Highcourt Ruling on Brexit

[jaxie]

AGain this is all irrelevant because the UK has parliamentary sovereignity. A referendum is an opinion poll of how the public believes parliament should proceed but it holds absolutely zero legal weight. Is it morally correct for parliament to go against such a vote after agreeing to hold one? No, it probably isn't, certainly not with a clear result. The low margin does muddy the waters a bit, but that's another discussion. The point is; even if 100% of the public voted for something in a referendum, and we already knew that 100% of parliament would vote it through, it would still have to proceed that way because we have parliamentary sovreignity.

I really don't get why people are struggling with this concept so much. I mean... if you want to start another thread discussing the merits and drawbacks of parliamentary sovreignity and suggest that we should abandon it and find another system, fine, that would be a perfectly valid debate. But it's irrelevant in this one because we DO currently have it, and parliament MUST vote for the triggering of article 50 to be legal. Maybe that stings / is crappy / doesn't seem fair / seems needless / whatever but... ... ... :shrug: you could say that about countless laws.

It's great news for united kingdom if a referendum is just an opinion poll, Scotland need never have another then?

I'm not struggling at all TS, just explaining how I believed it would play out to those who keep putting words into my mouth. That may be irrelevant to you but I can't help that. Parliament may have to have a vote on article 50 if the supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court. Until such time the outcome is still not certain. I don't know what the government's appeal will say or how the Supreme Court will decide and neither do you. To say that this will happen is premature. Either way Brexit will happen. Though I suspect if the high court judgement is upheld there may be more attempts to legally slow or halt the process. My guess is this was a test case for those who brought it. As I said before time will tell.

However since I keep being told people don't understand me, I don't make sense and my posts are irrelevant I might as well take my opinion off as I'm starting to feel like I'm talking in tongues.

[arista]

7th Dec
The Appeal.

Lovely
then we can get back on Track

[user104658]

It's great news for united kingdom if a referendum is just an opinion poll, Scotland need never have another then?

I'm not struggling at all TS, just explaining how I believed it would play out to those who keep putting words into my mouth. That may be irrelevant to you but I can't help that. Parliament may have to have a vote on article 50 if the supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court. Until such time the outcome is still not certain. I don't know what the government's appeal will say or how the Supreme Court will decide and neither do you. To say that this will happen is premature. Either way Brexit will happen. Though I suspect if the high court judgement is upheld there may be more attempts to legally slow or halt the process. My guess is this was a test case for those who brought it. As I said before time will tell.

However since I keep being told people don't understand me, I don't make sense and my posts are irrelevant I might as well take my opinion off as I'm starting to feel like I'm talking in tongues.

I don't know how they will decide, but I do know how they should decide. If they choose to bypass the law for the sake of convenience then something very ****ing dodgy is going on.

And like I said, it doesn't mean that referenda are pointless. Parliament SHOULD listen to them and uphold the will of the people as far as is possible / realistic. However that still doesn't mean that there doesn't have to be a second parliamentary vote to enact major change.

There does.

Because we have parliamentary sovreignty.

That is the definition of parliamentary sovreignty.

That is why the high court judges looked at the law and said "Yup this is obviously what needs to happen". All of the Brexit papers making out like they're trying to "stop Brexit". It's ridiculous. They are applying the simple, unbiased, letter of the law, without any ulterior motive and one would HOPE that the supreme court would do exactly the same.

[Northern Monkey]

Common sense
0Q_2Ml4af74

[Brillopad]

Common sense
0Q_2Ml4af74

Finally someone that has done his homework and knows what he is talking about

He is more than a match for that arrogant woman who seeks to put her opinion over and above the majority.

[jaxie]

"Feared by the bad, loved by the good, Robin Hood, Robin Hood.." :laugh:

[Maru]

Common sense
0Q_2Ml4af74

I have to ask this as a bystander (this would be too frustrating for me as a citizen)... I think they should pack it in, go with the official law and just follow through with the formality if they have to... appealing it lengthens the process. Wouldn't that go against the interests of those wishing to leave?...

Why do people not want a vote on this?

It sounded like to me it too would since most seem to agree they will abide by the public's decision to leave, so what is the harm in casting a public vote for leaving?

[jaxie]

I have to ask this as a bystander (this would be too frustrating for me as a citizen)... I think they should pack it in, go with the official law and just follow through with the formality if they have to... appealing it lengthens the process. Wouldn't that go against the interests of those wishing to leave?...

Why do people not want a vote on this?

It sounded like to me it too would since most seem to agree they will abide by the public's decision to leave, so what is the harm in casting a public vote for leaving?

I think for the most part because it's not necessary. There are many times, as quoted in the clip, where treaties have been passed without having to go through parliament. It doesn't seem to make sense that to leave treaties that haven't been voted in parliament, we have to vote in parliament.

I think probably a lot of people are worried about political blackmail and being forced into an EU lite to get the vote through at all. The leader of the opposition has already made threats. And in fact made himself look a total loser in doing so. If he is going to make demands, I say we need a referendum on his demands and whether the people actually want them. :shrug: He isn't speaking for me.

If we're going to micro manage this thing we can really micro manage it and go back to whether the referendum to stay in the common market a year after entering in the 70s was actually valid.

[Maru]

I think for the most part because it's not necessary. There are many times, as quoted in the clip, where treaties have been passed without having to go through parliament. It doesn't seem to make sense that to leave treaties that haven't been voted in parliament, we have to vote in parliament.

I think probably a lot of people are worried about political blackmail and being forced into an EU lite to get the vote through at all. The leader of the opposition has already made threats.

Sounds like AHCA Brexit-style.

And in fact made himself look a total loser in doing so.

I hate when they do that.

If he is going to make demands, I say we need a referendum on his demands and whether the people actually want them. :shrug: He isn't speaking for me.

Do the people write your parliament like we write Congress here? Will you show up with pitchforks? At least you live in a country small enough that that is practical to do. I lived 30 minutes from DC when I was in the northeast...that was a big perk. I could drive over to Obama's house and shake his fence. Now I think they'll probably tazer you if you try... they've gotten more knee-jerky since that one guy jumped the fence and scaled the lawn into the WH.

If we're going to micro manage this thing we can really micro manage it and go back to whether the referendum to stay in the common market a year after entering in the 70s was actually valid.

I'm not old enough to have this kind of perspective, but is it me or does it take longer for govts now to decide to do things? I'd read an article with rule changes they made to cracking deals behind closed doors in Congress... that helped to gum up the works. However, I feel like when you have social media, internet, etc... it's harder to even get things done transparently. Everything is scrutinized and your enemies will be there with gasoline and a match anytime you attempt to do something they don't agree with you on... makes it hard to make a move on these things.


I really hope Brexit doesn't turn into AHCA. If the UK can get it together and actually do this thing and make it work the way it is intended, our countries and others will look to yours as a leader and a starting model towards modernizing govt.

[Kizzy]

Finally someone that has done his homework and knows what he is talking about

He is more than a match for that arrogant woman who seeks to put her opinion over and above the majority.

Well waddya know some ukipper knows more than the most senior judge in the land..

Did the majority specifically state they did not want parliament to aid the negotiations? ..I missed that.

[Brillopad]

Well waddya know some ukipper knows more than the most senior judge in the land..

Did the majority specifically state they did not want parliament to aid the negotiations? ..I missed that.

Aiding and abetting more like!

[Kizzy]

Called it...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-workers-rights-take-over-firms-a7403051.html

[Northern Monkey]

Called it...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-workers-rights-take-over-firms-a7403051.html

:joker:
Called what?
All it says is that they're not saying anything about Brexit plans yet.You have to actually read beyond the first paragraph and misleading title.

'A Government spokesperson said: “This Government’s commitment to building a country that works for everyone means we will maintain and enhance workers’ rights as we leave the EU.

“The process is straightforward: at the point of exit we will transfer the body of EU law into domestic legislation including all the protection provided for workers. The prime minister and secretary of state for leaving the EU have been absolutely clear about that."

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Wee Burney is getting involved

[kirklancaster]

:joker:
Called what?
All it says is that they're not saying anything about Brexit plans yet.You have to actually read beyond the first paragraph and misleading title.

'A Government spokesperson said: “This Government’s commitment to building a country that works for everyone means we will maintain and enhance workers’ rights as we leave the EU.

“The process is straightforward: at the point of exit we will transfer the body of EU law into domestic legislation including all the protection provided for workers. The prime minister and secretary of state for leaving the EU have been absolutely clear about that."

That's how I read it too.

[Jack_]

You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! The mind boggles, it really does.

This isn't about overturning Brexit at all - in fact many MPs would vote against it at their peril (there'd probably be riots or some **** let's be honest), and if worse came to worse the government would be whipped into enacting it anyway. What this is about is ensuring that both parliament votes on legislation in much the same way they would most other things (this is pretty important, after all!) and that the terms of us leaving - which were not voted on on June 23 - can be debated freely and openly, as they should be, by all sides of the political spectrum.

It is however worth pointing out that this referendum was only advisory and does not - technically speaking anyway - have to be listened to. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was binding, so perhaps Farage and co should've concentrated on this a little more instead of producing irrelevant 'Breaking Point' posters with pictures of refugees from non-EU countries :shrug: just a thought

[jaxie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Wee Burney is getting involved

I bet the Scottish fishermen will love her.

She's not doing you Any favours LT.

[jaxie]

You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! The mind boggles, it really does.

This isn't about overturning Brexit at all - in fact many MPs would vote against it at their peril (there'd probably be riots or some **** let's be honest), and if worse came to worse the government would be whipped into enacting it anyway. What this is about is ensuring that both parliament votes on legislation in much the same way they would most other things (this is pretty important, after all!) and that the terms of us leaving - which were not voted on on June 23 - can be debated freely and openly, as they should be, by all sides of the political spectrum.

It is however worth pointing out that this referendum was only advisory and does not - technically speaking anyway - have to be listened to. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was binding, so perhaps Farage and co should've concentrated on this a little more instead of producing irrelevant 'Breaking Point' posters with pictures of refugees from non-EU countries :shrug: just a thought

You do have to laugh at remoaners who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue. :shrug:

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if remoaners are now the champions of democracy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! The mind boggles, it really does.

This isn't about overturning Brexit at all - in fact many MPs would vote against it at their peril (there'd probably be riots or some **** let's be honest), and if worse came to worse the government would be whipped into enacting it anyway. What this is about is ensuring that both parliament votes on legislation in much the same way they would most other things (this is pretty important, after all!) and that the terms of us leaving - which were not voted on on June 23 - can be debated freely and openly, as they should be, by all sides of the political spectrum.

It is however worth pointing out that this referendum was only advisory and does not - technically speaking anyway - have to be listened to. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 was binding, so perhaps Farage and co should've concentrated on this a little more instead of producing irrelevant 'Breaking Point' posters with pictures of refugees from non-EU countries :shrug: just a thought

"You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! "

who specifically are you referring to?

[Crimson Dynamo]

You do have to laugh at reminders who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue. :shrug:

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if reminders are now the champions of democracy.

:clap1:

[jaxie]

:clap1:

Could have waited until I fixed the typos! :laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

The thing is.There's not actually anything to vote on in parliament apart from to trigger article fifty.It doesn't matter what the remainers in parliament ask for because when it comes to the negotiations they may not and probably won't get what they want.It does'nt actually make any difference what is said in parliament.It is just childish tactics from some bitter remainers to try and cause trouble instead of letting the process run smoothly.The more they delay things and want the government to give away their negotiating position then the more chance we will get a hard Brexit(the thing remainers say they don't want).It's just counter productive.

[Northern Monkey]

You do have to laugh at remoaners who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue. :shrug:

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if remoaners are now the champions of democracy.

Post of the thread:worship:

[jaxie]

The thing is.There's not actually anything to vote on in parliament apart from to trigger article fifty.It doesn't matter what the remainers in parliament ask for because when it comes to the negotiations they may not and probably won't get what they want.It does'nt actually make any difference what is said in parliament.It is just childish tactics from some bitter remainers to try and cause trouble instead of letting the process run smoothly.The more they delay things and want the government to give away their negotiating position then the more chance we will get a hard Brexit(the thing remainers say they don't want).It's just counter productive.

This is exactly it. There is nothing right now to debate and when the negotiators go to the EU and ask for things it could all be non non non! It's all just posturing and tactics by those who want their way to take legal action over anything they can. There is now another case being considered over claims made during the campaign. They are trying to eat up years with legal actions and keep us in the EU.

[Northern Monkey]

This is exactly it. There is nothing right now to debate and when the negotiators go to the EU and ask for things it could all be non non non! It's all just posturing and tactics by those who want their way to take legal action over anything they can. There is now another case being considered over claims made during the campaign. They are trying to eat up years with legal actions and keep us in the EU.

Well there's plenty from both sides of the campaign that could be scrutinised if they were going to go that route.

[Jack_]

You do have to laugh at remoaners who have been giving our democracy away for 40 years and are begging to continue. :shrug:

We all know the legal cases have nothing really to do with parliamentary sovereignty and a lot to do with trying to slow or halt Brexit. Lets not dress it up as if remoaners are now the champions of democracy.

Not really an example of hypocrisy like mine was regardless of whether that's true (it isn't) or not though is it? So a failed point I'm afraid. And again, trying to paint 'remoaners' (dear God I'm cringing) as anti-democracy when many leavers have lambasted protesters for exercising their democratic right to do so over the summer is really just hilarious. I can't be the only one who is revelling in all this delicious irony? Surely someone else sees this?

As you yourself said, Brexit is going to happen. It will happen. So what's the problem? I know some people would love us just to rush through the process cause 'we want our democracy back (but not on this issue) grr!!!' and 'scrap those workers rights!!!!!! ****** that red tape!!!' etc etc etc but the reality of the situation is that this is a pretty big issue in the history of British politics and one that quite rightly needs to be debated and dealt with over a suitable period of time. Again, the referendum wasn't fought or voted on how we leave the EU, or when we leave the EU - just that we do, and that's what will happen - so what's the issue?

"You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! "

who specifically are you referring to?

Some of the leavers who are doing what I just described? Be it Farage, people on social media, or on here (if the shoe fits and all that). The clue was in the sentence :shrug:

[Tom4784]

'remoaners'

https://31.media.tumblr.com/5dc6b9dde3a3d4be4eee96048d2d44f5/tumblr_inline_ncxr27kGJl1qahvxv.gif

[jaxie]

Not really an example of hypocrisy like mine was regardless of whether that's true (it isn't) or not though is it? So a failed point I'm afraid. And again, trying to paint 'remoaners' (dear God I'm cringing) as anti-democracy when many leavers have lambasted protesters for exercising their democratic right to do so over the summer is really just hilarious. I can't be the only one who is revelling in all this delicious irony? Surely someone else sees this?

As you yourself said, Brexit is going to happen. It will happen. So what's the problem? I know some people would love us just to rush through the process cause 'we want our democracy back (but not on this issue) grr!!!' and 'scrap those workers rights!!!!!! ****** that red tape!!!' etc etc etc but the reality of the situation is that this is a pretty big issue in the history of British politics and one that quite rightly needs to be debated and dealt with over a suitable period of time. Again, the referendum wasn't fought or voted on how we leave the EU, or when we leave the EU - just that we do, and that's what will happen - so what's the issue?



Some of the leavers who are doing what I just described? Be it Farage, people on social media, or on here (if the shoe fits and all that). The clue was in the sentence :shrug:

Keep telling yourself that!

[Jack_]

I shall, because we haven't - and once again, if anything it's been leave voters who haven't been much of a proponent of democracy this summer

Anyway Brexit will happen and I'm sure you'll be delighted when we've got our parliamentary sovereignty back and the Tories have decided to repeal vast amounts of workers rights legislation enshrined in EU law because the economy is flatlining and we need people to be more 'productive' or some **** and yes that seems fair enough :think: but hey we got our democracy back and the immigrants are banned so yay good going guys

[Kizzy]

"You do have to laugh at some leavers who demanded they wanted 'our parliamentary sovereignty back' during the referendum campaign now vehemently opposing it being utilised to begin the process of us leaving the very thing they hate so much! "

who specifically are you referring to?

yeah like our govt is 'democratic', the decisions they have made are unconstitutional...proven to be, in a court of law.
That's about as undemocratic as it gets.

[jaxie]

yeah like our govt is 'democratic', the decisions they have made are unconstitutional...proven to be, in a court of law.
That's about as undemocratic as it gets.

So what will they be proven to be if the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the high Court? Or in that Incidence will the law be an ass?

[Kizzy]

I don't doubt it will be, it seems nothing is allowed to stand in the way of our steamroller govt.

[jaxie]

I don't doubt it will be, it seems nothing is allowed to stand in the way of our steamroller govt.

So it's selective adherence to the law you advocate then?

[Kizzy]

So it's selective adherence to the law you advocate then?

Is that not exactly what we are seeing from brexiteers?

Wasn't the insistence that we make our own laws, EU laws had no place in Britain?
yet lo.. When our govt fall foul of our laws it's 'oh those laws are no good, they're old smelly laws...silly constitutional laws to protect the sovereignty of parliament.
We should totally have shiny new laws which says when May says jump the judges, lords and the electorate say 'how high ma'am?'.......pffft!

[jaxie]

Is that not exactly what we are seeing from brexiteers?

Wasn't the insistence that we make our own laws, EU laws had no place in Britain?
yet lo.. When our govt fall foul of our laws it's 'oh those laws are no good, they're old smelly laws...silly constitutional laws to protect the sovereignty of parliament.
We should totally have shiny new laws which says when May says jump the judges, lords and the electorate say 'how high ma'am?'.......pffft!

No it's not what we are seeing from Brexiters, I would imagine most are waiting to see what the Supreme Court will say, thereby respecting the law. I've not seen anyone say we can ignore the law.

What a lot of tosh in regards May, the high court didn't say how high to her. :shrug: Under the law though she has the right to appeal. So far as a PM she hasn't done anything terrible, she's a little cautious but that's not a bad thing in a PM.

Silly, pointless unnecessary court case brought by idiotic arrogant people though, yes.

[Kizzy]

No it's not what we are seeing from Brexiters, I would imagine most are waiting to see what the Supreme Court will say, thereby respecting the law. I've not seen anyone say we can ignore the law.

What a lot of tosh in regards May, the high court didn't say how high to her. :shrug: Under the law though she has the right to appeal. So far as a PM she hasn't done anything terrible, she's a little cautious but that's not a bad thing in a PM.

Silly, pointless unnecessary court case brought by idiotic arrogant people though, yes.

You just proved my point! You don't think the govt should act within the parimetres of the law if you think this was pointless.
She has been proven to be acting unconstitutionally, she is the one acting arrogantly flagrantly disregarding the law.

[Livia]

It's amazing how much people's faith in the law increases when it fits in with their agenda.

[Brillopad]

It's amazing how much people's faith in the law increases when it fits in with their agenda.

Very true.

[Northern Monkey]

It's amazing how much people's faith in the law increases when it fits in with their agenda.
.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It's amazing how much people's faith in the law increases when it fits in with their agenda.

:joker:

[Tom4784]

It's amazing how much people's faith in the law increases when it fits in with their agenda.

It's also amazing how many people are willing to flout those laws to get what they want despite it being in direct conflict with why they wanted to leave in the first place.

Protest the law, call for changes but flouting it or making out that other people are hypocritical for following is just plain hypocritical in itself.

[arista]

"hey we got our democracy back and the immigrants are banned "

Not Legit Workers, Jack
- they will have contract work

But illegals and immigrant Criminals or Dossers
banned


Democracy Is Cool

[jaxie]

You just proved my point! You don't think the govt should act within the parimetres of the law if you think this was pointless.
She has been proven to be acting unconstitutionally, she is the one acting arrogantly flagrantly disregarding the law.

You are adding two and two and making 10. I didn't prove your point at all. What I think about the court case is an opinion and is not the point. However I've never once, and nor has the government said anything about not abiding by the law. Come to that neither have the government, they are following the process of the law through appeal. Too desperate to be right. :nono: You can't just make up what other people are saying to suit your perception or agenda.

[jaxie]

It's also amazing how many people are willing to flout those laws to get what they want despite it being in direct conflict with why they wanted to leave in the first place.

Protest the law, call for changes but flouting it or making out that other people are hypocritical for following is just plain hypocritical in itself.

Who is flouting the law exactly. :shrug:

[Kizzy]

It's amazing how much people's faith in the law increases when it fits in with their agenda.

I hope you're not suggesting I don't have faith in the law, personally I have NEVER given any indication I don't.

[Kizzy]

You are adding two and two and making 10. I didn't prove your point at all. What I think about the court case is an opinion and is not the point. However I've never once, and nor has the government said anything about not abiding by the law. Come to that neither have the government, they are following the process of the law through appeal. Too desperate to be right. :nono: You can't just make up what other people are saying to suit your perception or agenda.

The government is desperate to be right, unfortunately they have been found to be wrong.
The appeal will be interesting.

[jaxie]

The government is desperate to be right, unfortunately they have been found to be wrong.
The appeal will be interesting.

What you are advocating the law while intimating the government has not right of appeal or is somehow wrong to appeal. That's not how it works. :shrug:

[Kizzy]

What you are advocating the law while intimating the government has not right of appeal or is somehow wrong to appeal. That's not how it works. :shrug:

They have, although who is going to hear the case?
Also this is not a 'case' as such in relation to rape or murder, it's a point of constitutional law which in effect should really be more a black and white issue... Either she can or she can't, it's been found she can't, how is appealing going to prove she can? :shrug:

[jaxie]

They have, although who is going to hear the case?
Also this is not a 'case' as such in relation to rape or murder, it's a point of constitutional law which in effect should really be more a black and white issue... Either she can or she can't, it's been found she can't, how is appealing going to prove she can? :shrug:

What do you mean who is going to hear it. The Supreme Court judges will. :shrug:

There is a lovely picture of them if you Google.

The reason we have the ability to appeal is that a court will sometimes get it wrong. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

[Cherie]

Supreme Court rules MP's have to vote before triggering Article 50

[Perpetual]

It will not be overturned. The people have spoken in a fair and democratic election. Politicians have to reflect that.

I think so too, and then finally, we can start the ball rolling, once and for all.

[Cherie]

I think so too, and then finally, we can start the ball rolling, once and for all.

It won't be overturned but this is going to delay triggering Article 50 further, also there may be amendments, May might also have to reconsider leaving the single market.

[user104658]

Supreme Court rules MP's have to vote before triggering Article 50

Traitors! Treason! ISIS sympathisers! Terrorism! :bawling: :bawling: Get their faces on the front of the Daily Mail ASAP. We need a new "most wanted" style deck of cards and these supposed "Supreme Court" scum need to be the aces in that pack as they are obvious enemies of the British people and I bet they don't even have real Law qualifications, probably bought dodgy degrees from a website in Pakistan.

etc. etc. etc.

[Perpetual]

It won't be overturned but this is going to delay triggering Article 50 further, also there may be amendments, May might also have to reconsider leaving the single market.

Oh, not so good then! The judges passing the buck, again. In my opinion, leaving the single market is the best way we can really make brexit work.

[Kizzy]

Great news, I think the govt thought they were the ones that made all the decisions, well done to the supreme court for proving that we don't actually live in an autocracy... yet.

[Perpetual]

Great news, I think the govt thought they were the ones that made all the decisions, well done to the supreme court for proving that we don't actually live in an autocracy... yet.

I beg to differ. The people democratically voted out, so in my opinion the government of the UK should be able to carry this out without all this interference, though at least they did dismiss Sturgeon's demands.

[Kizzy]

I beg to differ. The people democratically voted out, so in my opinion the government of the UK should be able to carry this out without all this interference, though at least they did dismiss Sturgeon's demands.

The in or out bit is finished.... that was the referendum, this is something else.

[Crimson Dynamo]

that dreadful smug woman has done more damage with her futile delay than ever would the actual vote

what a horrible waste of time, embarrassing from the establishment, truly embarrassing

[jaxie]

I wonder if this will have ramifications for any future use of the Royal Prerogative.

This is annoying, pointless bump in the road but at least we are moving down that road.

[Crimson Dynamo]

axMOD9P2qwQ

:clap1: @ Nigel and Piers

[Black Dagger]

Nigel and Piers on the same programme. Thank **** I'm at wrap.

[jennyjuniper]

So in other words, the people STILL don't really have their say do they.

[user104658]

So in other words, the people STILL don't really have their say do they.

Yes they do. People vote MPs into Parliament to represent their wishes. Which is exactly what is happening here. It is a much more rational form of democracy than having just over 50% of the population vote for something and then giving the government - who far LESS than 50% of people voted for - full control over how that process then proceeds.

People voted to leave the EU. Britain will leave the EU. The vote had absolutely nothing to do with the actual process, single market membership, etc. and so it is ONLY right for Parliament - elected by ALL voters - to have a say in those matters... not the Tory government acting on their own whim with only 37% of the population's support :idc:

[Northern Monkey]

Tbh i think this was expected and the government will have planned for this result.Parliament are not going to vote against the people(well apart from Clegg and that other idiot Lib Dem leader).It won't really matter what 'amendments' the remainers try to implement.They will still have to vote on triggering Article 50 and they won't vote against it.

[longstar]

the only people who benefit from the EU, are the rich and privileged, and its time we had an early election, so as too remove those mp's who are trying to block a fair and democratic referendum that the people voted for, its time we taught these rich elites a harsh lesson, about blocking a persons vote.

[MB.]

Hi there, I'm someone who benefits from the EU who isn't rich or privileged, nice to meet you

[Jack_]

Looks like all of us who argued that parliament have every right to vote on the repealing and that it would be a striking example of the democracy that certain leavers love so much - have now been proven right

Glad we cleared that up :clap1:

[Alf]

Hi there, I'm someone who benefits from the EU who isn't rich or privileged, nice to meet you
-EJ6PeVnzCk

[user104658]

Tbh i think this was expected and the government will have planned for this result.Parliament are not going to vote against the people(well apart from Clegg and that other idiot Lib Dem leader).It won't really matter what 'amendments' the remainers try to implement.They will still have to vote on triggering Article 50 and they won't vote against it.

One would hope that each MP would vote according to the opinion and best interests of their constituency, nothing more nothing less... as they are elected to do just that.

[longstar]

blocking brexit would backfire very badly on pro EU parties, if a snap election had happened this year, all those parties would be dismantled too nothing more than a 4th or 5th rate parties, and many mp's would lose there election standings and council seats, and that's what these guys will not want to lose, the high court blocking will mean nothing when they vote in parliament.

[Brillopad]

One would hope that each MP would vote according to the opinion and best interests of their constituency, nothing more nothing less... as they are elected to do just that.

Like most of them care that much about their constituencies. Their own personal opinions, careers and bank balances will be their guiding light.

[user104658]

Like most of them care that much about their constituencies. Their own personal opinions, careers and bank balances will be their guiding light.
Probably, but that's no better or worse than what others are suggesting (that they should go against the will of their constituency in favour of the popular binary vote country wide). MPs are voted in to represent the will of the people who have voted for them. The opinions and wishes of others are (or should be) irrelevant to the decisions they make?

[Livia]

One would hope that each MP would vote according to the opinion and best interests of their constituency, nothing more nothing less... as they are elected to do just that.

Then why go to the trouble of having a referendum?

[user104658]

Then why go to the trouble of having a referendum?
With a binary vote? Good question really. At very least we need to decide which system we actually want to go with :shrug:.

[Northern Monkey]

With a binary vote? Good question really. At very least we need to decide which system we actually want to go with :shrug:.

I think there's a problem with that though.
We could vote on the deal before article fifty is triggered but then we may not get any of what's voted on when it comes to negotiation time which is'nt until it is triggered.
And if we vote after article fifty is triggered then the wheels are already in motion so if we don't accept the deal we reach with the EU then we're out with no deal.

[Brillopad]

Traitors! Treason! ISIS sympathisers! Terrorism! :bawling: :bawling: Get their faces on the front of the Daily Mail ASAP. We need a new "most wanted" style deck of cards and these supposed "Supreme Court" scum need to be the aces in that pack as they are obvious enemies of the British people and I bet they don't even have real Law qualifications, probably bought dodgy degrees from a website in Pakistan.

etc. etc. etc.

Get s grip!

[Kizzy]

Tricky biatch....

The Bill to start Brexit by allowing Theresa May to trigger the Article 50 exit clause is just eight lines long – and only 130 words.

Ministers have stuck to their vow to make the legislation as short as possible – to try to head off Parliamentary attempts to amend it and shape the Brexit process.

The strikingly brief Bill – and the decision to allocate MPs just five days to debate it – immediately sparked an angry protest from Labour MPs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-bill-theresa-may-publishes-article-50-legislation-parliament-vote-commons-mps-eu-european-a7547111.html

[Northern Monkey]

Well she's doing what's legally allowed.Eight lines is generous.I thought she'd have just put:

Brexit:

Yay
Or
Nay

:laugh: