Enemies of the People

[chopper]

Since Acts of Parliament can only be revoked by an Act of Parliament (i.e. the European Communities Act), then this is why Theresa May cannot simply invoke Article 50, since the act of doing to would decimate the European Communities Act. This is why parliament must put an act together giving consent for Article 50 to be invoked. It should be nothing more than a box ticking exercise to implement the will of the people. A judgement now ensures that there is no court bunfighting once Article 50 is triggered.

If invoking Article 50 didn't irrevocably set us on the path of exiting the EU, then perhaps prerogative would be fine for invocation although parliament would still need to give assent to actually leaving the EU.

I'm not sure, however, that it is Brexiters complaining about the judgement but rather Remoaners simply saying that Brexiters are complaining about the judgement.

Personally, I feel the government should negotiate a soft Brexit where we leave the EU, but remain in the single market including the freedom of movement of workers, goods, services and capital, i.e. EEA, with freedom to negotiate our own trade deals with nations outside the EU/EEA and without the truly awful TTIP/CETA being imposed on us, and a significantly reduced contribution to the EU budget (we'll pay for our own stuff without having to pay for white elephant EU projects in other European countries). The EU can swivel sideways when it comes to them ramping up the EU budget at times of internal austerity. Of course we should pay into the things we use.

At the end of it, a three way referendum. a) Remain, b) Leave on the soft brexit terms negotiated, c) Leave but not on the negotiated terms therefore 'hard' Brexit.

[jamesbrown]

If invoking Article 50 didn't irrevocably set us on the path of exiting the EU, then perhaps prerogative would be fine for invocation although parliament would still need to give assent to actually leaving the EU.

That's precisely the argument they should've used, in my view, if they wanted to be certain about winning in the HC, and that seems to be confirmed in the details of the HC judgement. The triggering of A50 doesn't irrevocably put us on a path, because the withdrawal of a notification under A50 is unspecified (and Lord Kerr, who drafted A50, also takes this view). To your second point, Parliament will obviously have a say on the misnamed "Great Repeal Bill", which is a traditional Act, subject to due process.

Of course, HMG could put a revised argument to the SC, but they probably won't. They prefer political expediency, and it will cost them the judgement in the SC. As I've said above, incompetence of the highest order. However, I think it's quite likely that the SC will narrow the judgement and provide details on their understanding of Parliamentary scrutiny. Despite the hysterical headlines, I don't see too many moderate leavers whining about the judgement. I thought it would go differently, on balance, but it's really not that important in the scheme of things.

[SueEllen]

I'm not sure, however, that it is Brexiters complaining about the judgement but rather Remoaners simply saying that Brexiters are complaining about the judgement.

The two particular idiots on this forum are Brexiters who are insulting the personal lives of the judges and moaning about the judgement which they don't seem to understand was done on a point of law.

The fact that the judges have told the government to do it properly means when Article 50 is evoked there will not be any more legal challenges though the opposition parties and the Tories who know they are in safe seats may play games.

[meridian]

Reasoned by those already in favour of the EU, hence unsafe.

I assume you agree that someone responsible for the EU Integration Group should not be ruling on whether or not we should integrate with the EU?

Oh dear.

They didn't rule on whether or not we should integrate with the EU. In fact, they made it very clear that that was most definitely not what they were ruling on. They were ruling on whether or not our sovereign parliament had a say in triggering the article.

[SunnyInHades]

Since Acts of Parliament can only be revoked by an Act of Parliament .. Theresa May cannot simply invoke Article 50,

John Bercow 'Mr Speaker' rides in on a white horse ..

Constitutional expert David Rogers, author of By Royal Appointment ...
"senior members of the Privy Council, which include the Speaker, could overrule the judges’ decision.

If he only has eyes and ears to do what members want, and most want Article 50 to be triggered, then he is within his rights to say its inappropriate for outside forces to intervene.”

Brexit: Speaker John Bercow could hold power in legal dispute | Politics | News | Daily Express

[Old Greg]

John Bercow 'Mr Speaker' rides in on a white horse ..

Constitutional expert David Rogers, author of By Royal Appointment ...
"senior members of the Privy Council, which include the Speaker, could overrule the judges’ decision.

If he only has eyes and ears to do what members want, and most want Article 50 to be triggered, then he is within his rights to say its inappropriate for outside forces to intervene.”

Brexit: Speaker John Bercow could hold power in legal dispute | Politics | News | Daily Express

Parliament could then legislate to overrule the speaker and PC.

When does civil war break out and what are the associated business opportunities?

[SueEllen]

Parliament could then legislate to overrule the speaker and PC.

When does civil war break out and what are the associated business opportunities?

Should get into the army equipment sector.

[GB9]

The two particular idiots on this forum are Brexiters who are insulting the personal lives of the judges and moaning about the judgement which they don't seem to understand was done on a point of law.

The fact that the judges have told the government to do it properly means when Article 50 is evoked there will not be any more legal challenges though the opposition parties and the Tories who know they are in safe seats may play games.

The fact that one judge is a mate of arch EU fanatic Blair is important. In any criminal case this situation wouldn't be allowed.

The other is professional in that he founded the EU Integration Group and therefore has a vested interest.

Of course you won't care as now you've identified yourself as a lovey liberal. Daren't upset our Tone or Cherie, dare we.

FFS. We have a new Remnant moaner and it has the intelligence of Bee. We won't even get a quarter decent argument.

[GB9]

Oh dear.

They didn't rule on whether or not we should integrate with the EU. In fact, they made it very clear that that was most definitely not what they were ruling on. They were ruling on whether or not our sovereign parliament had a say in triggering the article.

Which ultimately decides on whether or not we integrate with the EU.

Can you think at a holistic level or am I going to have to explain everything I write in detail so you can absorb it into your thick bonce?

[GB9]

Let's cut the nonsense.

This has nothing to do with process or sovereignty of Parliament or anything even remotely similar. This is an attempt by people who lost to prevent the will of the majority. Everyone knows it.

Stop hiding behind the pretence that what is happening is something democratic and good. It isn't. It's the Liberal elitist, the self-interested and wannabee hangers oner playing their last card.