The Brexit Arms goes forth! All welcome. Leavers, Remainers, Couldn't give a Tossers, & openly gay athletes.

[surferjet]

Welcome

The majority vote is only applicable in general elections though, and wasn't in this situation so repeating that it is the "basis" is fine, but it doesn't apply in this situation.

Labour have even said they won't block article 50, and if Labour don't it will be declared.

Firstly : it is therefore this which affords MPs their legitimacy and authority. It would be hypocritical to deny the legitimacy of the majority vote.

Secondly: no, not only on general elections. In parliamentary votes, in votes of no confidence, within parliamentary parties, within the labour movement, the trade union movement, on councils, in referendums, on juries. Andthose who are appointed, like judges, are appointed by people who have won a majority vote.

It is the basis of our democracy, and indeed our civic life. For MPs to deny its legitimacy would be the most cynical, hypocritical, duplicitous and dangerous gesture.

WW on the point of parliamentary sovereignty in the high court - you lost - get over it

Are you trying to say that you understand our constitution better than the 3 judges? I hope the answer to that is no but nothing would surprise me.

We will have to wait to see what the Supreme Court ruling is.

Its only in general electionions that the electorate majority rule counts and is legislated for.

In this case, an advisory referendum, a majority of the electorate voting one way or another has no legal basis.

The other examples you have listed all have codified rules/legislation controling them.

In this case the legislation that created the referendum stated it was advisory to parliament. Twist and turn it whatever way you like, but in this case majority rule doesn't apply.

Sorry you're wrong and no matter how much frothing at the mouth you do will make you correct.

Anyway...next ?

Are you trying to say that you understand our constitution better than the 3 judges?
It seems that ww and others "have had enough of experts", who do judges think they are knowing the law better that "ordinary people". To the Tower with the elite!

Yes - off with their/our heads as traitors

In fact, let's go further: Let's dispense with any experts of any kind and stop this disgusting elitism. Let's report them all if they came from foreign land, and put them in the Tower if born here. Let's then replace them with "the people", brain surgeons, French teachers, chefs or judges. Cosmopolitan elite scum!

Considering one of the judges founded a European law group I'd say they weren't exactly impartial.

The elite doing the elite a favour.
They don't want Brexit because it will cost them money.
Carry on helping them.

Yes but all 3 of them came to the same verdict which kind of makes that petty point a bit irrelevant.

Doesn't matter if he founded a european law group or not, it matters what the reading of the law is.

But good to know that you will question the independence of the judiciary when the results go against you.

Just suck it up, you lost, stop whining.

ahahahah the elite.

Sorry, can't argue with that.

You know when the backers of leave are well known philanthropists who ant to help their fellow man.

I'm afraid however much you try to twist it to suit your version, the majority vote is king. Even the applicant codes and legislation are passed by majority vote.

Nothing touches it. If there is a technical requirement to render this vote constitutionally correct then it should be rubber stamped by MPs.

They are not needed as representatives here: we have represented ourselves.

Shamelessly nicked this from another thread (think it was Claig who posted it):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn8OZHBX3gA

IDS explaining perfectly why the ruling has caused the upset it has.

Brexit & its terms/form/whatever was always going to be debated ad nauseum in govt.
The subverting of Brexit at all is the sticking point.

Conflating the two points is what people are getting het up about.

And IDS also explains WW's point about how we represented ourselves as individuals on this issue.

Great link.

Aw Vulpa you were doing so well

And then the bitter, anti democratic, sour remainer pops out from under the mask.

"They are not needed as representatives here: we have represented ourselves."

No, we haven't because the law says it was advisory.

But I'm not discussing this anymore because no matter how much we discuss it you're going to continue with this because it panders to your prejudices.

Mango, I saw IDS do that ( I've been ill for days) but he's wrong too. The courts had a case put before them, they didn't choose to intervene, they ruled on the case in front of them which is all they can do.

It seems most politicians have said they won't block an article 50 decleration, but the law states that parliament must have a vote to do this.

Simple.

They'll never be anything other than sour, bitter, & anti democratic.

Well actually the majority does not always win due to our system of democracy. Twice possibility three times (off the top of my head) since 1945, the party with the majority popular vote has not formed the government. 1950 and one of elections in 1972. This is due to the idiosyncrasies of FPTP.

Similarly the Bush vs Gore election in the US.

Sorry, majority is not king, the constitution is.

Having to agree to a lot more visas for Indian immigrants I would imagine, in order to get a look in with any future trade deals. I for one welcome that, but am not sure you lot will

eh? I personally do - yes! I hope we can balance immigration from all over the world.

Over 17 million people
Are small minded little-Englanders who can't spell, believed in the £350million, have no clue about what sovereignty or govt is/does, live surrounded by St George cross flags & are dyed in the wool racist xenophobes who cannot abide immigrants*

I do sometimes wonder what mentality brings anyone to think this. An unwillingness to see beyond their own back gardens? The shock that the vote didn't go their way? An inability to empathise with people or - to even see whats really going on?

Or is it a more sinister reason, something I suppose has leapt out at me - since the whole debate started. That is, only certain people should be allowed to vote. That most people are too thick to be allowed the vote and it should be taken away from them.
I find this chilling.

IDS is a long, long way from being a constitutional expert.

You can't represent yourself because the law that brought about the referendum says it was advisory.

BTW Farrage admitted this today, so why can't you?

Considering one of the judges founded a European law group I'd say they weren't exactly impartial.

This is over stating it.

The thing is, which Brexit is in part about, that UK law interacts with EU law. And as such there was/is a need to understand both for lawyers both here and in the UK.

A EU law group makes sense for this reason; mutual understanding.

In theory you could be for leaving the EU and still be a member of an EU law group because there is a practical need for the knowledge.

This continues post-Brexit by the way.

Autumintheair - not forgetting anyone over the age of 60. Shocking

Jesus. What meaning of the word 'represent' are you using? If it's entirely legalistic then it's entirely redundant: that we haven't been represented in parliament is obvious. But they have been represented to MPs, and it is under this usage of the word that MPs are elected to represent us. MPs are elected to represent our views, and our interests. In normal times, they have to second guess both, and this has been found to be a workable arrangement. One this occasion they do not have to second guess: we have decided what we want and what is in our best interests. It is now for them to 'represent' (your usage) us in the House of Commons. In other words, to respect a democratic vote.