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

Farage - so one man dictates to the whole Country.

However, if a properly thought out Lords reform came out of this, it might be a blessing.

Betting now that slime ball Farage remains as UKIP leader, or at least doesn't shut up.

Why is that awful man still being given so much airtime? Especially considering the heightened levels of anger and the beyond irresponsible headlines from the gutter this week.

Seemingly Farage is trying to instigate a revolution? 🙄

Just out of interest - would any Leavers on here be happy for TM to ignore the Supreme Court , assuming the govt. loose their appeal,and just go ahead anyway and trigger art 50 on the grounds that it's what the people voted for?

Morning, its an intresting dilemma which appears to be lost on a huge number of MPs, including JC today. We are ultimately answerable to EU law. That is the overiding authority in this country. In simplistic terms, Leavers voted out, based on the 4 principles of the EU. The Brexit vote rejected all 4 principles.

This unending demand for a right to be heard in any exit negotiations, was signed away with the Lisbon Treaty. As the law stands, the EU will decide our terms, and we gave them the legal right to do so. We have already agreed to those terms under the Lisbon Treaty. No amount of parliamentary voting will change that. Its out, on the 4 principles, as thats what we signed up to. Perhaps remainers should have been watching a little closer when the Lisbon Treaty farce was enacted.

A Republican supporter has been beaten for holding a "Republicans against Trump" banner, by Trump supporters. I feel a similar atmosphere here, stoked up by Farage, DM, Express, and some poster here have spoken about "the people" being pushed to violence. TM has now the duty to intervene before we see another victim.

If the surpreme court rules against the A50 claimants, I confidently predict that remainers will be disappointed, even distraught - but that precisely zero remainers will describe the supreme court judges as enemies of the people or demand that they be removed.

The referendum was not a vote on the "four principles" of the single market; it was a vote whether to leave the EU or not. It is entirely possible to remain inside the SM while leaving the EU.

Gosh Jaws......and I though it was leavers on the receiving end of the incessant, racist nazi, knuckle dragging, beer swilling low life assaults. What is your point? How dare the brexit scum, object to being told what they really are, and intervention is needed urgently before a sensible well educated remainer gets hurt saying it?

"The referendum was not a vote on the "four principles" of the single market; it was a vote whether to leave the EU or not. It is entirely possible to remain inside the SM while leaving the EU."

.....and this is where youre fundamentally wrong. Negotiating such a position means immediately, we're negotiationg outside of our terms of the Lisbon Treaty. Dont try to throw out one part of law to suit one side of your argument, and re-inforce another part to suit another side.

Its not fundamentally wrong.

The Leave campaigns were collectively schizophrenic on what Brexit meant. Quite deliberately.

It enabled everyone voting leave to place their own meaning on what they were hearing and what version of Brexit they wanted.

Hence mess now, with Leave voting MPs being critical of the approach by May and Co.

It if was so obvious why do we have this difference of opinion even amongst MPs who in theory should be more aware of what the vote was about in the first place since they passed the referendum act and campaigned to Leave.

You're talking rubbish and trying to rewrite history and current events in a way that suit what YOU want.

and this is where youre fundamentally wrong. Negotiating such a position means immediately, we're negotiationg outside of our terms of the Lisbon Treaty

I'm not sure what you mean by this Chris, perhaps you could clairify?

The referendum restricted itself to a simple in/out question. Regardless of what the campaigns may claim, no one voted for any particular relationship with the EU other than being inside it or outside. There is only one way of being inside the EU, but there are at least three ways* of being outside it. The referendum did not ask people which of these three (or more) ways they preferred.

• being completely outside on WTO terms (potentially with a FTA in a decade or so), being outside the EU but inside the EEA as Norway is, and being outside both the EU and the EEA but with membership of parts of the single market, as is the case for Switzerland.

DH pointed out something blindingly obvious. The referendum could have asked a series of relevant ancillary questions, like:

Do you want more limits on EU immigration (a little or a lot)?
Do you prefer UK to negotiate its own trade deals or to be represented by the EU for negotiating trade deals?
Do you want EU courts to have some jurisdiction over UK employment law?

etc. THEN the govt would have a real mandate in what they took to EU, as well.

I think TM must ignore the Supreme Court if the judgement goes against her. The will of the people is stronger than the Supreme Court.
I think Nigel Farage is doing a great job defending our democracy and I think we need him right now.

A referendum isn't an opinion poll used to judge the public mood, though. You have to ask people to choose between concrete options that can be implemented.

The referendum as worded did allow people to choose between two concrete options that can, theoretically, be implemented. What it didn't do was seek their advice on how - and this is not a bad thing, because the how question is a difficult one involving legal and commercial complexities that even many of our elected representatives don't fully understand.

What should have happened, immediately post referendum, is that the question should have been turned over to those much derided experts in an attempt to quantify the risks and benefits of each option, before putting the question to parliament.

I think TM must ignore the Supreme Court if the judgement goes against her.

Wow. Do you think of yourself as a fascist? Because what you are proposing is straight out of the fascist playbook. I guess you never did any history after primary school.

FWIW, I don't think the EU could legally accept an A50 notification under these circumstances, since the Lisbon treaty is explicit that notification must be made according to the leaving country's constitutional arrangements.

The referendum could have asked a series of relevant ancillary questions, like:
Indeed so, and if we are ever to have a referendum again I hope that they make a damn site better job of it.

Of course, if the consensus had been that we don't want the EU but are happy with the EEA say, then I suspect the 27 others would have been prepared to meet us half way.

misti, that kind of ignores the consequences of proposals being turned over to parliament. It means that much of our negotiating position will be disclosed to the EU in advance, while they will know nothing of ours.

This will hugely weaken our position and lead to a very poor deal. And when we're offered a poor deal remainers will be able to (probably successfully) demand a second referendum which they will win because they've forced a situation where the deal is so poor it can't be accepted. Hence this is nothing to do with parliamentary scrutiny but actually a bid to derail Brexit altogether.

and if we are ever to have a referendum again I hope that they make a damn site better job of it

Complex issues like this are far better resolved by putting forward detailed proposals in a general election manifesto. I think the referendum question as asked was not fundamentally unreasonable. It was unreasonable to have a referendum on such a complex issue, IMO, but once the decision to have a referendum was taken, the question had to be reduced to a simple choice or series of choices. Referendums are not a suitable tool for delivering nuanced answers.

It means that much of our negotiating position will be disclosed to the EU in advance

We don't know our negotiating position. We don't have an unambiguous position on how we would like Brexit to look.

It means that much of our negotiating position will be disclosed to the EU in advance, while they will know nothing of ours.

This idea of a "secret negotiating position" is utterly baffling to me. Maybe someone could explain to me what we are keeping secret, from whom, for how long, and to whose benefit?

Red, because zero MPs read the Lisbon Treaty in the 3 hours they had to read it before the vote, and Misti, .... um Norway and Switzerland refused to sign the Lisbon Treaty. They're not member states.

If May were to ignore the Supreme Court, what do you think the reaction would be from the EU, the US, Canada and Australia?

Do you think they would be enthusiastic about and kind of Free Trade Deal or do you think they would be more inclined to give us a cold shoulder in that department?

Just think about the implications of what you suggest are, for a second - BEYOND leaving the EU.

The fact you are so utterly blinded and single minded in itself says quite a bit.

Its fine as long as you conform. British innovation and success has however long prospered on the British trait of not conforming and being allowed to not conform. Its the thing that supported our creativity.

Its the thing that has long held back China, and made it unable to compete at the same level in certain areas despite its size.

Our democracy is something that has held us in high estimate with a lot of other countries and made them envious.

Remove our freedom and we really do become a tiny irrelevant island, isolated socially and economically. Its everything that Churchill disliked. EVERYTHING. He even said as much.

Chris yes ok.
And I'm a flower pot.

If we are going to talk crazy and make no sense at all.

Also, something cannot possibly be nothing to do with parliamentary scrutiny when it is going to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny which was not previously going to happen. It's impossible. By all means state that you doubt the motivations of the people who brought the case, though you'd obviously have to explain why Gina Miller's aims are more important than those of Deir Dos Santos. Or that you think this will have implications that go beyond parliamentary scrutiny, or that are more important than parliamentary scrutiny. Those arguments, at least, have logic. But to say it's nothing to do with parliamentary scrutiny is completely wrong.

We don't know our negotiating position. We don't have an unambiguous position on how we would like Brexit to look.

Well it's looking like we will if it has to be disclosed to parliament. That's not necessarily a good thing. It weakens our negotiating position and hands Brussels golden opportunities to stop it.

Plus the only groups who voted 'remain' in the election were the AB social groups. Now through legal action and parliamentary votes those groups are being handed responsibility for how Brexit looks in its entirety and are probably going to water it down to suit their own interests and make it as close to full membership as they can, if not stop it altogether.

There's already a powerful resentment of rich and powerful elites running the country to suit their own interests. It's hugely naive to think continuing down this road won't cause civil unrest.

It's incredibly sad that a lot of this has become driven by the left wing, many of whom will openly parrot paternalistic attitudes on the level of the sort of capitalistic mill owners who the Labour movement was set up to resist. You know, ordinary people are too thick to understand politics and should just let their betters decide what to do and take the crumbs of charity (or benefits) they choose to dole out rather than wanting a politics which represents them or their interests. Karl Marx must be turning in his grave at what the left has become.