Oh so we didn't amend the Working Time Directive during debate in the Commons. It did not get held up in the Lords for further amendments after business lobbying and Parliament did not vote on it?

I think I rest my case if that's what you believe

Well except she isn't.

Well she is because all or most of her objections to article 50 are from rights granted by membership of the european union yet she claims she believes in the sovereignty of parliament.

How does objecting to your loss of rights to be an MEP and appeal to the CJEU or ECHR marry with your belief in parliamentary sovereignty

According to the government legislation site it says "European Communities Act 1972 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 02 December 2016. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date."

Whether we ammended it or debated it is irrelevant to the fact that we were bound by it.

You really are terrible at this.

Which is why I say that if she eventually has to "appeal to the people to get you justice" through a GE she will walk it and there will be one option left on the table - swift 'hard' Brexit, with Farron et al crying in a cupboard somewhere.
They are making a big mistake in pretending to put Brexit under the microscope when they are actually trying to stop it.
And Corbyn will still be leader of the Remnant Labour party and ordering them to back Brexit because that's what he wants, anyway.

Oh dear. Do you actually know what an Act of Parliament is?

Repeating that I'm terrible at this doesn't make it any more true. I know that I'm damn good at what I do and pretty much all areas of law. So keep saying that I'm terrible at it as much as you like... it's not going to knock my confidence.

Yes i do, if you have a point perhaps you would like to enlighten us or embarass yourself further because you are arguing against a point that is impossible to refute.

You don't care the government is wasting money and stirring up unrest for no good reason. Any reason is a bad reason.

Depending on how the next few months work out I wouldn't be so sure she'd be PM after a GE regardless of the Tories getting a huge majority.

This is fantastic. Explain the law then instead of instructing people to run off and read.

I think you'll do better on my ignore list.

You've done all the embarrassing yourself this afternoon so no need for me to do any of that.

So when i ask you to explain the law that you know that you're damn good at what you do and pretty much all areas of law.. (sic) your response is to resort to telling me you're going to ignore me? i think that should tell everyone enough.

The Judges of the Supreme Court have the same expertise or lack of it as the High Court Judges. My response was to a poster who thought the Supreme Court Judges to be more expert in law.

Parliament did no so such thing. It voted to ask the people what they thought. If parliament had voted to give "the power to the people", the referendum act would have said as much, like it did for the AV referendum.

By making the referendum advisory, parliament effectively reserved the final decision to itself.

If you believe experience in a profession contributes to making you more of an expert then they are. Personally I'd rather have complex surgery by an experienced surgeon. A surgeon who is an expert in their field.

Got a waiver get out /opt out of gaol clause which is what they could do on any EU employment laws which in my mind nullifies the screeching "we can't leave the EU what about our Employment laws?" You have just proved the EU isn't fit for purpose especially for Employment Laws. Do you wonder how I know this I will tell you a secret you can get around most of them.

As for TUPE

In April 2011 the UK Government proposed a number of reforms to TUPE.

You have completely missed the point of course.

Oh dear.

Her objection is to the withdrawal of rights as a whole. Those are simply specific examples of them (aside from your assertion about the ECtHR, as Article 50 will have zero impact on that)

Good lord, no. A glass of Madeira is what you need with custard creams.

You can't see the irony can you?

So you're still asserting that the process of appointment to the Supreme Court is simply a lottery?

The ECHR has nothing to do with it.

I'm mystified as to why people struggle to get this.

It would set such a dangerous precedent.

The lead claimant will also lose the right to rely on directly effective EU law rights in the English courts to interpret, or to override, other legislation enacted by Parliament.

She's a liar and a fraud.