pro 2nd Referendum, I’d say only c30% of parliament is also pro leave right now.

Tide has turned.

I don't think its turned. I don't think there was ever a tide. No one thought leave would win and everything since it did has been a mess of politicians trying to use it for political gain but having no idea how to. Whoever ends up responsible for it either happening or not happening is doomed.

If it goes ahead and goes tits up one or two might end up in front of the courts again, because it can quite easily still go bad enough for someone to need to be held accountable.

The word stockpiling in itself should concern everyone. This means that anything we can't stockpile, potentially we simply won't be able to get.
 
No that's what will happen, stockpiling for how long, it's not going away.

You hear about the queues at Dover or Calais and how many miles of queues could rapidly build up but the government suggest it's only for a short time, maybe three months - why would the queues suddenly disappear, there will still be the same restrictions.
The only reason the queues may lessen is that transporters and exporters will decrease their exports/imports to and from the UK because they don't want their drivers and trucks to be held up in endless queues costing them a fortune. The UK may no longer be worth the hassle.

In your opinion. Thanks for having a reasonable argument - I have learn't lots from reading your opinions.
My opinion is it is worth the hassle
 
In your opinion. Thanks for having a reasonable argument - I have learn't lots from reading your opinions.
My opinion is it is worth the hassle

Of course you can have your opinion but if you're importing items from the EU I have a feeling you may change your mind again if and/or when the UK leave.
 
We're dealing with someone who said their research was done away from what the mainstream media was telling them, then when questioned what this research was, came back with, "broadsheet newspapers, the BBC, and my mate Phil who voted Leave."

You have deliberately misread my posts.

You have absolutely nothing of worth to say accept to attack people who do not believe in your ideals. I don't see any original thoughts or ideas flowing out of your keyboard.
 
Of course you can have your opinion but if you're importing items from the EU I have a feeling you may change your mind again if and/or when the UK leave.

We will be OK as I renegotiated our deals months ago but thanks for the advice.
 
30% of the population. Three-zero. Trente percent. Treinta percento. That's the amount of the population of this country who voted to Leave. Not 52%, not a majority. A majority vote and a majority that shows the will of the people are two completely different things. Claiming to represent the will of the people is bad enough with such a fine margin of error but when it can only be categorically proven that less than 30% - a minority - voted for it, it becomes impossible to listen to or read the excuse and keep a straight face. Quoting whataboutisms and unrelated articles to the discussion at hand doesn't change that.

It's like I'm saying one thing but you're only hearing your own argument because you don't have a retort to what I'm saying. We really would be better off with an argument about why the colour of my pants means we should send more money to the EU every week.

Pedantic I know but it's not actually even 30% of the population.

17.4 million people voted to leave.

16.1 million people voted to remain.

13 million didn't vote.

18 million weren't on the electoral register.

So when "will of the people" is spouted it's more like 25% of the population.
 
Pedantic I know but it's not actually even 30% of the population.

17.4 million people voted to leave.

16.1 million people voted to remain.

13 million didn't vote.

18 million weren't on the electoral register.

So when "will of the people" is spouted it's more like 25% of the population.

And that 25% didn't vote for No Deal Hard Brexit.
 
Yeah

Ah, yes if course, the terms of the referendum and the promises that were made to the electorate. Thanks for posting the extensive Remain leaflet earlier, as a way of thanks allow me to post some Leave pledges during the run up to the referendum.

17300-s3eh5p.jpg

It's closer to £250M a week I believe, when funding is taken into consideration. That money can be used where needed. The bus argument was tried in a court of law, in an attempt to stop brexit. It was thrown out.



These quotes are meaningless from people who were not in the position to execute the decisions.

Because it's a good thing the electorate weren't deceived in any way. Just because Cameron says it's a "once in a lifetime" referendum doesn't make it so. This wasn't a referendum based on evidence, it was based on gut instinct. Much like the other vote we have every 5 years. 5 years is a long time for something to happen. So is 3 especially now our country is firmly in the shitter and seems intent on plunging itself further down the pan simply because "the will of the people". Plus you must appreciate the "once in a lifetime" comment was heavily influenced by the Scottish Indy Ref.


But, yeah, it basically means "gerronwiffit" doesn't it?

It was promised that the result would be accepted, and implemented.

The debates got very heated on both sides on the run up to the referendum.

Cameron said that Article 50 would be triggered immediately.
Obama said we would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal.
George Osbourne said an emergency budget would be needed after a leave vote.
 
Pedantic I know but it's not actually even 30% of the population.

17.4 million people voted to leave.

16.1 million people voted to remain.

13 million didn't vote.

18 million weren't on the electoral register.

So when "will of the people" is spouted it's more like 25% of the population.
You can't count the 18m not eligible to vote, that's like saying that toddler there didn't back no deal.
 
We will be OK as I renegotiated our deals months ago but thanks for the advice.
Deals with who? Tough to negotiate a deal for importing or exporting when you haven’t a clue what the tariff’s imposed will be.
 
So did they vote to leave on EU terms do you think?
For what it's worth I have friends and family that know that i take a keen interest in politics, i must have taken 20/25 phone calls and text messages asking me which way i was going to vote and the implications of each scenario.

I told them which way i was voting and my reasoning for my choice, but the point is that in my experience, Even with the campaign on both sides and the leaflets dropping through the door and the issue itself being firmly talked about all over the internet and TV in the run up to the referendum, a lot of people didn't know what they were voting for.

Perhaps i just have really dense people in my life.