Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35867471)

Apparently he slammed his fist on the table and shook his head several times not believing what had actually happened overnight but remember that is hearsay and might not be actually what happened on that infamous day.:)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35867425)

The issue isn't the Government reneging on the promise to implement Brexit but if they have the legal authority to implement it without a Parliamentary vote.

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35867474)

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver :shrug:

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35867474)

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver :shrug:

Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35867474)

Then they shouldn't have promised something that they couldn't legally actually deliver :shrug:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35867449)

The referendum wasn't legally binding. The court has said that the Government simply doesn't have the power to issue Article 50. It's not them rowing back on it.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35867444)

erm ,this isn't about stopping Brexit ,it's about who has the authority to start the process and the manner it will take and that should always lay with Parliament ....unless you want a dictatorship

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35867477)

Well yes. But they can still deliver they'll just have to do via a different, political, route. The impact here (assuming the appeal fails) is that Parliament will have input on the decision which could mean they influence the deal.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35867480)

Ah hahahahahaha.


Oh wait - you're being serious.... ;)

Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35867482)

He should have had some Brexit :)

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35867481)

You are not telling me Gina Miller, the one who took this the Courts, a staunch remoaner...

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35867481)

I know it was advisory but you have MPs suggesting it was binding, because you cannot give the people a decision and then take it away from them without causing a serious constitutional crisis.




I know it is not about stopping Brexit but it has to be asked does bringing this case to the high court really mean that? That this is not some kind of futile attempt by someone who is venomously against Brexit?

Parliament gave the decision to the people, the people chose that we leave, no back room deals, no stupid, well we will keep this or keep that arrangement. Leave meant leave, as far as I am concerned and that means leave everything to do with the EU, we can keep most of their useful laws, that is still to be decided. Once we leave, we can then arrange the trade deals with other nations.

It's ludicrous to suggest that it is a dictatorship, that the PM is going to invoke Article 50, bypassing Parliamentary process, when actually it already went through one when it voted overwhelmingly to give the British people the vote. So democracy took place and it was answered, leave meant leave. It did not ask on the ballot paper, do you want to leave but keep this or keep that? It simply asked if we wished to leave the EU or stay and it was decided by 17.4 Million people.

You are not telling me Gina Miller, the one who took this the Courts, a staunch remoaner, cares so deeply about Parliamentary scrutiny ? Not a chance. I firmly believe she wants this to pass through the veto route, because bless her, it was said, she felt so unwell when Brexit won.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35867481)

I know it was advisory but you have MPs suggesting it was binding, because you cannot give the people a decision and then take it away from them without causing a serious constitutional crisis.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35867488)

As the staunch supporter of democracy that you say you are why would you possibly object to Parliament being involved in the process.Parliament is the very definition of democracy ,retaining Parliament's ultimate power is what the referendum was all about

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35867493)

Not trying to be rude here but am I speaking a foreign language? I have said twice now, now third time, that Parliament already took part in a democratic process and it was voted 6 to 1 to hand the decision back to the people via another democratic process. I am well aware it is not binding, but then you got MPs saying it is, whom am I to take more notice of, these are the law makers after all ?

The people answered that decision, now it is up to the government to enact the process, it should not have to go through Parliament a second time round.