This is potentially a game-changer!

[pensivepolly]

Breaking news from the High Court on Article 50: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules

"get the fuck on with it" Getting on with it means debating it in Parliament. That is how our democracy works. One referendum result does not mean the decision is made.

One of the reasons some remainers were so frustrated was because it was obviously never going to be that simple.

ClaudiaApfelstrudel I would vote leave because frankly I'd be fucking terrified of what it would mean to overturn the results of the referendum.

I think there would be a surge in far right supporters, I think already disenfranchised people would react to their opinion essentially being called 'worthless'.

And yes a part of me would vote leave purely because of the darker underside that has been revealed by certain 'liberals'. I.e anyone who disagrees with me is poor, on benefits and worthless, council estate scum, racist...

I've seen this awful attitude from friends who I previously respected and who I know view themselves as liberal and fair people and yet have managed to sound more 'fascist' than the actual fascists.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

It depends what you class as 'the result' doesn't it.

The result being leave, in any format. I think it will actually end up being neither a soft or hard Brexit, but somewhere in between.

There have been posts on threads on here, and all over SM with people saying that they hope it means that we will now remain. I fear they will be disappointe

I don't understand why the leave campaign are frothing about this decision.

They wanted to protect our sovereignty. And here we are. A decision has been made by our sovereign legal process.

The correct legal decision IMVHO.

May should have just put this to parliament in the first place. Because that's how we do things in our democracy. We don't make exceptions when it suits us.

I don't know any lawyers who thought the government would win this ( and I know bloody tons of them). Even the governmebt's lawyers had advised them that they would lose ( which is why the appeal was planned in advance).

And yes a part of me would vote leave purely because of the darker underside that has been revealed by certain 'liberals'. I.e anyone who disagrees with me is poor, on benefits and worthless, council estate scum, racist...

And yet you seem to think the way to deal with the darker underside of the Leave campaign is to join them because you can't beat them. Fascinating double standard there. Which I write whilst sitting in the middle of a council estate, for the avoidance of doubt.

HyacinthFuckit well no you see, no double standards because I don't for a second think a significant portion of leave voters are 'the dark underside' i.e. racists.

I don't want to leave the eu. I think it's financial suicide. I didn't want a referendum.

However I'd rather that than the alternative now that we have had the vote.

Wow I hadn't realised even the govt's own lawyers had advised them they'd lose! I knew the case was shit, but not that. Perhaps May et al should be made to repay the public money they've spunked on fighting the case so far...

Though in all seriousness, I actually think May could well have played a blinder here. If it works, and the first part of it has. She doesn't want hard Brexit, because she's not ideologically committed to it and, given that it would be a total economic disaster, the only people who want hard Brexit are the ones who want it for reasons of principle. That's not her. This way, she gets to be seen to have tried, but Parliament will step in and rescue her and force a more sensible Leave plan. Thus appeasing the more deranged end of the Leave vote, making the moderate Leavers who never wanted hard Brexit happy, and ensuring Remainers are relieved because it could be infinitely worse. The judges take any blame, which is good because she hates the judiciary.

I presume that's the plan, anyway. It remains to be seen whether it comes off. This hasn't been a good year for Tories with cunning plans that involve throwing bones to the lunatic fringe.

HyacinthFuckit well no you see, no double standards because I don't for a second think a significant portion of leave voters are 'the dark underside' i.e. racists.

Nope, it's a massive double standard because you talked about your fear of a massive surge in far right support if the results of the referendum were ignored.

Thus appeasing the more deranged end of the Leave vote

Uh ... Have you seen the papers today?!

Fucking dangerous strategy, if that's what it is (not convinced; I think all this comes down to May's authoritarian streak, not her opinions on the EU).

I presume that's the plan, anyway. It remains to be seen whether it comes off. This hasn't been a good year for Tories with cunning plans that involve throwing bones to the lunatic fringe.

Yet if there was a GE tomorrow they would win by a landslide because Corbyn is useless

HyacinthFuckit yes because I fear, if they become angry enough at having their 'voice' ignored, people who wouldn't have usually voted for the likes of ukip will.

Oh it's definitely a very dangerous strategy, but then these are dangerous times. There's no easy path through, is there? She took over following a referendum she didn't especially want and a result she didn't agree with, and she's neither stupid nor ideologically committed enough to actually want hard Brexit. So she has to find a way to water it down, thus saving the economy. Fortunately for her it would be difficult for there to be another GE in the near future, but that's one of the few cards she was given.

it will actually end up being neither a soft or hard Brexit, but somewhere in between.

DS (16) is a fervent leaver, in general principles, loves Boris & Farage & Gove, says that only "hard" Brexit is what should happen. I pointed out those men each have a different vision of Brexit, then asked "Should we follow WTO trade rules after Brexit?"

He said "Yes of course!... actually I don't care. We can have soft tarrifs I suppose." it's all an emotional outcome for people like him. They don't even understand that the EU was overwhelmingly about mutual economic interests, not political integration.

Is this a competition into who can prove they are the hardest up? FFS.

Everyone is fucked one way or another here. There are plenty of 'better off' people who are just one step away from a financial disaster in their lives. Something that realistically could happen with Brexit.

We are in this current situation with the courts involved, because May decided that using the Royal Prerogative was a good idea.

She didn't need to. She could have gone at the start of September, the vote to leave was in part about sovereignty of parliament and started the difficult process of going through parliament. This would have been in keeping with Vote to Leave.

Yes it would have faced problems but a lot of the hostility to the brexit process has been down to one thing in particular.

May's handling of the situation. Not the result in isolation.

The backlash has been about the hard right rhetoric and aggressive line on immigration that went too far. Even by the admission of UKIP. The backlash has been about May's insistence to make it all into a massive secret. The backlash has been because people have been told to 'shut up. we won'. The backlash has been because there has been no attempt to engage with those who didn't vote to Leave. The backlash has been because of the treatment of foreign nationals and the unwillingness of acknowledge where the problem stems from or that it even exist. The backlash has been because May's decision making has continued in the vein of putting the party interest ahead of the national interest.

Every single move that has been made by May has been flawed to a point where I just don't even know what she is thinking anymore or how she thinks it will help the situation. Or if indeed she is thinking.

This isn't just because I dislike the principle of Brexit. Its because the management of Brexit has been so appalling.

Brexit might not be so bad, if politicians had the balls to properly own up to the reality of the situation instead of continuing to promise the earth long after the vote happened. They have done nothing to manage expectations.

If there is a reaction from the far right then this reaction is because May has caused a polarisation in both directions because of her actions at a time when someone needed to do exactly the opposite.

There has been a reaction from some parts of the liberal side of the debate I don't like as a result, if I'm honest about it. The same as I had a lot of reservation about parts of the Remain campaign.

May needed to make an effort to build bridges. Fast. The trouble is she has demonstrated she doesn't actually know how to and has been left utterly bewildered herself by the reaction she's had to her comments and speeches. She had a lack of public relations experience and her home office approach was always inflexible.

Brexit requires a much more flexible approach and a much better attempt at public relations to build a broad consensus.

This is where my hope is with the a50 challenge. Its not in stopping Brexit. Its in forcing May down a different path to Brexit. Or if that fails it might produce a situation where May's position is frankly untenable and she faces a challenge from within her own party. And having an outcome which is a more favourable version of Brexit (by that I mean one where the NHS has that cat in hells chance to survive which gets smaller by the day).

I agree Red TM has handled this very badly, which has fuelled the fire.

Totally agree with Red. I just cannot understand Theresa May, she self sabotages at every turn.

Totally agree with Red. I just cannot understand Theresa May, she self sabotages at every turn.

The problem is, that whilst there isn't a credible opposition she can continue to do so.

HyacinthFuckit yes because I fear, if they become angry enough at having their 'voice' ignored, people who wouldn't have usually voted for the likes of ukip will.

Sure, and that's obviously your call and your right, but it is a double standard.

She had a lack of public relations experience and her home office approach was always inflexible.

Understatement of the century...

I have been following your posts with interest redtoothbrush and I liked what you were saying elsewhere about the outraged right wing rags this morning being a feature of democracy not a bug, the sign of a constitution that is working. I just don't see a challenge to May from within her own party ending well, not for a long time yet anyway. I mean, who else is there at this point?

Lord help me, I'm starting to wonder how Boris would've handled things if he'd ended up with the big job. I think there's a part of most people that thinks being PM now would've served him right...

I too am gobsmacked by her actions. This is all so avoidable.

Like the FIFA armband thing. Why the fuck does she think that an exception should be made for the UK? Can't she see why FIFA can't go down that path?

I think May has a very pronounced authoritarian streak (v obvious in her time at the home office), a bit of a superiority complex (not hard in a cabinet populated by the likes of Fox) and is [whisper] perhaps just not terribly bright. I don't doubt that she is an accomplished politician, but she seems curiously subject to rigid black and white thinking.

I think there's a part of most people that thinks being PM now would've served him right...

But he was clever enough to make sure he didn't become PM.

TM was vain enough to think she could take it on.

I actually think the Fifa thing is more populism, rather than being a reflection of what May really thinks. Lots of people think England and Scotland should be able to wear poppies, to the extent that they'd be willing to risk even a points deduction for it. It's not something she has any influence over, nobody is likely to blame her if they do end up doing it and getting sanctioned, and she loses nothing by sabre rattling.

I agree that FIFA think is different.

There is also form for it. They have allowed it before.

FIFA should concentrate on getting it's house in order tbh rather than arguing about this.

So Mrs Miller has stated this morning to the Guardian that her reason for bringing the case was she felt 'the UK had failed itself and the rest of europe by voting to leave the bloc' .

Lets be very clear about the motivation behind this action. Mrs Miller is, so why are the remainers on here being so slippery? The fact Teresa May was relying on the Crown ratification, is that that is exactly how we have ratified all international treaties in modern history. She did not pick some random obscurity to force through a bill to suit. Parliament proposes the required changes, and the crown ratifies it. MPs by voting 6:1 for the European Referendum Act 2015, agreed to allow the people of the nation to decide. That in itself was the basis, and legal standing of the referendum. The Referedum act was not, an "advisory" request. The referendum act was not an "opinion poll", it was implemented into law by an act allowing the people of the United Kindom to decide one very straightforward question. David Cameron, our elected Prime Minister and all our MPs promised the electorate that their will would be acted on. That was a constitutional promise, as declared in the conservative manifesto at the previous general election, by our democratically elected Prime Minister (and all our democratically elected MPs)

I will reiterate again, that what happened yesterday, was an utterly shameful action to quite simply prevaracate and delay (or even as Mrs Miller claims, provide a springboard to overturn the referendum results), and absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary democracy. The fall out from this has now taken us to a far bigger problem than any issue regarding the EU, and for me to say, you know not what you have done, is an understatement. 3 senior pro european judges, dug back to the 1600's in an attempt to frustrate modern democracy. In one fell swoop they have undermined every international treaty we have entered into. Where previously our judiciary supported (and yes it has been tested before) Crown ratification, which is a fundamental requirement of our constitution, yesterday they rode roughshod over it.

Parliament has alreday voted on this issue. They unanimously gave the nation the right to decide and enacted that into law. They constitutionally promised to abide by the will of the people. There is no ifs and buts about this, there is no grey area of misinterpretation. There was no declaration in the European Referendum Act 2015 that it was to be advisory only. This attempt at trying to be clever, for the sole purpose of overturning a legitimate mandate, for the financial benefit of the minority, is utterly utterly shameful.

Why do you think Mrs Miller's stated motivations (and I note with interest you say nothing about the hairdresser who also brought the case) undermine the argument being made that this decision is about and upholds the rule of law? She could've brought the case because the aliens up her bum told her to, and it wouldn't change the fact that May's attempted course of action was grossly undemocratic, had no mandate because nobody voted for it and was doing a shit all over parliamentary democracy. Those things are not a matter of opinion. They're just facts. There is a reason the government's own lawyers told them they were going to lose. Because their stated case was bollocks, to use the technical legal term.

I will reiterate again chris, you're wrong and your attitude is shameful.