[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Except the appeal is happening. The legal action was taken in the High Court, the appeal will happen in the Supreme Court.

Yes I get that but if the most senior judge has ruled, then how can someone less senior over rule him?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes I get that but if the most senior judge has ruled, then how can someone less senior over rule him?

The most senior judge at the High Court. Not at the Supreme Court.

[Kizzy]

Theresa May has said she accepts the government will have to pass an act of parliament before it can trigger article 50, the formal process for leaving the European Union.

The government has said it will appeal Thursday’s unexpected high court ruling, which stated that MPs needed to vote on triggering article 50. Downing Street has insisted it will stick to the timetable of invoking article 50 before the end of March 2017.

Asked whether the prime minister agreed with the Brexit secretary, David Davis, that if the judgment is upheld by the supreme court next month the government will have to put a bill before parliament, she said: “What David Davis was setting out is what would be a logical conclusion to draw from the judgment from today.”

Davis had said: “The judges have laid out what we can’t do and not exactly what we can do, but we are presuming it requires an act of parliament, therefore both Commons and Lords.”

A formal bill would grant MPs and peers the opportunity to stage a full debate before article 50 is triggered; to table amendments and, some hope, debate the broad principles on which the government will conduct negotiations with the other 27 EU member states.

Don't you just love democracy in action?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-of-parliament

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Theresa May has said she accepts the government will have to pass an act of parliament before it can trigger article 50, the formal process for leaving the European Union.

The government has said it will appeal Thursday’s unexpected high court ruling, which stated that MPs needed to vote on triggering article 50. Downing Street has insisted it will stick to the timetable of invoking article 50 before the end of March 2017.

Asked whether the prime minister agreed with the Brexit secretary, David Davis, that if the judgment is upheld by the supreme court next month the government will have to put a bill before parliament, she said: “What David Davis was setting out is what would be a logical conclusion to draw from the judgment from today.”

Davis had said: “The judges have laid out what we can’t do and not exactly what we can do, but we are presuming it requires an act of parliament, therefore both Commons and Lords.”

A formal bill would grant MPs and peers the opportunity to stage a full debate before article 50 is triggered; to table amendments and, some hope, debate the broad principles on which the government will conduct negotiations with the other 27 EU member states.

Don't you just love democracy in action?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-of-parliament

I do love democracy, that''s why we MUST leave the EU.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Oh dear.

Explain this moral dilemma, I don't see the inference.

[Crimson Dynamo]

this has been a bad day for the remain camp and it could get worse

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I do love democracy, that''s why we MUST leave the EU.

As far as I can see that is not in question is it?...It's being decided by democratic process is all, and seeing as you love democracy you must be ecstatic with the result.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

The most senior judge at the High Court. Not at the Supreme Court.

I'm aware of this thanks, who would be above him there? apart from Lords and that would be a conflict of interest wouldn't it?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

As far as I can see that is not in question is it?...It's being decided by democratic process is all, and seeing as you love democracy you must be ecstatic with the result.

Lol no it doesnt work both ways. Its like when brexiters kept telling remainers they had lost and to get over it, that doesnt work both ways either. Brexit means bre

[Crimson Dynamo]

SO you ask the electorate

Did you know that this would happen post result?

how many would say yes?

How many remain candidates mentioned this?

When did DC tell the British public about this pre-vote?

[kirklancaster]

I ain't a worrying. Ain't nuffin gonna change. Let all the remainers have their moments of ecstatic dreaming. It's only Democratic that they should.

[reece(:]

Can leave stop acting as if we're of no right to an opinion on the matter now that we're leaving. The 15m people still feel passionately about something and shouldn't need to keep schtum on any accord, it makes debate redundant without opposition.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by reece(:

Can leave stop acting as if we're of no right to an opinion on the matter now that we're leaving. The 15m people still feel passionately about something and shouldn't need to keep schtum on any accord, it makes debate redundant without opposition.

16 million reece and for sure leave voters would have been screaming on and on had this been lees than 4% the other way.

However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who.

It should be elected MPs of all parties in parliament that should decide the timing and the process in my opinion and not just the govt of the day.
This will affect all govts of all colours in the future and so all MPS in Westminster should give consent.
All that was given consent to by MPs in the EU vote for the referendum was to hold one, not the detail of whatever transpired following the vote.

Anyway what an irony there would be were after whatever decision the Supreme makes on this, if this was then taken on appeal to the European court to decide the issue.
There could be a fair way to go yet.

If anyone has been holding up the leaving process, it is the govt and Theresa May, she likely could have had passed already the timing of triggering article 50, had she allowed a parliamentary vote.
Then also worked to gather together all the consensus for a smooth leaving process, had she properly consulted all other parties,(including UKIP, without who there would for sure have been no referendum in the first place), and their MPs elected to parliament.
She is actually herself creating most of the problems.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

16 million reece and for sure leave voters would have been screaming on and on had this been lees than 4% the other way.

However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who.

It should be elected MPs of all parties in parliament that should decide the timing and the process in my opinion and not just the govt of the day.
This will affect all govts of all colours in the future and so all MPS in Westminster should give consent.
All that was given consent to by MPs in the EU vote for the referendum was to hold one, not the detail of whatever transpired following the vote.

Anyway what an irony there would be were after whatever decision the Supreme makes on this, if this was then taken on appeal to the European court to decide the issue.
There could be a fair way to go yet.

If anyone has been holding up the leaving process, it is the govt and Theresa May, she likely could have had passed already the timing of triggering article 50, had she allowed a parliamentary vote.
Then also worked to gather together all the consensus for a smooth leaving process, had she properly consulted all other parties,(including UKIP, without who there would for sure have been no referendum in the first place), and their MPs elected to parliament.
She is actually herself creating most of the problems.

Please list those problems...

[joeysteele]

They are clearly detailed in my post I am not repeating them.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

They are clearly detailed in my post I am not repeating them.

So Theresa May created LOADS of problems but those LOADS of problems are already in your first post? So why would you end your post with... she created loads of problems suggesting there were more problems??? Why end your post like that if you had already pointed them out in the first place?

[arista]

"However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who."

Yes Joey
but lets see after Our Appel.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

So Theresa May created LOADS of problems but those LOADS of problems are already in your first post? So why would you end your post with... she created loads of problems suggesting there were more problems??? Why end your post like that if you had already pointed them out in the first place?

Except that he said "most of the problems" and didn't, in fact, use the word "loads" ... ... anywhere.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

"However this court action is not about stopping leaving, it is about the right to decide when and how and by who."

Yes Joey
but lets see after Our Appel.

I am not that certain myself that the Supreme court will actually fully overturn the decision today arista from the High court.

It is now a case of wait and see but all possible court action could have probably been avoided, had she just accepted a full parliamentary vote.
She has, to me, opened up more divisions rather than set about closing them down.

I, (just my opinion), feel that is a big mistake from her and her govt; on such a gigantic issue,which this is, and which affects everyone all over the UK.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I am not that certain myself that the Supreme court will actually fully overturn the decision today arista from the High court.

It is now a case of wait and see but all possible court action could have probably been avoided, had she just accepted a full parliamentary vote.
She has, to me, opened up more divisions rather than set about closing them down.

I, (just my opinion), feel that is a big mistake from her and her govt; on such a gigantic issue,which this is, and which affects everyone all over the UK.

How so? What has she said to open up more division?

[joeysteele]

I really do not mean to come across at all disrespectful johnnyuk123 but I honestly have no wish whatsoever to ever debate with you on anything, so it may be better to go play your games with others, I am not in the slightest bit interested.
With the fullest respect.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I am not that certain myself that the Supreme court will actually fully overturn the decision today arista from the High court.

It is now a case of wait and see but all possible court action could have probably been avoided, had she just accepted a full parliamentary vote.
She has, to me, opened up more divisions rather than set about closing them down.

I, (just my opinion), feel that is a big mistake from her and her govt; on such a gigantic issue,which this is, and which affects everyone all over the UK.

Yes it's up in the air
But it can still go ahead or some say a General Election

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I really do not mean to come across at all disrespectful johnnyuk123 but I honestly have no wish whatsoever to ever debate with you on anything, so it may be better to go play your games with others, I am not in the slightest bit interested.
With the fullest respect.

You are being very disrespectful with your post above. I wasn't personal toward you at any point or rude to you yet you when asked simple questions rather than answer them honestly and openly post personal insults towards me and expect me to fall in line with your personal insults? Sorry it does not compute here. Please stick to the thread topic.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

So Theresa May created LOADS of problems but those LOADS of problems are already in your first post? So why would you end your post with... she created loads of problems suggesting there were more problems??? Why end your post like that if you had already pointed them out in the first place?

Not a fan of summaries? They're very common.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes it's up in the air
But it can still go ahead or some say a General Election

It is arista,
Personally whatever the result I think a general election is a way to resolve all problems.
What do you think arista if I may ask, do you think that will now likely be a stronger possibility.
As I detailed in my first post, we would have the choice of what plans the different parties all had.

The issue then settled,if Theresa May won then she can go for whatever type of leaving deal she wants, just as Labour or a combination of the others can if they win the day.

No worries then either of presenting a deal to parliament once completed in a few years time that may possibly even get voted down.