The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Clocker
	If you've a problem with the headline, speak to the BBC, for these are their words, not mine, as you well know!

Not even the people involved in the case expected the emergency measure to be approved. That was the opening gambit You get that in, the the court says no and decides the further evidence they want to see to proceed. It's standard.

In Belfast:

BREAK: Lawyer in prorogation case says Belfast court has "allowed Raymond McCord to file papers to seek an injunction to compel the PM to reverse his advice to prorogue Parliament by close of business on Monday 2 Sept 2019". A full hearing will take place "no later than 6 Sept"

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/sta...99957776752640

...amd then you have Gina Miller's case too.

[Clocker]

	Quote:	Belgianmum
	Let me give you a little clue, it’s the single word ‘rejected’ before the quoted headline.

As it has (like the article states) been rejected, ahead of the upcoming hearing.
Only quoting from the article.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	And, judging by the comments underneath it, you can tell that most of the readers also only read the headline...

The same people who wanted to take back control of their laws yet don't have a clue how British law works and don't like it when it does it's job? Those people?

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Yup! Edit: Wish I could find it now but I can't, I was reading the whispered comments reportedly from a prominent former Tory MP last night who said that if the Cherry case is successful, it could indicate or warrant an assumption that Rees-Mogg lied to the Queen in his role as Privy Council. It's a very, very long shot, but I wonder if he would dare to.

I've no doubt that he did. Rees-Mogg lies all the time, it's what he does.. with a very straight face.

Nanny will be proud.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The same people who wanted to take back control of their laws yet don't have a clue how British law works and don't like it when it does it's job? Those people?

There seems to be a lot of "wishful thinking". They see that it has been "rejected" and are rejoicing that the "Remoaners" have been stopped in their tracks, not reading the rest of the article which means the "rejection" is just really a delay until Tuesday.

Them DM-readers will be hopping mad when someone politely puts them right...

	Quote:	Clocker

Infer.
Deduce.
Read between the lines.




Is it gin o'clock yet?

[Clocker]

	Quote:
	Infer. Deduce. Read between the lines. Is it gin o'clock yet?

What is this waffle?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Clocker
	How is quoting a headline, which includes the word 'ahead', implying that this is the end of it? The BBC know full well that this is not the end of it and it is not the only court action the remainers are carrying out.

When considering a legal judgement it is always best to read the actual judgment rather that relying on reporters and talking heads.

In fact all the judge did was conclude that there was no need for an interim interdict since the full hearing will take place on Tuesday, which is the earliest date it can happen, it is not a win or a lose for anyone.

QUOTE BELGIANMUM
"Let me give you a little clue, it’s the single word ‘rejected’ before the quoted headline" UNQOUTE


I'm still lost, can we have another clue please ?

[Clocker]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	When considering a legal judgement it is always best to read the actual judgment rather that relying on reporters and talking heads. In fact all the judge did was conclude that there was no need for an interim interdict since the full hearing will take place on Tuesday, which is the earliest date it can happen, it is not a win or a lose for anyone.

Try telling the BBC that!

	Quote:	Clocker
	What is this waffle?

How WUDE!

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	When considering a legal judgement it is always best to read the actual judgment rather that relying on reporters and talking heads. In fact all the judge did was conclude that there was no need for an interim interdict since the full hearing will take place on Tuesday, which is the earliest date it can happen, it is not a win or a lose for anyone.

BORING. How on earth can you get people to click through to your website with such unexciting stuff as that? You need winners and losers and outrage, I tell you!!!!

	Quote:	Jim2007
	When considering a legal judgement it is always best to read the actual judgment rather that relying on reporters and talking heads. In fact all the judge did was conclude that there was no need for an interim interdict since the full hearing will take place on Tuesday, which is the earliest date it can happen, it is not a win or a lose for anyone.

	Quote:	Clocker
	Try telling the BBC that!

I'm no Brexit expert but isn't that where they say this bit (albeit with different words):

	Quote:	BBC
	The judge will not decide on the merits of the case until he has heard legal arguments from both sides on Tuesday, with his final ruling potentially being delivered the following day. His decision not to grant an interdict was largely based on the fact that Parliament cannot be suspended until 9 September at the earliest.

	Quote:	3Wishes
	BORING. How on earth can you get people to click through to your website with such unexciting stuff as that? You need winners and losers and outrage, I tell you!!!!

More sex and skin you mean? Make Politics Sexy Again ?

Ooh... Moggy and BoJo writhing round a pole...




Now I need mental floss.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	Now I need mental floss.

I need a wire brush and Dettol to scrub that image out of my head.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Clocker
	Only quoting from the article.

Which reminds me...
Why did you vote for the UK to leave the EU? Seriously?

Turns out none of the key members of government are seriously planning this proroguing thing. None of them agrees with it - they categorically said so...

Phew!

Oh wait.

[Blueangel]

He's an idiot of note! Wonder if this is admissible in Court.


https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/s...26400753725440

[Clocker]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Seriously?

Careful. When you add the word 'seriously' to your post, to qualify it, it gives the impression that all your other posts are not serious. There are a couple of people on here who do just that regularly, most probably because they don't take others' posts seriously and respond with a lot of waffle, silly, snide or sometimes even vile or obscene remarks and generally derail that person's (often a newbie's, sometimes not a newbie's) thread. You're not one of them though.
Also, your posts are serious (well, most of them that I have read definitely are, naturally I haven't read them all), it's just I don't agree with most of them, on this thread. You clearly have a strong opinion and I have a different opinion.

I thought this post recent from 'Today only' summed things up well and I agree with what was said in it. https://www.englishforum.ch/3095858-post21736.html

This was a good part of my argument for voting 'Leave'.

Just as the EU is not right for Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, at the moment and in its present form, I am of the opinion that the EU is also not right, at all, for the UK.

There is also a bit more to it than that, but for now that's all I can say.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I need a wire brush and Dettol to scrub that image out of my head.

Lobotomy maybe....