OVLOV JAY:
To be fair, as more comes to light from the story it’s all around the wording in article 50 “within constitutional requirements” which is open to interpretation either way. Today’s judges voted in favour of going back to the house. There’s nothing to say the Supreme Court judges won’t say a 6-1 majority gave power to the referendum result. It’s a very complex situation, and like most threads on here, all down to individual interpretation. One things for sure, the pound will never recover so we may as well leave anyway
It’s obvious that if needed people like Ken Clark,Corbyn and Farron etc will go all the way to the European Court to create the catch 22 of Brexit being taken out by an alliance of Europhile Federalist MP’s and the EU court system.That also probably even being May’s hidden agenda which explains why she’s so far refused to implement article 50 let alone just leave by ignoring it.On that note their issue is obviously all about over turning the leave referendum vote not about how to implement it.
As for the pound,like overturning the referendum result,I think parity with the Euro was always part of the remain Europhile agenda.Most of who,as Federalists,obviously wanted/want us in the Euro.All of this should have been predictable and foreseen by Farage and yet more reason not to get taken in by Cameron’s bs referendum.Which was obviously just a sham set up to smash UKIP and thereby get it out of the EU parliament where it could do and was doing the most damage with the help of a PR electoral system unlike the domestic one.
wheelnutt:
We are governed by our parliament, long may it continue.
So says a man who, in the run up to the referendum, was an avid supporter of staying in the EU with their parliament and judiciary over-riding ours. In fact, after the result of the referendum, you were quite happy to inform all Leavers that we didn’t know what we were doing or, indeed, had voted on. Now you seem joyous that the parliament whose sovereignty you wished to see removed now has the ultimate say.
David Davis has said that "The judges have laid out what we can’t do but not exactly what we can do, but we’re presuming it requires an act of parliament therefore both the Commons and the Lords.
Seems safe to say that The Supreme Court will not respond until late December/early January and that any Act laid before the HoC will be met with amendment after amendment from the Remainers. Should this happen the only way May can gain any mandate is by pushing for a Brexit of the hardest kind such that the HoC votes down the government position. She can then take this as a “vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and hold an early general election in which she makes it plain her party’s position. Due to our fptp system she would be no worse off in seat numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland but would probably lose London (the three sections of the country that voted to Remain) - but the rest of England and Wales would back her stance. Labour would try to move the argument onto any other subject it could find but would be annihilated in its heartlands.
As I said earlier A50 isn’t dead, there’s just a lot more work that needs to be done to enact it.
Harry Monk:
wheelnutt:
Harry Monk:
Did I misunderstand something here?
No, not at all, act of parliament is required. That is how we amend and make our laws in the UK. May tried to do it on her own, the courts spoke, that is now illegal so parliament is back in charge just as it always has been.
Nothing changed today.
Perhaps the leaflet should have said “terms and conditions apply” then. 
If an “Act of Parliament” is required - then that act can just say “We’re out as of ■■■ date, and that is the date we stop paying over money to still be in”.
All the foot dragging so far has therefore been about LACK of this act of parliament - OR putting it better “LACK of the will of Parliament to enact the will of the people.”
The people are serfs and Parliament are the Barons now.
We can’t even vote them out of office - because the next election is being steadfastly kept back for 2020 by which point the parliamentarians presumably hope that “Enough Brexit voters will die off, that another referendum will by that point, easily be won by remain”. Indeed the 2020 election will probably end up being that “2nd referendum”! 
Stanley Knife:
wheelnutt:
We are governed by our parliament, long may it continue.
So says a man who, in the run up to the referendum, was an avid supporter of staying in the EU with their parliament and judiciary over-riding ours. In fact, after the result of the referendum, you were quite happy to inform all Leavers that we didn’t know what we were doing or, indeed, had voted on. Now you seem joyous that the parliament whose sovereignty you wished to see removed now has the ultimate say.
This is the thing though, pro-eu supporters simply have no concept of the principles of democracy, and when you think about it that’s a fairly predictable thing for them to do given the anti-democratic nature of the entity they support. They couldn’t win by fair means, so now they are resorting to foul. It wouldn’t surprise me if the electorate were ignored on this, those who wield the reins benefit enormously from eu membership.
Stanley Knife:
wheelnutt:
We are governed by our parliament, long may it continue.
So says a man who, in the run up to the referendum, was an avid supporter of staying in the EU with their parliament and judiciary over-riding ours. In fact, after the result of the referendum, you were quite happy to inform all Leavers that we didn’t know what we were doing or, indeed, had voted on. Now you seem joyous that the parliament whose sovereignty you wished to see removed now has the ultimate say.
David Davis has said that "The judges have laid out what we can’t do but not exactly what we can do, but we’re presuming it requires an act of parliament therefore both the Commons and the Lords.
Seems safe to say that The Supreme Court will not respond until late December/early January and that any Act laid before the HoC will be met with amendment after amendment from the Remainers. Should this happen the only way May can gain any mandate is by pushing for a Brexit of the hardest kind such that the HoC votes down the government position. She can then take this as a “vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and hold an early general election in which she makes it plain her party’s position. Due to our fptp system she would be no worse off in seat numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland but would probably lose London (the three sections of the country that voted to Remain) - but the rest of England and Wales would back her stance. Labour would try to move the argument onto any other subject it could find but would be annihilated in its heartlands.
As I said earlier A50 isn’t dead, there’s just a lot more work that needs to be done to enact it.
It’s no surprise that Federalists are happy to selectively take advantage of local democracy to further their Federal government aims.
Why do you think that May wouldn’t actually be on the remain side in all this.IE the most likely scenario is that the remainers will use ( have used ) the courts to overturn the referendum vote.Giving May the excuse she needs to go along with it by saying that the courts’ decision is final and that’s the decision her government has/intends to follow.In which case no need for any election and the remainers win a parliamentary majority to over turn the referendum vote and what choice does the Leave vote have to do anything about it.Other than the mission impossible of putting UKIP in with a massive majority in 2020.
the Rule of law must prevail in the end
anon84679660:
the Rule of law must prevail in the end
Because the judge was a remainer no doubt
Harry Monk:
This is the thing though, pro-eu supporters simply have no concept of the principles of democracy
That’s the definition of the Federal government system.IE removal of local democratic accountability.Their position being that local democracy,in the form of National/State sovereign right of opt out substitution or VETO,stops the collective from being able to do ( impose ) its will for the so called greater good of the collective.The collective actually being their idea of ‘democracy’.Whether it’s the EU version,or the Soviet version,or the Yugoslav version,or the US version.As I said that argument historically rarely being sorted peacefully.
anon84679660:
the Rule of law must prevail in the end
Great so we declare the referendum result of 1975 illegal which makes our EU membership and all EU treaties signed illegal since that date.
tachograph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_2Ml4af74
Typical of UKIP to miss the point.
The issue is the supremacy of the referendum vote over parliament.Bearing in mind the irrefutable precedent set by the referendum decision of 1975 being accepted as supreme in that regard.
Carryfast:
Typical of UKIP to miss the point.
The issue is the supremacy of the referendum vote over parliament.Bearing in mind the irrefutable precedent set by the referendum decision of 1975 being accepted as supreme in that regard.
Dude there is no such thing. Neither the 2015 nor the 1975 referenda were supreme, they were both advisory as stated in their respective acts. Very clearly in black and white.
Get out of your federalist bashing dreamworld and spend a few minutes reading the acts instead of spouting stuff from your fantasy land here.
anon84679660:
the Rule of law must prevail in the end
No, the brexiters all voted for our courts and parliament to be in charge and when they are they don’t like it all of a sudden.
Winseer:
Harry Monk:
wheelnutt:
Harry Monk:
Did I misunderstand something here?
No, not at all, act of parliament is required. That is how we amend and make our laws in the UK. May tried to do it on her own, the courts spoke, that is now illegal so parliament is back in charge just as it always has been.
Nothing changed today.
Perhaps the leaflet should have said “terms and conditions apply” then.
If an “Act of Parliament” is required - then that act can just say “We’re out as of ■■■ date, and that is the date we stop paying over money to still be in”.
All the foot dragging so far has therefore been about LACK of this act of parliament - OR putting it better “LACK of the will of Parliament to enact the will of the people.”
The people are serfs and Parliament are the Barons now.
We can’t even vote them out of office - because the next election is being steadfastly kept back for 2020 by which point the parliamentarians presumably hope that “Enough Brexit voters will die off, that another referendum will by that point, easily be won by remain”. Indeed the 2020 election will probably end up being that “2nd referendum”!
The argument is about the supremacy of remain MP’s over the Leave referendum vote.It seems obvious that May has delayed implementation of the referendum vote to facilitate that challenge.While the leave vote was never going to create a majority on a constituency vote basis as opposed to a PR or referendum vote.Which is why Farage should have ordered a leave boycott of Cameron’s bs referendum and fight out the argument,between State sovereignty v Federal rule,where it needs to be fought within Europe.
Carryfast:
The argument is about the supremacy of remain MP’s over the Leave referendum vote.
The supremacy issue is simple, MP’s have it. Whether they are remainers or brexiters is irrelevant, they are the ones that make and amend our laws.
There is no argument whatsoever, a referendum is advisory in nature only, again by law. It is all there in black and white. Only the MP’s can get us out of Europe, you can hold a hundred referenda, it won’t change an iota, parliament and only parliament is in charge. End of.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
Typical of UKIP to miss the point.
The issue is the supremacy of the referendum vote over parliament.Bearing in mind the irrefutable precedent set by the referendum decision of 1975 being accepted as supreme in that regard.
Dude there is no such thing. Neither the 2015 nor the 1975 referenda were supreme, they were both advisory as stated in their respective acts. Very clearly in black and white.
Get out of your federalist bashing dreamworld and spend a few minutes reading the acts instead of spouting stuff from your fantasy land here.
As I said if the 1975 referendum wasn’t accepted as being supreme exactly what vote then took place within parliament after it regarding whether to continue our EEC membership status.Bearing in mind a Labour MP at least majority for leave.As for Federalist bashing dreamworld.No undemocratic bunch of control freaks based on admiration of the Collectivised system of government is a fact.
Winseer:
If an “Act of Parliament” is required - then that act can just say “We’re out as of ■■■ date, and that is the date we stop paying over money to still be in”.
All the foot dragging so far has therefore been about LACK of this act of parliament - OR putting it better “LACK of the will of Parliament to enact the will of the people.”
The people are serfs and Parliament are the Barons now.
We can’t even vote them out of office - because the next election is being steadfastly kept back for 2020 by which point the parliamentarians presumably hope that “Enough Brexit voters will die off, that another referendum will by that point, easily be won by remain”. Indeed the 2020 election will probably end up being that “2nd referendum”!
I agree with everything you say.
Carryfast:
As I said if the 1975 referendum wasn’t accepted as being supreme exactly what vote then took place within parliament after it regarding whether to continue our EEC membership status…
The 1975 advisory referendum was about the 1973 act. The result of the 75 election did not result in any debate in the house of commons, it was just an affirmation of the 1973 decision, Europe wasn’t discussed until the direct representation issues in 1977.
Please get your facts straight, each and every referendum in the UK is and always has been advisory, this one is no different to the 1975 one. A referendum is never supreme to parliament. May tried it but was rightfully put back in her box.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
The argument is about the supremacy of remain MP’s over the Leave referendum vote.
The supremacy issue is simple, MP’s have it. Whether they are remainers or brexiters is irrelevant, they are the ones that make and amend our laws.
There is no argument whatsoever, a referendum is advisory in nature only, again by law. It is all there in black and white. Only the MP’s can get us out of Europe, you can hold a hundred referenda, it won’t change an iota, parliament and only parliament is in charge. End of.
Hopefully that isn’t how the French FN or AfD among others will view it.In which case ironically yes let’s do it your way and fight the argument out properly within Europe.
On that note you’ve already lost the argument if you’re trying to make the case for parliamentary sovereignty used for handing that same sovereignty over to the EU federal government system.IE yes parliament has sovereignty in making our laws.But it doesn’t have powers to give that sovereignty away to a foreign power.At that point it’s referedum that’s supreme.Although feel free to ignore that fact and see what happens.
