Government loses article 50 court fight

I really wish that excited remainers would calm the **** down about stuff like this. This does not mean Brexit will stop, it just means that it has to go before parliament because that's how the procedure is supposed to work. The triggering of article 50 is not going to be voted against by most MPs, as it would be political suicide for mere representatives to block the result of a direct democratic vote (except for maybe the MPs of some pro-remain constituencies like those in London).

Well, it makes it less likely that we're going to get a hard, UKIP-style Brexit. Which definitely is a good thing.

It wasn't about a UKIP style Brexit.

It was about whether we leave the single market and completely restore independence.

Actually even if you are a remainer it is possible to see that soft Brexit may be less preferable to hard Brexit as we will get a crap deal for being seen as weak, and if we were going to stay in the single market and have our trade and full sovereingty restricted, then there was no point leaving.

If the Supreme Court rule against the Government then the Government's last hope will be to appeal to the European Court of Justice

Talk about irony. You can't make this up

It wasn't about a 'UKIP style' Brexit.

It was about whether we leave the single market and completely restore independence.

Actually even if you are a remainer it is possible to see that soft Brexit may be less preferable to hard Brexit as we will get a crap deal for being seen as weak, and if we were going to stay in the single market and have our trade and full sovereingty restricted, then there was no point leaving.

'Soft Brexit' =absurdity of having a referendum at all or pretending to listen to the result, plus none of the potential long term gains from Brexit it was worth risking by the referendum.

it would be fun to see a general election and see labour slowly die and the tories increase their majority

I hate that people keep saying "the will of the people". It was a very simple majority - a plurality. That does not constitute "the people".

If there were 33 people in a room and 17 people said: "I like chocolate" and 16 people said: "I hate chocolate", you would not draw the conclusion the people in this room like chocolate. That is ridiculous and I do not say that because I am pro-Remain.

Even if Remain won I wouldn't call it "the will of the people". I'd probably say "thank God for that it was a close one" and keep my mouth shut.

I would also acknowledge that a really, really significant amount of people voted Leave and that their needs or at least the reasons why they felt they had to vote Leave should also be addressed.

Unfortunately, that's because we're on the rational, logical side.

The leavers are not going to take into account our wants or desires as they are the amygdala, emotional, animal-brain-wired people who I would really love to deport to an island so they can throw spears at each other.

What a debacle. The courts can't do a lot as although the referendum does not show that Brexit is the will of the people, it's clear from our last elections that this is a conservative country with nobody willing to have the balls to stand up for the people against corporate interests.

Brexit? Yes. British exit. That's my intentions for the future. Luckily I have the means to do so, I feel so badly for the people who voted Remain and who aren't free-marketeer masochists without the means to leave.

So you're a Tory now? Good lord.

Why do we have an Executive, then? If they are seen as incapable of carrying out the business of government?

Now watch many MPs and the SNP vote against the Bill that will be put to the House of Commons, giving themselves a black eye and becoming unelectable. Again.

How would you take into account the leavers wants or desires? Continue to give away sovereignty and uncontrollable immigration?

Actually, I would seek to tackle uncontrollable immigration and a proper manner.

I would probably use the close result as a way to better negotiate with the EU on this issue - but more importantly, I would invest more money into actually securing our borders instead of just saying this for political purposes and I would actually deal properly with some of the issues in the world that are causing mass migration instead of just bombing the sh*t out of places and hoping for the best with no real strategy.

Leaving the EU on a whim with no real understanding of how that may even be achieved with relation to our EU membership is not the right way to do this.

Egged on by listening to fanatical slogans by people purely obsessed with their own political power (Farage, Johnson, Gove) was never going to properly deal with immigration issues.

As for sovereignty?

If a Leave voter wants sovereignty because they believe sovereignty is political autonomy for the people than I would explain that the more that political power is dispersed and the less it is restricted to certain groups the better, obviously. Sovereignty is linked to the autonomy of the British people in having their decisions made by an elected hence accountable government.

The problem with how this relates to our actual situation, is that democracy is a sham in this country, we don't have a free press and the government is more controlled by media barons and financial interests than they are by the will of the people.

The media sets the agenda and the government complies in action; the people comply in ignorance of mind.

The laws that have affected us from the EU are largely in the interests of the people; the laws by this Tory government have not been in the interests of the people. Name one. Name on Cameronian/Osbornian law that has or sought to affect the British public in the positive way. "Balancing the budget" and all this vague abstract **** that they use to distract people is actually rigging the system to favor those in the financial district above the majority of the citizens in the country.

In this situation sovereignty would just mean the sovereignty to turn Britain into a tax haven, which any rational non-masochistic individual would not want. (Unless of course, you belong to that segment of society from whom it would be of benefit to tax avoid to the tune of millions - then I respect your self-interest, but wondering why you're on TSR).

If a leave voter just wants Sovereignty for sovereignty's sake because they're a neanderthol nationalist who thinks Britain is supreme just because it's Britain, then you're right, can't help them there.

You seem to be suggesting that the courts should have set aside legal considerations and judged the case on political considerations. That is not the role of our courts and law cannot be set aside for politics.

Brexit? Yes. British exit. That's my intentions for the future. Luckily I have the means to do so, I feel so badly for the people who voted Remain and who aren't free-marketeer masochists without the means to leave.

When I say uncontrollable immigration I mean from the EU we can control non eu immigration, so how would you deal with this while in the eu?

You underestimate the people of Britain it is the one key flaw in remain voters Britain will not allow it although it is possible to reduces taxes for people whilst increasing income from tax.

I slightly agree with the media setting the agenda look at brexit the tv stations were against it and the newspapers for it and look at the us election the BBC are basically on their knees for the clintons wondering which one to serve first.

It is funny how you say that the Eu will protect people from the riches influence when it was the rich who dreamed up the eu having a larger potential workforce is a good way to keep wages down.

When I say uncontrollable immigration I mean from the EU we can control non eu immigration, so how would you deal with this while in the eu?

You underestimate the people of Britain it is the one key flaw in remain voters Britain will not allow it although it is possible to reduces taxes for people whilst increasing income from tax.

I slightly agree with the media setting the agenda look at brexit the tv stations were against it and the newspapers for it and look at the us election the BBC are basically on their knees for the clintons wondering which one to serve first.

It is funny how you say that the Eu will protect people from the riches influence when it was the rich who dreamed up the eu having a larger potential workforce is a good way to keep wages down.

Non-EU immigration is higher than EU immigration - so it's convenient that for your argumentative purposes, this is more of a concern to you. But logically, why would it be?

Of course it's possible to make more money from increased taxation under purely British laws but if you think in this current climate that is even a remote possibility you know absolutely nothing about British or global current politics and haven't studied it in any depth at all. That May's or any Tory government (or even Labour for that matter) would increase taxation is absolutely balmy.

Also you write.. "increase and decrease taxes". Be more specific. You're not expressing yourself very well.

As to your last paragraph "it was the riches who dreamed up the Eu" (sorry mate but if you're going to rant against immigration, at least speak Year 2 English yourself) - obviously it's the baby of Europe's financial pro-corporate institutions. You only need to look at Greece to figure that one out. But again, it's all relative, and is comparatively a socialists' wet dream to compared to how the UK would be without it.

I'm done on this page.

Am not arguing against people who are anti-immigrant yet don't even speak proper English. Peace.

Am not arguing against people who are anti-immigrant yet don't even speak proper English. Peace.