Supreme Court

[lawros left foot]

I'm very concerned by the repeated error in using referenda as the plural of referendum on NSC. The correct word is referendums. Those UKippers using referenda should be ashamed of themselves. They are ignoring the English plural for a Latin gerund plural that although OED lists as a possible plural has inherent flaws.

I blame the EU

 

[The Large One]

Stalling the triggering of article 50 by demanding to see government plans, wanting to debate these plans, having the governments authority challenged in court. Watered down we leave the Eu but we are beholden to EU law, the movement of labour, payments to trade in EU. Those who are stirring the pot on this should think carefully on their future, the British electorate has shown what it is capable of, Cameron failed to recognise he got a majority because he promised a referendum, all parties got it wrong on the referendum and now they are taking the electorate for mugs with this prevarication and demanding to be heard. The transferring of the vote at the referendum into a general election, which the anachranism Kenneth Clark called an opinion poll, would give a governing party 442 seats. Politicians are not very clever, not very well informed and are calling it wrong again, the silent majority that delivered Brexit is waiting for general election and they will make themselves heard.

None of which has any relevance to what's going on in the Supreme Court.

There are still too many ignorant people who don't understand Parliament, don't understand how the judiciary is enacted and are simply slavering at a way-too-facile notion that 'Brexit Means Brexit'; itself a totally meaningless phrase. Theresa May has NO mandate and no right to bypass Parliament on this, and the Supreme Court is reminding everyone of this fact. It would put her squarely in the role of Dictator, something you believe you've voted against.

The law is being carried out - mostly at the wish of those who voted to Leave, and yet those same people patently refuse to understand this very basic point. Christ alone knows what it will be like when things get complicated.

Seriously, learn how the judiciary and British Parliament operates (the system you so cravenly desire). This isn't 'stirring the pot'; this is making sure Sovereignty (something else you voted for) is being enacted. It really couldn't be simpler than that.

 

[Steve in Japan]

I would have preferred for the Government not to appeal.

Does anybody else find it odd that we are spending so much money on the Supreme Court appeal, to determine if Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. When Parliament has been talking about this subject for the last 5 hours?

 

[Husty]

As I read it the people of this country voted and the government under the powers given them by the sovereign were going to carry out the wishes of the majority but some that lost decided that they shouldnt without consulting their minors. They wanted another bite at the cherry and were not prepared to accept the democratic vote and wishes of the majority. It is ludicrous for the judges to vote against the government and thus stop them carrying out the wishes of the people. To say MPs should have a say is akin to giving the remain voters, of which I was one, a 2nd chance because the original vote didnt suit certain people and groups.

And this is why you thankfully never got further in life than owning a pub. Shut up and leave the running of the country to people with half a brain.

 

[Brighton Mod]

None of which has any relevance to what's going on in the Supreme Court.

There are still too many ignorant people who don't understand Parliament, don't understand how the judiciary is enacted and are simply slavering at a way-too-facile notion that 'Brexit Means Brexit'; itself a totally meaningless phrase. Theresa May has NO mandate and no right to bypass Parliament on this, and the Supreme Court is reminding everyone of this fact. It would put her squarely in the role of Dictator, something you believe you've voted against.

The law is being carried out - mostly at the wish of those who voted to Leave, and yet those same people patently refuse to understand this very basic point. Christ alone knows what it will be like when things get complicated.

Seriously, learn how the judiciary and British Parliament operates (the system you so cravenly desire). This isn't 'stirring the pot'; this is making sure Sovereignty (something else you voted for) is being enacted. It really couldn't be simpler than that.

Of course it has no relevance to the Supreme Court as it has no reference to it. The broader point being made is about the politicing in all this process by those who want to raise their profile, slow things down and use their self given leverage.

Please feel free to level all the arguements you made above as well as aspersions, as you have no idea how I vote, once the Supreme Court Judges have made their verdict, because if they come out in favour of the government, you will be a little less self righteous.

 

[Brighton Mod]

You seem incapable of understanding the fact that we voted to leave - We did not vote for the kind of settlement we would get. I think you need to readjust your tinfoil hat.

Here's what the voting slip looked like:

Taken from:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/638210/EU-referendum-ballot-paper-Brexit-vote-June-23

I understood very clearly what the vote was about, but do we need it to be drawn out like this, should parliament debate on whether we leave on a Monday or a Tuesday, the main antagonists on this are those who voted remain, do they feel that the government is going to attempt to get a deal that will bankrupt us or leave our borders open to invasion. What input can we expect from a labour party that on this week published any sort of policy on our exit from the EU and then only in the broadest terms. Too many people want an input without telling the government what that input is. The arguement remains that no one is coming up with any clarity on what they seek other than in the broadest terms. leave the EU meant just that, just can't see how we ave got to all of this fuss.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Of course it has no relevance to the Supreme Court as it has no reference to it. The broader point being made is about the politicing in all this process by those who want to raise their profile, slow things down and use their self given leverage.

Please feel free to level all the arguements you made above as well as aspersions, as you have no idea how I vote, once the Supreme Court Judges have made their verdict, because if they come out in favour of the government, you will be a little less self righteous.

It would seem to me the main culprit of slowing the process down is the current administration. These sideshows are simply some things that have to be gone through, don't worry, brexit will happen. Don't let the media stir you up, it's happening, in a 'civilised' way...

 

[The Large One]

Of course it has no relevance to the Supreme Court as it has no reference to it. The broader point being made is about the politicing in all this process by those who want to raise their profile, slow things down and use their self given leverage.

Please feel free to level all the arguements you made above as well as aspersions, as you have no idea how I vote, once the Supreme Court Judges have made their verdict, because if they come out in favour of the government, you will be a little less self righteous.

It's clear you have no desire for Parliament to be Sovereign, otherwise you wouldn't be criticising the legal challenge.

If they come out in favour of the government's position - and it's something that no-one can see a legal precedent for - it will mean that the Judiciary has wilfully stripped Parliament of all its Soveriegnty; something it was granted 350-odd years ago. And therefore stripped it of something you so dearly hold true.

It will leave the Prime Minister in a position to use whatever executive powers they wish - on a whim - without there being a need for Parliament.

Not going to happen, is it?

 

[Brighton Mod]

You voted for a divorce you did not vote for what the settlment should be. What is being argued in the courts is that Parliament should have a right to scrutinise the settlement because the outcome will affect EVERYBODY in the country not just the 17 million who voted leave. Politicians, therefore, are not irrelevent because it is they who are having to determine what the settlement will be.

You have no idea if I voted at all, but clearly the motives of Gina Miller and those who have financially backed her are not altruistic or even democratic. How much scrutiny did parliament give the Great Reappeal Act or Treaty of Lisbon signed away by the government of the day. You give our MPs too much credance and an expectation that they will scrutinise plans, proposals and propositions when they are instructed to vote on party lines is a little wishful.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

If the government were to suddenly try to bring back, let's say, capital punishment, of course it must be challenged.

But in this case it is following the instruction of the British public.

To me, this whole case revolves around the losing side not accepting the result.

I think you will find that if the government of the day went for a referendum on capital punishment, it will get a huge yes, especially with the state of the press these days.

 

[Tarpon]

I

If you want to see an example of deliberately muddled thinking see IDS in the Mail today. I assume it is deliberate anyway. The alternative is that he is genuinely very stupid because even I can spot the mistakes.

Indeed: deliberately very stupid spin and popularist posturing from IDS in that rag. No doubt the readership lapped it up as he misled them and insulted what intelligence they have. I wonder if they will publish the responses below? Actually I don't.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5847e41ce4b02a58e683fb41?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

 

[Brighton Mod]

It's clear you have no desire for Parliament to be Sovereign, otherwise you wouldn't be criticising the legal challenge.

If they come out in favour of the government's position - and it's something that no-one can see a legal precedent for - it will mean that the Judiciary has wilfully stripped Parliament of all its Soveriegnty; something it was granted 350-odd years ago. And therefore stripped it of something you so dearly hold true.

It will leave the Prime Minister in a position to use whatever executive powers they wish - on a whim - without there being a need for Parliament.

Not going to happen, is it?

So now your judging the judges and criticising them if the outcome goes against your point of view. Its all a set up job by our MPs, article 5 will be triggered and the eventual settlement will look nothing like what will be presented to parliament, because there is another party in the settlement negotiations. Those wanting to inspect the plans may have a wish list, but they will not be at the negotiating table and eventually will have to accept what will be delivered. Its a storm in a teacup and a platform for our liberal elite to tell the elctorate, in the same way that you have on here, how illerate, ignorant and stupid they are and how important they are.

 

[daveinprague]

Brexiters wanted British law.. You have got it. Stop whinging.

 

[The Large One]

So now your judging the judges and criticising them if the outcome goes against your point of view. Its all a set up job by our MPs, article 5 will be triggered and the eventual settlement will look nothing like what will be presented to parliament, because there is another party in the settlement negotiations. Those wanting to inspect the plans may have a wish list, but they will not be at the negotiating table and eventually will have to accept what will be delivered. Its a storm in a teacup and a platform for our liberal elite to tell the elctorate, in the same way that you have on here, how illerate, ignorant and stupid they are and how important they are.

Ah, the mythical 'liberal elite' - the last soundbite of the truly meaningless.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the one the rest of us inhabit - the one where there is no precedent for what you want - if Parliament is to debate Brexit and have a say (as it's supposed to), new laws will needed to be drafted, Parliamentary time put aside, it then has to go to the House of Lords - and this is all assuming it gets safe passage. There's a decent chance it will be sent back and forth if Parliament don't agree to the terms.

Don't give a shit if you don't like it - that's how our Sovereign Parliament works; the one you so covetously voted for.

 

[The Large One]

You have no idea if I voted at all, but clearly the motives of Gina Miller and those who have financially backed her are not altruistic or even democratic. How much scrutiny did parliament give the Great Reappeal Act or Treaty of Lisbon signed away by the government of the day. You give our MPs too much credance and an expectation that they will scrutinise plans, proposals and propositions when they are instructed to vote on party lines is a little wishful.

The two largest parties in Parliament - Conservative and Labour - don't have a three-line whip on Brexit. If it was a free vote, voted along the lines of how the individual MPs wanted to vote with no ultimate comeback, Brexit wouldn't stand a chance.

Gina Miller's motives are evidently more democratic than yours - and she understands the notion of democracy within a Sovereign Parliament. As a legal exercise, the referendum is irrelevant as it could never decide any laws. It's only those MPs who are saying that they will vote with the wishes of their constituents (and against their own feelings) which might sway it. Might.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

leave the EU meant just that, just can't see how we ave got to all of this fuss.

If that is your understanding of leaving then you are seriously deluded.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

If that is your understanding of leaving then you are seriously deluded.

out is out no strings attached
A Democratic vote decided that , live with it and stop sulking
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Indeed the devil is the detail, a slim victory does not give a mandate to jump out of a plane without a parachute and hope there's a bed of feathers. 48% of people didn't vote for suicide and they have a voice too...

No they dont ,get a grip and fall in line
regards
DR

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

out is out no strings attached
A Democratic vote decided that , live with it and stop sulking
regards
DR

Indeed.

Out is out.

No strings or preconditions attached.

The possibilities are infinite. Let's hope our ACE negotiators bring back the best ones.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

As I read it the people of this country voted and the government under the powers given them by the sovereign were going to carry out the wishes of the majority but some that lost decided that they shouldnt without consulting their minors. They wanted another bite at the cherry and were not prepared to accept the democratic vote and wishes of the majority. It is ludicrous for the judges to vote against the government and thus stop them carrying out the wishes of the people. To say MPs should have a say is akin to giving the remain voters, of which I was one, a 2nd chance because the original vote didnt suit certain people and groups.

You don't understand what the court case is about do you ?

It is about following the law and not resorting to criminality.

We will still leave the EU. We will however do it in such a way that doesn't break the law.