They aren't denying anyone anything.
All the judgement was for the government to follow due process.

It was even more laughable that the case was brought by the wife of a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager, citing her desire to preserve British sovereignty. From what - an institution that has been leeching away our sovereignty for the past forty years and will continue to do so if we don't escape their clutches?

British court makes ruling on a point of British law.
Exactly what a lot of leave voters wanted.
You got it but somehow still not happy.

So you will be perfectly happy with parliament voting to ignore any future Scottish referendum?

The lawyer from Mishcon de Reya heading the case is of Iranian origin
The millionaire hedge fund manager is from Guyana
The other complainant is a Brazilian hairdresser (I assume he does heads too)

It sounds like a black comedy.......am I allowed to say 'black comedy' in this ever increasing PC world?

Oh dear it's all getting very messy.
Was just thinking about the fact that labour keep demanding to hear anything about the plan, well TM has revealed one detail so far "Article 50 by end of March". That was not very controversial but has resulted in a court case and confusion, I doubt this will encourage her to reveal any more details on more controversial subjects.

Breaking News "very angry man on radio says we should not get angry".

Depends what the terms of the ref were.
The indy ref had a binding result built into the original act.
The eu ref didn't have this as part of the act.
Nice attempt at deflection and making it about me but let's stick to the current topic if possible.
British court rules on a point of British law. That's a good thing, no nasty eu interference.

It is not deflection at all. I just want your viewpoint on something that might well occur.

The terms of a referendum have to be agreed by Westminster. If there is no binding built into it, will you be happy for parliament to reject it?

So what?
Murdoch is of Australian origin yet interferes daily in this country. Done it for decades.

You obviously don't do 'irony'.
I'd better spell it out
One of the cornerstones of the decision to leave the EU is due to foreign politicians unelected by us, imposing their laws on the UK.
So which 'Remoaners' couldn't simply accept the will of the British people and move on......oh, foreigners.
It would be comedy gold.......if it wasn't so serious

Gina Miller isn't foreign.
A British court ruled on a point of British law.
That's all that's happened.
Yet you drag up "foreigners" for some reason. If the case had been brought by someone who had never set foot outside the UK and could trace their roots back to the Doomsday Book you would have no problem.?

If Gina Miller was born in Guyana to Guyanese parents, what is she.......Icelandic ?

Bangla with the greatest of respect [as always] let's stop pretending shall we, you know, I know, and everybody else knows what they are going to do if they take it to the House of Commons and that is they are going to water down the plans for leaving until they are acceptable to the remaining side and then vote it through meaning a soft Brexit and tentacles still attached to the EU after 'leaving' forever and onwards.

Isn't that parliamentary sovereignty in action Billy?
That was one of the main reasons given by brexit campaigners to return the power of decision making to the uk parliament.

Just what I thought. Oh, the irony....

Billy, the job of a Judge is to do what it says on the tin, judge [and interpret the law]. Their personal feelings, politics whatever doesn't come into any Judgment, believe it or not they have to back up whatever they write in opinion with case law, authorities, references to past law and on and on. Just because they ruled against what you wanted is not laughable. If you think the laws are bad then campaign to change them, it's happened before.

It depends how one wants to twist it Bangla but obviously what Brexiteers mean by saying they want the UK parliament to have supreme legal power in our country is for after we've left the EU not now sticking their oars in just in order to block or frustrate a 17,000,000 referendum decision that the Prime Minister at the time promised categorically on live television would be adhered to whatever the result.

Going around in circles ain't we, but hey it's kinda fun debating.

We have voted to leave. I disagree but leave is what we are going to do.
What I want is for our parliament to do its job and work out what is in the best interests of everyone with the decisions made about our exit.
This isn't denying the people or any of the other wild statements that have been bandied around. It is our parliament doing what it is meant to do. Discuss the various options seems to make perfect sense rather than leave everything in the butterfingers of the government who find themselves on the wrong side of the law even before A50

I don't usually listen to Brian any more but have done these last couple of days. He is a major plonker for the most part, but by way of giving credit where due I would say that I applaud him for trying to take the Brexit talk in a different direction by asking people to call in and talk about the anger that people feel and how they express it.

Nice to have Ian Payne in for Horse-Startler Foggerty this afternoon

Nice to read a post that gives credit for the different approach taken today.

I agree. For all his faults, the thing JOB always did well was at least trying to look at things from a different angle and doing more than scratch the surface. I appreciate that he often fails to carry it through in practice, but I like that he asks the question.

Personally, like Peachy, I could have voted either way but ended up with my X in remain as I thought it was the lesser of two evils. I'm not a passionate EU-er by any stretch of the imagination. But the levels of what I see as blind passion by those on the Brexit side (and I do see it as more on their side than the other) scares me. To my mind, it seems to blind some people to the nuances and facts, and that's never good.

I don't see a reason to get worked up about the courts deciding that a Commons votes need to be legally taken. I think that's how our system works and that's an example of the very sovreignty that people voted for. It's fair enough to want to change that system, but I say then people should campaign for that change, not see Brexit as some kind of special exception to the rules.

I'm sure it'll go through as Brexit - I don't see MP's voting against the referendum result. But I do see their job as now determining what Brexit will look like. "Brexit means Brexit" is a meaningless phrase otherwise. With various possible options, we have to know more in order to take reasonable steps forward.

I disagree, he needs to adopt a less aggressive approach for a lot longer than one day

Could you please point out exactly where in the propaganda leaflet (or anywhere else) it says that all MP's will get TWO votes to decide the fate of this country?

Thought not.

You have a lot more faith than I have in our Judiciary then Ven I think it would be near on impossible for every Judge in the system to not be swayed at times by personal and political opinion.
Anyway I blame Wenger for all this mess.

Haven't scrolled down the page yet but I'm already dying to see Bangy's answer to that one!!!.