|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 11, 2023 22:13:12 GMT
I'll tell you in three years. You're always happy to wait. Rome wasn't built in a day, patience is a virtue. things come to those who wait. old working class sayings. We get you all in the end trolls or not. You've already won my heart, Sheeps. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 12, 2023 7:07:38 GMT
Note to mods, Ding trolls again for his own amusement.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 12, 2023 7:38:27 GMT
Note to mods, Ding trolls again for his own amusement. I can't say I am much bothered by it, it is fairly obvious what Darling is at. With constant Gammons and Daily Mail innuendos. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 12, 2023 7:39:56 GMT
2024 will be the new 1997. An electoral cycle comes to a close and tweedledee is replaced by tweedledum, or the other way round. To me there seems to be nothing 'cycling'. We have effectively had a Blair administration since 1997 - enforced after Bair's departure via legal mechanism - and now we are moving over to another 'Blair' administration |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 12, 2023 7:42:30 GMT
Note to mods, Ding trolls again for his own amusement. Really? I've made many substantial arguments, all based on what the law actually is. You, on the other hand, have simply invented facts. Answer this: If Cameron made a legally enforceable contract with 'the people' as you claim, why didn't the Brexiters take the government to court in 2016 to enforce that contract? The truth is that Brexiter lawyers examined every possible legal avenue, left absolutely no stone unturned in their attempt to complete Brexit. If the argument that there was a contract with the people was even remotely viable, Brexiter lawyers would have presented it to the courts at the first opportunity. They didn't, because a first-year law student would know that there was no contract, and that even if there were a contract, that contract would been voided on the public policy ground that it was contrary to the Constitution. The 2016 referendum was advisory. There was no means of enforcing it, and that's why Brexiters had to achieve their ends by an election rather than recourse to the courts. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 12, 2023 7:59:49 GMT
Note to mods, Ding trolls again for his own amusement. Really? I've made many substantial arguments, all based on what the law actually is. You, on the other hand, have simply invented facts. Answer this: If Cameron made a legally enforceable contract with 'the people' as you claim, why didn't the Brexiters take the government to court in 2016 to enforce that contract? The truth is that Brexiter lawyers examined every possible legal avenue, left absolutely no stone unturned in their attempt to complete Brexit. If the argument that there was a contract with the people was even remotely viable, Brexiter lawyers would have presented it to the courts at the first opportunity. They didn't, because a first-year law student would know that there was no contract, and that even if there were a contract, that contract would been voided on the public policy ground that it was contrary to the Constitution. The 2016 referendum was advisory. There was no means of enforcing it, and that's why Brexiters had to achieve their ends by an election rather than recourse to the courts. It's that simple. Seems to me Lawyers are a bit disgruntled they couldn't find an angle to manipulate and milk. Well like all things we don't win them all tell them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Jun 12, 2023 8:00:17 GMT
2024 will be the new 1997. An electoral cycle comes to a close and tweedledee is replaced by tweedledum, or the other way round. To me there seems to be nothing 'cycling'. We have effectively had a Blair administration since 1997 - enforced after Bair's departure via legal mechanism - and now we are moving over to another 'Blair' administration Arguably, Mags, we have effectively had a Thatcher administration since 1979, for much the same reasons. Each successive administration has largely had its hands tied by its predecessor, |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 12, 2023 8:03:50 GMT
Really? I've made many substantial arguments, all based on what the law actually is. You, on the other hand, have simply invented facts. Answer this: If Cameron made a legally enforceable contract with 'the people' as you claim, why didn't the Brexiters take the government to court in 2016 to enforce that contract? The truth is that Brexiter lawyers examined every possible legal avenue, left absolutely no stone unturned in their attempt to complete Brexit. If the argument that there was a contract with the people was even remotely viable, Brexiter lawyers would have presented it to the courts at the first opportunity. They didn't, because a first-year law student would know that there was no contract, and that even if there were a contract, that contract would been voided on the public policy ground that it was contrary to the Constitution. The 2016 referendum was advisory. There was no means of enforcing it, and that's why Brexiters had to achieve their ends by an election rather than recourse to the courts. It's that simple. Seems to me Lawyers are a bit disgruntled they couldn't find an angle to manipulate and milk. Well like all things we don't win them all tell them. Brexiter lawyers couldn't find an angle. Don't be too hard on them, though. There wasn't much they could do. There was no 'verbal contract', contrary to what has been claimed in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 12, 2023 8:06:55 GMT
Seems to me Lawyers are a bit disgruntled they couldn't find an angle to manipulate and milk. Well like all things we don't win them all tell them. Brexiter lawyers couldn't find an angle. Don't be too hard on them, though. There wasn't much they could do. There was no 'verbal contract', contrary to what has been claimed in this thread. How much did Remain waste on them for something they could do nothing about? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 12, 2023 8:09:22 GMT
Brexiter lawyers couldn't find an angle. Don't be too hard on them, though. There wasn't much they could do. There was no 'verbal contract', contrary to what has been claimed in this thread. How much did Remain waste on them for something they could do nothing about? There was no waste of money. What Johnson did was very dangerous. He tried to take control away from Parliament. That is dictatorship. His attempt to prorogue Parliament was overturned by the courts. It was worth every penny spent. You benefitted from what the Remainers did, although you don't seem to have the capacity to understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 12, 2023 8:10:49 GMT
How much did Remain waste on them for something they could do nothing about? There was no waste of money. What Johnson did was very dangerous. He tried to take control away from Parliament. That is dictatorship. His attempt to prorogue Parliament and was overturned by the courts. It was worth every penny spent. Tons of it then, as nothing was changed by it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 12, 2023 8:13:08 GMT
There was no waste of money. What Johnson did was very dangerous. He tried to take control away from Parliament. That is dictatorship. His attempt to prorogue Parliament and was overturned by the courts. It was worth every penny spent. Tons of it then, as nothing was changed by it. A very important constitutional precedent was set. The court established that power cannot be arbitrarily taken away from the people's representatives in Parliament. Democracy was reinforced. That was worth every penny. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 12, 2023 8:17:03 GMT
Tons of it then, as nothing was changed by it. A very important constitutional precedent was set. The court established that power cannot be arbitrarily taken away from the people's representatives in Parliament. Democracy was reinforced. That was worth every penny. LOL but although nothing was actually changed and the same voting rights remained. But an awful lot of money changed hands getting something that already existed. Which is now somehow billed as a great constitutional victory. Seriously if it wasn't so crazy a money making scheme it would be laughable. Remain were had over yet again. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 12, 2023 8:24:40 GMT
A very important constitutional precedent was set. The court established that power cannot be arbitrarily taken away from the people's representatives in Parliament. Democracy was reinforced. That was worth every penny. LOL but although nothing was actually changed and the same voting rights remained. But an awful lot of money changed hands getting something that already existed. Which is now somehow billed as a great constitutional victory. Seriously if it wasn't so crazy a money making scheme it would be laughable. Remain were had over yet again. If you say so, Sheeps. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 12, 2023 8:26:03 GMT
LOL but although nothing was actually changed and the same voting rights remained. But an awful lot of money changed hands getting something that already existed. Which is now somehow billed as a great constitutional victory. Seriously if it wasn't so crazy a money making scheme it would be laughable. Remain were had over yet again. If you say so, Sheeps. I do say so and you reckon leave are off their trolleys. |
|
