When we're talking about the Mail/Sun/Express, then "responsible" isn't a word they even know.

Gill's "opinion" was a statement on the immigration Acts that are the law of the land and the judges did not dispute it.

The is no "ifs or maybes" about the immigration Acts as they already exist on the statute books. EU/EEA citizens are covered by a special case under the legislation based on us being a member of those bodies. That special case would become void upon our exit and the EU/EEA citizens would then automatically be in breech of the immigration Acts - a criminal offence.

The Government has had five and a half months to bring forward & get passed legislation that would kick in upon our exit and cover this fairly straightforward case. Such legislation is NOT dependent on us triggering art 50 or an exit agreement with the EU.

The Government has not done so and unless they have a belief based on "whatifery" it would be folly for the judges to conclude that the Government DEFINITELY will bring forward legislation to cover the special case EU/EEA citizens when they have not done so to date.

The Mail's front page headline is hilarious:

"Remainers 'set for narrow 7-4 decision by Supreme Court judges in Article 50 case' - defying their hopes of a legal whitewash in their bid to block Brexit"

Expressed as a percentage, 7-4 converts to 64-36!

If that is a narrow victory, what the Hell is 52-48?

Weirdly, if you click through to the actual stroy, the headline changes to: "Supreme Court judges 'are heading for a split decision on Brexit appeal', frustrating Remain MPs attempts to block Article 50."

Though they can't resist claiming that 7-4 is "just in favour of Remain side."

Freaks.

Narrow as in 3 as opposed to 17.4 million

Expressed as a percentage, 7-4 converts to 64-36.

Another invented story from Daily Mail. Yawn.

Did you forget the people who voted to stay... very hard brexit of you.

Why would a commercial newspaper publish such an article?

sources now think it will be a 7 to 4 split

sources

I'm a source and i believe it will go the other way.

I know that. But because of the small numbers invovled regardless of the outcome you couldn't replicate 52 - 48 (unless you had 5 and 3/4 judges against 5 and 1/4 judges).

The story came from the Telegraph but it's an odd one to run with considering the verdict won't be given till sometime in January.

It's an opinion piece. Sources say dontcha know?

Ooops I started off quoting full numbers then just the differences and missed taking out the 7.

If they are both running it could be a feed from David Davis gang. He won't know how the judges will go but it's setting up the public for government defeat. Still based on nowt. Judges will make their decision without giving a running commentary.

What's the point of newspapers? It's simple, to sell newspapers and use them to wipe your backside on. Those are their only uses.

If you don't buy them, how do you cope in the little room?

What an odd argument.

If there are fewer participants, the difference is magnified. So 2/3 is massive. 7/11 is quite massive. 17,410,742/33,578,016 (including spoiled ballots) is very marginal.

I suppose if all 11 judges voted in favour of Gina Miller, it would still be a 'close result' because she only won by 11?

To connect advertisers with their target audiences.

You do realise this front page article is in the Mail on Sunday which actually backed remain?!

If the Supreme Court vote is not unanimous it is significant - as it means the legal position is therefore not clear cut.

A bit like the referendum result, you mean?

The decision is clear-cut when the decision is made. Or are you looking at further appeals past the Supreme Court.

....and because the judges are all old some will die before the verdict. What then.

Rounding up or down from that, you'd get a 6:5 result. That would be close.

Given they range in age from 60 to 73 and none shows any sign that they won't last the next couple of months, I'm not sure why you think this is inevitable...but anyway, I expect the decision will be made by the survivors e.g. one member of the Chilcott Inquiry died before the decision was published, and the US Supreme Court hasn't ground to a halt since Scalia died. I can't see anything specific about it in the UK Supreme Court rules.

The rationale(s) behind the judges' decisions will be rather more significant than the mere numbers. And a unanimous decision doesn't really carry any more "weight" - it would still take another full-bench decision to overturn either a majority or unanimous decision.

There was a time when newspapers reported news. Nowadays they report opinion, speculation, untruths (if not downright lies) as news. The Mail's story is lifted from the Telegraph, which said:

Legal commentators and experts had believed the court comprised overwhelmingly pro-Remain judges, with some expecting the Government would lose by a margin of 10 to one.

However, government lawyers in the courtroom now believe the margin is actually much narrower. One source said: “It is difficult to predict how the case is going to go but the thinking of those in the room is that there might be a sizeable minority who are with the Government

So the story is based on what is thought to be the judges' political views and that they will not be objective. Another attack on the independence of judges. It's absurd and disgraceful.