Enemies of the People

[SueEllen]

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?

You are the idiot here.

The judges were ruling on a technicality within the law and doing their job.

[GB9]

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.

But this is the argument that won in Belfast.

The Belfast Court was of the opinion that, as Parliament would have a say in the final settlement, there was no reason why the Government should not be allowed to invoke A50.

Of course we have two contradictory outcomes, both under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Don't try and explain this to newly identified Remnants though as they won't understand.

[GB9]

You are the idiot here.

The judges were ruling on a technicality within the law and doing their job.

Two of the judges have vested interests. How on earth could they be allowed to make a judgement on anything to do with the EU?

And you haven't addressed the Belfast point. The two outcomes are contradictory as others on this thread have also managed to note.

Really, unless you want to be known as Remnant Bee you'll have to start making at least a modicum of effort.

[SueEllen]

Two of the judges have vested interests. How on earth could they be allowed to make a judgement on anything to do with the EU?

And you haven't addressed the Belfast point. The two outcomes are contradictory as others on this thread have also managed to note.

Really, unless you want to be known as Remnant Bee you'll have to start making at least a modicum of effort.

I answered your Belfast question in post 89. However a more lengthy answer is given below.

What people who have taken the government to court in each case are arguing on are legal technicalities.

In the case of the arguments presented before the courts in NI these arguments failed. Their arguments were NI specific and tried to expand the interpretation of the European Referendum Bill to include other bills on NI.

In the case of the lady and others in England their argument passed as they were only arguing on due process and the European Referendum Bill.

Now the Supreme court will say whether they agree with the reasoning of the judges in the High Court on their interpretation of the law.

All judges have vested interests in every single case as judges are people. Like anyone who has a role in judging the law they have to put aside their personal prejudices and some are better than others at doing this. In this case they made it clear the decision is not political but about the British Constitution.

[Old Greg]

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.

When are you going to stop moaning and whining?

[BlueSharp]

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.

Which part of none binding referendum do you struggle with? Of course the vote has to be enabled by parliment. One of the claimants in the court case was a leaver who wanted the process clarified beyond doubt.

Brexit will happen and it will be voted througth the house. But as Brexiters cant even decide if Brexit means staying in the single market, customs union or going straight to WTO it's surly right for Parliment to decide. Even if a GE needs triggering and the house is made up of Brexiters not all will agree to the terms of the trade deal once it's negotiated.

[jamesbrown]

But this is the argument that won in Belfast.

The Belfast Court was of the opinion that, as Parliament would have a say in the final settlement, there was no reason why the Government should not be allowed to invoke A50.

Of course we have two contradictory outcomes, both under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Don't try and explain this to newly identified Remnants though as they won't understand.

NI was a special case with two strands of argument, both with regional specificities, one on the Good Friday Agreement (the scope of which was confirmed as being limited to the UK) and one on the Royal prerogative (with a fallback to a Parliamentary vote or one in the NI assembly). So you're right that the latter was a strand of argument, but there were regional aspects too. The judgement is essentially summarised as follows (my emphasis):

It is the court’s view the prerogative power is still operative and can be used for the purpose of the executive giving notification for the purpose of article 50. This, however, is said without prejudice to the issues which have been stayed and which are under consideration in the English courts.

The latter point is particularly important. Courts and judges disagree all the time. That's why there's a hierarchy to provide a final judgement, i.e. HC --> CoA --> SC.

Anyway, all of this is noise. It's possible that the SC will overrule or revise. It isn't worth the wait IMO.

A very carefully drafted short Bill should pass the HoC without amendment. For anyone that's interested in Parliamentary procedure, the so-called "long title" of a Bill is particularly important in this regard. You cannot amend a Bill so that the scope extends the long title. This is why long titles are generally quite vague/forgiving. In other words, with some careful thought, HMG should be able to craft a Bill that cannot be amended in any substantial way. In other words, it would be impossible to insert provisions about the single market, customs union and other such nonsense, which has nothing to do with the triggering of A50. Again, we should really stop fretting about all this and allow due process to take place. Those on the remain side are perfectly within their rights to use due process to their best advantage. Likewise, HMG is also perfectly within its rights to use due process to its best advantage, ignoring the spirit of what those hoping to block A50 might want. There really is nothing to see here.

[jamesbrown]

When are you going to stop moaning and whining?

Oh, I don't know, you seem to be excelling at that yourself.

[Old Greg]

Oh, I don't know, you seem to be excelling at that yourself.

I'm having a whale of a time enjoying the mess.

[NotAllThere]

... This is an attempt by people who lost to prevent the will of the majority. Everyone knows it.

Everyone who has a propensity for tin-foil hats, possibly. You are an ignorant fool. Since you startedt posting here, you demonstrated it again and again. If I for one minute believed that your stupidity was an act, I'd ban you as a troll. However, no-one is that good at acting, so I truly believe you are simply an ignorant fool.

But not a dangerous fool. As they say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - you're so deeply ignorant and foolish, you don't even have a little knowledge.