The Brexit Arms. For all those who like a good drink, a good flounce, & a bit of trickery.

[surferjet]

Pull up a chair & relax......

Lost a paragraph

No. parliament was informed of the choice of the voters by way of a referendum.

That's utter nonsense - The referendum was yes or no to leaving the EU. Voters chose to leave but did not get to decide how that happens. That is what parliament needs to debate and decide.

You and your fellow 'jump off a cliff' pals' might be happy with that approach but many of us aren't because it's foolish and reckless.

Okay... Leprechaun man has a Wikipedia entry.

Cornelius "Neil" Horan, sometimes referred to as The Grand Prix Priest or The Dancing Priest (born 22 April 1947). He is a defrocked Irish Roman Catholic priest who is noted for his interference with the running of the 2003 British Grand Prix and the 2004 Summer Olympics men's marathon in order to promote his religious belief that the end of the world is near. He went on to appear on Britain's Got Talent in May 2009.

Sorry for thread derail, but I wonder why he was defrocked?

Personally, I would prefer to leave completely rather than paying in.

However, if parliament decides that staying in and paying for access is the best course of action then I accept that.

The overwhelming plus will still be the fact that we are not tied to the EU project in its entirety.

Sorry. Wrong thread!

He is bizarre!

Me:
parliament was informed of the choice of the voters by way of a referendum.

You:
That's utter nonsense - The referendum was yes or no to leaving the EU. Voters chose to leave but did not get to decide how that happens. That is what parliament needs to debate and decide.

And this court case is about how A50 is triggered - following the direction from voters to Leave the EU.

This court case has the square root of fuck all to do with the type of Brexit.

You really need to get your arguments straight in your own head, as you don't appear to have a coherent train of thought on the matter in today's posts.

Please don't patronise me mango. My thoughts are perfectly clear.

The fact I can see that the court case has consequences and you can't isn't my problem.

The type of Brexit we will get will be debated by parliament if when the government loses the Supreme Court case.

I guess the court case has to do with the sovereignty of parliament. You know, the sovereignty the leaver Ayatollahs were banging on about. Have they changed their mind on that principle? Surely they wouldn't want the government to undermine the democratic representation of parliament. Or illegally trigger article 50 in an unconstitutional manner if the supreme court rules that the use of the royal prerogative is unconstitutional in this instance.

The fact I can see that the court case has consequences and you can't isn't my problem.

I've consistently pointed out today that this case has potential consequences, but you consistently refuse to answer when I ask you how you feel about them.

You must be muddling me up with someone else.

I haven't refused to answer anything mango

You insist on talking about the consequences in terms of precedent for other cases. I've answered that I don't believe it will be a vague enough ruling to change that precedent.

You refuse to accept that losing this court case means the government will have to answer some very difficult questions before A50 is invoked- those are the specific consequences of this case.

I guess the court case has to do with the sovereignty of parliament.

It is to do with a point of law.
Whether or not prerogative is suitable for this instance.

You know, the sovereignty the leaver Ayatollahs were banging on about.

Have they changed their mind on that principle?

No, why do you think that?

Surely they wouldn't want the government to undermine the democratic representation of parliament.

No, why do you think that?

Or illegally trigger article 50 in an unconstitutional manner if the supreme court rules that the use of the royal prerogative is unconstitutional in this instance.

Well if the Supreme Court decides that the use of prerogative is not correct for triggering of A50, then that is what they decide.

Bit confused as to what your point actually is, tbh.
I suspect you just wanted to shoehorn in a bit of Leave voter vitriol?
I mean, 'Ayatollahs'? Really?!
Ffs.

The fact I can see that the court case has consequences and you can't isn't my problem

Klaxon this court case has consequences - who knew

Mango to properly procrastinate you need to do the supermarket run, change, wash and iron 3 lots of bedding, iron the school uniforms, sort out a pile of school and scout paperwork, pick up teeny and supervise the homework, and cook the dinner.

Beginning to suspect Bear is bored on the train again

I hope a minor derail is allowed to highly recommend my new SMEG washing machine. I have absolutely no idea why the Italian economy is such a mess because it is miles and miles better than the Siemens it replaced.

Surely the point of law in this case is whether the government can unilaterally trigger it using the royal prerogative or it has to be referred to parliament.

I think Ayatollahs is quite good for people like farage and his ilk. Ideologues. Full of mostly hypocritical horses**t.

Not referring to parliament something based on a non binding and advisory referendum is leaving a bit of a gap on the sovereignty of parliament and quite gives the impression of a little cognitive dissonance.

Do you think Mays Conservative Government trying to pull a fast one and bypass parliament is what people voted for? In fact, nobody knows exactly what people voted for except a narrow margin majority voted for leaving the EU. What the non EU UK would look like anyone on the planet can give an opinion on. And it would still only be an opinion. Not a verified fact.

Not referring to parliament something based on a non binding and advisory referendum is leaving a bit of a gap on the sovereignty of parliament and quite gives the impression of a little cognitive dissonance.

The spectacular arrogance of all MPs pre referendum is what has left us in this position.
Nobody truly contemplated a win for Leave, hence they voted through the ref and its loopholes with no real scrutiny.

The result is that the people were asked to make a decision on EU membership, and were assured (repeatedly, by both Remain & Leave advocates as well as the PM) that whatever they decided would be enacted.

We decided:
Leave the EU.

Re prerogative- as has been pointed out already, it is used all the time.
Its usage in this particular scenario is what is being judged.

As I said earlier in the thread, whatever the outcome, I am glad to live in a free country whereby voices are heard.
We are allowed, as citizens, to challenge our govt - the judiciary is independent of govt & parliament is bigger than one person when necessary.

I would like the outcome to be that prerogative is enough (as I believe it should be - enacting the choice of the electorate as we were promised).
However, I would hope that if the verdict goes in favour of parliamentary approval rather than prerogative, the Remain contingent remember that the majority of the electorate voted to leave, and don't conspire to subvert Brexit completely.

Agree with every word but feel if TM doesn't take reigns on this soon, it will be de railed.

"We decided:
Leave the EU."

Six months on, and we have progressed no further than this. What type of relationship do we (the electorate, Leave voters, Remain voters, the majority of those who voted in the referendum, the current majority etc.) want with the EU? We still don't know.

The liberal media drone on endlessly about the scandal of posh old white men running the world. Yet they've been notably silent about the spectacular poshness and whiteness of the Supreme Court judges ruling on Brexit, who were schooled at Eton, Westminster and Charterhouse, and of course Oxford and Cambridge, and who list their hobbies as skiing, opera and playing the viola. One of them describes his £1.6m wages as "puny". These lords' whiteness and poshness is overlooked because it is hoped they will temper the political passions of the white people the liberal media really fear the throng, the unthinking demos, those cretins who voted Brexit and who in the process brought about a "triumph of unreason", according to the New Statesman today. A tiny posh clique called upon to counter or at least tame the unreason of the mob elitism has come violently back to life

So true

"On a bit of a tangent, isn't it great that we live in a country whereby a citizen can take the govt to court.

Regardless of the outcome or the subject matter, I am heartened that our society & country is truly free and that we (as a people) are not afraid or cowed and have the right and mechanisms to speak out against, or to challenge the govt.

That's surely something to celebrate."

I have to take issue with this. THis is so misleading, in a country with a system where justice is only available to those who can afford it. Across the board, from local councils setting uo their own 'council tax courts' to eye watering court fees (defended by the warped logic that if you win you get your fees back.....tell that to the builder of scam artist who disappeared with your life savings in the first place) then to the secretive Court of Protection who not only charge you for the priviledge of a behind closed doors justice, but demand jail if put under public scrutiny. Fairness and justice for all, died in this country years ago.

Anyway, back to the thread, the wonderful Gina Miller et al who indeed had half a million to throw at this ......

What would you prefer, Surfer? A Supreme Court where 'the people' decided what the law was and put their own interpretation on it?

The liberal media drone on endlessly about the scandal of posh old white men running the world. Yet they've been notably silent about the spectacular poshness and whiteness
And as for this ^^ I don't think it's the liberal media droning on about posh old men running the world. That's what Farage and Trump do ad nauseum, calling them - and anyone that doesn't agree with them - 'elite'. Of course, they don't complain so much about the 'white' bit.

We live in a country in which people are primed by superficial stuff they see on the internet (blah blah white eton male etc etc) and by the right wing press to attack judges without the first clue about how the rule of law operates in this country.

Access to justice is indeed dire and grotesquely unequal, but the quality of judicial decision making - especially in the appeal courts - is exceptionally high.

One of them describes his £1.6m wages as "puny".

I know it wasn't really the point of that post but I'm curious where the £1.6m figure comes from. The salary of a Supreme Court Judge was £213,125 last year.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419123/judicial-salaries-1-april-2015.pdf

Chris, I agree that access to justice is not equal & all that you mentioned in your post - it was more of a general point I was making really, that we have the right to do it.

You don't mind a bit of white privilege when it suits you.

Hypocrites.