To think after today's verdict on a Brexit vote

[incywincybitofa]

The voting public are at risk of loosing faith in our democracy if MPs effectively vote to remain

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

Let me get this right: Brexit-voters wanted to "regain control" by having decisions made by British sovereign parliament rather than having decisions made in Europe (I will leave out what I think of the truth in that, but it is at least a better basis of voting on than blatant racist reasons others have put forward). The court now confirmed in their ruling that parliament is indeed sovereign and should thus have a vote on how to Brexit. Why are you complaining?? This is how parliamentary democracy works. Nobody in the referendum voted on how to trigger Brexit, who got to do what, and what form it would take. Why would this be up to basically a PM (who, by the by, was not even elected) and ministers who don't seem to agree on anything? Can you explain why you think parliament should be by-passed on one of the biggest decisions for this country?? And if you believe so, how do you square that with your call for a return to 'UK parliament' to regain control of the UK's decisions? Believe me, the UK parliament had way more influence over EU laws than it does now over Brexit...

The referendum campaign based lies, scaremongering, personal political ambitions has already made me lose faith in democracy. The subsequent dictatorship of TM 'Brexit means Brexit' without explaining to us what exactly this means and her refusal to engage with the very real concerns of those involved has been arrogant and totally anything but democratic.

This court case has given me some hope that even if 'Brexit means Brexit' we will have some control over how that will happen. TM cannot be allowed to dictate the terms of such a monumental decision behind closed doors without having to answer to anyone.

Parliament is sovereign - NOT the government. I can't understand why an experienced politician like May could imagine that this would somehow be exempt?

And I hope that the opposition, plural, find the courage to stick to what they believe was right all along and block it.

Sadly I suspect they won't. Colossal waste of money that we don't have, as has been said above. The government should be forced to pay costs.

As Bill says, MPs should be representing their constituents, not themselves. In the referendum they had one vote, like everyone else.

Bar They are representing their constituencies. Some MP represent constituencies where quite a low percentage voted leave. Others represent places that will lose out heavily on EU funding and therefore need to protect the interests of thei constituents. Let's not pretend it wasn't a tight vote with far reaching effects. I'd rather see it done carefully, with everyone in mind than just about immigration. I don't care what TM says. It wasn't about that for all voters. She can't have carte blanche.

It is unlikely, though not impossible, that parliament will stop Brexit altogether.

However, they can ensure that we do not have a "hard" (or what I prefer to call a "stupid") Brexit and that the needs of those who voted to remain are not forgotten.

There is no earthly reason to leave the customs union, there are real issues with the way the vote went in Scotland and Northern Ireland (and London and other cities), and Gibraltar needs to have its 97% remain vote honoured. If parliament needs to approve the process, it will (hopefully) be more sensible and rein the three crazy Brexiteers in.

It will also delay things which gives those EU citizens living in the UK more time to qualify for UK citizenship and vice versa and give people more time to plan. Even if the delay is only 3 months or so, that could have an impact on quite a few people.

This is odd, its not the first time I've heard someone put forward the view that democracy is on its way out.
What do you want to replace it with?

'Brexit means Brexit' without explaining to us what exactly this means

I've heard this often, but am confused. How can anyone announce what exactly it means, when it all depends how the future negotiations go? What would be the point of promising one particular scenario, when it may not work out, or saying they won't be pushing for some aspect which might have ended up relatively easy to negotiate?

The British public don't know what is for the best. We have MPs dedicating their careers for decisions like this. Heck, the British public voted for Boaty McBoatface and those higher up knew not to be so silly.

We have MPs dedicating their careers for decisions like this

You mean like those dedicating 2 years to education, prisons, families, disabilites etc?

Studying politics, economics etc. Better qualifications than me/most.