The EU debate - Part II

You'd like to be 'sad' like me, you daft twat!...

 

It's a legal matter. Does the PM alone have privelige, or as is claimed by other experts it belongs to only the Queen and Parliament itself.

I expect it to go to the Supreme Court, if the threatened challenges are made.

 

Bullshit, pal!

Ever since thus whole thing began some two months ago, it's been patently obvious where you come from. You try to shilly-shally your way around it, try yo hide behind terms like 'multi-culturism' etc, but like I say, your true colours are there for all to see!

Probably EDL, BNP, UKIP?...

 

I understood the legal point to be that only parliament can reverse primary legislation and that by triggering brexit you effectively cancel the act that took the UK into Europe.

I did read something on it that showed that anyone in the government can trigger article 50 and the EU would accept it and treat it as legally binding. Whether they have broken British law would be up to UK courts to decide and if necessary punish after the event.

 

But the PM have privilege on behalf of the queen

 

Instead of looking an arse and resorting to ad hominem's when you're out of your depth, why not try addressing what's put, rather than adding your wild inaccurate imaginings?

There's a few links and replies I've posted over the last few days that put paid to your ridiculous allegations, such as the link to the book commenting on manipulation, why not try discussing them? They're more interesting than me, or your feeble character analysis.

It'll be interesting, because some links I've posted show that unlike mine, some of your beliefs are at odds with the labour party that brought them in, and the Campaign for Racial Equality.

 

Seriously doubt that........ you live here mate,you're a ****ing joke,we all know it

 

Cancelling or changing primary legislation isn't one of them

 

But it would be stupid if it was stopped, the civil unrest would be far worse than Brexit damage* could ever do



If we believe the snowflakes

 

There are questions on whether us entering the EU was constitutional or legal in the first place.

 

I don't live in Liverpool you dozy Brummie melt.

and despite your bitterness it's not bullshit, it's fact.

 

Don't worry yourself, even if it goes to parliament there are enough MPs either pro brexit or not prepared to vote against the peoples mandate for it to make very little difference

 

Parliament agreed what ever the outcome of the referendum would be set in stone.
So the PM can do A50 without going back to parliament

 

Not wise for them to do such a thing.

 

No parliament agreed to an advisory referendum

 

Not a Brummy, you Marxist twat.

Screen grab the page then and prove it

 

Yes you re right, just read it.

In contrast the EU referendum legislation does not force the Government to automatically take Britain out of the EU.

But the political reality is that the Government has no choice but to follow through on the electorate’s wishes.

Politicians have repeatedly stressed that there was “no going back” if the British people voted to back Brexit in the referendum.

 

The 1972 act must be repealed before Article 50 is invoked. The Torygraph story is just wind and piss, as there'd be a huge legal challenge should May try and unilaterally make that decision, one which she'd almost certainly lose imo

Why would a remain backer like May make such a call anyway, when the path of least resistance is to allow the house a vote on it?

oh and btw a snapshot voxpox poll doesn't trump our legal process, but you knew that