I had a drink with him once.

Good bloke.

Cool story bro.


They do things differently in Switzerland. A Court has nullified a referendum outcome because the voters were misinformed. We could all do with such a law.


Yes, we definitely do know they do things differently in Switzerland!

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not where our club and players were metaphorically hung drawn and quartered with scant regard to legal precedent or legal niceties?



Theresa May: Gawwn!

It’s been a shambles for a long time. It’s now a mega shambles.

1 Like

And can only get worse, … especially if Johnson gets the job as almost seems inevitable.

Luckily they have the Monarchy over there to keep things stable.

1 Like


The only one who can get elected Tory party head is someone who promises hard Brexit, but the parliament has already ruled that out. Johnson is promising to get a better deal from the EU but the EU have already said that they’ve been negotiating with idiots for years now and are done with it, and the deal is going to have to stamd or fall as it is.

They’re going to change from an inadequate apparatchik in 10 Downing St to a demented wannabe authoritarian with a nonexistent grasp on reality, but nothing else.


Clearly they need London-born Abbott more than we do.

It’s time Tony. ■■■■ off home.


This is like a Brass Eye skit.

1 Like

that woman was a proper moron.


Referendums are far more common in Switzerland. In Australian terminology they are mostly plebiscites, in that they are votes on laws rather than constitutional.

It would be very expensive and unpopular to have plebiscites here 10 or more times a year !!! .

I was not suggesting that we should adopt the Swiss system, which has an entirely different constitutional structure as a confederation ( although its referendums are binding, as are ours - neither are plebiscites) . In Australia referendums are required to amend the Constitution. Denmark has a requirement for binding referendums on some legal matters, such as certain treaties.
… In the UK there is no constitutional requirement to hold a referendum such as the one on Brexit. The outcome was not binding on the government.
The suggestion was, that when the electorate votes, the outcome could be overturned if the electorate has been lied to.
A UK citizen is taking Boris Johnson to court for misconduct by misleading voters about the costs paid by the UK to the EU budget.

I once won my case before the Court of Disputed returns and was duly elected. My opponent said I misled the electorate. The judge said that the forms of words I used were acceptable, and it is recognised that candidates often “extrapolate” ( or some such) to put their point of view to the electorate.

A conviction would lead to a serious precedent in English law, that politicians would not be able to lie to the electorate. Not to mention that Boris might need to go back to journalism. LOL.

There are serious consequences on government ministers who mislead parliament. However, in the case of Boris, the defence is mostly apparently that the UK citizen is more or less a vexatious litigant whose real aim is to help stop Brexit and the action is politically inspired. Of course there is no doubt about that.

Even so, apparently the judge found there is cause, prima facie, for the case to go ahead.

I wonder if Brexit will be resolved before it ever gets to court?

I heard his defence will be that he wasn’t acting in a public office when he was campaigning for the leave campaign.

Also it is pretty misleading to use a Gross figure when a Net figure is more representative of funds that would be available to re-invest into the NHS. I wouldn’t call that extrapolation.

Ah, you are that Chris !!!

Have they left yet?

Wake me up when they go, go.