To think this could mean the end of brexit?

[jdoe8]

Now MPs will be able to block it. Could this be the end of this ridiculous brexit? MPs can not vote for something that they think will not be in peoples interest and its very clear the people that voted to brexit would be the ones worse off.

JO'B is doing a fab job on LBC today and most brexiters seem to be happy that it might not go ahead as they were fooled by lies!

Help the grammar police have arrived!

Really, putting (sic) is so ridiculous. There are allowances for typos using phones to type these days you know.

What does sic mean?

Well, I didn't want to be accused of anything. There might well be an outcry.

Sic means I'm quoting exactly, errors and all. Pretentious, moi?

I'm curious to see how the SNP MPs vote. Will they vote to remain, as it's apparently so bad for Scotland to leave, or will they vote to leave so the Indy dream stays alive .

Labour are fucked any way with comrade corbyn but if the MPs vote down brexit well they will be punished

Haha the SNP are fucked now with out brexit there is no posturing

No Elendon, just a bit of a twit

Well if they want to keep there jobs they will

I simply don't understand why anyone would not be in favour of our elected representatives having power and influence as well as Theresa May.

What's the alternative? Our PM is unchecked.Suddenly parliament's view doesn't matter and the PM and cronies are in total, undemocratic control.

Brexiters might like the idea of article 50 being triggered with as little fuss as possible but what about the precedent this would set?

It's deeply ironic that anyone voting Brexit would be in favour of a move to rob parliament of its power and the British people of elected representatives who able to effect some change as opposed to being puppets on green benches.

The aim of Brexit was sovereignty for Britain, not Britain in the pocket of a secretive, all-powerful PM who is herself in the pockets of whatever big businesses she can persuade to stay in the country, on whatever terms they demand.

I think MPs will broadly vote how their electorate voted (as in not overturning Brexit) but will soften Brexit according to Remain inclinations on the basis that brexit was never defined so it's no misrepresentation on their part.

And those with Remain tendencies will eke the faffing out for as long as possible on the basis that the longer things drag on for, the more potential for disasters that will sway national feeling away from Leave and the harder it is for Leave to keep up momentum to move away from the status quo.

Maybe if it doesn't work out for the brexiters they could appeal ... through the European court of human rights 😉

It is highly unlikely the government would lose a vote to trigger article 50. That's really not the most important point about this.

The referendum result was not legally binding, it was advisory only. Which means that it will require an act of parliament to trigger article 50. This is a good thing because it means that the government will have to recognise the sovereignty of the parliament, which is the basis of our parliamentary democracy. It means the government must have the approval of parliament before instituting changes that affects the rights of the British people or significant constitutional changes. This allows parliament to scrutinise the governments plans and hold them to account more effectively.

The government having the power to make profound changes without reference to parliament would not be in any of our interests. Having the judiciary under the control of MPs would also not be any interests either.

It is not undemocratic for parliament to hold sovereignty over the government. It is the basis of our parliamentary system.

That would be refugees, i.e.unknown foreign nationals from Syria. Canada took more in than the UK, were they told to do so by Merkel? Take your Xenophobia elsewhere please and stop peddling lies

I am not xenophobic thank you and it is not lies - I have provided a link as to Merkel admitted she made a "mistake" about welcoming all the immigrants into Germany.

Also do you realise Canada is not in Europe - and therefore has fuck all to do with Merkel et al

Ahhh some democracy. Fantastic.

Am not sure what the issue is here either. A royal perogative allowing a limited few to determine the future of our country with little if any scrutiny?

Or allowing parliament to have a say.

I would rather go with the latter. At least then we might avoid the hard Brexit of David Davis' wet dreams.

The terms come within an 80,000 page document, it includes myriads of legal issues. If I had to list them all I might just break the internet! This has been a lengthy relationship. Greenland left with one issue only, fishing and that took three years to sort out and the citizens still remain within the EU

Oh we wouldn't expect you to type out an 80,000 page document. A link will do

It just concerns me that the Judge who helped to shape todays verdict is obviously very pro EU?

Can we trust someone who wants closer EU legal integration to make a fair ruling on this? We choose a Jury at a trial, what they have done today isnt necessarily a bad thing, but three judges and one at least who is a rabid Europhile allowed to make such a major decision.

Elendon: I am speaking up for sic. Although I am not erudite enough to use it myself..

Let's draw a line in the sand here before teenagers insist full stops indicate anger and object to them at the end of normal sentence. ( Yes this is anecdotal but it happened to me!)

autumn - I know, you couldn't make it up. A conflict of interest, think we should go for null & void result

whatever anyones feelings are - we really are living in thrilling times , thrilling.

Autumn the judges aren't deciding whether or not we should leave the EU, they're deciding whether correct legal process is being followed or not. They've decided that to trigger article 50 without Parliamentary debate is unconstitutional. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They are protecting democracy. It's astonishing that anyone has any problem with this.

That would be refugees, i.e.unknown foreign nationals from Syria. Canada took more in than the UK.

But Canada Germany France Italy Spain etc are huge countries with far fewer citizens compared to the UK.

I think I read somewhere Germany could take an extra 9million more people just to get somewhere in the vicinity of being on par of residents per square mile as the UK.

Canada has about 3 people per square mile
Germany has about 235

The United Kingdom has about 650

If it had been the other round and remain had won by a small majority would the remainders have allowed any challenges by the leavers?

Ignoring Farage who would have kept fighting the decision, what exactly would the Leavers be challenging? There was no article XXX to ask to stay in. It would have been business as usual.