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.

 

Traitors will attempt to bring down UK government next week

page: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I do find the parallels to whats going on in the US to be fascinating though.

From my observations on Twitter, Remainers are consciously and explicitly equating the campaign aganist Boris with the campaign against Trump, regarding them as two aspects of the same struggle. So much so that they even borrow from the language of anti-Trump rhetoric, not caring wheher it's really applicable. For example, I saw one early Tweet complaining that Boris was going to steal our freedoms "with the help of the Russian military", and there was a period when #ImpeachBoris was trending (the last impeachment we had was Warren Hastings, and that took up about a dozen years).

edit on 28-9-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Lying to the head of state in order to prevent parliament carrying out its proper constitutional role.



You were there? You heard the conversation? You have evidence?

No ......

Then its only supposition!!



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I think there's trouble brewing but don't think it will achieve anything , the days of revolution and heads on spikes are over ... I hope.



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Arnie123




Boris wants out by the 31st, deal or no deal, I say, let y'all leave on the 31st.



Legally we cannot leave on the 31st unless there is a deal that parliament agree too.


Not correct.
As it stands now, we leave on the 31st October - legally.


Sorry let me amend my above statement.

Legally we cannot leave on the 31st unless there is a deal that parliament agree too or the EU refuse to grant an extension that the PM is legally bound to apply for should there be no deal put before parliament by October 14.


Also incorrect.

The correct position is that we cannot STAY in the EU unless they offer us an extension that we accept.

As it stands, LEGALLY, we leave on the 31st October.


edit on 28/9/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

It's a bit barbaric, the heads on spikes deal, but it sure did let the ruling class know when they've over stepped the peoples mandate. What do you think the people would do these days should that be over stepped here?

I only hope you'll do better than we have here in my own country of standing up and saying enough is enough.



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Leave means leave...

"When the british people speak, their voice will be respected, not ignored"

edit on 2019-09-28T21:05:09-05:00Sat, 28 Sep 2019 21:05:09 -05002019ppAmerica/ChicagoSat, 28 Sep 2019 21:05:09 -0500 by Cropper because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Lying to the head of state in order to prevent parliament carrying out its proper constitutional role.



You were there? You heard the conversation? You have evidence?

No ......

Then its only supposition!!



No, it's finding of the highest court in the land.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Tell that to the poster condoning the threats.
And only one side seems to be routinely using terms like traitor and surrender.



I seem to recall the other side is using the words Nazi's, Racists, Ignorant

and Stupid.....

And whichever way you care to look at it when you give in, lie down and let

yourself get walked on and waving the white flag.....its surrendering...



I believe our European " friend " Mr Donald Tusk said quite recently, and i quote " I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely"

Nice.


Which doesn't call brexit supporters Nazis, Racist or ignorant.





Remain Lib Dem MP Ed Davy suggested Boris Johnson should be " decapitated "

Remain Labour MP David Lammy stating that to call ERG Group of Conservatives " Nazi's " was not strong enough.

Try checking what the Remain side have said before coming over as " all holier than thou "





Davy was talking about an election an apologised for his choice of language. Something Johnson refuses to do.

Lammy was wrong.

Pointing out that the ridiculous hyperbole of calling them traitors and that they are condoning threats isn't being Hollier than than thou.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I hate to say this but welcome to U.S. politics. It's been going on almost 4 years here. This isn't a U.S. Thing, it's a world thing and some entities are trying to destroy the whole world.

Biblically speaking, it's going to happen. We're all screwed. It sounds bad to just idly sit by and let it happen, but what are we to do?

I don't like Trump cause he's very childish, but he's better than the lefty lunatics trying to control the world. But I almost hope the Dems just get their way. Let them destroy the world cause I'm tired of this crap!



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

No, it's finding of the highest court in the land.



They weren't there either...... courts are supposed to deal in FACTS and not

suppositions or probabilities.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

No, it's finding of the highest court in the land.



They weren't there either...... courts are supposed to deal in FACTS and not

suppositions or probabilities.



They dealt with the evidence.

But I am sure you know more about the law than 11 of the most senior judges in the UK...



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

They dealt with the evidence.

But I am sure you know more about the law than 11 of the most senior judges in the UK...



evidence......

There were only two people the Queen and the P.M. and neither gave any evidence.

So it had to be the consensus of probabilities.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Lying to the head of state....
So remainers are all monarchists now?

Who should have primacy, really?
Someone who has been elected by the people, then chosen to lead by the members of the largest party in the house?
Or someone who, through an accident of birth, assumes the right to have the last say on the will of the people?

I know which I think is more democratic.

It's past time we were a republic anyway.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Lying to the head of state....
So remainers are all monarchists now?

Who should have primacy, really?
Someone who has been elected by the people, then chosen to lead by the members of the largest party in the house?
Or someone who, through an accident of birth, assumes the right to have the last say on the will of the people?

I know which I think is more democratic.

It's past time we were a republic anyway.


Don't disagree with any of that.

Doesn't change that he lied in order to prevent parliament doing its proper constitutional role.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

No, it's finding of the highest court in the land.



They weren't there either...... courts are supposed to deal in FACTS and not

suppositions or probabilities.



It was a corrupt judgement by a political court.

The supreme court should be removed as should the fixed term parliament act.

One of them enables the rich and powerful to conduct Lawfare on the people and the other creates zombie parliament's.

Malign constitutional meddling by Blair and Cameron we can undo.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

They dealt with the evidence.

But I am sure you know more about the law than 11 of the most senior judges in the UK...



evidence......

There were only two people the Queen and the P.M. and neither gave any evidence.

So it had to be the consensus of probabilities.



Yes evidence.

The memos released (when forced) by government.

The public statements made.

The fact that the government was unwilling to provide a sworn statement of its reasons.

All legal judgements are based on probabilities. In this case there was more than enough evidence for a unanimous verdict.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: justwokeup

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

No, it's finding of the highest court in the land.



They weren't there either...... courts are supposed to deal in FACTS and not

suppositions or probabilities.



It was a corrupt judgement by a political court.

The supreme court should be removed as should the fixed term parliament act.

One of them enables the rich and powerful to conduct Lawfare on the people and the other creates zombie parliament's.

Malign constitutional meddling by Blair and Cameron we can undo.


Yes it would be much more democratic and further people to have a Eton & Oxford educated millionaire, who is proven liar, selected by a tiny % of the UK population get to make decisions unilaterally.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Prorogation should be only at the behest of the first minister, so it doesn't matter what he said to HM does it?
She is just a rubber stamp for such things.
Or are you suggesting some fantasy land where the monarch intervenes against the elected government?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: justwokeup

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

No, it's finding of the highest court in the land.



They weren't there either...... courts are supposed to deal in FACTS and not

suppositions or probabilities.



It was a corrupt judgement by a political court.

The supreme court should be removed as should the fixed term parliament act.

One of them enables the rich and powerful to conduct Lawfare on the people and the other creates zombie parliament's.

Malign constitutional meddling by Blair and Cameron we can undo.


Yes it would be much more democratic and further people to have a Eton & Oxford educated millionaire, who is proven liar, selected by a tiny % of the UK population get to make decisions unilaterally.


We should all be ruled by unaccountable and unelected Remainer people. Just like in the EU. Said the Remainer, to no one's great surprise.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: ScepticScot

Prorogation should be only at the behest of the first minister, so it doesn't matter what he said to HM does it?
She is just a rubber stamp for such things.
Or are you suggesting some fantasy land where the monarch intervenes against the elected government?



No I an stating outright that the prime mister is still subject to the rule of law. As found by the supreme court.

His reason for prolonging parliament was found to be unlawful. Regardless of what lies he told.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join