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

[surferjet]

Welcome

Oh I see - you believe MPs should vote in favour and may should trigger article 50 at will after that?

Can you tell me then where does the legitimacy derive from?

I am hoping there will be some discussion of which way to proceed from here. That has nothing to do with reversing the result and everything to do with finding a consensus on the direction of Brexit,

That's a bit meaningless. There's plenty of discussion already. Can you be more specific?

Also where does the legitimacy of a majority vote derive from ? (grammer)

I don't know how many other ways I can say it, WW. MPs are elected by a majority and there, if you like, is where their legitimacy to represent us comes from.

YY Mango.

But why does a majority vote have legitimacy? What does it represent? For you I mean. I know what it represents for me. Your response continues to be circular.

And given we've had lots of discussion already, can you be more specific?

a majority vote has legitimacy but only in certain conditions

But a majority vote does only have legitimacy in certain conditions. On its own, a majority in a referendum couldn't abolish the right to trial by jury, for instance.

Why does a majority vote have legitimacy? I guess because it's the most workable arrangement we've come up with so far to govern ourselves.

Thank you Mango - not sure why it appeared as a link but I've never been able to add pics here for some reason.

I'm in a leave area (very close vote) and have just e-mailed my MP asking how he intends to vote in Parliament on this issue and that my voting in future elections will depend on how he replies.

We were specifically told prior to the referendum This is your decision.The Government will implement what you decide and I expect them to do just that.

Downs a Stella Artois Raspberry Cidre whilst knocking Junker's second ball into the opposite corner pocket.

I'm in a leave area (very close vote) and have just e-mailed my MP asking how he intends to vote in Parliament on this issue and that my voting in future elections will depend on how he replies good move.

Yes it is! It's the most workable arrangement to express what?

The majority view.

Hmm looking at the judges:

Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas is a founding member of the European Law Institute which aims to 'enhance european legal integration". Is that not a conflict of interest?

HighCourt judge Philip Sales is a pal of war criminal Blair. He was appointed to Blair's legal team after the 1997 election and became one of the highest paid publicly funded lawyers in the country, Sales defended the Government’s decision against holding a public inquiry into the Iraq War in the High Court in 2005. This summer he overruled the previous High Court decision to allow 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the leadership election, a decision designed to help the Blairites. Sales as good as takes his instructions directly from Blair, the very man who is publicly seeking to sabotage Brexit.

Terence Etherton was appointed a High Court judge in 2001 while Blair was in office He was then promoted to LordJustice of Appeal by Gordon Brown

Can we pick the judges for the appeal

Circularity again. Why should the majority view prevail?

It is not circular, Winchester.

WW - maybe this will help you out:

However, although there may be no legal obligation to abide by the result of the referendum that is not the same as saying there is no political commitment to do so, and MPs may feel a strong obligation to act on the results of the vote, especially if they fear reprisals from their electorate in the form of being voted out of office at a future election. So popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty appear to be at odds. Which, if either, ought to predominate?

From: ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/28/sionaidh-douglas-scott-brexit-the-referendum-and-the-uk-parliament-some-questions-about-sovereignty/

Here is an interesting article covering how the two can be reconciled:

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/11/03/jean-leclair-brexit-and-the-unwritten-constitutional-principle-of-democracy-a-canadian-perspective/

Why should the majority view prevail?

Thanks informal but I don't need help. But kind of you.

I mean I will read them. But my logic on the moral authority and legitimacy of the vote is very sound.

rorty

Its extra ordinary isn't it. It really is, if this was a plot in a book, having three judges with such views would be too obvious.

WW because over time we have come to a kind of consensus that this is the best way to govern. Other forms of government are available if you prefer them.

This is circular AGAIN.

Being a workable arrangement does not confer legitimacy. It has to be a workable arrangement OF something. Of what?

There is nothing circular about it. AGAIN.