Brexit or Britin

[jimbo]

So, in summation, there are more than a few folk that I've spoken to that were as conned as I was in thinking we were being asked as British people to vote whether we should we stay with Europe or exit?.....and the voting was actually just a huge waste of time and effort.....that about it?

But it wasn't a waste of time was it? If there was no vote we'd have carried on as before and none of this would be happening.

The 'in/out' thing was never going to be completely binary. The leave vote wasn't a vote for a fully detailed laid out exit plan. It was simply a vote where people decided we'd be better out of it. Within that there was a huge spectrum of opinion as to how to proceed from Australian style points systems to more free movement of labour to no one coming here at all. Some people wanted complete economic withdrawal, others wanted to keep some links in the single market.

Whatever the decision in court yesterday all of that would still have to be decided. What changes now is that it is decided democratically by parliament rather than an unelected PM. Surely that makes more sense?

[Prufrock]

Super. You have set my mind to rest with your comprehensive and knowledgeable response. Apart from.....

How many persons fall into the categories of senior city boys (the bosses, not the underlings) or the Tory libertarian right may I ask? I'll wager it is more than one and less than 100,000. Their views are probably somewhat different to the larger part of the Leave vote. As are those of Owen Smith who admitted on the Politics thing with Andrew Neil today the he will vote against Article 50 and is still banging on about a second referendum, the tw*t. Polly Toynbee is, I'm sure, one of your heros and has advised MPs to ignore the referendum result. The tw*t. Despite your protestations that no one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents or the population at large.

"Keep trade" - that is another one which has been brought up by Remoaners. Do you believe that trade is conducted between governments or is it actually between companies and individuals? Trade will continue between the EU and the UK regardless and it is the terms need to be settled. I suppose the EU cutting off it's nose to spite it's face when it has a trade surplus with the UK is unlikely but not impossible.

The judgement did interfere with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum vote firstly by adding potential delay to the process, secondly by causing further uncertainty to commercial operations. It also, as I understand it, added the need for a further layer of legislation on top of that required to remove the existing European Act from the statute book before notice of Article 50 is given to the EU. The competence must lie with the executive and not with Parliament because it will be those in power at the time who will carry the can if things go horribly askew.

Oh, by the way, plait has an i in it. Innit bruv.

Well, thankfully our constitution isn't based on what you would or would not wager. There is no way of knowing how many Leavers voted out for what reason. For my own part, I'd wager that the number of Leavers who voted out for non-hard-leaving raise-the-drawbridge reasons is more than the 0.9% or so required to tip the vote the other way, but hey, I'm just guessing.

I did not argue no-one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents/the vote in general, but that there wouldn't be enough to defeat a Parliamentary vote. I'm sure there'd be some Lib Dems for example who thought no leaver is ever voting for me so I might as well vote against, but they wouldn't be enough. Should Parliament vote against Art.50 we'd then have soemthing worthy of the massive "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" headline the Daily Mail have favourited. But it won't happen. In the meantime, feel free to call Stephen Kinnock a tw*t if it makes you feel better. Deciding where on the leave spectrum (or Brectrum, if I may) we are needs to be decided by someone. It's either decided by the Govt. or by Parliament. Our constitution says Parliament (quite right, too).

The judgment did no such thing as interfere with the will of the people. The judges set out what the law is. It has always been the law, from the moment that the referendum was announced, that Art.50 would need Parliamentary backing when it came to be "triggered". The judges didn't decide what the law *should be*, but ruled on what the law *is*. They did not introduce any delay. If there is any delay then that lies at the door of the PM who should not have been acting like she could just ignore Parliament like some sort of monarch or something. That's what we had the Glorious Revolution for, old boy.

[TANGODANCER]

So, in summation, there are more than a few folk that I've spoken to that were as conned as I was in thinking we were being asked as British people to vote whether we should we stay with Europe or exit?.....and the voting was actually just a huge waste of time and effort.....that about it?

But it wasn't a waste of time was it? If there was no vote we'd have carried on as before and none of this would be happening.

Is it in any way then, about the will of the people, citizens of the U.K, mattering as such, as a decision, ( which I'll freely admit I thought) or was it just an opinion poll like "you can choose all the Christmas presents in Argos catalogue but you won't actually be getting any" ..? When the result was known we were swabbing down the decks of the gunboats next day, Article 50 already in the post etc, Nicola the brave ordering the bricks from Jewsons to fence in Scotland and all that. Right now it all seems more than a bit bafling, at least to me. Is "hoisted by your own petard" a relevant comment?

[Worthy4England]

Super. You have set my mind to rest with your comprehensive and knowledgeable response. Apart from.....

How many persons fall into the categories of senior city boys (the bosses, not the underlings) or the Tory libertarian right may I ask? I'll wager it is more than one and less than 100,000. Their views are probably somewhat different to the larger part of the Leave vote. As are those of Owen Smith who admitted on the Politics thing with Andrew Neil today the he will vote against Article 50 and is still banging on about a second referendum, the tw*t. Polly Toynbee is, I'm sure, one of your heros and has advised MPs to ignore the referendum result. The tw*t. Despite your protestations that no one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents or the population at large.

"Keep trade" - that is another one which has been brought up by Remoaners. Do you believe that trade is conducted between governments or is it actually between companies and individuals? Trade will continue between the EU and the UK regardless and it is the terms need to be settled. I suppose the EU cutting off it's nose to spite it's face when it has a trade surplus with the UK is unlikely but not impossible.

The judgement did interfere with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum vote firstly by adding potential delay to the process, secondly by causing further uncertainty to commercial operations. It also, as I understand it, added the need for a further layer of legislation on top of that required to remove the existing European Act from the statute book before notice of Article 50 is given to the EU. The competence must lie with the executive and not with Parliament because it will be those in power at the time who will carry the can if things go horribly askew.

Oh, by the way, plait has an i in it. Innit bruv.

Well, thankfully our constitution isn't based on what you would or would not wager. There is no way of knowing how many Leavers voted out for what reason. For my own part, I'd wager that the number of Leavers who voted out for non-hard-leaving raise-the-drawbridge reasons is more than the 0.9% or so required to tip the vote the other way, but hey, I'm just guessing.

I did not argue no-one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents/the vote in general, but that there wouldn't be enough to defeat a Parliamentary vote. I'm sure there'd be some Lib Dems for example who thought no leaver is ever voting for me so I might as well vote against, but they wouldn't be enough. Should Parliament vote against Art.50 we'd then have soemthing worthy of the massive "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" headline the Daily Mail have favourited. But it won't happen. In the meantime, feel free to call Stephen Kinnock a tw*t if it makes you feel better. Deciding where on the leave spectrum (or Brectrum, if I may) we are needs to be decided by someone. It's either decided by the Govt. or by Parliament. Our constitution says Parliament (quite right, too).

The judgment did no such thing as interfere with the will of the people. The judges set out what the law is. It has always been the law, from the moment that the referendum was announced, that Art.50 would need Parliamentary backing when it came to be "triggered". The judges didn't decide what the law *should be*, but ruled on what the law *is*. They did not introduce any delay. If there is any delay then that lies at the door of the PM who should not have been acting like she could just ignore Parliament like some sort of monarch or something. That's what we had the Glorious Revolution for, old boy.

It's amazing how the very people who were bemoaning the fact we weren't in control of our own legislation, seem to be putting their faith in an Big-Brother-like opinion poll and decrying the fact that we're actually following our own legislation.

I think your new word Brectrum is carrying one "r" too many.

[bedwetter2]

Super. You have set my mind to rest with your comprehensive and knowledgeable response. Apart from.....

How many persons fall into the categories of senior city boys (the bosses, not the underlings) or the Tory libertarian right may I ask? I'll wager it is more than one and less than 100,000. Their views are probably somewhat different to the larger part of the Leave vote. As are those of Owen Smith who admitted on the Politics thing with Andrew Neil today the he will vote against Article 50 and is still banging on about a second referendum, the tw*t. Polly Toynbee is, I'm sure, one of your heros and has advised MPs to ignore the referendum result. The tw*t. Despite your protestations that no one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents or the population at large.

"Keep trade" - that is another one which has been brought up by Remoaners. Do you believe that trade is conducted between governments or is it actually between companies and individuals? Trade will continue between the EU and the UK regardless and it is the terms need to be settled. I suppose the EU cutting off it's nose to spite it's face when it has a trade surplus with the UK is unlikely but not impossible.

The judgement did interfere with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum vote firstly by adding potential delay to the process, secondly by causing further uncertainty to commercial operations. It also, as I understand it, added the need for a further layer of legislation on top of that required to remove the existing European Act from the statute book before notice of Article 50 is given to the EU. The competence must lie with the executive and not with Parliament because it will be those in power at the time who will carry the can if things go horribly askew.

Oh, by the way, plait has an i in it. Innit bruv.

Well, thankfully our constitution isn't based on what you would or would not wager. There is no way of knowing how many Leavers voted out for what reason. For my own part, I'd wager that the number of Leavers who voted out for non-hard-leaving raise-the-drawbridge reasons is more than the 0.9% or so required to tip the vote the other way, but hey, I'm just guessing.

I did not argue no-one would be mad enough to ignore their constituents/the vote in general, but that there wouldn't be enough to defeat a Parliamentary vote. I'm sure there'd be some Lib Dems for example who thought no leaver is ever voting for me so I might as well vote against, but they wouldn't be enough. Should Parliament vote against Art.50 we'd then have soemthing worthy of the massive "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" headline the Daily Mail have favourited. But it won't happen. In the meantime, feel free to call Stephen Kinnock a tw*t if it makes you feel better. Deciding where on the leave spectrum (or Brectrum, if I may) we are needs to be decided by someone. It's either decided by the Govt. or by Parliament. Our constitution says Parliament (quite right, too).

The judgment did no such thing as interfere with the will of the people. The judges set out what the law is. It has always been the law, from the moment that the referendum was announced, that Art.50 would need Parliamentary backing when it came to be "triggered". The judges didn't decide what the law *should be*, but ruled on what the law *is*. They did not introduce any delay. If there is any delay then that lies at the door of the PM who should not have been acting like she could just ignore Parliament like some sort of monarch or something. That's what we had the Glorious Revolution for, old boy.

Are you watching Newsnight? You should - it would make so much better informed.

It appears your views are based upon a sort of relativism that only left-wingers can accept as reality. The judicial review resulted in an opinion and whilst we are discussing it, there is no such thing as a British constitution. That judgement/opinion does not necessarily make it correct. It has already been admitted by Remoaners that the judgement can result in delays to the process of Brexit both in the Commons and in the Lords.

So; frustrating the will of the British people is the name of the game and I don't doubt that your assurances to the contrary are just hot air, as will be seen. Whether the PM is like an absolute monarch to you is of no value. The Glorious Revolution?? Getting your history mixed up. What are you like, eh?

Did I mention that Stephen Kinnock is a nice person? Well he is, but even worse, a self-regarding, gravy-train jumping, dishonest nice person with absolutely no democratic bone in his body.

[Prufrock]

Being told to be better informed by somebody who doesn't think we have a constitution, and doesn't know what the Glorious Revolution was...

Yeah, OK.

At least you've got past correcting typos.

D-. Must do better.

[Hoboh]

Being told to be better informed by somebody who doesn't think we have a constitution, and doesn't know what the Glorious Revolution was...

Yeah, OK.

At least you've got past correcting typos.

D-. Must do better.

You'd better email or tweet this bloke then Pru

former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, expressed alarm at attacks on the judiciary. “They are entirely unjustified and are either made in ignorance or out of malice, it’s impossible to know which,” he said.

Who are the judges who ruled that MPs should vote on Brexit?
Read more

“The judges are the safeguarders of our unwritten constitution.

Sooooo if this constitution is not written down in just who the fcuk knows what it contains or do the judges make it up as they go along?

[Hoboh]

Nearly died laughing when I read this;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... 2016-trump" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More bitter than sucking lemons.

there really is a vocal minority screaming, screeching away that somehow they are superior and those who voted out are dickheads.

Well I've news for you Mr sell out the UK for perceived personal gain traitor, come they day of the revolution you'll be first up against the wall and the rest of yoursnowflakes Blizzards!

[bedwetter2]

Being told to be better informed by somebody who doesn't think we have a constitution, and doesn't know what the Glorious Revolution was...

Yeah, OK.

At least you've got past correcting typos.

D-. Must do better.

I'm well aware what the Glorious Revolution was but I still fail to see the connections in the way that seems apparent to you. What happened in the seventeenth century when there were no political parties as such or indeed a designated prime minister has little context today.

Also, as Hoboh confirmed, there is not a written constitution for this country, just a series of precedents and rulings which are supposed by the legal profession to make up a constitution. To the advantage of the lawyers, that means everything has to be tested in law, resulting in income for them and rulings such as that delivered on Thursday.

And I haven't finished correcting your errors and typos. Oh no, not by any means.

Did I mention that I dislike Stephen Kinnock, the scion of the nose in the trough EU champions. He's a nice person, a devious one, you know.

[bedwetter2]

Nearly died laughing when I read this;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... 2016-trump" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More bitter than sucking lemons.

there really is a vocal minority screaming, screeching away that somehow they are superior and those who voted out are dickheads.

Well I've news for you Mr sell out the UK for perceived personal gain traitor, come they day of the revolution you'll be first up against the wall and the rest of yoursnowflakes Blizzards!

Yes, I read it. I don't know about bitter but certainly deluded. The article is all rhetoric without a single fact to get in the way of his argument. Typically, for a Remoaner, he cannot articulate a convincing argument for why Remain was the logical choice for voters. I can understand why - there is no logic in staying in an EU which takes our money and then continually punches us in the face if we disagree with any aspect of the "European Project" (federalism or worse is the direction of travel for the Juncker Express)

The Guardian does seem to be the Remoaners HQ where they all pat each other on the back in the belief they are right and everyone else is wrong. Arrogance.

Then he turn his spiked guns onto the American election, specifically Trump. Will the American electorate bear in mind his warnings of dire consequences when they cast their votes? Watch out for another thrilling episode of "Remoaner on the Edge".

[Worthy4England]

It's like drama queen central.

The Article 50 ruling didn't say anything about ignoring the vote (although that opinion wasn't legally binding even though there is precedent under which it could have been) nor as far as I can tell, did it express and opinion one way or the other about whether we should or should not leave the EU.

That any Government should be able to enact legislation affecting me and remove my current legal rights or add to my legal obligations, without recourse to parliament, puts way too much power in what is generally a minority elected group of people (either Conservative or Labour or some other party) or in the case of a more dictatorial party an even smaller number than the current 650 + HoL. That's the point of the ruling, not whether we could or should leave the EU.

I still think we should (and will) leave the EU based on the vote. I still think there were many elements not voted on in the referendum - so leaving the EU and retaining full free movement would be just as valid an approach as leaving the EU and having no free movement.

The country voted on the former "leave the EU" and not the latter "free movement" - and the fact that there is a widely held opinion that free movement was a significant factor (it's my opinion that it was too), doesn't alter that it's just an opinion and wasn't voted upon. Nor was what shape our trading relationship would be. Nor was whether the NHS would get £350m per week.

I'm fairly sure the remain side said on many occasions "Leave the EU" was significantly light on detail because in practice, we could leave the EU and still retain most of the things (underneath the EU) that annoy people.

When considering the role of the political elites in Parliament - both the HoC and HoL - they are currently the people that pass Primary legislation. It was a central argument of Leave's campaign that they should be and came up many times in the debate too.

Hardly surprising it's a bit of a mess.

[Prufrock]

I'm well aware what the Glorious Revolution was but I still fail to see the connections in the way that seems apparent to you. What happened in the seventeenth century when there were no political parties as such or indeed a designated prime minister has little context today.

Also, as Hoboh confirmed, there is not a written constitution for this country, just a series of precedents and rulings which are supposed by the legal profession to make up a constitution. To the advantage of the lawyers, that means everything has to be tested in law, resulting in income for them and rulings such as that delivered on Thursday.

And I haven't finished correcting your errors and typos. Oh no, not by any means.

Did I mention that I dislike Stephen Kinnock, the scion of the nose in the trough EU champions. He's a tw*t, a devious one, you know.

I'm a big fan of any post that includes, "as Hoboh has confirmed".

I write this in trepidation, as it seems somewhat akin to a biologist trying to explain something to a creationist (and I'm reminded of Lord May's response to a debating challenge from a creationist that "that would look great on your CV, not so good on mine) but, in the spirit of generosity, here is a little constitutional history 101.

We do not have a written constitution in the sense the Americans or others do; we don't have a document or bill called "The Constitution" which brings together everything into one place. However, it is fundamentally and plain wrong to argue we don't have a constitution (and if you're unsure on this point you may be confused if you ever enter any law library to see quite a large section on "constitutional law"). We do have one, and it is rather more solidly formed than judges making things up on a whim.

It has 4 main sources:

1) The Royal Prerogative. Various powers that remain from when the monarch could do anything (we'll come back to this). Examples include starting wars. The Govt. argued triggering Art. 50 was one of these powers which can be exercised without Parliament. The RP powers have been and are slowly dwindling as it's a constitutional principle that Parliament can take them away by legislating (again, see below).

2) Legislation. There are various statutes that are obviously constitutional in nature, from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights (again, later) to the European Communities Act to the Scotland Act etc...

3) Common law. Number of historical cases which set out constitutional principles. R (Miller) will go down as one of them.

4) Conventions. Not written anywhere, but an important part of the constitution. Tends to be for softer things like collective cabinet responsibility.

Our constitution is *more* uncertain than say the US one, and when I was younger I always thought we should have a written one (and why not get rid of the monarchy while we're at it) but the way ours works has its advantages, and its ability to change with the times is one of them. That's the reason we're not stuck with a load of nutters with guns because civilian militias seemed to be a good idea in the 18th C. Anyway, that's all by the by as when you read the judgment from the other day (which I'm sure you have done) you'll have seen the judges weren't changing anything at all, rather relying on a formidable body of existing constitutional law to set out clearly why the law of the land says this needs to go before Parliament. The law of our land. British law. Good old, non-foreign British law.

That's what you all wanted. Remember. When you all said, "we're not xenophobic, it's nothing to do with racism, we just want to govern ourselves, British law".

As for the Glorious Rev. V. short history lesson #2. It's the 17th C, and there is a big fight between the monarchy and Parliament as to who is in charge. Parliament win that argument and we parachute in William of Orange and Queen Mary. Part of the deal for them coming in and taking over is we get the Bill of Rights, the confusingly named Act that essentially sets out Parliament's unlimited legislative competency (which means Parliament can do anything, ban smoking on the streets of Paris if it wants, in the eyes of our court). That is seen as the start of our "modern" constitution. Go, go Parliament.

I'm sorry if that all seems a bit patronising but you did write that there is no such thing as a British constitution which is about the wrongest thing anyone has ever written on this forum!

[Worthy4England]

^^ Could you draw that as a picture so the Daily Mail readers can understand it.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

[bedwetter2]

It's like drama queen central.

The Article 50 ruling didn't say anything about ignoring the vote (although that opinion wasn't legally binding even though there is precedent under which it could have been) nor as far as I can tell, did it express and opinion one way or the other about whether we should or should not leave the EU.

That any Government should be able to enact legislation affecting me and remove my current legal rights or add to my legal obligations, without recourse to parliament, puts way too much power in what is generally a minority elected group of people (either Conservative or Labour or some other party) or in the case of a more dictatorial party an even smaller number than the current 650 + HoL. That's the point of the ruling, not whether we could or should leave the EU.

I still think we should (and will) leave the EU based on the vote. I still think there were many elements not voted on in the referendum - so leaving the EU and retaining full free movement would be just as valid an approach as leaving the EU and having no free movement.

The country voted on the former "leave the EU" and not the latter "free movement" - and the fact that there is a widely held opinion that free movement was a significant factor (it's my opinion that it was too), doesn't alter that it's just an opinion and wasn't voted upon. Nor was what shape our trading relationship would be. Nor was whether the NHS would get £350m per week.

I'm fairly sure the remain side said on many occasions "Leave the EU" was significantly light on detail because in practice, we could leave the EU and still retain most of the things (underneath the EU) that annoy people.

When considering the role of the political elites in Parliament - both the HoC and HoL - they are currently the people that pass Primary legislation. It was a central argument of Leave's campaign that they should be and came up many times in the debate too.

Hardly surprising it's a bit of a mess.

There is one thing that we agree upon. It's a bit of a mess.

However, I did not say that there should be no oversight and passing of legislation in this regard by parliament. I did state that the case brought by the Miller woman was motivated as much by personal business reasons as to protect the power of parliament. Check out my posts; I specifically mentioned the repeal of the European Act needing a formal vote by MPs (and Lords, for what it's worth). Ultimately I stated that the ruling introduced potential delay into the process (cheered on by noisy Labour, LD and Tory remoaners), firstly denied by Prufrock, then later the denials quietly dropped by him as he heard more about the views of some MPs.

Drama queens indeed.

[bedwetter2]

^^ Could you draw that as a picture so the Daily Mail readers can understand it.

I used to quite like you Worthy, even though you are a bit of a fence-sitter. Now that you have become a cheerleader for Prufrock, I'm not so sure.

[Worthy4England]

^^ Could you draw that as a picture so the Daily Mail readers can understand it.

I used to quite like you Worthy, even though you are a bit of a fence-sitter. Now that you have become a cheerleader for Prufrock, I'm not so sure.

[bedwetter2]

I'm well aware what the Glorious Revolution was but I still fail to see the connections in the way that seems apparent to you. What happened in the seventeenth century when there were no political parties as such or indeed a designated prime minister has little context today.

Also, as Hoboh confirmed, there is not a written constitution for this country, just a series of precedents and rulings which are supposed by the legal profession to make up a constitution. To the advantage of the lawyers, that means everything has to be tested in law, resulting in income for them and rulings such as that delivered on Thursday.

And I haven't finished correcting your errors and typos. Oh no, not by any means.

Did I mention that I dislike Stephen Kinnock, the scion of the nose in the trough EU champions. He's a tw*t, a devious one, you know.

I'm a big fan of any post that includes, "as Hoboh has confirmed".

I write this in trepidation, as it seems somewhat akin to a biologist trying to explain something to a creationist (and I'm reminded of Lord May's response to a debating challenge from a creationist that "that would look great on your CV, not so good on mine) but, in the spirit of generosity, here is a little constitutional history 101.

We do not have a written constitution in the sense the Americans or others do; we don't have a document or bill called "The Constitution" which brings together everything into one place. However, it is fundamentally and plain wrong to argue we don't have a constitution (and if you're unsure on this point you may be confused if you ever enter any law library to see quite a large section on "constitutional law"). We do have one, and it is rather more solidly formed than judges making things up on a whim.

It has 4 main sources:

1) The Royal Prerogative. Various powers that remain from when the monarch could do anything (we'll come back to this). Examples include starting wars. The Govt. argued triggering Art. 50 was one of these powers which can be exercised without Parliament. The RP powers have been and are slowly dwindling as it's a constitutional principle that Parliament can take them away by legislating (again, see below).

2) Legislation. There are various statutes that are obviously constitutional in nature, from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights (again, later) to the European Communities Act to the Scotland Act etc...

3) Common law. Number of historical cases which set out constitutional principles. R (Miller) will go down as one of them.

4) Conventions. Not written anywhere, but an important part of the constitution. Tends to be for softer things like collective cabinet responsibility.

Our constitution is *more* uncertain than say the US one, and when I was younger I always thought we should have a written one (and why not get rid of the monarchy while we're at it) but the way ours works has its advantages, and its ability to change with the times is one of them. That's the reason we're not stuck with a load of nutters with guns because civilian militias seemed to be a good idea in the 18th C. Anyway, that's all by the by as when you read the judgment from the other day (which I'm sure you have done) you'll have seen the judges weren't changing anything at all, rather relying on a formidable body of existing constitutional law to set out clearly why the law of the land says this needs to go before Parliament. The law of our land. British law. Good old, non-foreign British law.

That's what you all wanted. Remember. When you all said, "we're not xenophobic, it's nothing to do with racism, we just want to govern ourselves, British law".

As for the Glorious Rev. V. short history lesson #2. It's the 17th C, and there is a big fight between the monarchy and Parliament as to who is in charge. Parliament win that argument and we parachute in William of Orange and Queen Mary. Part of the deal for them coming in and taking over is we get the Bill of Rights, the confusingly named Act that essentially sets out Parliament's unlimited legislative competency (which means Parliament can do anything, ban smoking on the streets of Paris if it wants, in the eyes of our court). That is seen as the start of our "modern" constitution. Go, go Parliament.

I'm sorry if that all seems a bit patronising but you did write that there is no such thing as a British constitution which is about the wrongest thing anyone has ever written on this forum!

If you intend to practice the law or are indeed already doing so, a little bit of humility from you might not go amiss and may even enhance your career. A sneering and arrogant attitude is unedifying.

Your response to the constitution point is classic newspeak. You admit the is no single source which can be pointed to as a British constitution, therefore I was correct in stating that what is referred to is a conglomeration of rulings, precedent, etc. Perhaps the reason for so many books relating to constitutional law is for that very reason - many different pieces of legislation over the centuries. I rest my case m'Lud.

Maybe you are suffering from short-term memory loss or did not understand the significance of what I said. There is little correlation between the population hating James 2nd for using the Royal Perogative and the situation today (or Thursday last). Firstly parliament was a very different animal back in the 17th century to now without the power blocks which now exist, and secondly there was always going to be a bill for both Houses to vote on so any view that the PM was trying to act as an absolute monarch is BS.

I don't need lessons in history. I probably know rather more than the average bear.

[Worthy4England]

It's like drama queen central.

The Article 50 ruling didn't say anything about ignoring the vote (although that opinion wasn't legally binding even though there is precedent under which it could have been) nor as far as I can tell, did it express and opinion one way or the other about whether we should or should not leave the EU.

That any Government should be able to enact legislation affecting me and remove my current legal rights or add to my legal obligations, without recourse to parliament, puts way too much power in what is generally a minority elected group of people (either Conservative or Labour or some other party) or in the case of a more dictatorial party an even smaller number than the current 650 + HoL. That's the point of the ruling, not whether we could or should leave the EU.

I still think we should (and will) leave the EU based on the vote. I still think there were many elements not voted on in the referendum - so leaving the EU and retaining full free movement would be just as valid an approach as leaving the EU and having no free movement.

The country voted on the former "leave the EU" and not the latter "free movement" - and the fact that there is a widely held opinion that free movement was a significant factor (it's my opinion that it was too), doesn't alter that it's just an opinion and wasn't voted upon. Nor was what shape our trading relationship would be. Nor was whether the NHS would get £350m per week.

I'm fairly sure the remain side said on many occasions "Leave the EU" was significantly light on detail because in practice, we could leave the EU and still retain most of the things (underneath the EU) that annoy people.

When considering the role of the political elites in Parliament - both the HoC and HoL - they are currently the people that pass Primary legislation. It was a central argument of Leave's campaign that they should be and came up many times in the debate too.

Hardly surprising it's a bit of a mess.

There is one thing that we agree upon. It's a bit of a mess.

However, I did not say that there should be no oversight and passing of legislation in this regard by parliament. I did state that the case brought by the Miller woman was motivated as much by personal business reasons as to protect the power of parliament. Check out my posts; I specifically mentioned the repeal of the European Act needing a formal vote by MPs (and Lords, for what it's worth). Ultimately I stated that the ruling introduced potential delay into the process (cheered on by noisy Labour, LD and Tory remoaners), firstly denied by Prufrock, then later the denials quietly dropped by him as he heard more about the views of some MPs.

Drama queens indeed.

Gina Miller was only the lead complainant. There were plenty of others including the 5,000 strong "People's Challenge" et. al. Not indeed 17+ million and far from it but this challenge would have occurred with or without Gina Miller. Some will have business reasons, some will want to retain free movement, some will want to retain the Social Chapter etc. etc. - they'll all have their own motivations.

If this was to get resolved through the Appeal, then it won't have compromised the timeline and all will continue, but let's be clear the "delay" is there because of pi44 poor planning and overblown promises alongside of having no actual plan and no actual detail (They were going to sign it the day after the Referendum, is what we were told), so without the challenge, they've already delayed that part 8 months.

If I use me as an example (because I factually know my own opinion), I would have voted to leave (80% prob), if anyone could have confirmed that our trade ops and passporting weren't going to be affected - over and above free movement. They didn't so I voted to stay - I might have been swayed by the £350m per week for the NHS but didn't believe them (correctly as it turned out).

I'd like to think I'm reasonably fair-minded - we should leave as the vote said (even though it wasn't legally binding) - but when we're talking about "the will of the people" it was hardly a landslide. The referendum to join something a different shape than what we have now was 67% in favour, so now as prior to the referendum, I think we still need more detail and that needs to be ratified by Parliament, because both sides were making loads of sh*t up during the campaign and making promises they couldn't keep. Seen any mention of Immigration heading down to the low 10'sK recently, given your contention (that I don't disagree with) that immigration/free movement was a very significant part of this?

[Hoboh]

It's like drama queen central.

The Article 50 ruling didn't say anything about ignoring the vote (although that opinion wasn't legally binding even though there is precedent under which it could have been) nor as far as I can tell, did it express and opinion one way or the other about whether we should or should not leave the EU.

That any Government should be able to enact legislation affecting me and remove my current legal rights or add to my legal obligations, without recourse to parliament, puts way too much power in what is generally a minority elected group of people (either Conservative or Labour or some other party) or in the case of a more dictatorial party an even smaller number than the current 650 + HoL. That's the point of the ruling, not whether we could or should leave the EU.

I still think we should (and will) leave the EU based on the vote. I still think there were many elements not voted on in the referendum - so leaving the EU and retaining full free movement would be just as valid an approach as leaving the EU and having no free movement.

The country voted on the former "leave the EU" and not the latter "free movement" - and the fact that there is a widely held opinion that free movement was a significant factor (it's my opinion that it was too), doesn't alter that it's just an opinion and wasn't voted upon. Nor was what shape our trading relationship would be. Nor was whether the NHS would get £350m per week.

I'm fairly sure the remain side said on many occasions "Leave the EU" was significantly light on detail because in practice, we could leave the EU and still retain most of the things (underneath the EU) that annoy people.

When considering the role of the political elites in Parliament - both the HoC and HoL - they are currently the people that pass Primary legislation. It was a central argument of Leave's campaign that they should be and came up many times in the debate too.

Hardly surprising it's a bit of a mess.

There is one thing that we agree upon. It's a bit of a mess.

However, I did not say that there should be no oversight and passing of legislation in this regard by parliament. I did state that the case brought by the Miller woman was motivated as much by personal business reasons as to protect the power of parliament. Check out my posts; I specifically mentioned the repeal of the European Act needing a formal vote by MPs (and Lords, for what it's worth). Ultimately I stated that the ruling introduced potential delay into the process (cheered on by noisy Labour, LD and Tory remoaners), firstly denied by Prufrock, then later the denials quietly dropped by him as he heard more about the views of some MPs.

Drama queens indeed.

Gina Miller was only the lead complainant. There were plenty of others including the 5,000 strong "People's Challenge" et. al. Not indeed 17+ million and far from it but this challenge would have occurred with or without Gina Miller. Some will have business reasons, some will want to retain free movement, some will want to retain the Social Chapter etc. etc. - they'll all have their own motivations.

If this was to get resolved through the Appeal, then it won't have compromised the timeline and all will continue, but let's be clear the "delay" is there because of pi44 poor planning and overblown promises alongside of having no actual plan and no actual detail (They were going to sign it the day after the Referendum, is what we were told), so without the challenge, they've already delayed that part 8 months.

If I use me as an example (because I factually know my own opinion), I would have voted to leave (80% prob), if anyone could have confirmed that our trade ops and passporting weren't going to be affected - over and above free movement. They didn't so I voted to stay - I might have been swayed by the £350m per week for the NHS but didn't believe them (correctly as it turned out).

I'd like to think I'm reasonably fair-minded - we should leave as the vote said (even though it wasn't legally binding) - but when we're talking about "the will of the people" it was hardly a landslide. The referendum to join something a different shape than what we have now was 67% in favour, so now as prior to the referendum, I think we still need more detail and that needs to be ratified by Parliament, because both sides were making loads of sh*t up during the campaign and making promises they couldn't keep. Seen any mention of Immigration heading down to the low 10'sK recently, given your contention (that I don't disagree ith) that immigration/free movement was a very significant part of this?

Basically it's the fault of Cameron we are where we are, he and the rest of the Europhiles thought there was no way they'd lose the vote and arrogantly failed to make a 'plan B'.

Next he took the cowards way out and jumped ship.

The law is fast becoming an ass, fewer people believe that justice is being seen to be done, the interference such as chasing soldiers who served in many conflicts and the seemingly exclusive 'if you have loads of money, you'll be right' attitude makes them more and more targets for the masses.
The law and it's enactors are writing their own future suicide note, one day reform will come and I look forward to watching the bastards squeal.

Pru only confirms what I said, the law operatives make up most of the constitution, who elected them to do so?
Is this supposed to be democracy?
Small elite groups in closed political countries do similar and we call them undemocratic dictatorships.