The poster even managed to give the courts the role of deciding if the result of a democratic process is to be allowed.

When people genuinely believe that the High Court is "outranked" by anyone, aside from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on matters of constitutional law, I consider that to be a matter of deep sorrow.

I'm guessing you live in a Trumpy/Govey world where education is to be feared, wisdom viewed as an elitist trait the and "experts" burned in wicker men...

Yes, definitely. Let's imagine that some populist nutjob becomes PM and decides to hold a referendum to legalise drug dealing and the vote is marginally in favour. Very unlikely of course but it could happen nonetheless. In that case, the legal system would swing into place to protect the country from "the will of the people" and would effectively overrule the result.

I do Fusion, yes.

I wonder which cenerio the financial industry would rather choose , losing passporting or facing EU's planned FTT, financial transaction tax?

http://www.cityam.com/251202/eu-financial-transaction-tax-unveiled-year


http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2016-11-01/ftt-tax-brexit-comment

When the UK voted to leave the European Union in June, many believed the EU might actually benefit in some ways, particularly in relation to business shifting from an uncertain UK. That outlook may have been turned rather on its head recently when some EU finance ministers agreed on October 10 to put forth a proposal to impose a financial transaction tax on trading.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation-financial-sector_en

Some things weren't, but generally they were. Hence we live in an affluent and stable country. The conservatives are supposed to avoid change (hence the name, they conserve the status quo), but even the socialists in the UK are relatively conservative. Letting revolutionary activists run states has, historically, never turned out too well (although Cubans have good healthcare and cheap rum).

They've just had a significant Commons motion majority on triggering Article 50 by 31 March.

I was being well educated before you were born.

The Murdoch newspapers, The Sun and The Times, have today come out with a load of alarmist BS for reasons best known their proprietor (flogging more newspapers/online subscriptions?). Both the Conservatives and Labour have said that they will abide by the referendum vote so actual Brexit is not ultimately going to be an issue.

As to the complainants, I have no idea what their legal argument is but I'd be willing to bet that it's not as strong as the current ongoing case before the Supreme Court.

Wasn't quite so easy, was it, trying to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes! Thank goodness our fusty old legal system has stopped the spivs and crooks in their tracks. Anybody has the right to challenge a decision in the Courts, if they can afford it. Sadly, the only winners of this farce will, as usual, be the lawyers, but at least some of our smug politicians are having the smiles wiped off their slippery faces.

I'm only too well aware of Remnants moving goalposts in an attempt to prove a non-point, so just to put you right.

If your "drugs" referendum was introduced have you considered what would be the case if the referendum was binding?

Have you ever thought of starting a group to oppose legalised drug dealing, it's something that's been considered on a number of occasions by the brain-dead liberalistas, with the NHS as the dealers?

I've asked the next question on more than one occasion but not yet had an answer. Had the EU referendum been binding, would you have unquestionably accepted it?

And no yeah but ifs and maybe.

The fact is that remain supporters are quite literally making themselves poorer by emptying their wallets to fund one legal challenge after another. So yes as they claimed in the referendum campaign, Brexit will definitely be making them worse off, and we haven't even left yet!

Excuse me, what is your definition of populist, if you don't mind me asking?

Good for you; try putting it to some use then...

Either way the Supreme Court case seems to be a colossal waste of money on both sides.

The Commons in essence consented to article 50 in all but name by a 327 majority last week.

The main reason to hope for a Government win is so Gina Miller and the other applicants are hit with the costs rather than the taxpayer. Cos I bet Lord Pannick doesn't come cheap!

A binding referendum would surely have been just that; which isn't to say that any remnant worth his salt would have done anything other than got back up and, and begun to make the alternative case, as leavers have spent 40 years making their own cases.

But it wasn't binding and even if it was, a binding referendum would still need to be applied according to the rule of law.

Apologies for answering on another's behalf but if Eurostar feels otherwise, I'm sure he'll yell...

Well it would have been a good idea if people were informed what they were voting for and the ramifications instead of being hit with gloom and doom on one side and ridiculous and patently false claims on the other.

If you look at the picture of the 11 poor people that are making the judgement, it is surprising they didn't say it was 12 judges and photo-shopped Token out of South Park into the picture.

I do, it's you not able to keep up.

I thought you had something to do with the legal process and you haven't provided answers to what I asked Eurostar.

No it didn't; I've seen this point made numerous times and it's a complete misconception, or better put a thorough misrepresentation, adopted by Brexit headbangers like IDS.

A motion is not a bill of parliament or anything approximating it; its not even binding, in any way at all, nor a blank cheque.

People have no idea about how Parliament actually works, what being a parliamentary democracy means, or the role of the Courts within our constitution. It's horrifying...

Also, no one is going to be "hit" with any costs (it was crowdfunded and Pannick and the key legal team are all (though i don't claim to be privy to the detail but know a man who is) working on very significantly reduced rates and certainly not Gina Miller, who happened to be selected by the court as lead claimant.

Well, no one apart from the taxpayer, who is picking up the tab for the bill of defending an obviously meritorious case then defending the governments hopeless appeal.

Even if a "legalise drugs" referendum was binding, I'm assuming that there would be elements of national law that could be invoked to overrule the result, as legalised drug taking would surely not be in the national interest and would arguably be seriously detrimental to society.

The point I'm making is that there are very good reasons the judiciary are independent of parliament and government. They are there to ensure that the law of the land is upheld at all costs, even if there is crazy stuff going on at political level or via referenda.

Hmmm...perhaps it's time for your nap?

I was more interested with the on topic stuff than a deabate around Eurostars side analogy (valid or otherwise), which I see he's dealt with above.

I bow to the constitutional expert. I merely observed that parliament is going to approve the article 50 declaration anyway as that vote this week demonstrated - so it becomes in effect academic in terms of this particular case.

If our non existent 'constitution' was clear we wouldnt be having this case. But its odd that hedge fund managers and their wives have never bothered to challenge the use of the royal prerogative before - only following the very clear result of a referendum which of course parliament approved by passing an act of parliament to allow it to happen.

Parliament spoke when it delegated the decision to the people - and its their duty now to implement it.