See below you've just cancelled each other out.

Oh and see my post about Cameron trying to extend the opt outs in his renegotiation of staying in the EU bollocks.


Exactly - oh this is getting tedious.

So, Gina Miller goes to court to protect the sovereignty of parliament and the sovereignty of parliament carry out a legitimate parliamentary motion - that is possibly the pre-cursor of a bill, and she says it isn't good enough. Why isn't it good enough? Because the MP's voted in favour of Brexit and not against! Is she going to take the Government to court every single time they win a vote she doesn't approve of?

See the problem you have with this sort of shit and quoting it as some loss if we leave the EU is actually meaningless to be honest in terms of the UK.

David Cameron and his government were trying to circumvent them anyway without your knowledge at least now it is out there for discussion - see below link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...eferendum.html

"David Cameron will demand that Britain is able to ignore most of the employment rules imposed on the UK by Brussels as part of his renegotiation with the European Union, it can be disclosed.

The Prime Minister will open up open a major new front in his battle with the EU ahead of Britain’s in-out referendum by seeking to restore opt-outs on the Social Chapter that were jettisoned by Tony Blair"

You are more likely to keep them leaving the EU than you would have had we had stayed under Cameron and his cronies idea of being in the EU.

http://www.employmentlaws.co.uk/guide/brexit.html

"The only way to ensure long-term certainty on these issues, as with many others, is for them to be addressed in the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU.”

I rest my case on leaving the EU it didn't and does not protect us in the slightest it is just another layer of administration that our government can hide behind and blame for their ineptitude and constant drive towards making money for themselves while everyone else is drowning in poverty and creating an underclass. All the while we are paying them to then administer the money back to us on something they think we should have.

Gina Miller has said no such thing! The judges did, the government put a statement out saying it last night.

Are you genuinely not understanding all this or just trolling? It's all explained in news and even in this thread

The essential difference is that a motion does not involve the House of Lords. Nor does it involve any of the devolved legislatures. There is a process for overcoming resitance from the House of Lords who, if this involves laws and rights, must be consulted.

The only potential short cut if it comes to the mechanisms of leaving the EU would be for the House of Lords to pass the same motion and the devolved legislatures give consent.

Trolling? I could say the same about you!

There was a rather interesting point made by Mr Gill QC today in the court about EEA citizens here and what their status would be under the immigration Acts, namely:


So, we could be potentially facing a sudden increase in our criminal population by over 3 million!

I can't help wondering about the cost of imprisioning and/or deporting over 3 million criminals. Would it be cheaper to avoid those two options and perhaps just to turn the entire country into a vast open-air prison instead?

The devolved are represented in Parliament by MPs.

You're assuming Gills opinion is right.

Yes, that part was nothing but ifs and maybe's and when is law ever dictated by ifs and maybes? You could have equally argued that EU citizens will be perfectly fine. I don't think the judges should make a ruling on whatiffery.

Well the judges are not being asked to over turn the vote. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38247937. Supreme Court president: Court won't overturn Brexit vote

No, but they could stall it. My point about whatiffery remains. Some of the points made were about what if and maybe. No case can be judged on that.

No sane, intelligent person could have followed the news, or even this thread and persist in making the sort of terrible point which you've pursued.. I believe you to be both sane and intelligent, so can only assume you're engaged in some experiment as to the far parameters of post factualism. Good luck with that...

Reminds me of some of the legal stuff I listened to today, never use one word when twenty five will do.

Watching Gina Miller on the BBC News tonight, it's disgusting to hear of the abuse she has taken for being a woman, for being coloured and for being born outside the UK. Certain sections of the media were playing with fire by demonising her in the way they did and were practically inviting the online trolls to attack her.

Haven't we already been through this? A motion doesn't change the law of the land.

Given it's panto season, Oh no they aren't.


More seriously given their elections are in different years and are elected on a PR basis there's a potential for a different makeup in them than at Westminster.

Coming from the person who got mixed with which country had a constitution?

So tell me in what way is Ireland intrinsically linked with the North?

They share heritage, NI residents can apply for an Irish passport, culturally they have much in common.

So what legal basis is there where exiting the EU will affect the constitution of the Republic?

As for doing my homework, I spent an entire year researching the troubles, the intrinsic link you speak of is non existant in a legal sense.

Tell me which MPs from devolved regions don't represent their country.

Well, I'm happy to be compared to Messrs Pannick, Wolffe, Gordon and Gill. People who actually know stuff...

Apologies if you find my Brobdingnagian observations a pain in the gluteus maximus...

There's no guarantee that they represent the devolved legislatures. For instance a rainbow coalition might conceivably take over at Holyrood. A bit far fetched but possible. More relevant is that after the 2010 GE there were only 6 SNP MPs but the next year they gained a majority at Holyrood.

I said legislatures as they are the ones who give Legislative Consent, or withhold it.

Is it remotely suprising though when you look at the media and many of the people who support brexit?

No because no Parliament can cope with the sheer volume of decisions , and proceedures, and minute to minute decision making, that requires action. You can't have a debate in a nuclear attack, or debate every DWP guidance note, or what an ambassador says, or to push fire on an aircraft. You need the Royal prerogative and to delgate that to ministers and officials. All modern states give their Head of States residual powers, no Parliament's negotiate treaties, and they don't have the sole power to end them , because events may mean breaking them quickly.

You also don't want your police, security service , military, or judges appointed by politicians - you don't want Corbyn deciding which terrorists to arrest, or bug , or party politicians appointing civil servants , generals , and policemen.

Written constitutions have the opposite problem. You are stuck when things don't work as they intended them to. In this case, you would still have to have thought of how to leave the EU - when no one thought it would ever happen, And you would need to still allow people to cut off treaties - without lawyers turning up, saying you couldn't go to war - because some locals would lose their rights to work in the hostile country.

The US constitution also doesn't work as intended - because there's no ability to reach consensus and much more to do. That means you delegate authority down to officials, and up to Presidents ,who take more executive actions . And you then find their Supreme Court has to intervene , to decide whats constitutional or not, anyway.

The whole onset and prevalence of social media has coarsened public discourse no end. Apparently Ms Miller has received several threats of sexual violence from the nutters at their keyboards and that's alongside all the name calling. You would think the press would be a bit more responsible and not attempting to turn this lady into a public hate figure.