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!

By the time we leave the EU (sadly I am sure that will happen), it actually won't be the will of the people any more. Two (or more) years' worth of young people will have reached voting age, and they are the demographic most aggrieved by Brexit. Two years' worth of older voters will have shuffled off too.
EU born residents are applying for citizenship in record numbers too, before the drawbridge is raised.

autumnintheair
The Judges would have made the same decision on any issue where the Government intended to use the Royal Perogative to alter the rights of British people in a situation where there is no Constitutional Convention allowing for its use.

The Government were attempting to make significant changes to the rights of people without consulting Parliament. They have been told by the Court that they do not have the power to by-pass Parliament - this is a very good thing. No Government should have the power to make major alterations to the rights of British people without the approval of Parliament.

Parliament could have avoided the whole issue by making the referendum result binding and prescribing the steps to be taken in the event of a Yes vote in the Act instituting the referendum. Parliament did not do this. Parliament chose not to make the referendum binding so the Government can't now pretend that it is and plough on regardless.

By the time this is all sorted no one in the EU will want anything to do with the UK. It is a farce. The country voted on what they wanted so that is what should happen. I dont remember this much carry on around the Scottish Referendum. The majority of Leavers accepted the result. Why cant the Remainers who are fighting this accept the UK result?

The hairdresser who was one of the co respondents in this High Court challenge was a Brexit voter. He did it because he wanted due democratic process.

Reboot
I would expect MP's to vote in line with their constituency's referendum vote. I also expect that the HoL will not block any Act because it is giving effect to a referendum.
For me, it's not about stopping Brexit, its about making sure that the Government does not misuse powers. If they are allowed to misuse the Royal Perogative this time, then what next.

Parliamentary Sovereignty innit. This is what the leavers were banging on about (and foreigners). Chickens coming home to roost.

Why not?

In Scotland, we had a clear Referendum result.

Only, the SNP didn't like it, so we are going to have another.

This is in the UK. Why assume it couldn't happen over Brexit?

The judgment can be found here
www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/

Here are some quotations
Para 5 on the purpose of the hearing
"5.It is agreed on all sides that this is a justiciable question which it is for the courts to decide. It deserves emphasis at the outset that the court in these proceedings is only dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union; nor does it have any bearing on government policy, because government policy is not law. The policy to be applied by the executive government and the merits or demerits of withdrawal are matters of political judgement to be resolved through the political process. The legal question is whether the executive government can use the Crown's prerogative powers to give notice of withdrawal. We are not in any way concerned with the use that may be made of the Crown's prerogative power, if such a power can as a matter of law be used in respect of Article 50, or what will follow if the Crown's prerogative powers cannot be so used. "

Paras 105-108 on the status of the referendum
"105.The Secretary of State's ease regarding his ability to give notice under Article 50 was based squarely on the Crown's prerogative power. His counsel made it clear that he does not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. He is right not to do so. Any argument to that effect would have been untenable as a matter of statutory interpretation of the 2015 Referendum Act.

106. That Act falls to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.

107. Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to be advisory as the result of a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.

108.We emphasise that the Secretary of State's position on this part of the argument and the observations in the preceding paragraphs relate to a pure legal point about the effect in law of the referendum. This court does not question the importance of the referendum as a political event, the significance of which will have to be assessed and taken into account elsewhere. "

Silk im not sure if there will be another scottish referendum. However if there is one then i have a feeling that more people will vote to stay in the uk.

All the reasons I voted for brexit still remain.
The referendum has been and gone and is decided. As we do not live in Stalinist Russia, nor any other totalitarian state, I rather expect the government to crack on and implement the vote.

The question for the court was not whether the UK should or should not withdraw but what is the appropriate procedure for triggering the withdrawal.

It could be but it isn't very democratic is it. What shall we do? Majority vote one way. We don't really like that so we're not going to do it. It does make me feel concerned for future voting.

We don't really like that so we're not going to do it.

Is this genuinely what you believe the judgement said?

Would this have happened had the vote gone the other way?

Why do people always assume brexiters didn't know what they were voting for? Both sides lied. I think it's very ignorant to assume that all of them are one type of person, that aren't capable of making their own informed decision.

Would this have happened had the vote gone the other way?

What precisely? One couldn't bring a legal challenge to clarify whether the government could not act to not do anything to not Leave the EU by not invoking Royal Prerogative without parliamentary scrutiny . Could they?

Nigel Farage said before the referendum that if Leave got 48% he would consider it unfinished business and be looking for a second referendum. It seems to me an impossible national conversation when the country is split down the middle.

God I hope so, Brexit was a stupid idea peddled by idiots. I am a Remainer, after all this recent development is all about democracy and sovereignty

The referendum was advisory. So yes, an opinion poll, albeit a weighty one. No decision was made that was legally binding.

I don't know whether we will leave or not - I think we probably will - but as a parliamentary democracy, it's only right that parliament should vote on what happens next, and how it happens, having been advised of the people's views in the referendum.

I bloody hope not. i voted to leave and stand by that decision.

Do you want a best of three?

" your little pencil" Draylon - how condescending.

This legal ruling has not blocked Brexit. It is possible it could happen but if Parliament (i.e.) our MPs vote to stay in when the majority of voters wanted out, then they are not carrying out the wishes of the electorate which is what they are there to do. It is more scaremongering. This legal case is one way in which the remainers have tried to block Brexit, there is no doubt about that, but the Brexit voters should embrace the legal ruling and stay optimistic. I thing the remainers are in for another shock personally. Also the government has appealed the ruling, so it could possibly be overturned, but I seriously doubt it.