Because the Tories will push it through parliament. The vicar's daughter will, if necessary, make a statement to the nation about 'the importance of democracy' and her determination to carry out the result of the referendum. Even if it then went to a GE built around Brexit, the Tories would get a massive majority and use emergency legislation through this mandate to push on to Brexit, blaming the subsequent "hard Brexit" on those who tried to stop it.

Oh wow. You do have selective hearing and memory. No judge said that at all, in fact not even the government submission says that.

Hint - they referred to "from time to time" as included in the ECA.

And with this I will finish my debate with you as there clearly is no point, as I said earlier.

See the news about the Tory revolt. 40 of them no support the motion tabled by Labour to get an outline of the Brexit goals. They include pro-Brexiters (they want to ensure she's not backtracking) and remainers.

It's getting quite tight for Tessie.

Yes they did, why don't you check out 8(b) of their introductory summary and rewatch the livestream from the begining and you will see the arguments made and the judges response about a "stream" .

What a joker. in what capacity do you function in a court?

Whatever you do you can't be very good.

It is all little more than legal navel gazing which has lost sight of the result on 23 June which by definition means withdrawal from the EU and at some point repealing the ECA. What happens beyond that will be determined by the exit agreement negotiated between the UK and the EU assuming of course we ever trigger article 50 to say we wish to leave in line with that result.

BIB

Did I say otherwise?

If I were Theresa May I wouldn't have appealed the decision I would have tabled an emergency motion and asked Parliament to vote immediately.

The mother of all Parliaments was never going to sit quietly and let an autocratic government dictate. We the people have the right for our representatives to scrutinise the detail. I see the hard right in Tories are now rising up as the dictator isn't doing precisely as they want. Their attempt at a hard right takeover of Tories / government seems to be faltering.

Haven't you heard the poster's a legal legend in their own sitting room.

Yeah there really isn't. perhaps get back to me when you understand words and can remember what was said.

He did call the high court ruling weeks in advance on exactly the rationale the judges gave. I was surprised at his confidence but in this instance it was justified. Wherever his expert opinion was coming from it was right.

So the poster says, I'd have bet money on the judges agreeing with Mrs. Miller lawyers' position and ruling how they did, just as I fully expect the same result from the supreme court.

But they aren't doing that are they.

Personally I don't care the end result will be the same.

Aww here you are! I thought you were still busy finding us an EU directive amending domestic which the UK implemented without and Act of Parliament... but alas you just waited in the corner until you could throw one of your personal insults as per usual when you're having a bad hardliner Brexit day

I think the point Aurora13 was trying to make that I had their rationale spot on as opposed to relying on some sad conspiracy theory about the establishment robbing the poor people of their voice.

Thanks btw A13.

Considering they've demanded the details of the Great Repeal Bill which Eadie couldn't produce (as it doesn't exist) I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Fair enough, but your point was what exactly

I agree with you re Tessie re the Appeal, which seems pointless and the result inevitable, though I'm pretty sure if she proceeded as you suggest, we'd be in court now arguing about the validity of said bill; at the very least a much stronger chance of it being rejected.

The fundamental problem here is that we the public want to see the shape of Tessie's Brexit. And suddenly she's come on all shy...

The point isn't whether or not they amend domestic law the point is that the UK is bound by the directives and if they don't amend the law they are in breach of their obligations, which Parliament didn't vote for.

I'd have trouble as EU directives afaik are implemented by amending the ECA not via new acts of parliament otherwise we have hordes of them but as you are so keen on finding them go look for yourself.

In any case we've been over this, the EU makes a law and all member states have to implement it whatever parliament reckons. If the EU decided tomorrow to abolish FoM what parliament thinks about it is irrrelevant.

For you to speak about insults is truly funny.

Oh and i'd just like to point out that for all Gina Millers protestations about parliamentary sovereignty most (if not all) of her objections to article 50 are about rights granted by the EU.

She can't be elected as an MEP, she can't appeal to the ECJ/ECHR etc.

So much for democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. She's a liar and a fraud.

Oh we amend the ECA to implement EU directives. Wow and I thought I'd heard it all.

Please enlighten us... when was the ECA amended last?

So the Working Time Regulations, TUPE regulations, Part time worker regulations and the other 30 ACTS OF PARLIAMENT in employment law alone weren't actually ACTS OF PARLIAMENT?! Wow I really have to make sure that all tribunals stop referring to them as ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.

After all they're all EU dictates and we had no choice to amend them, add to them or indeed allow Parliament to debate them and vote on them. It's not like the WTR got stuck in the Lords for ages or anything like that.

A very interesting day one.

No you didn't otherwise you would be in breach of your obligations, they're binding.

And your point is?

You do realise that she was simply made the lead claimant by the court. You have heard of the People's challenge, Dos Santos and the other dozens of claimants and what their objections are?

Regardless, appealing to the ECJ is not an EU right, it's a domestic right with domestic law referring to it. So your argument is null and void.

Similarly, being able to stand for MEP elections is domestic law in two devolved nations (not adding more details to this as I don't want to make things even more confusing).

That she's a liar and a fraud. It was at the bottom of my post. I know you have trouble following things but i thought that was fairly clear, I dont know why you snipped it out.