A meaningless decision unless you're a lawyer or an MP with self-esteem issues....

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 48 seconds ago
I expect it will be defeated at a later date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On which basis?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Cal Neva

Suggest reading the ruling before commenting further. Or even some of the above comments.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Cal Neva

You may be aware of the Great Repel Bill?. A mechanism the Gov plan to use to enshrine all existing EU legislation into UK law.

The Gov wanted to circumvent Parliament. There was/is a significant threat that they could use Brexit as a vehicle to revise EU legislation as they saw fit. Without Parliament being consulted.

The HRA, EU pollution legislation (Heathrow) just two EU Directives that have been in the news recently.

This ruling (assuming it is upheld by the Supreme Court in December) will ensure Parliament is accountable. IMO ensuring the process is democratic.

Whilst there are some who want to revoke Brexit (including Lord Kerr – the Scottish Peer who wrote Art 50) I don’t foresee this happening.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
It was clear what people voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
It was clear what people voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you vote?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I voted. What's that got to do with it? I know why I voted the way I did. I don't presume to know why others voted the way they did.

Cal Neva

Not sure if you have understood my post. The ruling today will hopefully ensure transparency, accountability, and above all democracy.

Is that not a good thing, for the entire country??

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
It was clear what people voted for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you vote?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I voted. What's that got to do with it? I know why I voted the way I did. I don't presume to know why others voted the way they did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your vote was sound but others laughable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? That response makes no sense.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 8 seconds ago

So why did you laugh then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I laughed because you wrote "It was clear what people voted for." - isn't that obvious?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 45 seconds ago
Cal Neva

Not sure if you have understood my post. The ruling today will hopefully ensure transparency, accountability, and above all democracy.

Is that not a good thing, for the entire country??

----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's a shambles. Using legal process to block the will of the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it’s in the constitution. It also gives Parliament (should the need arise) precedent to protect the UK’s interests. In that if the UK is unable to reach a deal with the EU (not beyond the realms of possibly) that it could potentially revoke Art 50.

Furthermore if the EU/UK deal reached was so detrimental to the economic interests of the UK, that it meant long term hardship, why would you still want to proceed?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

When we voted, we were told that the peoples decision will be implemented by the government.

The people voted to... and I quote from the ballot card 'leave the European Union'

This is a stain on democracy.

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 12 minutes ago
I respect the referendum. I don't believe anyone who voted believed the result would not be binding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if it meant significant long term economic damage? Why would anyone want to proceed?

It’s akin to standing at the edge of a cliff, the safety net at the bottom being removed, but jumping anyway.