to share with you the croudfund link for the new legal action to stop brexit

[MarieBurnham]

www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexit-for-the-100/

I've only given a tenner, but there are plenty of rich people (unless it's all stealth boasting about dipique candles) here, so we should be able to help.

It's currently at 18.507k and needs 70!

allegretto Your scrapping the barrel there, the referendum franchise was the same as for every General Election we have.

JustAnotherSimpleOldNumber
Unlikely or not, its still tbc by the Supreme court. And every other Judge/lawyer that the re-moaners are going to crowd fund for the next 2 years.

It's always been rather likely that the ECJ would get involved. A referendum to withdraw from a treaty does not make you immune from the laws and the judicial bodies that govern the treaty. You have to withdraw in a manner that is consistent with the law, and in this case that's not easy - because there are no previous examples or legal judgements to follow.

Exiting legally is important, because if the UK wishes to negotiate binding trade agreements in future, then it cannot be seen to disregard its legal obligations with existing trade partners.

This will not be the last court case by any means. I suspect that the UK's future relationship with the WTO will end up in litigation for example.

Aah come on supper

I was just about to post about how well i thought the thread was going

And remoaners came up again

suppermummy02 "You say biased, I say bias. Your a sanctimonious twat, I am a normal person who speaks normally."

There is no justification for you to resort to nastiness and name-calling, especially in view of the fact that you are very obviously wrong in this instance regarding your incorrect use of "bias" when the correct word in that context is "biased". Whilst on the subject, it's "you're", not "your".

Suppermummy- and in fact the government had already agreed to change it as it was undemocratic! Having your rights taken away without having vote is not democratic so I don't buy into this "it's democracy get over it" spiel.

There is no justification for you to resort to nastiness and name-calling, especially in view of the fact that you are very obviously wrong in this instance regarding your incorrect use of "bias" when the correct word in that context is "biased". Whilst on the subject, it's "you're", not "your".

There are ways of saying 'you are wrong' though and your last sentance is quite PA

Can we please stop with the appalling "Remoaners" and whatever crappy term is being used for the Brexit supporters? It makes the arguments either for or against look rather silly. I scan posts and quite honestly nothing makes me not bother more than these silly expressions.

Argue your case for or against but let's not resort to silly name calling as it's pathetic.

Apologies piglet. I didn't wish to cause any offence to anyone.

Alfieisnoisy

Yes, because when it comes to name calling those that voted remain have been paragons of virtue. (LOL)

TBH it was never going to be a balanced debate, given the completely inaccurate thread title.

Although I do like We have elections all the time, the winner rules, the loser shuts the fuck up. Sounds about as democratic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

And For some reason this time the losers are trying to subvert the rule of law. That's not... it's actually ironic that... oh, never mind. Remoaners Launch Bogus Brexit-Blocker! Enemies Of People Try To Quash Democracy! Why can't we just let this incompetent, imbalanced, ruthlessly self-serving government get on with things?

boney

She did say "and whatever crappy name being used for Brexit voters'

Why can't we just let this incompetent, imbalanced, ruthlessly self-serving government get on with things?

I would crowd fund this.

Just - you are already through the tax/VAT that you are paying. Does anyone have a costing for the Dept for Exiting the EU for example?

Rufus

and if it was just a name like "remoaner" I would agree, but when the leavers were asking for a civil debate they got called allsorts of nasty spiteful names that had much worse connotations.

I think behaviour such as the OP's is quite shameful. She has clearly just come on here to garner support for a refunding that lines lawyers pockets and subverts democracy. As has been stated many times we all knew what we were voting for there was and still us a clear expectation that the results will be implemented. Putting money behind anything else is undemocratic and as I say shameful. There are a lot worse systems to live under than democracy.

Not sure how this could be seen as undemocratic when it's crowd funded.

And have a read of the link - it's about how the decision is implemented, not about stopping it.

She has clearly just come on here to garner support for a refunding that lines lawyers pockets and subverts democracy.

There are enough people who don't agree with you since they have already pledged more than £70,000 with more than a month left for the crowd funding scheme to run. By contrast, some petitions only raise a few hundred signatures and bite the dust pretty smartish.

At the moment we still regard protest as a legitimate part of democracy.

Yes but that's not what the original post says or what the OP believed she was giving her £10 to as I say shameful behaviour

The OP doesn't say why she has given her £10 in her opening post.

The thread title was misleading, but I can see absolutely nothing shameful about sharing the link and spreading the word.

It's not compulsory to donate, or even look at the link.