Britain tells the EU: we shall not sell out our fishermen

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

Jesus Christ, you don't get it do you?

 

Why have airline prices decreased so much in the past 25 years? One major factor is that opening national markets and creating an EU single aviation market spurred competition, providing more routes and more destinations to places in the EU and further afield.A good example is Dublin Airport, where the number of intra-EU routes went from 36 in 1992 to 127 in 2016.  New air transport agreements signed between the EU and its major aviation partners around the world have brought even more destinations and lower prices to the travelling public.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/25years-eu-aviation_en

 

The EU was a major factor contributing to the rise of budget airline travel with its open market.

 

Yes you may have worked in Germany before the EU but this does not change the fact that the EU made living and working in Europe for UK nationals massively more attractive and easier, and that the number increased due to open EU borders.

 

You may not consider using a UK based lawyer for your German business, but many German companies doing a merger would use a UK law firm, UK accountants etc. 

 

If somebody from the US wants to setup a fund and market it in Europe he may use a UK law firm.

Nice bit of cut and tuck there.

[Logosone]

44 minutes ago, nauseus said:

UK case laws are established after reference to similar historical cases and their outcomes. The Factorame challenge to UK constitutional law resulted in a judicial review but not a case which contributed to a new (case) law. The Spanish quota-hoppers won out because this all goes back to the great CFP, which protected them. The CFP had to be accepted by the UK after they joined the EEC (Treaty of Rome). The Supreme Court can't change any of that either because all EU Law has primacy. 

 

Rumpole would be so disappointed in you.

 

Hahahahaha, yes UK cases refer to other historic cases quite right.

 

If you think a judicial review case is not a case and does not contribute to new case law you're embarassingly wrong.

 

Factortame, apart from one of the most famous EU primacy law cases  "produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

 

Factortame not a case, not contributing to case law.....the fantastic ignorance.

 

Rumpole was a fictional legal character, much like your legal knowledge is clearly 100% fictional.

 

Lol.

[Moo 2]

The EU is going to copy cat Trump, 100% tariff on UK fish! Ouch! that hurts. Then finally the British

will have plenty of fish and chips for themselves. I am not sure where the potatoes come from.

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Hahahahaha, yes UK cases refer to other historic cases quite right.

 

If you think a judicial review case is not a case and does not contribute to new case law you're embarassingly wrong.

 

Factortame, apart from one of the most famous EU primacy law cases  "produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

 

Factortame not a case, not contributing to case law.....the fantastic ignorance.

 

Rumpole was a fictional legal character, much like your legal knowledge is clearly 100% fictional.

 

Lol.

The Factortame finding did not contribute to any new case law. It was decided by pre-existing EU Law.

 

The ignorance is all yours. Misquoting me will not help your case! 

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Factortame finding did not contribute to any new case law. It was decided by pre-existing EU Law.

 

 

 

The case produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

 

The Factortame case has produced large amounts of academic debate as to whether it can be reconciled with the idea of legislative supremacy as stated by Dicey. Sir William Wade argues that the Factortame judgment alters the Rule of Recognition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

 

I'm almost starting to feel pity for your blown mind.

[evadgib]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

The case produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

 

The Factortame case has produced large amounts of academic debate as to whether it can be reconciled with the idea of legislative supremacy as stated by Dicey. Sir William Wade argues that the Factortame judgment alters the Rule of Recognition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

 

I'm almost starting to feel pity for your blown mind.

As you're quoting wiki while Rhubarbing Rumpole I thought you might like a look at his creator lol

Edited March 9, 2020 by evadgib

[Logosone]

Oh, it doesn't have to be Wiki, the fact that Factortame was a landmark case in UK legal history can be gleaned from many sources, including here:

 

"Crossbench peer and barrister Lord Pannick says that Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says.

Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance."

 

Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer who has negotiated for the UK and defended the government in the European courts, says that while the decision came as a shock to the British legal system, it came as “even more of a shock to the political system”.

 

But here's the kicker:

 

 

“If we’re tempted to think we’ll soon be free of Factortame, we’re wrong,” he says. “Any withdrawal agreement is likely to prevail over our own law.

“I’m not sure we’ll ever hear the last of Factortame, which leaves as permanent a mark on our law and politics as any case ever decided by the court.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

Did you read that? "AS ANY CASE EVER DECIDED BY THE COURT".

[evadgib]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Oh, it doesn't have to be Wiki, the fact that Factortame was a landmark case in UK legal history can be gleaned from many sources, including here:

 

"Crossbench peer and barrister Lord Pannick says that Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says.

Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance."

 

Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer who has negotiated for the UK and defended the government in the European courts, says that while the decision came as a shock to the British legal system, it came as “even more of a shock to the political system”.

 

But here's the kicker:

 

 

“If we’re tempted to think we’ll soon be free of Factortame, we’re wrong,” he says. “Any withdrawal agreement is likely to prevail over our own law.

“I’m not sure we’ll ever hear the last of Factortame, which leaves as permanent a mark on our law and politics as any case ever decided by the court.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

Did you read that? "AS ANY CASE EVER DECIDED BY THE COURT".

The same Lord Pannick who represented Gina Miller in all things B-B-Brexit ????

 

I wonder who picked up the tab?

Edited March 9, 2020 by evadgib

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

The case produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

 

The Factortame case has produced large amounts of academic debate as to whether it can be reconciled with the idea of legislative supremacy as stated by Dicey. Sir William Wade argues that the Factortame judgment alters the Rule of Recognition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

 

I'm almost starting to feel pity for your blown mind.

There was only one relevant judgment and that favoured the quota-hoppers, under the protection of EU Treaty Law. The UK did not fulfill an obligation of an EU Treaty, although it has not been proven if that the introduction of the UK MSA (1988) was intentional.

 

The most important outcome was that this also demonstrated that full sovereignty of the UK parliament was indeed lost, as a result of our entry into the EEC and this gave much more momentum to the Eurosceptic movement in the UK. And now we are  leaving.

 

 

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Oh, it doesn't have to be Wiki, the fact that Factortame was a landmark case in UK legal history can be gleaned from many sources, including here:

 

"Crossbench peer and barrister Lord Pannick says that Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says.

Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance."

 

Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer who has negotiated for the UK and defended the government in the European courts, says that while the decision came as a shock to the British legal system, it came as “even more of a shock to the political system”.

 

But here's the kicker:

 

 

“If we’re tempted to think we’ll soon be free of Factortame, we’re wrong,” he says. “Any withdrawal agreement is likely to prevail over our own law.

“I’m not sure we’ll ever hear the last of Factortame, which leaves as permanent a mark on our law and politics as any case ever decided by the court.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

Did you read that? "AS ANY CASE EVER DECIDED BY THE COURT".

Bold is soooo scary.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

It's the excessive force being used by the Greeks including gun shots and tear gas that is considered a breach. 

As I've said before, I sympathise with the Greeks having to deal with the brunt of this issue. But I was pointing out the hypocrisy from Von Der Layen. 

Once again vagueness becomes overriding proof and makes an indisputable connection to the Law of the Sea.

Pointing the finger of hypocrisy at the EU and not at the UK is hypocritical in itself, but then having taken back control the UK can rewrite the dictionary in the brexit image.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

There was only one relevant judgment and that favoured the quota-hoppers, under the protection of EU Treaty Law. The UK did not fulfill an obligation of an EU Treaty, although it has not been proven if that the introduction of the UK MSA (1988) was intentional.

 

The facts of Factortame were not the issue. The issues was that first you denied there was any case law whatsoever on the primacy of EU law. I then posted these two cases, and you, to your credit, accepted they happened, but you claimed that Factortame did not spawn any case law because it was a judicial review case. I can't even begin to explain how wrong that is, suffice to say I'd be happy to post another case where the UK considered primacy of EU law. But I think the significance of Factortame is well established.

 

In particular it underlines that any withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK will have primacy over UK law. This delicious nugget must stick in the throat of any Brexiter.

 

The fact that high calibre barristers call Factortame the single most important case ever decided by courts in the UK, and that its influence will continue long after the UK leaves the EU, by ensuring that any withdrawal agreement takes precedence over UK law, should be a bitter soup to swallow for Brexiters as well.

 

 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

The facts of Factortame were not the issue. The issues was that first you denied there was any case law whatsoever on the primacy of EU law. I then posted these two cases, and you, to your credit, accepted they happened, but you claimed that Factortame did not spawn any case law because it was a judicial review case. I can't even begin to explain how wrong that is, suffice to say I'd be happy to post another case where the UK considered primacy of EU law. But I think the significance of Factortame is well established.

 

In particular it underlines that any withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK will have primacy over UK law. This delicious nugget must stick in the throat of any Brexiter.

 

The fact that high calibre barristers call Factortame the single most important case ever decided by courts in the UK, and that its influence will continue long after the UK leaves the EU, by ensuring that any withdrawal agreement takes precedence over UK law, should be a bitter soup to swallow for Brexiters as well.

 

 

I still deny it. I will concede if you can show me any case law that has resulted from this case example.  

 

The WA is done and quite different - there is no contest - but you are right, I don't like it. Then again any ECJ influence is time limited.

[evadgib]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

The facts of Factortame were not the issue. The issues was that first you denied there was any case law whatsoever on the primacy of EU law. I then posted these two cases, and you, to your credit, accepted they happened, but you claimed that Factortame did not spawn any case law because it was a judicial review case. I can't even begin to explain how wrong that is, suffice to say I'd be happy to post another case where the UK considered primacy of EU law. But I think the significance of Factortame is well established.

 

In particular it underlines that any withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK will have primacy over UK law. This delicious nugget must stick in the throat of any Brexiter.

 

The fact that high calibre barristers call Factortame the single most important case ever decided by courts in the UK, and that its influence will continue long after the UK leaves the EU, by ensuring that any withdrawal agreement takes precedence over UK law, should be a bitter soup to swallow for Brexiters as well.

 

 

Nothing that cannot be overturned by fair means of foul when the time comes, as per the precedent set by Blair's supreme court.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I still deny it. I will concede if you can show me any case law that has resulted from this case example.  

 

The WA is done and quite different - there is no contest - but you are right, I don't like it. Then again any ECJ influence is time limited.

 

I already did, but it's a reasonable proposal, so I am happy to oblige:

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0172-judgment.pdf

 

Section 79, "Constitutional Issues" on page 29 of this judgement.

 

Btw, I also thought the ECJ influence would disappear, but if you look at the most recent comments from Barnier on the outcome of the first meeting looks like he views the UK adherence to ECJ rulings as extremely important.

 

I was myself surprised by that. Maybe a negotiating tactic?

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Nothing that cannot be overturned by fair means of foul when the time comes, as per the precedent set by Blair's supreme court.

 

Well, Factortame is EXTREMELY well established in UK jurisprudence. Seems clear a withdrawal agreement should take precedence over UK law for years to come.

 

Though you could conceivably prevent the HoC from ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement. In that case maybe UK judges wouldn't be obliged to follow it.

 

Seems a bit unlikely if your own government negotiates that agreement. But it's Britain, anything is possible, that's why we love you so.

[cleopatra2]

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

The facts of Factortame were not the issue. The issues was that first you denied there was any case law whatsoever on the primacy of EU law. I then posted these two cases, and you, to your credit, accepted they happened, but you claimed that Factortame did not spawn any case law because it was a judicial review case. I can't even begin to explain how wrong that is, suffice to say I'd be happy to post another case where the UK considered primacy of EU law. But I think the significance of Factortame is well established.

 

In particular it underlines that any withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK will have primacy over UK law. This delicious nugget must stick in the throat of any Brexiter.

 

The fact that high calibre barristers call Factortame the single most important case ever decided by courts in the UK, and that its influence will continue long after the UK leaves the EU, by ensuring that any withdrawal agreement takes precedence over UK law, should be a bitter soup to swallow for Brexiters as well.

 

 

I am not convinced of your reasoning for the withdrawal agreement. 

The reason EU community law takes precedence over national law is that case law regards the 1972 act constitutionally. Thus common law cannot overide a constitutional act by implication. The repeal of any constitutional clause needs to be explicit . See HS2 case law.

The WA is a international agreement and that is where it lives.

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Well, Factortame is EXTREMELY well established in UK jurisprudence. Seems clear a withdrawal agreement should take precedence over UK law for years to come.

 

Though you could conceivably prevent the HoC from ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement. In that case maybe UK judges wouldn't be obliged to follow it.

 

Seems a bit unlikely if your own government negotiates that agreement. But it's Britain, anything is possible, that's why we love you so.

The act that gives Factorame force is being repealed.

 

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I am not convinced of your reasoning for the withdrawal agreement. 

The reason EU community law takes precedence over national law is that case law regards the 1972 act constitutionally. Thus common law cannot overide a constitutional act by implication. The repeal of any constitutional clause needs to be explicit . See HS2 case law.

The WA is a international agreement and that is where it lives.

 

It's not my reasoning, it's from Lord Pannick:

 

 “If we’re tempted to think we’ll soon be free of Factortame, we’re wrong,” he says. “Any withdrawal agreement is likely to prevail over our own law.

“I’m not sure we’ll ever hear the last of Factortame, which leaves as permanent a mark on our law and politics as any case ever decided by the court.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

You know, the leading QC and barrister who argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights?

[cleopatra2]

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

It's not my reasoning, it's from Lord Pannick:

 

 “If we’re tempted to think we’ll soon be free of Factortame, we’re wrong,” he says. “Any withdrawal agreement is likely to prevail over our own law.

“I’m not sure we’ll ever hear the last of Factortame, which leaves as permanent a mark on our law and politics as any case ever decided by the court.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

You know, the leading QC and barrister who argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights?

Is this not attributed to Carl Gardner.

 

[Logosone]

36 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The act that gives Factorame force is being repealed.

 

There is no Act of Parliament that gives Factortame force.

 

Factortame is a House of Lords decision, so case law. I know what you mean the House of Commons ratifying, with the  European Communities Act, the UK's entry into the treaties gives EU primacy. But I think the significance of Factortame does not end there.

 

My interpretation of Carl Gardner's comments is that he believes Factortame established that should the House of Commons pass an act which ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement, like the European Communities Act ratified the UK's accession to the Treaty of Rome, then to the extent any UK law is in conflict with the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, UK courts would, looking to Factortame, override such law.

 

Moreover, reading Barnier's comments, it would appear that the UK's relationship with the European Court of Justice is not yet fully established.

 

He said a UK demand to pull out of the European Court of Human Rights and rejection of a role for the EU's top court over individual rights would have an "immediate impact" on the depth of co-operation that would be possible.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51755843

 

If Barnier insists on the UK complying with the ECHR, is the UK really off the hook with the ECJ? 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Is this not attributed to Carl Gardner.

 

You're right, the comments were made by UK government lawyer Carl Gardner.

 

Well spotted.

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

There is no Act of Parliament that gives Factortame force.

 

Factortame is a House of Lords decision, so case law. I know what you mean the House of Commons ratifying, with the  European Communities Act, the UK's entry into the treaties gives EU primacy. But I think the significance of Factortame does not end there.

 

My interpretation of Lord Pannick's comments is that he believes Factortame established that should the House of Commons pass an act which ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement, like the European Communities Act ratified the UK's accession to the Treaty of Rome, then to the extent any UK law is in conflict with the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, UK courts would, looking to Factortame, override such law.

 

Moreover, reading Barnier's comments, it would appear that the UK's relationship with the European Court of Justice is not yet fully established.

 

He said a UK demand to pull out of the European Court of Human Rights and rejection of a role for the EU's top court over individual rights would have an "immediate impact" on the depth of co-operation that would be possible.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51755843

 

If Barnier insists on the UK complying with the ECHR, is the UK really off the hook with the ECJ? 

You do not understand the case law.

The reason the UK law in Factorame could be disapplied comes from the ECA 1972 act.

For clarity see case law on HS2 and Thoburn

Edited March 9, 2020 by cleopatra2

[nauseus]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

I already did, but it's a reasonable proposal, so I am happy to oblige:

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0172-judgment.pdf

 

Section 79, "Constitutional Issues" on page 29 of this judgement.

 

Btw, I also thought the ECJ influence would disappear, but if you look at the most recent comments from Barnier on the outcome of the first meeting looks like he views the UK adherence to ECJ rulings as extremely important.

 

I was myself surprised by that. Maybe a negotiating tactic?

This judgment concerns other case(s) (HS2 and Heathrow) and not Factorama. Non admissible. Case dismissed. ????‍⚖️

 

Barmier has always talked quite a bit but this is about a future trade agreement. The WA is already done. You seem muddled now.

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

You do not understand the case law.

The reason the UK law in Factorame could be disapplied comes from the ECA 1972 act.

For clarity see case law on HS2 and Thoburn

Thanks Cleopatra.

 

 

[Logosone]

36 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

You do not understand the case law.

The reason the UK law in Factorame could be disapplied comes from the ECA 1972 act.

For clarity see case law on HS2 and Thoburn

Looks like you didn't read what I wrote in post 682:

 

"I know what you mean the House of Commons ratifying, with the  European Communities Act, the UK's entry into the treaties gives EU primacy. But I think the significance of Factortame does not end there."

 

The point rather is that Factortame raised the point that UK laws could be set aside if they conflict with a treaty obligation that was ratified by parliament. Once that notion is established in case law by the House of Lords you can not just ignore it.

 

Hence, if a Withdrawal agreement is ratified by the HoC, Factortame would be considered, ie its finding that if a treaty is ratified by parliament, in certain circumstances UK laws that conflict can be set aside.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Logosone

[Kwasaki]

Dunno what everyone is going on about Trump does what he like no matter what agreements so Boris can do the the same and get UK fishermen back to work, to ell with the EU mafia.

[cleopatra2]

44 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Looks like you didn't read what I wrote in post 682:

 

"I know what you mean the House of Commons ratifying, with the  European Communities Act, the UK's entry into the treaties gives EU primacy. But I think the significance of Factortame does not end there."

 

The point rather is that Factortame raised the point that UK laws could be set aside if they conflict with a treaty obligation that was ratified by parliament. Once that notion is established in case law by the House of Lords you can not just ignore it.

 

Hence, if a Withdrawal agreement is ratified by the HoC, Factortame would be considered, ie its finding that if a treaty is ratified by parliament, in certain circumstances UK laws that conflict can be set aside.

No

The UK is a dualist state when it comes to law. International agreements do not automatically come into force on the domestic front. They remain in the international arena unless they are brought via act of parliament into the domestic sphere.

UK courts only have jurisdiction in the domestic sphere.

The 1972 ECA  brought EU community laws directly into UK domestic law and thus into UK courts jurisdiction..

It is for this reason UK courts could disapply UK law.

[Rookiescot]

38 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Looks like you didn't read what I wrote in post 682:

 

"I know what you mean the House of Commons ratifying, with the  European Communities Act, the UK's entry into the treaties gives EU primacy. But I think the significance of Factortame does not end there."

 

The point rather is that Factortame raised the point that UK laws could be set aside if they conflict with a treaty obligation that was ratified by parliament. Once that notion is established in case law by the House of Lords you can not just ignore it.

 

Hence, if a Withdrawal agreement is ratified by the HoC, Factortame would be considered, ie its finding that if a treaty is ratified by parliament, in certain circumstances UK laws that conflict can be set aside.

You are wasting your time mate. Facts and Brexiteers is like oil and water. They just dont mix.

If these guys had been receptive to facts then Brexit would never have happened. You see Brexit is a belief. Its a religion. It is a cult. It is in no way related to the real world and how things actually work.

All through this thread those Brexiteers have had facts presented to them time after time and yet they simply dismiss them because they do not suit their agenda.

What I find odd is if I had been lied to in order to vote a certain way and later found out what I was promised was never going to happen I would be livid with the people who lied to me. Not the people who didnt believe the lies in the first place but thats what Brexiteers do.

 

Brexit is a done deal. They won. All you can really do now is remind them that they won and what it is they actually won.

 

But they knew what they were voting for so its OK. 

[Logosone]

56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

This judgment concerns other case(s) (HS2 and Heathrow) and not Factorama. Non admissible. Case dismissed. ????‍⚖️

 

 

Errrr,  of course a judgement in another case "concerns" another case and not Factortame.

 

And yet in the judgement below Factortame was referred to. (section 79, page 29 "Constitutional Issues")

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0172-judgment.pdf