Why do the Bremoaners hate Britain so much?

52% of voters voted to Leave the UK, with a margin of over 1.2m against Remaining.

I have pointed out the public expectation of a potential parliamentary vote on Article 50. The point of dispute is not on whether we should leave (there is a clear mandate) but the terms in which we leave.

These aren't just my views, but also the views of mainstream political parties and political analysts.

I know you don't like Brexit, but there is no point putting yourself in an echo chamber just because you accept the reality that there is a bigger demand for Brexit than remaining.

Ha! This isn't about the terms of negotiation. It's about whether Parliament must vote to even trigger Article 50. And the HC has ruled that it is. And if Parliament votes no not invoke Article 50, Brexit is over. And if it is, we should push for monetary union and the incorporation of gold stars into the union flag.

Je suis européen. Et toi aussi

As I said, it is within public expectation that Brexit will happen and mainstreams parties had already indicated their intention to respect the referendum result. Your expectation of remaining in the EU have very little support democratically and politically.

The point of the case is really for MPs to approve the terms of Brexit before officially triggering Article 50.

The case is also now referred to the Supreme Court which will rule independently of the High Court's decision.

To put this simply, the question now revolves around whether we will head for a hard or soft Brexit. Both outcomes are still Brexit. This court case is not a backdoor to retract a decision made by the biggest democratic exercise in the last 40 years, despite some of you hoping that it is. The UK is not a second rate democracy.

52% of voters voted to Leave the UK, with a margin of over 1.2m against Remaining.

I have pointed out the public expectation of a potential parliamentary vote on Article 50. The point of dispute is not on whether we should leave (there is a clear mandate) but the terms in which we leave.

These aren't just my views, but also the views of mainstream political parties and political analysts.

I know you don't like Brexit, but there is no point putting yourself in an echo chamber just because you accept the reality that there is a bigger demand for Brexit than remaining.

A 2-3% margin is not a clear enough result. Vote Leave should have had to have 66% of the vote in order to signify a clear result, especially to implement a change as major as leaving the EU.

Plus many young people did not vote and would vote if there was another referendum and seeing the economic circumstances of Brexit despite the fact we have not even triggered Article 50 yet is only a minor glimpse of the situation that the UK would be in in the future if we reverse Brexit.

You really don't have a clue what's actually happened, what people want, or what is going to happen, do you?
Bless!
Have you just been listening to your dad after he's had a few?

Yes they can. Parliament is sovereign and is the only body that is legally entitled to formulate and impose legislative change.The referendum is not legally binding.
In most cases, it would be usual to accept the stated wishes of the people in such a consultative process, but in one where the vote was close, and where only a minority supported the motion, and where the argument for it was based almost entirely on outright lies and misinformation, it is clear that no such obligation exists.

I hope you can see the double standard you are holding here.

Then there will be a general election, which will be a proxy for a 2nd referendum.

I am glad I have won the argument, with facts. While you had to rely on assumptions to support your points.

Possibly. I also suspect that there may be (very) long and drawn out debate in parliament/with the EU, ending with a Bexit so soft it is almost liquid, if anything at all. Perhaps even never-ending "Penelope's shroud-esque" negotiations, so that to the observer, something is happening, but it isn't really.

"I want Parliament to be sovereign!" :fuhrer:
"The High Court ruling that Parliament is sovereign is not what I want!":fuhrer:

And there, boys and girls, is Brexit in a nutshell.

I have already countered your flawed statement. Feel free to reiterate it if it makes you feel any better about the fact that the majority voted to leave the EU.

Our democracy is based on mandates. A referendum serves as a mandate and more represents more accurately than parliamentary representation. This is the point that you are refusing to accept despite it being extremely simple to understand. The motivation to bring back power to our parliament is based on the generalisation that majority of laws and decision are made in parliaments, not with referendums.

Now consider this, do you really don't understand the distinction or are you just trying to make a fuss?

LOL!

You still haven't been able to explain why you support Brexit, other than with vague platitudes and Daily Mail soundbites.

"Ooh, I'm concerned about immigration".
So explain which EU influenced laws concern you and why they are detrimental to the nation, and how you would amend them.

Except in our constitutional system referendums need to be certified through an act of Parliament. That's not my opinion, that's the rule of law.

The alternative is a government deciding everything for themselves, bypassing Parliament.

The court were asked a legal question and gave a correct legal answer. The reaction has been hysterical.

The court had given its legal answer, and is now subject to the Supreme Court's judgement, independent of the High Court's decision.

The debate I have with the member is about whether it is accurate to want to bring back more powers to the UK parliament, and at the same time oppose parliament from block triggering Article 50.

The general expectation is that laws and legislation will be made in the UK without any legal or political interference from Brussels, in other words to allow voters to give mandates directly to their representatives. Their expectation is not conflicted on matters decided by referendums, because referendums serve as a mandate better than representation. The distinction is that most decisions are not decided by referendums, therefore they naturally would expect and want parliament to decide on majority of things which are not opened to vote in a referendum.

You have to look at the motivation and see that at the end people want to be able to give mandates on how the country is ran. It is not hard to see that the wish to return more powers to UK parliament is consistent with the wish to uphold a referendum's result, both are methods to deliver mandates with parliamentary representation being the major but lesser form.

I have also stated that the distinction that all mainstream political parties acknowledge the result of the referendum, so the point of dispute raised by the case surrounds on the final terms of Brexit, not whether we will have Brexit.

Personally I don't think we should have referendums on anything. We elect our representatives and that should be it.

The public want to have their cake and eat it. The public would vote for lower taxes and higher spending on public services.

On question time the other night, there was a woman in the audience who was criticising the courts for making reference to 'a statute from the 1600s in their reasoning'. That statute was the Bill of Rights, the most important constitutional instrument in the UK legal system. If someone is going to criticise our judges for using it then quite frankly I do not feel that they should be making important policy decisions.

Representative democracy is far better than direct democracy. Direct democracy leads to mob rule and a popularity contest. It can also lead to tyranny of the majority. If we had a referendum on the death penalty that would probably pass, that doesn't mean it would be right.

In recent days, the failure of so many people to realise that the judges made a legal decision and that they did not block Brexit seriously worries me. If they do not understand the concept of the rule of law, why should they be making policy decisions that affect us all?

I think we can find at least 52% of British people who disagree with you, but that's politics - not everyone's going to agree with you. At the end a decision must be made and this time both sides had agreed to vote in a referendum. While there may be some legal caveats, the general expectation from both sides are the that referendum result will be a mandate to instruct the government. I don't think this conflicts with the wish to return more power to our parliament which was what I was trying to highlight, since both referendums and parliamentary representation are a form of mandate.

I hope we can both agree that it's all down to personal judgement and preference in this matter.

I think most people understand the independence and the functions of our courts. I would say some of the frustration may have been misdirected because the decision is seen to have opened a door for oppositions to block Brexit. This is theoretically possible but realistically almost impossible, given that most mainstream parties had pledged to respect the referendum result. However I can also imagine that some people who voted to remain but silently wish this to happen, despite that the argument had actually moved on from whether we should leave the EU, to now allowing parliament a vote on the terms of our exit (which I agree with).

The problem is that the anger directed at the courts is not just misdirected, it is dangerous. When our newspapers describe judges as 'enemies of the people' and politicians line up to accuse them of all sorts, it threatens the rule of law which is the very basis of our constitution.

I find many Brexiteers have been hypocritical. They wanted parliamentary sovereignty and the court upheld that. Yes we are leaving but there are two options. Either the government decides the exit terms, or Parliament does.