|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 18:00:44 GMT
She LOST you twonker .... LOL A case that has nothing to do with what we're currently discussing.  Darling, just go crawl under a stone, you've just made the biggest laughing stock of yourself, aren't you embarrassed ? Don't worry I'm embarrassed for you LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:03:37 GMT
LOL!!! Did you forget to take the government to court to enforce that contract too, Sal? Did it just slip your mind? Or was the reason you didn't attempt to argue in court that there was a written contract because you couldn't find a barrister who was prepared to ruin his career by making such a childish claim in court? Which was it? Why would anyone do that when the government complied with the contract? Oh and you're being repetitious. Yeah, the government got around to it years later. You weren't interested in leaving as soon as possible, then? You thought you'd hang around a little longer, just because you loved the EU so much? Understandable, but I don't think that's what happened. Nobody argued there was a binding contract between Cameron and the People because you could never have found a barrister who would ruin his career by making such an absurd claim in court. As to the repetition point: I'll repeatedly correct you as long as long as you keep repeating your mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:04:29 GMT
A case that has nothing to do with what we're currently discussing. Darling, just go crawl under a stone, you've just made the biggest laughing stock of yourself, aren't you embarrassed ? Don't worry I'm embarrassed for you LOL You're just looking out for my best interests, Fairy. Friends forever!! |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 18:06:19 GMT
Ask Gina Miller you plonker, she took the government to court to cancel Brexit, and guess what .........she LOST.
Her legal argument ... it was just a 'advisory referendum', and guess what the court kicked her out and said ........ NO it wasn't.
LOL!!!! Link? OMG you are honestly telling this forum you don't know Gina Miller took the government to court to cancel Brexit???
all I can say ......PMSL
Sorry guys I've got to milk this for all its worth, Darling had no idea Gina Miller took the Secretary of State to court telling him the referendum wasn't legally binding.
AND SHE LOST.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:07:40 GMT
OMG you are honestly telling this forum you don't know Gina Miller took the government to court to cancel Brexit???
all I can say ......PMSL
Sorry guys I've got to milk this for all its worth, Darling had no idea Gina Miller took the Secretary of State to court telling him the referendum wasn't legally binding.
AND SHE LOST.
LOL! Show us a link where the court held that the referendum was legally binding. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 18:08:43 GMT
Sorry guys I've got to milk this for all its worth, Darling had no idea Gina Miller took the Secretary of State to court telling him the referendum wasn't legally binding.
AND SHE LOST.
LOL! Show us a link where the court held that the referendum was legally binding. Gina Miller LOST, if she hadn't we would still be in the EU ........Duh ... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:10:50 GMT
LOL! Show us a link where the court held that the referendum was legally binding. Gina Miller LOST, if she hadn't we would still be in the EU ........Duh ... LOL Did you even read your own link? The case decided that the executive (the government) NEEDED PARLIAMENT'S PERMISSION TO INITIATE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EU. It is the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[1] is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I" (to differentiate with Miller's later Brexit-related case against the Government, Miller II). |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 11, 2023 18:12:13 GMT
Why would anyone do that when the government complied with the contract? Oh and you're being repetitious. Yeah, the government got around to it years later. You weren't interested in leaving as soon as possible, then? You thought you'd hang around a little longer, just because you loved the EU so much? Understandable, but I don't think that's what happened. Nobody argued there was a binding contract between Cameron and the People because you could never have found a barrister who would ruin his career by making such an absurd claim in court. As to the repetition point: I'll repeatedly correct you as long as long as you keep repeating your mistakes. Wrong again, I would have left immediately after the result was known, I knew that people like May and some of the wider public would attempt to thwart Brexit. I think your mistakes record well exceed almost everybodies. Now just go quietly rather than continue to show yourself up. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:12:53 GMT
The Daily Mail has a lot to answer for, Fairy
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 18:14:47 GMT
Gina Miller LOST, if she hadn't we would still be in the EU ........Duh ... LOL Did you even read your own link? The case decided that the executive (the government) NEEDED PARLIAMENT'S PERMISSION TO INITIATE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EU. It is the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[1] is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I" (to differentiate with Miller's later Brexit-related case against the Government, Miller II). Too late Darling, you've been exposed for the utter twonker that you are, you know little bits about nothing, and when you come unstuck like now you start rambling on even more than you rant on. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:14:54 GMT
Yeah, the government got around to it years later. You weren't interested in leaving as soon as possible, then? You thought you'd hang around a little longer, just because you loved the EU so much? Understandable, but I don't think that's what happened. Nobody argued there was a binding contract between Cameron and the People because you could never have found a barrister who would ruin his career by making such an absurd claim in court. As to the repetition point: I'll repeatedly correct you as long as long as you keep repeating your mistakes. Wrong again, I would have left immediately after the result was known, I knew that people like May and some of the wider public would attempt to thwart Brexit. I think your mistakes record well exceed almost everybodies. Now just go quietly rather than continue to show yourself up. Yep, and if May was thwarting Brexit, the sensible thing for you to do would have been to take her to court and claim that the government was bound to leave because of the verbal contract you childishly claim existed. You didn't do that, though. Why? Was it because you couldn't find a barrister prepared to ruin his career? Was it because your fellow gammons wanted to stay in the EU just a little bit longer? Nah! It was because the result wasn't legally binding and there was nothing you could about it in court. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:16:08 GMT
Did you even read your own link? The case decided that the executive (the government) NEEDED PARLIAMENT'S PERMISSION TO INITIATE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EU. It is the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[1] is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I" (to differentiate with Miller's later Brexit-related case against the Government, Miller II). Too late Darling, you've been exposed for the utter twonker that you are, you know little bits about nothing, and when you come unstuck like now you start rambling on even more than you rant on. Yeah, next time read the link before you post it, Fairy. You've made a complete ass of yourself again. The link says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 18:16:42 GMT
Poor old Darling, mind you he's made me laugh, I was getting bored, but he's given me a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 18:17:17 GMT
Poor old Darling, mind you he's made me laugh, I was getting bored, but he's given me a good laugh. Friends forever? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 11, 2023 18:18:40 GMT
|
|
