Re: Another Legal Challenge.

Just the start.

Both Scotland and NI have constitutions of their own to satisfy.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

lol

Since when did the EU situation ever care about or adhere to the country's constitutions? They've trampled all over them.

I can't get over the sheer hypocrisy of the Remoaners here.

In the other thread 14 pages in, Flicker suggests:

"Brexit is even bigger. It affects nearly every facet of the life of the country and touches every fibre of the people's comfort, expectations and future security"

And on that "excuse" they call for careful planning, consideration of people's views and choices and they want another referendum.

Utterly hypocritical charlatans !

What happened then to BREntrance?

Surely in exactly the same way, going into the EU would affect "every facet of the life of the country and touch every fibre of the people's comfort, expectations and future security"

So where was all the concern and protest then? Why wasn't there a referendum to consult the people?

What a load of absolute cobblers !

The same traitorous people who denied the populous a fair consultation on the entry to the EU are now moaning that they want proper consultation and input into Brexit. You couldn't make it up ! Except that they have done, for the past 40 years !

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

Very true I recall my grand parents saying they couldn't get any information pre the original vote, as years went by what they had been promised has turned out to be lies.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

Errr...yes there was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ferendum,_1975


I can assure you there is a bank of barristers as I speak ready to lake sure all facets of constitutional law a satisfied...as you expect since you want all laws and customs upheld.

You don't do much research do you?

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

Hi

I think it would be true to say that Barristers are quite prepared to argue about just about anything.

In terms of research, it has to be objective and it is obvious from some of your posts that you do not fully understand the situation regarding Article 50.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

Errr . . . no there wasn't

You can't approve a fraudulent act by holding a retrospective referendum after the fraud has been perpetrated.

The country was taken into the EU by stealth, skulduggery and without the consent of the people. Once done, a retrospective referendum was held to ask if people still wanted to "Stay In" in the Common Market. It was a sham on multiple levels. Firstly because you can't approve a fraud by such a retrospective actions, and secondly because people were still not being told the truth about the extent and true meaning of the changes. People still thought the Common Market was just about trade, free trade between EU nations rather than the handing over of the country's sovereignty to a federal state.

In a true referendum, before the action takes place, there is significant debate and media coverage and analysis of the facts. Had there been a proper referendum BEFORE Ted Heath's government took us into the EU, it would never have happened. Opinion polls showed very clearly that the populous was against going in and that's why no referendum was given.

Selling the country to a foreign power without the consent of the people was fraudulent and an act of treason.

What is happening now is what should have happened back in the 1970s. You come out of the EU, since we should never have been taken in in the first place and redress the balance and damage that has been done by that fraudulent act. You then put in place Bills/Acts and legislation that ensures that no future government or anyone else, may ever again force the country into such massive constitutional changes and sovereignty changes without the full consent of the people. At the same time, all those responsible for this whole sorry situation must be tried by honest people who are not tied to the EU or the corrupt secret societies.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

I don't suppose you would explain further your words: "we never did send the money (£350 million a week to the EU)"?

I was under the impression that we have been paying that sort of money to them for years and years.

Quite apart from that, I'd just add that I'm becoming increasingly sick and tired of remainiacs grasping at any straws they can find to prevent us leaving the EU. I don't think they'll succeed, but I am sure they will manage to delay things unnecessarily and, whilst all this is going on, the country is being damaged in the process.

If there is any long-term damage following Brexit, it will be the responsibility of the whingeing remainiacs. I hope they realise that and don't start complaining about it after we do leave.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

I believe it's to do with gross and net amounts, it's grasping at straws at best.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

Hi

Yes, I will explain it,

The money never left our shores, simple fact of life.

We pay an agreed amount, less our discount, balance payed in arrears, after discussion,

The £350 million a week was an out and out lie, as was the Claim that that money would be available to spend on the NHS.

Farage, to his credit, completely distanced himself from these lies.

It was an out and out lie, promoted by Boris and Gove who both wanted personal advancement and to be be PM.

There are many reasons to leave the EU, Nigel was right on that, money was never one of them.

Re: Another Legal Challenge.

So, to clarify, our dues amounted to £350 million per week, but from that we received a small amount as refund (not specified). I understand that to physically send them money and then for them to physically return a bit of it is a little silly. So we actually sent them, presumably, hundreds of millions of pounds a week. (If you can let me know the actual figure, I should be grateful.)

I was actually aware of that arrangement. Of course, we should all be aware that the 'refund' or 'discount' or whatever they call it could only be spent on what the EU, in their wisdom, specified.

As for spending it all on the NHS, who promised that? You mentioned Boris and Gove, of course. I'm sure Nigel Farage didn't. Perhaps whoever it was meant that some of the money would be spent on the NHS.

As you quite rightly say, there are many reasons why we should leave the EU: sovereignty, control of our own borders, literally hundreds of rules and regulations imposed on us by the EU many of which are to our distinct disadvantage, but the money we pay/waste is also a very important reason, at least in my opinion.

Oh, I've heard the claims that Brexit will cost us more than the nett amount we pay to the EU, but that remains to be proven. Since the referendum was won - and even though we are still not an independent country yet - things have been looking up for Britain. I have every confidence that we shall benefit greatly financially in the long term.