it actually that it is only for people to back slap each other about how fantastic leaving the EU will be without having a fucking clue how it will work in practice
Thanks Bear its this way of addressing people - repeatedly that I am referring too. 
The bitterness is oozing from every word.
Kaija, no it was the poster who stalked me from thread to thread telling all and sundry I was WW when I am not, even after MN HQ on MY behest, said I was not WW.
Err no. I'm not quoting from an article Ok Figment its just astonishing thats all as I read a little piece I cant link too Its behind a pay wall...but it had very similar sentences in. You cant see them here.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/their-post-truth-comfort-blanket-is-all-the-liberals-have-left-cx7cpzgnz
I also read this - this am which was interesting. I know many posters on here will reject it immediately and not read it because its the Mail 
"that as the media have peeled away the anonymity that cloaked the Supreme Court judges to reveal a number who have strong associations with EU institutions",
"The faux anger of some politicians and lawyers about the personal interests of the judges being made public, as though they were omnipotent, is close to risible. After all, it's not as though this present legal structure is a centuries-old edifice that has stood the test of time"
"It is worth reminding ourselves that the Supreme Court was created in June 2003 — when I was Tory leader — right in the middle of a botched Cabinet reshuffle by Tony Blair".
"With little thought for the constitutional proprieties, and partly because he wanted to get rid of his troublesome Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine — who opposed the creation of a Supreme Court — he sought to get rid of the post of Lord Chancellor and move the Law Lords out of Parliament to create a Supreme Court that was both legally and physically separate from Westminster"
"In one stroke of his all-too-regal pen, Tony Blair dispensed with centuries of constitutional balance. No thought, it seems, was given to the constitutional arrangement that had prevailed until then, that by having the nation's supreme appeal court actually within Parliament, the supremacy of Parliament was assured.
"Of all the many ill-considered arrangements made by the Blair government, this had to be among the least considered and most chaotic. Instead of a careful debate about the supremacy of Parliament and the role of the judiciary, or even how that delicate relationship should be settled, Blair rushed the proposal through to resolve his own political difficulties"
"When MPs attacked him, saying what he had done was without thought and amounted to constitutional vandalism, he flippantly replied that he believed it was time to get rid of the men in tights. In response, one Tory MP suggested that instead of tearing up the constitution, Mr Blair could try giving the judges some trousers.
The result is that we now have a Supreme Court, and after a number of major adjustments, we are having to learn to live with the notion of a separation of powers and, yes, location"
And so on and so on and so on.
"But if the Supreme Court rules against the Government, and then Article 50 is halted, or mired in endless amendments, as Nick Clegg and his allies would like, then the judges will have set Parliament against the people and brought the constitution to a point of crisis."
"There was a good reason why, when England's Bill of Rights was crafted in 1689, article nine made plain that proceedings in Parliament must not be overruled in any court or place outside Parliament. It was to stop such an event as this — a democratic referendum being derailed — coming to pass"
In the U.S., such appointees undergo gruelling hearings in the Senate which pore over every aspect of their legal opinions and personal lives Since our Supreme Court is modelled on that of America (albeit with some differences), I believe it's time for us to introduce a process of Parliamentary hearings to examine candidates for the Supreme Court when a vacancy has to be filled