It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Brexit court defeat for UK government

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

There's a firm consensus on what out means in my household, which is a typically ordinary British household.

WE voted to leave the EU club...WE voted to get out of the tangle that it has become...and quite frankly, OUT is quite plainly the opposite of IN.

The Undemocratic types, who are attempting to circumvent the express will of the majority of British people regarding the EU vote, deny British democray essentially, seem to think this is the bleeding Hokey cokey...there is NO IN, OUT, IN OUT and shake it all about mate, there is only OUT.

And frankly, these completely farcical lies regarding having to plan our exit strategy is bloody insulting in it's expectation that the British would swallow such crap...for YEARS Whitehall has known we were due the referendum, which could ONLY have gone one of two ways...are you seriously saying that our wit is insufficient to plan for both eventualities, with an advance notice of YEARS to do so??!!

Insulting and childish is what it is...it reeks of the same reluctance to obey democratic values as we're seeing in the US right now...want to race, compete in the race, lose the race and then do not recognise the fair and square winner and try to alter the outcome by hook or by crook by fair means or foul...

THAT is NOT democracy, and neither is ignoring the majority when the minority lose.

OUT is OUT...not out once we've thought about it (after YEARS prior thinking and strategy time of course!) in 2, 3, 5, 10 years time...the time is and was when the leave vote won the referendum.




edit on 10 11 2016 by MysterX because: typo




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Replying to keep an eye on the thread - interesting development, thanks for sharing.




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I'm glad you got the rest of your household to agree to that. That is your opinion on what 'leave' meant. To some it meant £350 million a month to the NHS, to some idiots it apparently meant any foreigners being removed from the country, to some it meant still having a free trade deal with the EU, but no free movement of people - after all, Boris said we had the winning hand, how the French would do anything to sell us their wine and the Germans were desperate to sell us their cars.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?


So you really think it's reasonable to imply that "Should Britain leave the EU " means it somehow shouldn't?

You don't think that doing trade deals and sorting out visa rules etc are things that cannot be done outside of the framework of the EU?

We have agreements with non EU countries Re trade etc. We had them prior to EEC membership. Why would we not make such deals following enacting of article 50?

Leaving the EU doesn't depend on any of this, the issues are separate and free trade will benefit all parties here so there is no rationale for the EU to block such, save a self harming desire for revenge.



It's totally pointless trying to enter into a discussion with you. You sound more and more like a sad angry old man biting for an argument, sorry, I'm not playing.



Like I said, twitter is that away fella.

I hear Tim Farron is working up an opinion on the US election so we will probably see your pointless posts regurgitating his thoughts in there soon. Oh joy.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?


So you really think it's reasonable to imply that "Should Britain leave the EU " means it somehow shouldn't?

You don't think that doing trade deals and sorting out visa rules etc are things that cannot be done outside of the framework of the EU?

We have agreements with non EU countries Re trade etc. We had them prior to EEC membership. Why would we not make such deals following enacting of article 50?

Leaving the EU doesn't depend on any of this, the issues are separate and free trade will benefit all parties here so there is no rationale for the EU to block such, save a self harming desire for revenge.



It's totally pointless trying to enter into a discussion with you. You sound more and more like a sad angry old man biting for an argument, sorry, I'm not playing.



Like I said, twitter is that away fella.

I hear Tim Farron is working up an opinion on the US election so we will probably see your pointless posts regurgitating his thoughts in there soon. Oh joy.



You have really gone weird, quite a shame but you made such a big point of stressing you weren't a right wing goon at the time of the referendum and I must admit you fooled me.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?


So you really think it's reasonable to imply that "Should Britain leave the EU " means it somehow shouldn't?

You don't think that doing trade deals and sorting out visa rules etc are things that cannot be done outside of the framework of the EU?

We have agreements with non EU countries Re trade etc. We had them prior to EEC membership. Why would we not make such deals following enacting of article 50?

Leaving the EU doesn't depend on any of this, the issues are separate and free trade will benefit all parties here so there is no rationale for the EU to block such, save a self harming desire for revenge.



It's totally pointless trying to enter into a discussion with you. You sound more and more like a sad angry old man biting for an argument, sorry, I'm not playing.



Good then. Stop clogging up the thread with other people's thoughts.

Just so you know, this is why I won't engage with you any more.

www.jamesaltucher.com...

It's better for my well being to only deal with sane, rational people who aren't demonstrably stupid.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

You read the referendum question right?
You thought about what it actually meant?

At any point did you really believe that a vote to leave the EU meant staying in it in any way?


If you did, I'd like to know why that simple question led you to believe that voting out would mean staying in....


Your memory, I voted to remain and was quite clear about that at the time.

Leave the EU.......... no trade deals with the EU? Not everyone thought that, BJ certainly didn't/doesn't.

No free movement of people? Is that zero movement or reduced movement? Does it affect people already here (plenty seem to think it does)? How does that affect people from the UK wanting to work in the EU countries or who are already domiciled in those countries with only a UK passport? BJ and co seemed to think that they wouldn't/won't be affected - did you think that? Why?


So you really think it's reasonable to imply that "Should Britain leave the EU " means it somehow shouldn't?

You don't think that doing trade deals and sorting out visa rules etc are things that cannot be done outside of the framework of the EU?

We have agreements with non EU countries Re trade etc. We had them prior to EEC membership. Why would we not make such deals following enacting of article 50?

Leaving the EU doesn't depend on any of this, the issues are separate and free trade will benefit all parties here so there is no rationale for the EU to block such, save a self harming desire for revenge.



It's totally pointless trying to enter into a discussion with you. You sound more and more like a sad angry old man biting for an argument, sorry, I'm not playing.



Good then. Stop clogging up the thread with other people's thoughts.

Just so you know, this is why I won't engage with you any more.

www.jamesaltucher.com...

It's better for my well being to only deal with sane, rational people who aren't demonstrably stupid.


lol, you seem to have turned into Alf Garnett and you say I'm projecting other peoples thoughts. You really have turned into an irritating little scrote.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



Neither did she.
edit on 10-11-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



She didn't.


Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



She didn't.


Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



She didn't.


Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?


Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



She didn't.


Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?


Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.


So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.


Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?


Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.


Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.


Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.


Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.


Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?



She didn't.


Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?


Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.


So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?




I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.




top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join