Not sure if there's a particular bit I missed from him, but you use "My Lord" in general, and "Your Lordship" in place of "you".

Yes, that's the error I thought he made when he addressed Neuberger directly. Not a particularly important point

Another assumption that leavers are stupid
Yes I did know what was in the Lisbon treaty and was appalled that such important issues were not put to the public vote, aside from GE.

The judges know the law of course but they do make the mistake sometimes of inhabiting a different t world from us mere mortals.

There is a way out , it's called Article 50 in case that had escaped your notice.

He wasn't. It is the weakest example (and acknowledged at the start) that he is using to express the point that legislation has to limit the prerogative.

They are inhabiting a world where they need to be experts in their field; the law.

Just because some people may think the matters in this case aren't important doesn't meant that they aren't.

Hahaha
now that would be CERTAIN DEATH BY POWERPOINT , unless they put in some funny cartoons or something or some ice breaker exercises

Parliament debated and voted on the Lisbon Treaty. That's the way our democracy works. If you're unhappy with this then start a petition for direct democracy or move to country that holds more referendums.

Quote:
“The judges know the law of course but they do make the mistake sometimes of inhabiting a different t world from us mere mortals.”

That's insulting. Our legal system is something to be proud of.


And it is for Parliament to trigger Article 50 in accordance with our constitution as required in Article 50. So not sure what your problem is...

God you people are obsessed with London.
The vote was quite close all over the country.

There were some areas voting heavily either way but it was mostly evenly split.
In Wales, for example, only in one of 22 areas was the split greater than 59% / 41%.
All the other areas were 50s/40s, and 5 areas voted Remain.

Or assert regal powers. Given it's often said that the UK constitution evolves in a semi chaotic manner it's highly dangerous for Parliament to allow a precedent where it's power to legislate is bypassed outwith an emergency. If it allows it in this instance where Parliament is willing, however reluctantly, to go along with the wishes of the PM there may come a time in the future where they are not.

Amusingly the Royal Prerogative also includes the right to dismiss ministers of state, including the Prime Minister. In theory Parliament could table a motion to have May removed.

I'm no legal expert, but is it me or is Eadie not making a particularly good job of this?

Read the written submission alongside to his arguments. Don't argue the unarguable.

He has not managed to make a single argument to help the government as of yet. Fact.

That's not what I posted
Yes they are experts of course and they are doing their job.
However judges have been known to make gaffes in their judgements as in any field of expertise

It does seem to rather be getting away from him at present. Sumption isn't letting this particular point go.

Right, but what's your actual point?

This hearing is to decide if the original three judges made an error.
Will you accept the decision of these judges as they are experts?

He's made several different but similar arguments. The one he was picked up on was the weakest of them but they all belay the point that the prerogative needs to be limited by statute and their assertion is that it isn't.

Time for brandy and custard creams

Yes because all it means is that MPs vote again and and Brexit will continue.
Although , obviously, they are ruling on a point of law I will not be at all surprised if their decision is to ask parliament to vote again , that's all.

brandy at lunchtime , they will definitely be nodding off by 3

No, it will be sherry time by then

I thought they were all going down the local for a pie and a pint

I have no legal training but am able to follow the line of arguments. It is fascinating to see and hear the Supreme Court at work

Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem a tad confused as to what it is that the courts have said about what is and isn't legal.

They have said that it would be illegal for May to invoke article 50 on the say so of herself and three other Tories,

The BRITISH law says that as we are a parliamentary democracy such an action can only be undertaken once the BRITISH democratic parliament has given it's consent to invoke article 50 by seeing what May is proposing and then voting on it,

This is the very essence of British parliamentary democracy, The support of which was one of the leave campaign's main reasons for wanting to leave the EU,

Yet the very first time they see it in action after the leave vote, many leave supporters don't seem to like it one bit.

Lots of leave voters seem to think this is about a second referendum, it's not, nor is it about preventing us from leaving,

YES it may cause it to be a slower process than they would like, but tough, that's what happens when we have a parliamentary democracy under which democracy and the law takes priority over the dictatorial actions of an un-elected prime minister and a handful of her MPs.

Brexit will still happen,it's just that parliament gets a say in how it happens rather than dictator May telling parliament how it's going to happen.

Democracy, it's a wonderful thing and should always be rigorously defended.

Jellied eels and a knees up round the piano .....

Exactly
This is not about whether brexit happens at all
Nor will there be another referendum
It's a formality if you like that parliament may have to vote again
Yes its a pain if it delays anything however the PM seems to be sticking to schedule so far.