No one is above the law.
Not even the government

captainsasquatch – Member

It could simply be remainders pretending to be Brexit voters trying to fuel the fire.

I mean, you can’t actually believe this yourself, can you?[/quote] Yes. Everyone can email etc everyone on interweb and claim to be someone that is one thing we can do with technology nowadays. So unless you are have a definite proof what you are doing is merely accusing others unfairly. Proof it and I shall agree with you.

You almost had me fooled into thinking that a few people was the same as a majority.
But you’re right, let’s get this thing started and I’m sure that as soon as the govt works out what it is that they’re supposed to be doing they’ll do it.
What an absurd clusterf we have going on here and you still seem to think it’s good.

You loss the referendum whether it is my one vote or two vote you still loss.

You are now just arguing with desperation.

Govt will do the right thing.

The judges are not the govt and they do not run the country. They might be technically capable but they cannot overturn a referendum and the will of the majority. That should be common sense.

Without putting too fine a point on it, are you really that **** stupid and incapable of reading what the judgement was? No part of it even suggested that it is to overturn a referendum result. It is about saying that parliament must decide what happens, as part of representative democracy, not just the PM or cabinet, in what would essentially amount to dictatorship.

Thanks, I don’t claim to fully understand it all

Which is why we have judges. Shame the same didn’t apply to the referendum. We were in no position to vote on a topic we know very little about and were told next to nothing about.

It’s also worth remembering that whether an act of parliament would be needed to trigger Article 50 was being discussed before the referendum, so it should come as no surprise to anyone.

“Not pen pushers.
UK laws by UK judges telling UK government that UK parliament is sovereign.
What is wrong with that?”

That EU treaties are usually agreed by Royal prerogative, so if you can’t end a treaty by royal prerogative it follows you can’t agree a treaty by royal prerogative – and we’ve agreed dozens of them since the early 70’s.

So if this decision is correct far from leaving the EU it might mean we were never legally in it as it exists today…

All academic but quite interesting.

slowoldman – Member
They are not acting as though they run the country. They are reminding the PM who does.

The MPs do not run the country as well. It is the Govt and that the people have voted to leave. The Govt should bow to the will of the people. Very simple. NOT a bunch of backstabbing MPs.

cchris2lou – Member
No one is above the law.
Not even the government

No law is above Democracy and the will of people.
Hence both the Govt and the law must bow to the will of the people in Democracy.

You are now just arguing with desperation.

Unlike your good self on this forum, the vast majority of the posts here would be in favour of remain, yet here you are desperately arguing that your view is correct.
I say that that the lady doth too much protesting.
As for prooving the origin of emails and tweets I think we have discovered the world’s first fireless smoke. Grow up.

Shackleton – Member
Without putting too fine a point on it, are you really that **** stupid and incapable of reading what the judgement was? No part of it even suggested that it is to overturn a referendum result. It is about saying that parliament must decide what happens, as part of representative democracy, not just the PM or cabinet, in what would essentially amount to dictatorship.

Are you so incapable of comprehend the outcome of the referendum? The remainders loss the referendum. The law cannot prevent overturn the referendum outcome. The law must bow and so do you. Parliament democracy whatever must bow to the referendum. It is common sense.

Leave him everyone

“We were in no position to vote on a topic we know very little about and were told next to nothing about.”

I agree, it’s mental. With an A Level in economics I’m supposed to come to a sane conclusion about something that economists don’t all agree about and that some even think is a political rather than economic decision!

Civil servants with Oxbridge double firsts in PPE are paid top dollar to work this stuff out. How the hell do they expect me to come to a correct conclusion in my spare time.

captainsasquatch – Member

You are now just arguing with desperation.

Unlike your good self on this forum, the vast majority of the posts here would be in favour of remain, yet here you are desperately arguing that your view is correct.[/quote]Yes, you might be the majority in this forum that fuel each others fire but the bottom line is the remainder loss. Argue until you face is blue remainder still loss the referendum.

I say that that the lady doth too much protesting.
As for prooving the origin of emails and tweets I think we have discovered the world’s first fireless smoke. Grow up.

Everyone can start a fire. Welcome to the world of interweb and unless you have proof you are just accusing others unfairly.

Are you so incapable of comprehend the outcome of the referendum? The remainders loss the referendum. The law cannot prevent overturn the referendum outcome. The law must bow and so do you. Parliament democracy whatever must bow to the referendum. It is common sense.

Funniest thing ever. 😆
Closely followed by “It is common sense.” 😀 😆

Parliament democracy whatever must bow to the referendum

Well wrong on two counts then.

You are correct OOB. Referenda are fundamentally anti-democratic. They may have a place in internal decisions (how else do you decide on breaking the four nations of the UK) but not in intercountry decisions where we elect a government to look after that sort of thing.

I suspect if Remain had promised to build a thousand puppy sanctuaries a week they would have won.

captainsasquatch – Member
Funniest thing ever.
Closely followed by “It is common sense.”

Yes, you/remainders loss the referendum regardless of the percentage you still loss.

Did you not hear David Dimbleby announced the result on the telly? We are out. We have reversed the decision made 43 years ago.

Yes, the court might be pussy footing about but you will need to fall in line soon.

Funniest thing is that remainders do not want to accept the result of the referendum.

No one is really suggesting Parliament is going to stop Brexit, the best Remain can hope for is a delay or some sort of pressure to force the Government into a soft Brexit. Everyone inc Remainers said Brexit meant leaving the single market as per the video I posted weeks ago. As I said my 2 cents is that May would win an A50 vote if one proves necessary and no legislation is needed before bypassing the Lords. Hence her message the Junker that we are on track for an end March A50 at latest.

Yes, you might be the majority in this forum that fuel each others fire but the bottom line is the remainder loss. Argue until you face is blue remainder still loss the referendum.

You really don’t read other people’s posts do you Chewkw.

If you did, you would see that most posts are not suggesting anything other than the vote (narrowly) was for exit.

The point is the judgement did not say anything about the valididty of the result.

slowoldman – Member

Parliament democracy whatever must bow to the referendum

Well wrong on two counts then. [/quote] They can overturn the will of the people if they want. They can try. I think they should force that on the people don’t you think so? Use their political power to overturn the will of the people and referendum.

I could accept the result if it wasn’t for the NHS pledge. A big fat ,blatant lie .
You can’t run an election that focuses on 2 subjects and then say that you were only kidding on one of them.
YOU JUST CAN’T **** DO THAT.

jimw – Member
You really don’t read other people’s posts do you Chewkw.

If you did, you would see that most posts are not suggesting anything other than the vote (narrowly) was for exit.

The point is the judgement did not say anything about the valididty of the result.

You lot are going in circle by trying to come up with non-existence justification about all the technicality of referendum.

Face it the remainders loss the referendum. The margin is irrelevant. The result has been announced. We are leaving EU.

You lot are making a mockery of a national referendum and cannot face up to the face that the people have voted to leave.

Funniest thing is that remainders do not want to accept the result of the referendum.

In your frothing you have clearly missed the multiple times that I have said get the f on with it. If you know what it is to be getting on with.
You’re funny in your own special way, it’s almost like a one man trade mission from a foreign country who’s just realised that they might have won the same opportunity that they had before, only without the access to Europe.
Let’s celebrate your win.

Referenda are fundamentally anti-democratic.

Why not try that argument on the SNP. We should have Swiss style legally binding referendums 2-4 times a year on specific cross party questions. Brexit showed quite clearly the issue was cross party

Chewkw – what you keep shouting is your desired ideology. It has nothing to do with the law in the uk. Numerous people have tried to explain this to you now in various ways but you seem incapable of getting your head around it.

So, for the last time before I killscript you, yesterdays judgment was absolutely not an attempt to overturn whatever passes for the will of the people. It wasn’t even about the referendum. It was abut how the result of the referendum should be considered and enacted given that the process of doing so requires overturning an act of parliament. It doesn’t matter what you and the other far right crazies think, on this matter you are 100% wrong.

Why not try that argument on the SNP.

And let’s get the rest of Europe involved in brexit.

reading comments on facebook about the legal decision, is mightily depressing

sooo many people dont have even a basic idea about the law, economics, parliament…. I mean how do they get through life having so little clue about ….anything

yeah I sound like a snooty remoaner, but really wtf??

zippykona – Member

I could accept the result if it wasn’t for the NHS pledge. A big fat ,blatant lie .
You can’t run an election that focuses on 2 subjects and then say that you were only kidding on one of them.
YOU JUST CAN’T **** DO THAT.

You can run an election with whatever slogans you want even claiming “pig can fly” it is still legitimate.

People want to vote leave because they are fed up by the constantly annoying political institution that is EU and their bureaucrats.

Which part of the rules of election that say I cannot pledge “pig cannot fly”?

There is nothing wrong with the claim. Just different interpretation.

Jamba – re the SNP read what I wrote. For internal decisions referenda while undesirable may be necessary as there is no clear sovereign authority otherwise, but for whether a sovereign nation wants to be part of a trade club they are just silly. I’ve pointed this out to my excuse of an MP but he’s apparently a bit scared to reply.

As I said, chewkw, it was known before the referendum there may be a challenge on whether there would need to be an Act of Parliament. This judgement says yes, the Supreme Court may overturn that, I don’t know.

Also, as pointed out umpteen times this was an advisory referendum. Government does not have to uphold the result though I accept they have said they will and it would be extremely difficult for them to ignore it.

You said “No law is above Democracy” but the reality is that the Government and Parliament are not above the law.

Yes it’s likely Article 50 will be triggered but let the correct process take place.

lets for a moment look at Turkey, where the the executive has decided to trample over parliament and seize absolute power.

Now look at the UK, where the judges has reminded the executive that they do not have unfettered power and have to convince parliament that their plans will work.

Checks and balances.

One thing to consider – why is May so determined to stop any debate in the Commons? MY guess it is because she knows the shambolic mess of the tory policy on this cannot stand up to any scrutiny.

You can run an election with whatever slogans you want even claiming “pig can fly” it is still legitimate.
People want to vote leave because they are fed up by the constantly annoying political institution that is EU and their bureaucrats.
Which part of the rules of election that say I cannot pledge “pig cannot fly”?
There is nothing wrong with the claim. Just different interpretation.

You are either a very persistent troll or a deliberately deceitful and mendacious con artist then. When something is a demonstrable lie it is immoral to claim otherwise.

captainsasquatch – Member
In your frothing you have clearly missed the multiple times that I have said get the f on with it. If you know what it is to be getting on with.
You’re funny in your own special way, it’s almost like a one man trade mission from a foreign country who’s just realised that they might have won the same opportunity that they had before, only without the access to Europe.
Let’s celebrate your win.

I am replying multiple times because most remainders have difficulty in accepting that they have loss the referendum. They keep going in circle trying to come up all sort of excuses to prevent the will of the people. Who cares about mission from foreign country coz it is non-issue. You loss the referendum that is much more important in the UK context. Not some foreign mission etc …

We should have Swiss style legally binding referendums 2-4 times a year on specific cross party questions.

yeah 2-4 brexishambles a year, as if this farce hadnt stirred up enough division and hatred in the country
(obvs it should be mandatory that all slogans have to be written on the side of a bus 😉 )

Shackleton – Member
You are either a very persistent troll or a deliberately deceitful and mendacious con artist then. When something is a demonstrable lie it is immoral to claim otherwise.

The rules in election do not specific what slogan(s) a party can use so unless you can show me that certain slogan(s) cannot be used in election campaign then most slogans are legitimate. As I said before different parties might simply interpret the information differently.

No need to reply after this coz I am over and out as you don’t understand this basic.

I am replying multiple times because most remainders have difficulty in accepting that they have loss the referendum. They keep going in circle trying to come up all sort of excuses to prevent the will of the people. Who cares about mission from foreign country coz it is non-issue. You loss the referendum that is much more important in the UK context. Not some foreign mission etc …

Prove that I have not accepted the loss of the referendum, or shut up.

When something is a demonstrable lie it is immoral to claim otherwise.

Oh he’ll probably just claim it’s his culture.

I am replying multiple times because most remainders have difficulty in accepting that they have loss the referendum. They keep going in circle trying to come up all sort of excuses to prevent the will of the people

Where is anyone trying to prevent the will of the people?

You are correct OOB. Referenda are fundamentally anti-democratic. They may have a place in internal decisions (how else do you decide on breaking the four nations of the UK) but not in intercountry decisions where we elect a government to look after that sort of thing.

No, as Tony Benn pointed out regards EU referenda, those elected to parliament are lent powers, by the people, to use on their behalf, and they have no right to hand those powers away to somebody else (the EU). His contention was that only the people could do that.

Edit:

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nWnpbEMMsNw[/video]

For all I’d disagree with Tony Benn on, he was spot on here, and sums up many of the reasons why I voted to leave the EU very well.

So here are the judges who will decide on the appeal
Supreme Court Judges