At last, a clear Brexit strategy.

[Dominic]

9DD75847-CC35-499A-881B-CC113EE887C0.jpeg

49% think it would be bad. That is not an overwhelming majority.

[Jimgward]

As opposed to 22% who think it would be good? Maybe arithmetic wasn’t up there Dominic....rofl

[Jimgward]

“The judges said they rejected her claim (GINA MILLER) because the suspension of Parliament was a “purely political” move and was therefore “not a matter for the courts”.

As i said, Boris didn’t win.

[Jimgym]

“The judges said they rejected her claim (GINA MILLER) because the suspension of Parliament was a “purely political” move and was therefore “not a matter for the courts”.

As i said, Boris didn’t win.

Oh dear, you really are clutching at straws here. This was the ruling from the High Court of England. “In a ruling this morning by three senior judges — Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Terence Etherton and Dame Victoria Sharp — Johnson was found to have not acted unlawfully. However, the High Court did grant permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on 17 September.”

So which part of that ruling means Johnson lost? You may have said he didn't win but quite clearly he did win there, and subsequently lost in the Supreme court.

[Jimgym]

As opposed to 22% who think it would be good? Maybe arithmetic wasn’t up there Dominic....rofl

And the 16% who think it an acceptable compromise and 13% who are unsure. So, as Dominic rightly said, not an overwhelming majority.

[Jimgward]

“The judges said they rejected her claim (GINA MILLER) because the suspension of Parliament was a “purely political” move and was therefore “not a matter for the courts”.

As i said, Boris didn’t win.

Oh dear, you really are clutching at straws here. This was the ruling from the High Court of England. “In a ruling this morning by three senior judges — Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Terence Etherton and Dame Victoria Sharp — Johnson was found to have not acted unlawfully. However, the High Court did grant permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on 17 September.”

So which part of that ruling means Johnson lost? You may have said he didn't win but quite clearly he did win there, and subsequently lost in the Supreme court.

He didn’t win and that has been stated even in parliament.

[Jimgym]

“The judges said they rejected her claim (GINA MILLER) because the suspension of Parliament was a “purely political” move and was therefore “not a matter for the courts”.

As i said, Boris didn’t win.

Oh dear, you really are clutching at straws here. This was the ruling from the High Court of England. “In a ruling this morning by three senior judges — Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Terence Etherton and Dame Victoria Sharp — Johnson was found to have not acted unlawfully. However, the High Court did grant permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on 17 September.”

So which part of that ruling means Johnson lost? You may have said he didn't win but quite clearly he did win there, and subsequently lost in the Supreme court.

He didn’t win and that has been stated even in parliament.

If that’s what you’d like to believe then far be it for me to let the facts get in the way.....

[Dominic]

Nothing about being content. Everything about demonstrating that it wasn't the overwhelming majority stated.

[Jimgym]

And the 16% who think it an acceptable compromise and 13% who are unsure. So, as Dominic rightly said, not an overwhelming majority.

And that makes you content to take a risk with the UK economy?

Once the damage has been done it can't be reversed. It will be painful and irrevocable.

I've absolutely no idea why you have jumped from a comment regarding a majority in a poll to whether I am content with the risks to Britain's economy. I was talking about the poll results only. Just to make that clear for you.

[Firefly]

Jimgym

I have a fair idea !!