Brexit

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, bee said:

.

again - you had to be here to understand properly not hear it second hand from the other side of the world -
via where ever you get your info -

everyone voting to Leave voted to leave - not for a watered down so called soft brexit - I don't know why you think
the brexiteers were spouting soft brexit from day one - that isn't how it was from where I'm sitting - 

this introduction of soft Brexit stuff is a ploy to manipulate the democratic decision - IMO 

. 

Soft and hard brexit is May terminology. Im off to work, but i have posted plenty about the lies of Boris and Nigel on this thread and when i get back to a screen i will re-post the rest.  

[bee]

11 minutes ago, Silver_Lyre said:

Soft and hard brexit is May terminology. Im off to work, but i have posted plenty about the lies of Boris and Nigel on this thread and when i get back to a screen i will re-post the rest.  

.

well ok this banging on and on about soft brexit by those who didn't like the result is a ploy then  

It doesn't matter what anyone SAID - that doesn't alter anything - we don't go back to an election and go ...
oh dear I don't think that was 100% correct 100% of the time - oh dear I think that might have been a bit of
electioneering therefore the whole result is null and void and we must do it all again -
something tells me there would never actually be a final election result if that were the case -

politics are politics - - where's the big surprise about that  

so it doesn't change a thing whatever you say about Boris and Nigel and what they are supposed to have said or done -

they had their vote like everyone else - that was TWO votes - the other 17,410,740 people who voted to Leave
all had their own reasons -

. 

 

[bee]

.

anyway - these are the three High Court Judges who made the decision -

they couldn't possibly be politically biased could they -- 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728462/article-50-high-court-case-who-are-judges-lord-chief-justice-master-rolls

 

Who is the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd?

Lord Thomas is the most powerful figure on the three-man panel that delivered today’s ruling.

He serves as head of the judiciary and President of the Courts and is the most senior judge in the UK – an honour previously held by the Lord Chancellor prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

The 69-year-old was a founding member of the European Law Institute, an independent organisation with an agenda to enhance European legal integration.

He was born John Thomas in Wales and was educated at the prestigious Rugby School, before going to Cambridge University and studying in Chicago. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton?

Sir Terence is Britain’s first openly gay judge and was appointed Master of the Rolls and Head of the Civil Justice in May 2016.

The 64-year-old is the country’s second most senior judge after Lord Thomas, and has previously served as Chancellor of the High Court between 2013 and 2016.

Born in 1951, he attended St Paul’s School in London before studying law at Cambridge. He was called to the bar in 1974 and served as QC from 1990.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is Lord Justice Sir Philip Sales?

Sir Philip Sales was appointed Lord Justice in 2014.

He had previously served as First Treasury Junior Counsel between 1997 and 2008, where he represented the Government in civil courts.

The appointment came amid accusations of cronyism, with critics pointing out that he had previously worked alongside the then-Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg.

The 54-year-old came under heavy criticism while in the role after it emerged that he charged the taxpayer £3.3million over six years, making him the highest-earning lawyer in Tony Blair’s Government.

He was made QC in 2006 and continued to act as First Treasury Counsel until his appointment to the High Court in 2008. In the year he left the role it was revealed that he had charged the Government up to £619,000 per year.

He was called to the Bar in 1985 after studying at Oxford.

.

Edited November 3, 2016 by bee

[alibongo]

2 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said:

bee, it is immaterial what their backgrounds are, or their political biases. They are interpreting the law.

It will be challenged, and the Supreme Court is similarly made up of over-privileged, rich, biased men.

But the law is the law, and fortunately in this country we always obey the Rule of Law.

Some countries don't, and they are not always pleasant places to live.

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by alibongo

[alibongo]

Nigel Farage expresses his anger:http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nigel-farage-fears-brexit-betrayal-and-warns-of-public-anger-following-historic-article-50-ruling/ar-AAjR7IN?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=uie11msnhpl

What a nonentity, a boring ,non-intellectual,  on the public stage thinks he can do is beyond me.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, alibongo said:

Nigel Farage expresses his anger:http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nigel-farage-fears-brexit-betrayal-and-warns-of-public-anger-following-historic-article-50-ruling/ar-AAjR7IN?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=uie11msnhpl

What a nonentity, a boring ,non-intellectual,  on the public stage thinks he can do is beyond me.

How does that differ from any politician? I asked you before what makes you believe that MPs are qualified to make big decisions about big issues, more than the public are? And surely he's absolutely right. You and your friend may believe that the public are really, really angry that they were lied to and they'd really like to change their minds now, but you really think that the wishes of the public should simply be overruled and they wouldn't mind that, since those superior to them know better than they do?

[cyclopes500]

10 hours ago, bee said:

.

anyway - these are the three High Court Judges who made the decision -

they couldn't possibly be politically biased could they -- 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728462/article-50-high-court-case-who-are-judges-lord-chief-justice-master-rolls

 

Who is the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd?

Lord Thomas is the most powerful figure on the three-man panel that delivered today’s ruling.

He serves as head of the judiciary and President of the Courts and is the most senior judge in the UK – an honour previously held by the Lord Chancellor prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

The 69-year-old was a founding member of the European Law Institute, an independent organisation with an agenda to enhance European legal integration.

He was born John Thomas in Wales and was educated at the prestigious Rugby School, before going to Cambridge University and studying in Chicago. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton?

Sir Terence is Britain’s first openly gay judge and was appointed Master of the Rolls and Head of the Civil Justice in May 2016.

The 64-year-old is the country’s second most senior judge after Lord Thomas, and has previously served as Chancellor of the High Court between 2013 and 2016.

Born in 1951, he attended St Paul’s School in London before studying law at Cambridge. He was called to the bar in 1974 and served as QC from 1990.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is Lord Justice Sir Philip Sales?

Sir Philip Sales was appointed Lord Justice in 2014.

He had previously served as First Treasury Junior Counsel between 1997 and 2008, where he represented the Government in civil courts.

The appointment came amid accusations of cronyism, with critics pointing out that he had previously worked alongside the then-Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg.

The 54-year-old came under heavy criticism while in the role after it emerged that he charged the taxpayer £3.3million over six years, making him the highest-earning lawyer in Tony Blair’s Government.

He was made QC in 2006 and continued to act as First Treasury Counsel until his appointment to the High Court in 2008. In the year he left the role it was revealed that he had charged the Government up to £619,000 per year.

He was called to the Bar in 1985 after studying at Oxford.

.

Of course those judges are bias. They're probably Masons. What England and Parliament really needs is a good old fashioned French style revolution.

[bee]

.

10 hours ago, alibongo said:

bee, it is immaterial what their backgrounds are, or their political biases. They are interpreting the law.

It will be challenged, and the Supreme Court is similarly made up of over-privileged, rich, biased men.

But the law is the law, and fortunately in this country we always obey the Rule of Law.

Some countries don't, and they are not always pleasant places to live.

 

 

32 minutes ago, cyclopes500 said:

Of course those judges are bias. They're probably Masons. What England and Parliament really needs is a good old fashioned French style revolution.

.

 -- well I would definitely prefer to go down the Rule of Law route and this is why it's essential that the judiciary 
doesn't loose public confidence -

if something like in the video below happened who knows where it could lead - I am reminded of Orwell's
Animal Farm when the pigs replace the farmer and say -

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” 

there is no substitute IMO for improving the education and empowerment of the general population who want a stable
and prosperous country to live and work in and a healthy democratic framework to participate in political decisions -

let's hope the pitch forks aren't needed -  re the referendum vote -

 

 

 

[alibongo]

2 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

How does that differ from any politician? I asked you before what makes you believe that MPs are qualified to make big decisions about big issues, more than the public are? And surely he's absolutely right. You and your friend may believe that the public are really, really angry that they were lied to and they'd really like to change their minds now, but you really think that the wishes of the public should simply be overruled and they wouldn't mind that, since those superior to them know better than they do?

I didn't say superior, I said better-educated.

I don't include Nigel as he never went to university, just public school and then into the usual made-up financial job "in the City".

[Unusual Tournament]

11 hours ago, alibongo said:

bee, it is immaterial what their backgrounds are, or their political biases. They are interpreting the law.

It will be challenged, and the Supreme Court is similarly made up of over-privileged, rich, biased men.

But the law is the law, and fortunately in this country we always obey the Rule of Law.

Some countries don't, and they are not always pleasant places to live.

 

First we had Project Fear... and now Project Smear.  

[Unusual Tournament]

12 hours ago, bee said:

.

well ok this banging on and on about soft brexit by those who didn't like the result is a ploy then  

It doesn't matter what anyone SAID - that doesn't alter anything - we don't go back to an election and go ...
oh dear I don't think that was 100% correct 100% of the time - oh dear I think that might have been a bit of
electioneering therefore the whole result is null and void and we must do it all again -
something tells me there would never actually be a final election result if that were the case -

politics are politics - - where's the big surprise about that  

so it doesn't change a thing whatever you say about Boris and Nigel and what they are supposed to have said or done -

they had their vote like everyone else - that was TWO votes - the other 17,410,740 people who voted to Leave
all had their own reasons -

. 

 

LOL... It alters everything.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-foreign-secretary-france-french-liar-brexit-eu-government-a7136366.html

He said Mr Johnson had lied to the British public ‒ with a key claim by Vote Leave to "give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" proven wrong ‒ and warned that the French government needed a "credible" partner across the Channel.

Mr Johnson's previous assertion that he would vote "in favour of the [EU] single market" does not square with Europe's politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, promising that free trade will not be granted without freedom of movement.

Following the Brexit vote, Mr Johnson also wrote that immigration would not necessarily fall ‒ despite this being a key criticism of the Leave campaign against membership of the EU.

 

[Unusual Tournament]

 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

How does that differ from any politician? I asked you before what makes you believe that MPs are qualified to make big decisions about big issues, more than the public are? And surely he's absolutely right. You and your friend may believe that the public are really, really angry that they were lied to and they'd really like to change their minds now, but you really think that the wishes of the public should simply be overruled and they wouldn't mind that, since those superior to them know better than they do?

Wasn't it MP's that ran the leave campaign? You know boris and nigel were very close to promising to ban smelly cheese and olive oil, if it would have allowed the leave campaign to win.

[bee]

.

and the Remain Camp were very close - spent every hour of every day trying to scare the
living daylights out of the electorate with tales of doom and gloom as if we are all going to end up
shivering dressed in rags chewing on crusts of bread  - if we voted to leave - 

I must say it wasn't nice last night when Osborne crawled out of the woodwork to pontificate about
the court ruling -

.

[alibongo]

2 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said:

Wasn't it MP's that ran the leave campaign? You know boris and nigel were very close to promising to ban smelly cheese and olive oil, if it would have allowed the leave campaign to win.

Actually, I believe Boris did not expect or want a leave result.

He and Michael Grove wanted to be seen to have fought a gallant, though losing, campaign, as they both had their eyes on being PM at some stage.

Theresa May herself had predicted disaster if we lose access to the single market , in 2007.

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by alibongo

[Grey Area]

I said it before the result on these boards, but I'll repeat it now.  Both campaigns were total rubbish.  I was able to recognise, like millions of others this simple fact, and also the fact that regardless of what was touted on the leave campaign, it was only ever going to be a suggestion of what could be, as it was the government that would have to orchestrate the process and the government that would be ultimately in charge of the purse strings post Brexit. 

I also looked at the remain campaign and knew that there was no way actually knowing the world was going to cease to exist as we know it.

I voted based on my own opinions of the EU, and what I know we are capable of without Brussels.  As far as I am concerned, the two official campaigns cancelled each other out.

[hetrodoxly]

My fellow Brexiters i can't believe how well it's gone so far, though the cuckolds and cowards who thought we couldn't stand on our own two feet told us lies and stories of doom i did expect we'd have to make great sacrifices for our democratic freedom i think the vast majority of us thought this, i'd like to say to those who were frightened and bullied into voting remain come into the light it's bright and sunny over here

[LV-426]

4 hours ago, bee said:

and the Remain Camp were very close - spent every hour of every day trying to scare the

living daylights out of the electorate with tales of doom and gloom as if we are all going to end up

shivering dressed in rags chewing on crusts of bread  - if we voted to leave - 

Honestly, I'd say the biggest mistake the remain camp made was to focus so much on our pockets, rather than the actual issues that were driving people, such as sovereignty over our own country. As far as I can see, the remoaners are still making the same mistake.

Maybe it's just me, but who gives a toss if companies such as Apple use Brexit to turn profiteer and make even more money on their products. I had been considering an iPhone, and possibly an iPad. Now... not so much. The result is they make zero profit, and a door is opened up for another company to sell me their products.

That's another point which seems to escape the remoaners; when one door closes another one opens - both for buyers and sellers. You don't need to be an economist to understand the basic principle of supply and demand.

 

[LV-426]

22 hours ago, OverSword said:

Quoting the rules to other members is also against the rules

Are you quoting the rule to me that it is against the rules to quote rules to other members? Isn't that against the rules? Did I just break the rules again!?

I can see where this is heading...

Besides, I'm just going to put the aforementioned member on ignore as he's an idiot, as he's proven in several threads.

I'm pretty sure I just broke another rule... it's a fair cop

*holds out hands ready for the cuffs*

[Space Commander Travis]

5 hours ago, alibongo said:

I didn't say superior, I said better-educated.

I don't include Nigel as he never went to university, just public school and then into the usual made-up financial job "in the City".

but that too is meaningless. Does going to Eton or the right Oxbridge College give them a better education in anything important? The whole point is that none of those who are in positions of any importance have any qualifications at all in the job that they supposedly know more about that any of the proletariat. Why does that mean that they know better than the masses? They in fact probably know a lot less, certainly about the specific areas that they're supposed to be responsible for, than people who have actually made careers in those things. So should they know better than the poorly educated masses whether staying in, leaving the EU, or sticking it up their bottoms, would be best for the nation? 

[Space Commander Travis]

5 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said:

LOL... It alters everything.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-foreign-secretary-france-french-liar-brexit-eu-government-a7136366.html

He said Mr Johnson had lied to the British public ‒ with a key claim by Vote Leave to "give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" proven wrong ‒ and warned that the French government needed a "credible" partner across the Channel.

Mr Johnson's previous assertion that he would vote "in favour of the [EU] single market" does not square with Europe's politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, promising that free trade will not be granted without freedom of movement.

Following the Brexit vote, Mr Johnson also wrote that immigration would not necessarily fall ‒ despite this being a key criticism of the Leave campaign against membership of the EU.

I never gave a flying stuff what Boris or Nige or any of the foppish fools claimed, my argument was entirely about the EU as a massive bureaucracy on top of the one - the UK Govt. - that we already have. I certainly didn't vote for a stupid-haired publicity seeker who rants with pathetic childish impotence about what he'd like to do to Vladimir Putin. 

[alibongo]

Independent articles:

Read more

• Sinn Fein 'could take Westminster seats to block Brexit'
• The pro-Brexit newspapers have finally lost touch with reality
• Brexiteers are making Fifa’s point for them by politicising the poppy
• Tory MP Stephen Phillips resigns 'with immediate effect'
• Brexit will cripple NHS if it prompts staff exodus, nurses union warns

Edited November 4, 2016 by alibongo

[alibongo]

More from the Independent:

Daily Mail accused of 'attack on the rule of law' amid criticism of tabloid Brexit legal challenge coverage

'These headlines are deliberately stirring anxieties and tension', says human rights lawyer

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

but that too is meaningless. Does going to Eton or the right Oxbridge College give them a better education in anything important? The whole point is that none of those who are in positions of any importance have any qualifications at all in the job that they supposedly know more about that any of the proletariat. Why does that mean that they know better than the masses? They in fact probably know a lot less, certainly about the specific areas that they're supposed to be responsible for, than people who have actually made careers in those things. So should they know better than the poorly educated masses whether staying in, leaving the EU, or sticking it up their bottoms, would be best for the nation? 

Its worth pointing out as well being educated doesn't equate to being clever. I've see it multiple times in my work people walking through the door educated, no word of a lie one of them at Oxford. I was impressed, but that person was one of the worst performing employees I've ever witnessed, when it comes to basically common sense, understanding and making a independent judgement, making that correct decision and importantly at the right time, their ability was seriously lacking. It was a real eye opener for me but even greater eye opener for the company when they made a £2 million pound cockup.

1 hour ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

I never gave a flying stuff what Boris or Nige or any of the foppish fools claimed, my argument was entirely about the EU as a massive bureaucracy on top of the one - the UK Govt. - that we already have. I certainly didn't vote for a stupid-haired publicity seeker who rants with pathetic childish impotence about what he'd like to do to Vladimir Putin. 

The whole Brexit debate was a stitch up by the establishment, Lets remember The official Leave campaign was chosen by the Electoral commission. Nigel Farage was pushed aside, all the official TV debates and available money was denied to Nigel Farage, The Leave side faces was Boris Johnson, Angel Levison and Gisela Stuart two out of the three people not even known by the majority of the population. on the opposite side the Remain Campaign had the full weight of the state behind it, a 9million pound leaflet drop, the top office of state, Prime minister and Chancellor foretelling us of all the doom, and these where backed up by the wider establishment the Bank of England, IMF etc....and many more experts besides.

Make no mistake about it, This Referendum was David versus Goliath. us Brexiteers the 17 million of us took it all on and we continue to do so. we can tell future generations, kids /Grandkids in the future when they ask mum/dad or gran/grandad how did you vote in the Referendum to save the UK you can say with pride you took on the entire establishment, accepted all the prophecies of doom and still voted to Leave to save our sovereign country for your future.

The Remoaners held up these lies below will they now admit they were wrong as proven by the fullness of time.

David Cameron: “The job you do, the home you live in are at risk. The shock to our economy after leaving Europe would tip the country into recession.”

George Osborne: “A vote to leave would tip our economy into year-long recession with at least 500,000 UK jobs lost”

Treasury: “UK economy would fall into recession”, predicted 2016 Q3 growth between -0.1% and -1%

IMF: “Brexit would trigger recession”, predicted -0.3% GDP for Q3

Bank of England: Mark Carney said “It would be likely to have a negative impact in the short term… I certainly think that would increase the risk of recession.”

OECD: Short term impact of -1.25% GDP

The Brexiteers where right what has actually happened.

Unemployment down. Employment at joint all time high, Treasury/economy - UK avoided recession and was the fastest growing economy in the G7. and today the Bank of England as been forced to readjust their forecast upwards and the UK will grow 1.4% in 2017, not as they forecast three months ago at 0.8% - The Canadian Mark Carney Carnage needs replacing ASAP.

And still the Remoaners wont admit they were lied to and continue to believe these soothsayers. who have ALL BEEN PROVED WRONG. 

All this talk of Soft Brexit and Hard Brexit comes from the Remoaners - Soft Brexit is code for Remaining in the EU, because to soft Brexit means to remain in the single market to adhere to the EU courts, pay membership and the continuation of Free movement. and we voted to Leave all this. so its not Hard Brexit its simply Brexit.

Theresa May said today; "The court case wont delay Brexit". - Brexit is on track and carrying the weight of 17 million voters. Democracy won the day. Brexit means Brexit. and not a day should go by or opportunity missed that we shouldnt rub the remoaners noses in it. I wish Br Cornelius would return.

Edited November 4, 2016 by stevewinn

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, alibongo said:

Independent articles:

Read more

• Sinn Fein 'could take Westminster seats to block Brexit'
• The pro-Brexit newspapers have finally lost touch with reality
• Brexiteers are making Fifa’s point for them by politicising the poppy
• Tory MP Stephen Phillips resigns 'with immediate effect'
• Brexit will cripple NHS if it prompts staff exodus, nurses union warns

And the Independent is not going to be any more biased than, say, a great long list of stories from the Daily Mail. No.