Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 8:33 AM Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. What a load of Remoaner claptrap *-) .......... And don't forget 17,410,742 voted to Leave the EU - they are the people YOU Remoaners should listen to >:-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-02-13 8:46 AM What a load of Remoaner claptrap *-) .......... And don't forget 17,410,742 voted to Leave the EU - they are the people YOU Remoaners should listen to >:-) ............ Yes but what was the PLAN they voted for? And it's interesting to see you so happy to condone violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarveyHeaven Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-02-13 8:46 AM Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 8:33 AM Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. What a load of Remoaner claptrap *-) .......... And don't forget 17,410,742 voted to Leave the EU - they are the people YOU Remoaners should listen to >:-) ............ yes and the Referendm they voted in was fraudulent and therefore NOT DEMOCRATIC....nothing can change the fact that the 2016 referendum was FRAUDULENT and found to be so by the Electoral Commission if this was a democratic country that referendum would have been declared void and re-run immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 HarveyHeaven - 2019-02-13 8:51 AM nothing can change the fact that the 2016 referendum was FRAUDULENT and found to be so by the Electoral Commission Naturally you can back that statement up? ;-) ........... Because I cant find anything on the EC website that says that? :-S.......... I did find this though :D ......... Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums. Seems to me like your peddling FAKE NEWS? >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarveyHeaven Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-02-13 9:14 AM HarveyHeaven - 2019-02-13 8:51 AM nothing can change the fact that the 2016 referendum was FRAUDULENT and found to be so by the Electoral Commission Naturally you can back that statement up? ;-) ........... Because I cant find anything on the EC website that says that? :-S.......... I did find this though :D ......... Report on the regulation of campaigners at the EU referendum We have found that that rules put in place specifically for the EU referendum worked well. We set out a number of recommendations for changes to be incorporated into the legislation that underpins UK-wide referendums. Seems to me like your peddling FAKE NEWS? >:-) ......... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992 you can read the full article...here is an extract ...."Brexit campaign group Vote Leave has been fined £61,000 and referred to the police after an Electoral Commission probe said it broke electoral law. The watchdog said it exceeded its £7m spending limit by funnelling £675,315 through pro-Brexit youth group BeLeave. The founder of BeLeave, Darren Grimes, has been fined £20,000 and referred to the police, along with Vote Leave official David Halsall. Vote Leave said the "wholly inaccurate" report was politically motivated. The Vote Leave campaign, which was fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, won the contest to be the official Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Union. Parliament Live: MPs debate post-Brexit trade plans Leave.EU fined £70,000 over Brexit spending Call for 'clarity' on referendum cash rules Brexit: All you need to know The result of the referendum was 51.9% for Leave and 48.1% for Remain. The UK is due to officially leave the European Union at 23:00 GMT on 29 March, 2019. The referendum was not legally binding, merely "advisory," according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act. The Electoral Commission has referred Mr Grimes and Mr Halsall to the Metropolitan Police in relation to false declarations of campaign spending, and handed over files "in relation to whether any persons have committed related offences" that fall outside the watchdog's remit...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 8:33 AM Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. Nice people. Why wasn't that Neanderthal knuckle dragger arrested and locked up? If Brexit does go tits up this lot wont be able to control themselves for sure so we should start building a few more extra prisons for them now and when they kick off send in a proper riot squad to take them off the streets and lock em up for as long as possible. Better still export them to North Korea or Russia if they are so fond of those places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 But there is hope, now Pelmetman before you reply please try to read and comprehend what is actually going on here. The UK is confronted with a political problem of gargantuan proportions and the situation has become absurd both politically and legally. An important hearing will take place on 21st February 2019 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The UK in EU Challenge are seeking a Judicial review of the 2016 EU Referendum, here Dr. Robert C. Palmer explains its intriguing background and the law supporting the case every British citizen should be aware of. In the backdrop of the 2016 Referendum fallout, a number of legal challenges have been mounted to uphold the rule of law, the UK’s constitution and its democratic process. Many have fallen to the statutory time limitations imposed on judicial review proceedings. A new hope was announced to the public on Monday (11/02/19) following Lord Justice Hickinbottom’s decision to grant Susan Wilson and Others v The Prime Minister and Others (the UK in EU Challenge) leave to appeal Justice Ouseley’s brutal and absurd judgment on 10th December 2018. This article argues that the best way to resolve the constitutional crisis that Brexit deadlock has created in Parliament is to take another approach. Whilst parliamentarians are desperately seeking to move forward with resolving Brexit by implementing the referendum outcome it is suggested that attempts to move forward is a move in the wrong direction currently. Neither moving forward by remaining in the EU, moving forward by leaving the EU nor finding a political compromise in order to leave or remain in the EU are going resolve the impasse, let alone heal the divisions created by the referendum or reunite the country. This paper explores the notion that MPs should be looking back to the root of the problem: the referendum itself. For those who are unaware of Wilson – and the public awareness of the case is frankly woeful – the principal issue underlying it posed a simple question: is a lawful, free and fair vote one of the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave the EU? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative then, to be blunt, the UK has not fulfilled one of the constitutional requirements, following the enactment of the European Union Referendum Act (EURA) 2015, necessary to lawfully withdrawal from the trade block and union. As Parliament and the judiciary are the guardians of the UK constitution, many jurists, like myself – in the absence of proper governance materialising from Parliament itself – have had faith that there would be a legal solution to the Brexit shambles. The unprecedented situation in which the UK finds itself has been forced upon it by an unsatisfactory constitutional decision-making process and, as it turns out, an unlawful referendum outcome that has politically bound Parliament to a destructive political and socio-economic policy. A positive outcome to Wilson could well be the legal solution we have hoped for, for some time. Whilst all hope was fading after Justice Ouseley’s ruling in December and then the Webster case (Article 50 Challenge) losing its appeal soon after, the Appellate Court has revived a level of confidence in the judiciary who, until this juncture, has been supine whilst witnessing the UK’s demise both domestically and in the eyes of the world. The Wilson pleadings submit that the Prime Minister’s Decision and subsequent (dependent) Notification to leave the EU was premised on a ‘fundamental error of fact’ and was not made in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements (as required by Article 50(1) & (2) TEU) and/or ‘are vitiated’ by the corruption & illegality. This means that the legal validity of the PMs Decision and Notification (based solely on the outcome of the referendum as the mandate) are impaired by the unlawful referendum campaign, as per the Electoral Commission (EC) findings in May and July 2018. Let me be clear-cut about this: the EC findings were to the criminal standard of proof (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt). Serious offences were committed by the designated campaign for leaving the EU, Vote Leave (and others), in breach of the statutory framework established by Parliament for the referendum through, amongst others, the European Union Referendum Act (EURA) 2015 and Political Parties Elections and Referendum Act (PPERA) 2000. It is commonly understood – albeit not by everyone – that the 2016 referendum was a consultation exercise; in other words, it was advisory only and did not compel Parliament to act on such ‘advice’. This has created a ludicrous legal loophole (see previous article on Brexit Shambles) that means the result cannot be voided where, ordinarily, and in any other election in history, it would have been annulled following the EC reports findings of corrupt and illegal practices during the 2016 campaign. The Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1983 forbids certain unlawful practices as well as making available challenges to the legality of a campaign. However, the referendum outcome has no legal status (it was advisory, not mandatory) making it impossible to rely on the statutory provisions provided by the 1983 Act, despite it not being either expressly or impliedly repealed (see below). Despite its lack of legal status and unlawfully procured outcome, the common law principles of legality and constitutionality should still have applied to the decision-making process to leave the EU. So, when considering how and when to exercise her discretionary statutory power under s.1(1) the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (EU(NoW)A), the Prime Minister had to act within the law. The unlawful referendum result (excluding other alleged illegalities beyond the scope of this paper) and the manner in which Brexit is being implemented seriously questions the legality and constitutionality of Theresa May’s Decision and Notification to Brexit. This is why Wilson is a necessary and important legal challenge. The courts are the only limb of the constitution that can determine whether the Decision and Notification are intra vires (within the law) or ultra vires (outside the law). In a nutshell, Sue Wilson et al seek declarations (and quashing orders) that both the Decision and Notification ‘were unlawful on established electoral and public law principles and/or not in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the UK’ and should not have been be treated as lawful and/or constitutional when the Prime Minister made her decision and sent the notification letter. A strong argument is extant that suggests that Theresa May should not have decided to leave the EU and/or notify the EU of the UK’s intention to do so on the basis of an unlawful mandate. Put differently, the decision still had to be made in line with public law and constitutional principles, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. The silence in the EURA regarding implementation did not give the Prime Minister or Executive free reign to implement the result on the erroneous understanding that it somehow bound Parliament in any way other than politically. Nothing binds Parliament – it is sovereign: the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty prevents any Parliament binding successive Parliaments. There are specific rules to changing the constitution and to remove fundamental/individual rights. Since the emergence of ‘Constitutional Statute’, the Supreme Court rulings affirm that ‘express repeal’ of such statutes is required (see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms (2000) and Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002)). Ordinarily, Acts of Parliament are subject to implied repeal so that no Act may be entrenched. The European Communities Act (ECA) 1972 (the Act that must be repealed to leave the EU) has long been recognised by the courts as having a ‘special status’ meaning the principle of implied repeal does not apply to the Act. There is a test applied by the courts for the repeal of a Constitutional Statute or the abrogation of fundamental rights, both are at play implementing Brexit. The courts ask: Is it shown that the legislature’s (Parliament’s) actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal (of a Constitutional Act) or abrogation (of fundamental rights)? Of course, this was not possible (nor still is) owing to the uncertainty of the legal order, changes in the constitution and which rights are to be removed on exit day. Brexit is still being negotiated, well, at least, by the UK! Without express language (or necessary implication to the contrary) the courts will presume that even the most general words are intended to preserve individual fundamental rights (see Lord Hoffmann, Simms). The issue of losing rights has certainly diffused into the mire in both the political debate and main stream media discourse. The courts must – constitutionally – protect those rights in accordance with the law. The normal rule of implied repeal does not satisfy the above test in the case of the EU(NoW)A (the statute that gave the Prime Minister the discretionary power to notify the EU of the UK’s intention to leave the EU) nor, palpably, her decision to leave. Even the Administrative Court struggled to identify when the decision was made but held in Webster v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the Decision was made by her rather, as some try to claim, by Parliament when they passed the EU(NoW)A. Upon reading the Act it is clear that the language used was too general and ambiguous to repeal a Constitutional Statute (the ECA 1972). Indeed, a separate Act (not yet in force) repeals the ECA: the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. The legal validity of the Prime Minister’s Decision and (dependent) Notification was diminished (vitiated, in legal terms) by conduct that fell within the definition of ‘corrupt and illegal practices’ under the Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1983 (and similar legislation) during the unlawful referendum campaign. Those corrupt and illegal practices breached the statutory requirements established by the RPA 1983 and EURA, as well as other conduct that was – for example – identified by the Information Commissioner regarding personal data etc. Under the RPA 1983, corrupt practices include exceeding lawful spending restrictions, treating and undue influence. The argument in Wilson is that the legal force behind both the PMs Decision and Notification was removed by depending on a flawed consultation, one that – despite its advisory nature – was founded upon promises to honour and implement the result. The EC findings vitiated honouring that result further but there is also the important matters of good administration, upholding the rule of law and abiding by the MP’s Code of Conduct (see the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament); in particular, Part III of the Code (Duties of Members), which states that parliamentarians have a ‘duty to uphold the law’ and ‘act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them’. MPs also swear an oath to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Crown in accordance with the law. With those factors in mind, Wilson submits that it is irrational for the Prime Minister to treat the referendum result as binding which, had it been binding, would be void following the EC findings as they satisfy the conditions over and above those required to void an election or binding referendum. In expert evidence used in the case, Professor Phillip Howard stated that the result of the referendum would have been affected by the corrupt and illegal practices by the Vote Leave campaign alone (in the order of around 800,000 votes). That interference would have reversed the result, but that is irrelevant in law. There are commonly two types of conduct that would render an election outcome void. First, when the candidate is personally guilty, or guilty by his agents, of any ‘corrupt or illegal practice’ or, second, through ‘general conduct’. Those offences are defined in the RPA 1983. For the purposes of the offences found by the EC in relation to the 2016 referendum, both reports are awash with offences that would constitute ‘corrupt and illegal practices’ under the Act. In regards to ‘general corruption’ the courts only require that the result ‘may reasonably be supposed to have affected the result’; whereas, in the eventuality of ‘corrupt and illegal practices’, ‘proof of its effect is irrelevant and not required’ (see Erlam v Rahman at [33]). Despite Professor Howard’s findings demonstrating the offences clearly affected the result, those effects are immaterial to the crimes committed. Richard Mawrey QC (sitting as the Election Commissioner) stated Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 (at [20]): If a candidate is elected in breach of the rules for elections laid down in the legislation, then he cannot be said to have been ‘democratically elected’. In elections, as in sport, those who win by cheating have not properly won and are disqualified. Nor is it of any avail for the candidate to say ‘I would have won anyway’ because cheating leads to disqualification whether it was necessary for the victory or not. In recent election cases, for example, it has been proved that candidates were elected by the use of hundreds (in Birmingham, thousands) of forged votes: would anyone seriously claim that those candidates had been ‘democratically elected’? The same question can be posed about the referendum result. Evidently, the referendum result is far from being a democratic mandate; particularly, and with the illegalities aside, that the vote did not bind Parliament in the first place. The UK’s constitutional requirements comprise of entrenched principles that respect and seek to preserve the veracity of the democratic process, including the voting process and lawful decision-making. The right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right (R (Preston) v Wandsworth London Borough Council). The integrity of the democratic process is a fundamental principle of the common law and a requisite for the UK’s constitutional requirements. Protecting democratic standards (accepted under common law) and applying the principles of constitutionality strike to the heart of the principle of legality, which is a pertinent to the UK’s constitutional requirements and – ultimately – valuing the democratic process and rule of law. Further, the UK’s constitutional requirements for binding referendums (and elections) adhere vehemently to the guidance specified in the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice for Referendums. The Code states: In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled. Exceeding the spending limits was merely one of the numerous offences found in the EC Reports. Ordinarily there would be no substance behind any interpretation that the UK’s constitutional requirements would permit or disregard corrupt and illegal practices. Allowing the referendum result to stand under these circumstances undermines the democratic process and flouts several constitutional principles whilst ignoring the rule of law. It is absurd that the advisory nature of the referendum prevents it from being voidable, especially considering the fact that Parliament is treating the outcome as binding. It is entirely irrational for the Prime Minister to treat the referendum result as binding which, had it been binding, would have been voided following the EC findings. Irrationality aside, it is unlawful. When Parliament granted Theresa May the discretionary power to notify under the EU(NoW)A this did not equate to the principles of legality and constitutionality being disapplied. Far from it. In line with constitutionality the Prime Minister is not permitted to ignore the findings of the EC or ‘to take no material steps’ or not ‘to give anxious scrutiny to their import or otherwise in response to them’. Outwardly, that is exactly what has happened and it must be remembered that the investigations began prior to the Notification. In fact, the EC stopped investigating until it was ordered by the courts to recommence following a crowd funded action by the Good Law Project (Good Law Project v Electoral Commission). Regardless, the Prime Minister was on notice of the real possibility of corrupt and illegal conduct at the time she decided and sent the subsequent notification to withdrawal from the EU. The Prime Minister’s repeated statements that the government and Parliament should respect and implement the referendum result is nonsensical and – most importantly – irrational. Such irrationality is pertinent in this case because ‘irrational’ also means ‘unlawful’ owing to what is known as Wednesbury unreasonableness. Being Wednesbury unreasonable means that, when relying upon the referendum outcome despite it being procured by corrupt and illegal practices, she made an executive decision, in stark contrast to UK’s constitutional requirements, to leave the EU. By ignoring such conduct Theresa May impermissibly fails to take into account a clearly germane factor, one to which she is bound to give due consideration. As it is impossible – owing to the advisory nature of the referendum – for an election petition to be brought to void (annul) the result, and in light of the constitutional significance of the Decision and Notification, the need for the Prime Minister () to take into account and pay the illegalities proper attention was crucial upon exercising her discretionary power. Notwithstanding her legal counsel (the Government Legal Department) stating in open court that the referendum outcome was blemished, Theresa May maintains that the vote should be respected and implemented, come what may. When all is said and done, she made the Decision on a false premise and contrary to the Ministerial Code. The rule of law requires the courts to determine whether these matters are of significant constitutional importance and the electorate is entitled to a fair expression of its bidding and one that is not contaminated by corrupt and illegal practices. Parliament not only has to find a way to resolve Brexit but to also heal the divisions created by the 2016 referendum and then, ultimately, reunite the country. The referendum campaign opened Pandora’s Box and has arguably changed the face of democracy once and for all. This has sparked concerns that divisions over EU membership are unending and unity a thing of the past. Recent events in Westminster have even the most versed in the parliamentary procedure and constitutional and administrative law second guessing how matters will progress. The situation we are facing is so novel (sui generis) that any assessment based on the normal rules of the constitution is extremely difficult. Indeed, certain proposals may initially appear to be absurd but then pan out to be advantageous as new constitutional circumstances arise directly by way of Parliament searching to resolve a problem with fundamental constitutional consequences. But nothing seems to be working as the clock is being run-down. In the meantime, parliamentarians are desperately seeking to move forward with resolving Brexit. No one (that I know of) is denying that resolving Brexit, while the House of Commons is in deadlock, is going to be extremely difficult but – as the current environment nationwide is proving – reuniting the country by moving forward with Brexit is likely to prove to be a bridge too far. There is an old legal maxim: melius est recurrere quam male currere, which means it is better to run back than to run badly. In the mire of finding ways to move forward with Brexit it is, perhaps, more helpful to move back than forward and tackle the reason why the UK has found itself in such an impossible mess. Parliament is in deadlock – at the worst conceivable time. In trying to move forward, politicians are ‘running badly’ because they are failing to deal with the origins of the problem. Some squabble and posture as they struggle to work out why their vision of Brexit is crumbling away on the foundations of sand it was built on; certainly, the ‘quickest and easiest deal in history’ has not gone as planned. The promises of riches and a guarantee of the deal of the century has withered and transformed into foreseeable loss and possibly no deal at all: Brexit now comes with the tag ‘sold as seen’ with none of the benefits promised. MPs who oppose Brexit are in no better position as they chase around trying to assess how we got here and where to find the magic wand to wave away the emergency. Finger pointing and blame is ubiquitous on both sides. It is a national embarrassment. The scenario in which the UK finds itself reminds me of a scene in the 1993 film, Rising Sun. Sean Connery quoted: The Japanese have a saying: ‘Fix the problem, not the blame.’ Find out what’s [screwed] up and fix it. Nobody gets blamed. We’re always after who [screwed] up. Their way is better. I agree. In Westminster, within main stream media and in the public domain Brexit is perceived as the mother of all screw-ups. Naturally, everyone is looking for someone to blame for our current predicament. But, it does not have to be that way; we can find the problem and fix it and forget about who is to blame, for now, at least. Evidently, the cause of the problem is the referendum. Sporting analogies made about Brexit are everywhere. From the frontlines of the debate on social media, in general conversion, on the television, radio and even in the courts, references to sport have become a common way for people to draw parallels about the events surrounding the Brexit shambles. For pure entertainment value, observing Brexit is akin to one of those football or rugby matches with nonstop, end-to-end stuff that – for the neutral – stands out as one of the ‘classics’. That is fantastic, of course, if you are a neutral, but not so great if your team is the one on the losing end when the final whistle blows. The issue of winners and losers became both divisive and derisory following the immediate aftermath of the 2016 referendum. ‘You lost, get over it!’ has been a common, scornful quip directed at Remain voters from Leave voters, that never seem to get bored of disdainful taunts. I do not subscribe to this notion of winners and losers over Brexit. Yet. Particularly as it is not a done deal. Far from it, in fact. Furthermore – as the referendum outcome was procured by corrupt and illegal practices – assigning such labels is hardly playing to the whistle. Understandably, many of those who know that the referendum outcome would have been voided in any other instance in electoral history are reluctantly waiting for the match to be replayed whilst, perhaps, wondering why the opposition has not simply been disqualified from the competition. Continual calls for another referendum and, now, for Article 50 to be simply revoked certainly mirror such sentiments. Parliamentarians – if they squarely confront the unlawfulness of the referendum campaigns – have the perfect opportunity to break the deadlock. Essentially, I am suggesting that instead of trying to move forward with a futile policy – that suffers most from being rushed through by Brexiteers without a coherent plan – that MPs respect the principles of legality and constitutionality and to restore faith in the democratic process. If Wilson is successful then that option will be taken away from parliamentarians. The case raises challenging but, nonetheless, vitally important questions regarding applying the common law in upholding a fundamental requirement of democracy. The referendum exercise temporarily put aside the indirect democratic process of the United Kingdom and asked the electorate to vote on a profound matter concerning changing the entire constitutional structure of the country and removing individual rights. It is essential for that process to be executed lawfully, or, better expressed: free from corrupt and illegal practices. The judiciary have been witnessing the whole sorry affair of Brexit. To date cases with profound constitutional significance have been kept away from the senior judiciary by unsatisfactory time limitations and debatable judicial reasoning, arguably as a result of being labelled as ‘enemies of the people’ in the press. If Parliamentarians continue to ignore the illegalities surrounding the referendum campaign then the Wilson case may well be the silver bullet that kills Brexit. Perhaps that is what they have been waiting for; after all, the judiciary is the legislature’s bedfellow as guardians of the constitution. Essentially the legislature and the judiciary would be working together in a constitutionally satisfactory manner in such a move. Ensuring that criminal activity does not hijack democracy is certainly within the judiciary’s remit, perhaps they now recognise that it is their duty in granting Wilson permission. In the continued absence of political logic and pragmatism, Wilson is the courts’ last chance to be the saviours of the British people before the UK crashes out of the EU. Or, alternatively, Parliament could simply do their job, take a step back and publically recognise the reality that the referendum result was procured by corrupt and illegal practices. Only then will MPs finally be able to move forward and find a resolution to this constitutional crisis. Those of us that know that reality will never accept Brexit, why on Earth should we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 8:33 AM Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. 700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... Yet another wild remoaner claim blown to bits ... "British folk to be put before migrants" ... Too right ... "rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns" gotta long , long way to go to get near those northern towns set alight not so many years ago by followers of a certain religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-02-13 11:28 AM 700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... Yet another wild remoaner claim blown to bits ... "British folk to be put before migrants" ... Too right ... "rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns" gotta long , long way to go to get near those northern towns set alight not so many years ago by followers of a certain religion Go on then lets see the source for your "GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly"? As for the rest of your rant it makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 It's only hostile because those unable to get their own way by peaceful means turn to hostility as their last resort. I care deeply what happens to my country and I believe that on balance, and noting where the EUappears to be heading, the UK will do better in the medium and long term out of the EU, but I bear no hostilty towards those who believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 Tracker - 2019-02-13 12:58 PM It's only hostile because those unable to get their own way by peaceful means turn to hostility as their last resort. I care deeply what happens to my country and I believe that on balance, and noting where the EUappears to be heading, the UK will do better in the medium and long term out of the EU, but I bear no hostilty towards those who believe otherwise. I've no problem with your position but I do think we need to question why the violence is mainly from one side and peaceful protest on the other? And I definitely think that we should not let any decisions be dictated by the threat of violence from any side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 1:05 PM Tracker - 2019-02-13 12:58 PM It's only hostile because those unable to get their own way by peaceful means turn to hostility as their last resort. I care deeply what happens to my country and I believe that on balance, and noting where the EUappears to be heading, the UK will do better in the medium and long term out of the EU, but I bear no hostilty towards those who believe otherwise. I've no problem with your position but I do think we need to question why the violence is mainly from one side and peaceful protest on the other? And I definitely think that we should not let any decisions be dictated by the threat of violence from any side. Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 12:01 PM antony1969 - 2019-02-13 11:28 AM 700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... Yet another wild remoaner claim blown to bits ... "British folk to be put before migrants" ... Too right ... "rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns" gotta long , long way to go to get near those northern towns set alight not so many years ago by followers of a certain religion Go on then lets see the source for your "GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly"? As for the rest of your rant it makes no sense. Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork ... As for sense you wouldn't know sense if it came and slapped ya one ... You've obviously never heard of Antifa by the way ... Now they are a nasty lot but I suppose their closer to your heart so don't count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-02-13 1:20 PM Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 12:01 PM Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork ... As for sense you wouldn't know sense if it came and slapped ya one ... You've obviously never heard of Antifa by the way ... Now they are a nasty lot but I suppose their closer to your heart so don't count "Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork " I did, and let's be honest so did you, but neither of us could find it because it's not there. Prove me wrong? Yes I've heard of Antifa, Anti-Fascist is what it actually stands for. Proud to say that my dad was one, he fought Nazi's in WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 2:07 PM antony1969 - 2019-02-13 1:20 PM Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 12:01 PM Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork ... As for sense you wouldn't know sense if it came and slapped ya one ... You've obviously never heard of Antifa by the way ... Now they are a nasty lot but I suppose their closer to your heart so don't count "Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork " I did, and let's be honest so did you, but neither of us could find it because it's not there. Prove me wrong? Yes I've heard of Antifa, Anti-Fascist is what it actually stands for. Proud to say that my dad was one, he fought Nazi's in WW2. Oh great a history lesson ... Your old man may well have fought old Donald Tusks Nazi grandpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-02-13 2:16 PM [ "Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork " I did, and let's be honest so did you, but neither of us could find it because it's not there. Prove me wrong? Yes I've heard of Antifa, Anti-Fascist is what it actually stands for. Proud to say that my dad was one, he fought Nazi's in WW2. Oh great a history lesson ... Your old man may well have fought old Donald Tusks Nazi grandpa So no its not on the internet then? Thanks for confirming. Have you noticed how the more reasoned voices on here, of all positions - both leave and remain, are able to source their facts from credible sources? Where as your links are always to racist / right wing sites run by russian bloggers and the like? So prove me wrong, show me the link on the GLA website that says it was 200,000? And no, I doubt very much that my father would have fought Donald Tusks grandpa as he never fought the Polish resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 2:54 PM antony1969 - 2019-02-13 2:16 PM [ "Look for yaself ... It's all there on the tinternetwork " I did, and let's be honest so did you, but neither of us could find it because it's not there. Prove me wrong? Yes I've heard of Antifa, Anti-Fascist is what it actually stands for. Proud to say that my dad was one, he fought Nazi's in WW2. Oh great a history lesson ... Your old man may well have fought old Donald Tusks Nazi grandpa So no its not on the internet then? Thanks for confirming. Have you noticed how the more reasoned voices on here, of all positions - both leave and remain, are able to source their facts from credible sources? Where as your links are always to racist / right wing sites run by russian bloggers and the like? So prove me wrong, show me the link on the GLA website that says it was 200,000? And no, I doubt very much that my father would have fought Donald Tusks grandpa as he never fought the Polish resistance. Sweetheart would you like to put a charitable bet of say £100 on that I can show GLA said the crowd was 250.000 ??? ... You now are claiming 200.000 I see and not once have I said it says anything on GLA website ... Put up or shut up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-02-13 3:14 PM Sweetheart would you like to put a charitable bet of say £100 on that I can show GLA said the crowd was 250.000 ??? ... You now are claiming 200.000 I see and not once have I said it says anything on GLA website ... Put up or shut up No I still maintain it was over 700,000 you stated "700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... " So yes I'll accept your bet, my chosen charity is Hope not Hate. Provide the link where the Greater London Authority says 250,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 8:33 AM Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. Mogg has always been unhinged. As for the Goddard types, they're jumping on the Yaxley-Lennon bandwagon after seeing there's money to be made in being an obnoxious racist thug spreading hatred. Put them to some hard manual labouring work and see how long they'd last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-02-13 9:14 AM HarveyHeaven - 2019-02-13 8:51 AM nothing can change the fact that the 2016 referendum was FRAUDULENT and found to be so by the Electoral Commission Naturally you can back that statement up? ;-) ........... Come on Pelmet.....don't run off now after HH and FP responded. Don't you have any answers? :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 8:33 AM Rees Mogg suggests that now is the time for appeasement, that we should cave in before the right wing bully boys get too upset. "Failing to leave the EU would inevitably benefit Tommy Robinson: is that what the Cooper-Boles amendment was really aiming for?" This is who we should cave into, a right wing "yellow vest protester" threatens a journalist, "I've warned you, I swear to God when there's no police round here I'm going to take your head off your shoulders" https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/moment-yellow-vest-activist-james-15809751 These little rent a mob protests are springing up in northern towns, a couple of dozen yobs wanting to assert their power full of anger and hate and still NO PLAN. https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/live-yellow-vest-right-wing-15701553 And don't forget 700,000 people can march in peace with no incident - they are the people who we should be listening to. A bit hypocritical of you ain't it. :D You gave a list of Demos you attended in the dim and murky past. As I remember, they were not very peaceful. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 3:23 PM antony1969 - 2019-02-13 3:14 PM Sweetheart would you like to put a charitable bet of say £100 on that I can show GLA said the crowd was 250.000 ??? ... You now are claiming 200.000 I see and not once have I said it says anything on GLA website ... Put up or shut up No I still maintain it was over 700,000 you stated "700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... " So yes I'll accept your bet, my chosen charity is Hope not Hate. Provide the link where the Greater London Authority says 250,000. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest ... "under the Freedom of Information Act the GLA has included an estimated figure of 250.000 in a debriefed document" ... If what had been reported was wrong GLA would have had The Telegraph and Express up before IPSO ... Make your cheque out please and show its been sent if your a man of honour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-02-13 5:49 PM Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 3:23 PM antony1969 - 2019-02-13 3:14 PM Sweetheart would you like to put a charitable bet of say £100 on that I can show GLA said the crowd was 250.000 ??? ... You now are claiming 200.000 I see and not once have I said it says anything on GLA website ... Put up or shut up No I still maintain it was over 700,000 you stated "700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... " So yes I'll accept your bet, my chosen charity is Hope not Hate. Provide the link where the Greater London Authority says 250,000. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest ... "under the Freedom of Information Act the GLA has included an estimated figure of 250.000 in a debriefed document" ... If what had been reported was wrong GLA would have had The Telegraph and Express up before IPSO ... Make your cheque out please and show its been sent if your a man of honour Yeah not so fast. Firstly thats a Brexpress link. I believe also the same claim was also printed in the Torygraph but oddly not a copy of the actual GLA debrief document so maybe the Express once again do need reporting to IPSO. This has happened several times including the recent report they printed about an MPs claim that there was no hard border for goods in Swtizerland. Myself and a few others successfully through IPSO forced the Brexpress to issue a correction on that one so thanks for bringing this to my attention. Ill take it up with them. https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/did-the-telegraph-make-up-statistics-on-the-peoples-vote-march-attendance/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 antony1969 - 2019-02-13 5:49 PM Fast Pat - 2019-02-13 3:23 PM antony1969 - 2019-02-13 3:14 PM Sweetheart would you like to put a charitable bet of say £100 on that I can show GLA said the crowd was 250.000 ??? ... You now are claiming 200.000 I see and not once have I said it says anything on GLA website ... Put up or shut up No I still maintain it was over 700,000 you stated "700.000 ??? ... GLA put the figure much nearer to 250.000 if I remember correctly ... " So yes I'll accept your bet, my chosen charity is Hope not Hate. Provide the link where the Greater London Authority says 250,000. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest ... "under the Freedom of Information Act the GLA has included an estimated figure of 250.000 in a debriefed document" ... If what had been reported was wrong GLA would have had The Telegraph and Express up before IPSO ... Make your cheque out please and show its been sent if your a man of honour LMFAO!! The Brexitpress, the Brexiteers Bible!! Hardly reliable or credible. https://fullfact.org/news/did-670000-march-peoples-vote-brexit/ Come on little boy, pay up time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.