The BBC have found a new heroine. Gina Miller – she who brought the legal challenge to Brexit. The atrocious decision by the High Court to subvert the will of 17.4m people democratically expressed on June 23rd has warmed BBC hearts and all of a sudden it is supporting the notion that “Parliamentary Sovereignty” must be respected at all costs. Ironic given then for the past four decades the stripping away of this Parliamentary Sovereignty to Brussels has been met with glee from the BBC. This decision is going to make the BBC even more unbearable than ever.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Deborahanother says:

    Never mind ,when Trump wins they will be brought down to earth. I’ve avoided the BBC today but I will be tuning in after the election result to savour their distress.

    I don’t think anyone expected that our ruling class and elites would make it easy to leave the EU there is too much free money and power at stake, but I’m still very sure it will happen .This is but one more battle in the long war.


  2. matahari says:

    Is she British?


    • wronged says:

      Born in Guyana but grew up in Britain. Probably an illegal.Money can buy passports. Funny how all those Labour voting ‘Socialists’ side with the rich and greedy.


      • Scronker says:

        Absolutely correct wronged. You see them start off in their leftard political careers “fighting” for the rights of the voiceless working class. They say they are against privilege, the monarchy, the House of Lords, capitalism and so forth. When they leave parliament these hypocrites accept seats in the Lords, get knighted by the queen, become directors of companies on huge salaries for little work, become very wealthy and when the working class finally get a voice, the bastards ignore it. Just look at the Kinnocks, Haines, Prescotts et al. They’ll probability elevate that devious pervert Vaz to the Lords.


    • Number 7 says:

      Mrs. Wham-Bam

      “Came to Britain from Guyana”.

      That shining light of democracy!

      Married, second wife, to a Hedge Fund manager.


      • Mice Height says:

        ‘The Co-Operative Republic of Guyana’ please.
        Surely the sort of corrupt shit-hole where you’d think any self-respecting Labour supporter would want to continue to reside, especially given it’s proximity to the Socialist utopia of Venezuela, where despite sitting on an abundance of oil and many other natural resources, the population have now resorted to killing their pet animals for food.


      • NCBBC says:

        There could be Big money behind this.


        • johnnythefish says:

          Yes indeed, and it’s Soros and the rest of the oopen borders/one-world government crew from The Club of Rome through UN/Agenda21 to Common Purpose.

          This semi-secret, elitist political movement that treats us all like serfs needs to be smashed. It’s imperative that their ‘blueprint’ for a future world government – the EU – is destroyed and the brainwashing eco-socialist scientific scam that is ‘climate change’ is exposed in all its twisted subversiveness. It will set them back decades.

          Democracy has not faced a threat so huge since WW2.


          • NCBBC says:

            johnnythefish Democracy has not faced a threat so huge since WW2.

            Unlike the Nazis or the totalitarian communists, this threat is an insidious threat, like HIV.


  3. 60022Mallard says:

    This uncertainty will potentially really harm our economy, just when everyone was adapting to Leave.

    The way forward is a simple early motion in Parliament.

    “Having received the opinion of the electorate in the referendum Parliament instructs the Government to invoke Article 50”

    The M.P.s will file through the lobbies, their names will be duly noted on each side.

    If the decision is not to invoke it, a constitutional crisis will arise, the government will resign, eventually leading to an early general election and who knows how people will view those who ignored the clearest instruction M.P.s have ever had to do the will of the people.


    • Dave S says:

      None of them seem to understand that the judges absurd views will push people especially the English into more extreme positions. You are correct that is all it needs.
      We could elect a government that could simply in the morning put a bill to the MPs that repealed all EU treaties immediately. Voted on that day and signed by the Queen .Any trouble from the Lords could be dealt with by an immediate bill of abolition on the grounds of obstructing the will of the people.
      To a sovereign people all things are possible.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘This uncertainty will potentially really harm our economy, just when everyone was adapting to Leave’

      Precisely. And this after bashing all with the horrors of ‘uncertainty’ ever since a clear vote. I’d say pissing off the shy majority in this manner is not going to end well for anyone.

      What was basically a simple choice is clumsily being made as complex as it can be over a period as long as it can be so that only those ‘mature’ and ‘qualified’ and all sorts of other arrogant presumptions get their way, because they made a major boo boo and got caught with their kickers down and arses exposed.

      ‘The Government’ always gets in, so why bother voting?

      Well, I vote, voted and will vote according to a triage of priorities, but first and always will be the ability to choose who represents me and regularly, based on their claims, actions and record, from town council through MP and MEP to party.

      The party currently in power is the one that was when this cluster-FUBAR was concocted, by ‘smart’ folk who saw only one outcome, supported by others who shared that view, and whose collective bum got kicked, bitten and otherwise savaged by reality when they are all mostly used to softer, smoother, fare.

      The PM and most of her senior or at least most vocal colleagues were Remainers, at least as borne to our screens by the likes of the BBC.

      They, and their predecessors brought this to us in simple form, with the support of the various parties and houses, across all parties, and now they are dreaming up weasel after weasel because the piss-up they couldn’t concoct in a brewery has turned into a cock up they can’t manage, so they are suddenly finding bodies and rules they like now when they were nowhere to be found before.

      The arrogance of mature geniuses from the legislature, law and media on social media is breathtaking, and they go very silent or start blocking when uncomfortable facts in counter and from the past crop up.

      And these inbred dimwits are the only ones ‘smart’ enough to now decide on what is best to take their previous brilliant plan forward.

      I. Do. Not. Think. So.

      On social media I am being schooled on hitherto obscure aspects of law and sovereignty, specifically created to be ‘interpreted’ by safe pairs of hands as the need arises.

      From when the BBC ran satire, not propaganda:

      And a time when those in high office understood science more than PPE or student uni sulking.

      Maybe they could get Shami in as a legal genius to add a female perspective and as a safe pair of hands?

      This is really getting folk exercised, and not sure snotty elites being patronising is calming matters.

      No decision on Parliamentary proxy representation can achieve idealistic totality, so you weigh all that is important to you and accord values in how you vote and for whom.

      At the last GE I was mostly concerned with that utter idiot Ed getting in to truly screw the country as opposed to only doing it a little bit as Dave and George were doing.

      At no point in casting my vote was I thinking of Brexit matters as, at that time, my MP had nothing to do with it. It was a cross party Referendum commitment to the county upon which the country decided.

      Now, best I can gather, it is up for tinkering at best or utter rigging at worst by a crooked cabal using every dodge possible to impose their will over those they claim to represent.

      And for some, at present, it is by those MPs who did not declare, mostly for ‘personal reasons’.

      Somehow the one potentially deciding for me using their brain the size of a planet gets to do so with a mandate based on the goalposts not just being moved, but relocated to a new dimension.

      So I am vexed.

      Happy to be reassured or corrected where necessary by any who know better and can cite fact rather than opinion from the media or interpretation from utterly dependent, interest conflicted self-servant ‘betters’.


  4. Kaiser says:

    death to traitors


  5. Oaknash says:

    Says it all really.
    Apparently the delightful Gina is a philanthropist as well as a “businesswoman”
    I heard of some bloke who also does that,- Apparently his name is George Sorros.


  6. Kaiser says:

    just stop paying our eu contribution tommorow

    bollox to article 50 thats their rules not ours

    did all these balkan states have to wait for yugoslavia to take a vote on it

    we dont have to obey the eu rules to leave, we just have to say we’ve left

    end of


  7. Sinniberg says:

    I couldn’t believe the news when I heard it but I hope what happened today is kicked into the long grass on appeal.

    On the whole I have systematically avoided listening to or watching any(more) BBC news today but I did glance tonight and see they’re now driving for an election. In other words going for the kill and hoping to get Labour re-elected.

    We are witnessing the complete under-mining of democracy, the will of the people and the rule of law by the BBC.

    We are living in very dark days and after today I am left wondering if there is any hope left…..


  8. NCBBC says:

    The BBC newsreader couldn’t hide his delight as he read the news from the High Court.

    So who is supreme in Britain? According to the judiciary, the parliament, and the BBC, it is parliament. We the people are merely serfs.

    Is parliament really supreme? On paper it might be, but is it really?

    It is such situations, that lead to rebellion of the sort ” We the people…”.

    Right now we are seeing a second rebellion/revolution in the USA.


  9. Spacemonkey says:

    Neither side of this case has said that article 50 should not be triggered.All parties agree that it is inevitable. If it was put to a vote in the commons tomorrow it would pass easily, not many MPs want to be seen overturning the referendum.

    However, the Lords are not elected and do not give a damn about the electorate and will undoubtably force numerous amendments to try to obtain a very soft brexit, probably something like Norway.

    They did something similar with the Dubs ammendment.

    Its about time the Lords was abandoned in its present form and made democraticaly accountable.


    • NCBBC says:

      I was under the impression, that parliament decided to leave the decision of Brexit to the people.

      Now the court is saying that parliament has to decide, whether parliament has the right to decide to leave the decision to the people.

      In effect, the court is saying that parliament has no right to abbrogate its decision making duty, by deciding not to decide. That is parliament is not supreme, in the absolute sense – politically speaking.

      And as it is the court that says so, and everyone, including parliament must abide it, means that its not parliament but the Court that is supreme.

      I’m confused.


  10. Aerfen says:

    The Lord Chief Justice, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd, alongside Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales, ruled that the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Article 50 to start the two-year Brexit process.


    • evad666 says:

      Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration.
      I would contend that this makes him unsuitable to make such a judgement and the Judgement is null and void.


      • DavidA says:

        All three judges who sat on this case were among those who gave Michael Gove, the then Lord Chancellor, a slow-hand-clap reception at a white tie dinner during the referendum campaign. All of their Remain credentials are well-known.

        Which begs the question who appointed these three, openly pro-Remain judges to sit on what was surely a fairly crucial case?

        Call me a cynical old so-and-so, but I’ve long since stopped believing that anything is truly accidental or coincidental.


        • johnnythefish says:

          Which begs the question who appointed these three, openly pro-Remain judges…

          I think you’ll find they were all appointed under Blair.


          • DavidA says:

            As so many of our judiciary were who regularly make these bizarre rulings in civil, criminal, and especially immigration/asylum cases.

            Bliar and Brown stuffed the courts with their placemen, who were appointed more for their political “reliability” than their legal acumen, in much the same way as they stuffed the House of Lords with their pals and supporters.

            Sadly, Scameron did precisely zilch to address this during his six years in power, lacking either the guts or the inclination to get involved in a potentially bloody fight, merely to restore the semblance of justice or democracy, since he cared nothing for either and was too busy getting his own snout in the trough.

            Hopefully, Theresa will be made of sterner stuff. She makes the right noises, but time will tell.


            • GCooper says:

              This is exactly right. The Blair/Brown junta used its time to do many things. Some, such as actively recruiting immigrants so as to change the nature of England forever, were done more or less in plain site. Others, such as stuffing the civil service, quangos, local government and the professions with as many Left wing activists as possible, happened beyond the notice of the man or woman in the street.

              Put an SJW in a wig and gown and he doesn’t necessarily become Eddie Izzard. He could just as easily wind up in the High Court, making up the law as he goes along.


              • NCBBC says:

                Just imagine the chagrin coming into Britain, to be confronted by a hijabed immigration officer.


                • DavidA says:

                  Happens to me all the time. I work internationally and come back and forth to the UK a lot. Virtually NOBODY, working in Heathrow, in any capacity, appears to be white and/or English. The sight of a bank of Immigration Officers at the passport control desk, where not a single one of them is white and at least a couple sport turbans or hijabs, is pretty bizarre.

                  I wonder which country foreign visitors think they have arrived in?

                  Poor England. What have we let them do to you?


  11. The Highland Rebel says:

    Three men with dead sheep on their head can overrule 17.4 million voters in a democratic ballot?


  12. Edward says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but a referendum is where the government allows the people to vote for, or against, something, and then the government acts on the people’s decision, whatever that may be.

    Why is Gina Miller complicating what should be a straight-forward binary click of a switch to get out of the EU? I guess it’s a case of stopping the bus due to a technicality regarding the people sitting on it. If the “wrong” people are sitting on the bus, then the bus must stop, even if the “right” people are not going to get on. As long as the bus remains stationary, the “wrong” people will not get to their destination.

    Does Gina Miller know who she’s messing with?


    • evad666 says:

      Gina Miller is an Oligarch Labour Supporter who cares nothing for the English denied a Voice on the EU for 43 years.
      As a fund manager she has used the courts to impact the markets and hence stands to make yet more money.


  13. Jerry Owen says:

    I actually felt a sick in the stomach when I heard this outrageous decision.
    My government leaflet read ‘Do you want to remain in the European or leave the European union? We will implement the will of the people’. Where were the ‘Judges’ and Miller then, crying foul about this leaflet?
    They expected to win didn’t they?
    May has a golden opportunity to be one of the greatest PM’s this country has ever had.. conversely she could be the worst in the history of this country having caved in to the biggest betrayal of the British people in our entire history.
    I hope she thinks long and hard.


    • ToobiWan says:

      The wording on the leaflet probably wasn’t challenged, Jerry, because the author(s) honestly thought we would jump at the chance to stay in the EU and be stupid not to.


  14. Jerry Owen says:

    Please remove that horror photo at the top of the article, I can’t bear it!
    A photo of Blair is pleasant in comparison (just)!


  15. Al Shubtill says:

    “We are a nation which has a government – not the other way around.” Ronald Reagan. First Inaugural Address.

    I think this decision will be reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court. If not, what then?

    There are many people in this country (myself included) who may not wish to continue to support via taxation, a Parliament and government in an ostensible democracy; which tries to circumvent or ignore what nearly eighteen million people voted for in a referendum that they won and which they had been told would be binding result in its result.


    • Scronker says:

      There are also many people in this country who resent having to pay a tax under penalty of imprisonment, for a leftwing, anti-British propaganda outfit so that their wives can watch “Strictly Come Dancing”, “X-Factor, and “Celebarses in the Jungle”.


  16. vesnadog says:

    Can’t see the Supreme Court reversing the decision – too many Labour/Liberals within that body of Judges who will hear the appeal!

    Bleak battles ahead my friends! We must all pull together! But the peoples vote will eventually win the day folks!


  17. Nibor says:

    They are a good argument for judges to be elected , not appointed .

    Impartial ? Like the BBC .


    • engineerdownunder says:

      Yes, and the House of Lords too. I use to be ok with the hereditary principal that provided sensible continuity with the past and with the land. Now it’s just full of Tony and Dave’s virtual-signaling, money-grabbing cronies. A real disgrace to a supposed democratic nation.

      Of course we will not hear the BBC investigating or complaining about this while Patience Wheatcroft is promising to block Brexit in the Lords.


  18. EnglandExpects says:

    Essentially, the 3 pro EU judges were able to exploit the fact that the 1972 Act that took us into the EU was unprecedented in allowing a supranational body then called the EEC to both confer rights, and obligations of course, on UK citizens without recourse to our Parliament. Hence Parliament itself broke the convention that Parliament is supreme by creating instances when it is not .
    Thus, on the argument that Parliament is supreme, yesterday’s judgment is therefore perverse , especially in the instance when UK citizens have voted to take the supranational powers away.
    While there are ancient legal precedents about the royal perogative not taking away rights granted by parliament , those who created such precedents never envisaged a situation in which parliamentary powers had already been given away and the nation was trying to get them back. How can using royal powers to increase parliamentary powers be a bad thing if you value parliamentary supremacy? The Government isn’t using the perogative to give more power to the monarch, for heavens sake!
    Going forward , we need to clarify when referenda can override subsequent parliamentary powers to nullify it if parliament has approved the referenda.
    The introduction of referenda diminishes parliamentary supremacy and we need to get this better defined constitutionally so that elites like Gina Miller and the judges can’t play this trick again .


    • Spacemonkey says:

      Excellent argument. Royal prerogative being used the restore parliamentary sovereignty instead of undermining it.


  19. honestus says:

    The referendum process was supported by an Act of Parliament and was explicit in its aims and intention. The Act was passed by a majority 6 to 1 by our Parliamentarians. There was no minimum turnout clause nor was there a percentage stipulation. It was clear and equivocal. The Government made this a central plank of it’s administration. It used phrases which again were unambiguous and repeated the same phrases on the literature it sent to each and every household in the land.
    ‘We will let you, the British people decide’.
    There are legal and constitutional obligations to adhere to this commitment. The link below has already been posted and offers excellent legalise to support the rights of the voting majority.
    What is absolutely abundantly clear is that the weak headed Europeanites, the quislings selling our democracy for baubles and position, never ever contamplated for one single second that the worm would turn and we would reject their masters and by proxy, them.
    Nick Clegg now has his second wind, courtesy of the quisling broadcaster to use his erudite silkiness to impress us once again and to build on his past successes (note his list of pre-conditions prior to his acquiescence to activating article 50 – which doubtless will never be met to his complete satisfaction). Why o why is the progressive EU cause underpinned by so many failures who seem to hold disproportionate positions of influence?!


    • embolden says:

      Thanks for the link honestus.
      It needs wide dissemination.

      yes, I accidentally recommended myself….D`oh.


    • TigerOC says:

      I have read the full judgment and the summary as well as the above document.
      They err in their interpretation of the Referendum Act 2015.
      They make a declaration that the briefing to Parliament and inference in the Act was that it was purely advisory.
      Hansard disagrees and there is no such ambiguity in the wording of the Act. Since laws are based on committed documents it is not possible for a judgment to be made on “inference”.


      • Philip_2 says:

        True but. Reading the Telegraph pages (Friday) on the 3 High Court Judges on the BREXIT referendum – one is quite clear that this is designed to be a contrived ‘impediment’ rather than a challenge to the government. The ploy is to ask Parliament for a vote on the Referendum (made up from Cameron’s leftovers, Labours Blairites and the Liberal pro EU ‘strutters’ that have not had to face the electorate yet). And then this legal challenge would have to be ‘judged’ by the ill-fitting house of Lords which is packed to the rafters with Labour peers and Cameron’s job staffers. Cameron did not expect to loose (that is evident) but then he never read the newspapers either, relying on his aides to read the relevant texts whilst listening – one can presume – to the BBC. His entire staff rewarded with knighthoods which later were refused (by Theresa May) is an indicator or Cameron’s dedication to self ‘popularity’ rather than commoners. Clearly he relied a bit too much on the BBC for ‘getting the EU message across’.

        One thing I did learn was that seventeen and half million people voted for BREXIT which is the highest turnout in the history of the United Kingdom for any referendum. To oppose such a massive public display is foolish and that is why only fools (such as these) have attempted it.

        So three judges, all connected it appears to Blairs ‘benevolent’ years in government and were all outspoken ‘remain’ activists (one even taking part in the ‘remain’ campaign) is hardly surprising stuff. What is surprising is that an African glamour model with an City investment husband persuaded her local plumber (Pimlico Plumbers) to support the legal challenge. It was the plumbers Bentley parked outside the Law Courts that made the headlines (for the BBC at least).

        The BBC may have a field day but it does not change the EU referendum. The question has always been who has SOVEREIGNTY over parliament when we are (still) in the EU. It is a chicken and egg question as we have not actually left the EU yet as parliament has not had the opportunity to debate any of the EU laws that we have had to ‘impose’ on the UK population without much debate by those same Cameron MP’s who also were also voting (along prescribed – as in EU approved- party lines) which were identical to EU rulings often held in secret. So we have to legally reinstate that our own government(s) can act on a democratically arrived national vote, rather than those remain (Mp’s) who were instrumental in trying to take the right to vote away and kick it into the long grass of never never land (EU).

        If there was another referendum they will lose again, if there is another general election they will lose again and there will be purge which the BBC would quite rightly have its funding cut in two , privatised and sold to Trump (or Sky) for £1.


  20. Cranmer says:

    As I understand it, Mrs May was acting in accordance with constitutional precedent by using the Royal Prerogative (the right of the Queen to enact certain legislation without a vote in Parliament) to leave the EU. Historically this has been used for treaties. M’learned friends have argued that because the treaties with the EU have an effect on domestic law, Her Majesty, or her Prime Minister acting on her behalf, may not leave the EU without the consent of Parliament.

    I sort of get it, constitutionally, but what sickens me is the way this is clearly a politically motivated attempt to delay and harass Brexit (which itself is the ultimate defence of our Constitution) under an oily, moralistic veneer of ‘preserving democracy’ and going through ‘due process’ etc. They only came up with this ‘fine legal quibble’ (as Trollope would call it) because they LOST. If they had felt strongly about it they would have mentioned it before the referendum, but they didn’t because they thought they would win!


    • G.W.F. says:

      I guess they have such a rigorous and unreserved respect for the constitutions of Guyana and Brazil where our two lovely ex models came from in order to protect the British people from 17 million Nazis who voted to leave


  21. shelly says:

    Just watched Iain Duncan Smith on Sky. RE: Judges disgraceful actions.

    Masterful performance, why isn’t he PM ?


  22. Number 88 says:

    I listened to the Gameshow phone in on this, this morning. First on was a ‘remainer’ who was proud to have contributed to the crowd funding of this action. She said that she contributed £20 to the cause.

    That she gave a multi-millionaire financier and activist £20, to spend on engaging multi- millionaire activist lawyers, says just how barmy some people are.

    I have no doubt that when the Supreme Court see the whole picture and the implications of the judgement, it will be reversed. I hope there’s plenty more from where that 20 quid came from.


  23. vesnadog says:

    I’m looking forward to that day when we see the final attempts to change the vote of the People of the United Kingdom ends!

    Boy, its going to be exciting! Because every voter will be able to see which door their own MP will go through to cast their vote: for Brexit or against….and then they know who to vote for next General Election.


  24. Nibor says:

    Cheer up folks , there will be Brexit because ;

    I bought the paper version of the BBC , the Guardian , and Polly Toynbee is on the front page with her opinion , in which she says

    “The courts ruling is a chance for MPs to put the national interest first and halt Brexit before it wreaks any more havoc ” and ” Theresa May cannot tear up our right to be EU citizens without the authority of parliament .”
    Then also ” There are times when MPs need to rise above their party interests , their own interests and the views of their constituents .” There is further drivel but you get the drift of her thinking .


    We will leave the EU .


    Polly is always wrong .


    • shelly says:

      I won’t be happy until Eddie Izzard has come out in favour of the un-democratics.


    • Oaknash says:

      Cant cheer up Nibor cos I made the mistake of listening to radio 4 again – duh!

      On Toady we had that sanctimonious and earnest little prick Clegg telling us that the the British people hadnt had the chance to vote about whether we wanted “hard” or “soft” brexit and the difference had not been explained. He really is a nauseating little w####r – I haven’t heard such errant and disingenuous rubbish since, since, since Cleggy last opened his mouth.

      I wonder whether he is on some sort of power trip because at home he has to wear a pinny and Miriam Gobshite makes him sit down when he has a wee wee – cos thats what real “new men” do . I have a theory that because of all this home submissive stuff in the public arena he tries to flex his muscles to make himself seem less pointless and weak than he really is – even if it means creating chaos and undermining democracy.

      And then later, on pm I had to suffer one of those smooth, sneering, smart arse elite, patrician types who had an answer for everything. It was all for the sake of democracy and law and parliamentary sovereignty etc etc – Bet he would not have an answer to a brick in the face!!!!!

      So you see not only am I cross about these things – I am also cross about feeling cross! So there you have it – Im cross.

      Time now for a scotch, a lie down and a bottle of codeine linctus!


  25. MiserableNow says:

    Smug narcissistic foreigner is having her moment , it won’t last though…


  26. Number 7 says:

    Having read through the above comments and heard/read the various arguments (including some of my furious rants above) and on the MSM today. The point comes down to what defines Royal Prerogative.

    As I understand it, this refers to the ability of the government to act on foreign policy without referring to Parliament. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    The High Court has decided that Article 50 (a treaty withdrawal from other countries -therefore foreign policy) is in fact a domestic treaty, as it affects the people of the UK, and as such, Royal Prerogative does not apply.

    I seem to remember that a referendum on the EU Constitution (a treaty with with other countries -therefore foreign policy, not domestic), voted down by various national referendums, was promised by a certain Anthony Lynton Blair. When the same document was renamed The Lisbon Treaty, a certain G. Brown (I prefer Clarkson’s description) decided to ignore the populace and use the Royal Prerogative and scuttle off into a back room to sign US up to it, our learned judges and the liberal elite had no problem – despite this being, by their own definition, a domestic policy.

    Was this the correct use of Royal Prerogative, in terms of our “learned friends” decision?

    As my old college tutor would say:-



  27. Oaknash says:

    No7 – I think we all knew that leaving the EU was never going to be this easy. We all knew it in our hearts but in our old fashioned English mindset of “playing fair” we expected the establishment to play by the same set of rules or at least pretend to go through the motions. After all if you leave a club it really is as simple as handing in your resignation in and saying bye as you walk out.

    It appears to me that in the last few decades something has changed in how this country is being governed.

    There has always been an insidious penetration of the media by the hard left – but by and large our major institutions have made a reasonable job of governing the country.

    This all seems to have changed in the “Blair years”. It appears to me that political placements increased, migration gerrymandering gained momentum, the EU increased its influence and institutions seemed to start censoring themselves so any discussion of anything to do with migration was shouted down with the much loved BBC/Abbot label of WAYYYYCISST!

    Unfortunately except for a few notable exceptions (such as Hitchens). With the country awash with borrowed money many of us took our eye of the ball – result being the mess we have today.

    I know very little about the complexities of the law. But in the past the “spirit of the law” always seemed more important than the “letter of the law”.

    The bottom line is this – Clever lawyers can argue any point. But in the past at least they tried to appear to put common sense first. Now, because of all these political appointments in the legal system and a large number of influential politicians who also have their engorged snouts stuffed in the Euro trough. This is no longer the case.

    This will become a war of attrition.

    Why should they give up the EU when for some very rich and influential people. It really is “money for nuffing”

    Unfortunately (and I truly hope I am wrong) we will not be allowed to leave the EU unless we play to our own rules and this may include making things a little rough for the establishment. There is no real way of knowing how deep the EU/biased rot goes down – but it does mean that many of the appointees in influential posts since Blair must be suspect.

    It is a war we cannot afford to lose and I have nothing but contempt for the smooth talking slime that have bought this about.


    • G.W.F. says:


      I completely agree with you. The country has changed and a deceitful layer of politicians are working for other interests. We need to remove them.

      On a lighter note perhaps we can look forward to reports of a massive drop in race hate crime since the High Court ruling, and reports of people dancing in the streets with Polish migrants not to mention the post ruling against Brexit street parties for the tiny tots arriving from the Calais Jungle Book.


      • Oaknash says:

        GWF – Maybe they should all be issued with a welcome to blighty gift pack when they step off the coach. This could include from Jewsons various lenghts of 2 x 4 lengths of timber for all those various migrants needs, and maybe Wilkinson sword could get together with Fisher Price and they could also be given a “My First Razor” for those awkward 5 oclock shadows.


  28. G.W.F. says:

    A snap election? What will the BBC decide?


  29. evad666 says:

    I see the odious Gina Miller was on Andre Marr this morning.
    Still no mention of her Political affiliations.


  30. First Roman says:

    When Marr first spoke to Gina Miller, he began, “now Gina…”; but when he spoke to Nigel Farage, it was, “Mr Farage…”. Was this difference down to respect for Farage, or contempt?

    Note how, later in the programme, Mrs Miller refused to answer Farage’s simple question on whether she personally wanted the UK to stay in the EU free trade zone. I’m disappointed that he didn’t press her harder on that one, but then Marr would no doubt have dived in to rescue a “fair” maiden in distress.