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).

The point is, that's exactly what happen when we remain in the EU. It is a simple fact that European Parliaments and laws supersedes those of the UK's.

It's the same logic that some people who voted Leave expected short term negative effects to the economy, doesn't mean they wish it to happen.

To be fair, Gina Miller has campaigned in the past for more openness and a fairer system for ordinary people in the finance sector - she attracted a lot of anger from the City people for trying to get all their hidden fees on products out into the public domain. I'm not saying she's perfect, but she isn't the usual self-obsessed City type by any means.

Exactly - the fact that European Parliaments and laws would supersede laws made in Britain is, for Remainers, a "small price to pay" for the economic benefits of the EU, rather than something they actually want. Whereas for Leavers, the ultimate sovereignty of the British Parliament is something they actually wanted.

So it's now ironic that Leavers aren't happy when power is handed over to the British Parliament with the chance to vote on Article 50, when it's the same parliament they specifically wanted to make more powerful in the first place.

The same point doesn't not work in reverse whereby "Remainers are now happy about power being handed over to the British Parliament, even though they had always been trying to reduce its influence", because for Remainers, the surrender of power to the European Parliament has always been the "lesser of two evils" rather than a desire in itself.

You are incorrect. European regulations (which forms part of EU laws) supersedes those of the UK, and impose a minimum in which the UK government must apply to their own laws. Any violation will result in fines and penalty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105

'It is safe to say that EU law does have a very significant presence and effect in UK law.'

You can keep trying to divert away from the facts. It is simply ludicrous to anyone, that EU does not have a major control over our laws.

But you said "if you let the European Parliament make our laws for us".
The EU does not "make out laws for us". They are all made by Parliament in Westminster.
If you are hoping that leaving the EU will mean that there will be no foreign influence in Westminster, you are sadly mistaken.

And as I have asked many Brexiteers, but have never been given a reply that wasn't one of those made up by the Mail et al, which particular EU directives are you concerned about, and what was their negative influence of UK legislation?
(I'm not holding my breath, BTW)

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.

And there's the problem - different people thought that they'd get different things by voting leave. In reality, I suspect most will not get what they thought that they voted for.

Another major issue is that there was so narrow a gap between the stay and leave votes, but we're embarking on a multi-year process. By the time it's complete, I would not be at all surprised if the vote would be to stay.

There, fixed that for ya.
You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?

So, have you always been "up in arms" every time Parliament votes in a way that conflicts with your personal position?

If these people were not so far up their own pompous morally superior arses, and had the capacity for self reflection, they would realise this, and stop behaving so selfishly.

I could talk on this all day.

Just to clarify you are arguing that on the off-chance France and Italy vote in new parliaments that in turn call their own referendums that in turn result in a vote to leave the EU, we should undermine our own democratic process and prevent decisions being made by parliament, because if we only had the capacity for morality, self-reflection and selflessness we'd be able to realise... something.

Going to be honest my moral self-reflective compass has absolutely no idea what you're on about.

As I said, our laws are made according to EU regulations and directives. We have to obey to EU and UK laws, which forms 'our' laws which we have to obey as UK citizens.

You are trying to argue about the technicality of the word 'our' used in this context however I can play the same game with you.

If words-twisting (although you have failed at that) is all you can do to help your argument, then it shows a lot about the strength of your points.

No, you misinterpreted and partially quoted. And no, I am not offering reposts on request.

As I said, our laws are made according to EU regulations and directives. We have to obey to EU and UK laws, which forms 'our' laws which we have to obey as UK citizens.

You are trying to argue about the technicality of the word 'our' used in this context however I can play the same game with you.

If words-twisting (although you have failed at that) is all you can do to help your argument, then it shows a lot about the strength of your points.

The referendum is a clear concept.

So equivalent to a party winning a general election, there is a decisive outcome that must be implemented- that to me, is leaving the single market and the EU.

This.

It's absolutely disgraceful to see the right wing press (even broadsheets like the daily telegraph) label our independent judges as 'enemies of the state' for making a correct legal decision.

Once you label someone who you disagree with as an 'enemy' it will be no surprise if some people take this too far and get violent against 'traitors'.

Our judges made a correct legal call and get labelled as enemies of the state who are preventing democracy.

Welcome to Brexit Britain.

Indeed. And that is "a consultative process that is not legally or constitutionally binding".

Except that it is nothing like a party winning an election, and there is no requirement to implement its suggestion.

LOL, so you'd say that if remain won?

Explain to me why we should ever have a referendum if the result is not to be implemented?

Explain to me why a parliament that votes 6 to 1 for a referendum to then not implement it's verdict should not be held accountable for this?

This argument is a non sequitur. The Remain camp were not advocating any constitutional change. If Remain had won, there would have been no need for Parliament to do anything. It was only a Leave vote that required constitutional change. And any constitutional change must go through Parliament, that's the law - as demonstrated by the High Court ruling.

This has nothing to do with Leave/Remain, it is to do with the gov't being required to follow due Parliamentary and legal procedure. This is exactly one of the things that Brexiteers were calling for - the sovereignty of Parliament to be free to control the democratic process in the UK. The HC ruled that the gov't cannot circumvent Parliament when it wants. It's called "democracy".

Perhaps they din't think that "The People" would be daft enough to vote for Brexit. They obviously had't counted on the devious dishonesty of some campaigners, or the abject gullibility of some voters. But then, it's not just the UK. Look at the US - Trump still in the running despite everything the voters know about him! You can't predict that level of madness.

And remember - and I can't stress this enough - the referendum was only a consultative process that is not regally binding. And given the closeness of the result, the level of dishonesty in the Leave campaign, an the magnitude of what's at stake, it seems far more reasonable to discuss it further, wouldn't you say?