How many weeks were there of debate in the public domain? Didn't you get one of the £9 million leaflets? Did you vote not knowing what you were voting for?

[quote=Eurostar;84863374]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.

Why would you assume that, especially when legalised drug taking is already in force.


The point I'm making is that there are very good reasons the judiciary are independent of parliament and government.

The point you're making is that the final selection is made by the Prime Minister and verified by the Queen.



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.

For the umpteenth time, there wasn't effectively a law covering the use of the Royal Prerogative in triggering Article 50, that's why a case was brought, which, at the moment, is in defiance of the majority vote.

Now how about answering my question regarding if the EU ref3erendum had been binding, would you accept the majority.

No "expert"; we don't need those now, do we ,

I'm just one of those "London metropolitan elite" lawyers

Parliament will indeed approve Article 50 but (I suspect) following a full and proper debate, fully detailed bill and all associated argument. I prefer this to the Brexit bunch headbanger brigade. Since when did IDS, Rees Mogg, Jenkins etc become relevant to let alone run this country?

Also, no one disputes the relevancy of RP within our parliamentary democracy but at risk of repeating a much rehearsed point, only parliament can take that which it has granted. It really is, in the final analysis, as simple as that,

Btw, the government would have been far better off not pursuing this daft Appeal because in doing so it has opened the risk (though I put it no higher) of the Supreme Court acceding to some of the more radical arguments put forward by the Scottish and Irish governments. I don't, personally, think those points will be "won" but why risk it for a lost cause? I guess because Tessie is desperate to give the headbangers their, err, head...

Except that it isn't Parliament who's contesting the use of the RP.

That "daft appeal" might just not turn out as you would like it to.

No, it might turn out that A50 invocation is reversible. So if Parliament won't pass whatever poor deal May can get (and why might she get a better deal than Cameron was able to?) we reverse A50 and stay in. Win-Win!

Guaranteed General Election in 2017 if that occurs.

Whilst you're grasping a greasy pole, Brexiters are grasping the nettle. Will you ever give up on hopelessness?


That is almost certain to happen, with considerable justification.

Do people realise that the earliest brexit might possible happen has got to realistically got to be three years away.

Article 50 hasn't been sorted out. Then two years of negotiations leading to possibly britain leaving with nothing. Then an interim period then a state when all european law has been made british law. And then they start to trim here and there around the edges slowly making changes and trying to get the Indians to buy some gear off of us.

You might get to the interim period in three years. To actually get what brexiters want from britain 4, 5, 6, 10... more beyond much further.

Stop fooling yourself with language about brexit taking off as if it will suddenly be a run away success.

Talking about falling off the cliff is much more likely. Brexit is going to be less fun than landing in the english channel without a floatation device or flashy LED light.

I will eat my own feet if the government wins its appeal, and invite you round my house to watch. An offer you surely can't refuse

Your first para doesn't actually make sense though; the use of RP per se isn't in dispute, merely its use in this context. Its a fundamental constitutional issue, albeit one to quote Richard Gordon QC, a child of six could understand.

Er, I haven't seen much nettle grasping going on. Lots of claiming it won't sting but no actual grasping it.

That would be quite clever as A50 won't get invoked until Mar, the negotiations will take at least 18 months before there's anything to put before Parliament so I can't see how anyone in Sep 18 calling a general election in 2017.

As I posted, if (or when) that scenario happens, a GE is likely.

So let's say Sep 18 May loses an A50 deal vote and has to say to the EU we want to withdraw our reversible A50 application.

She can only call a GE if the opposition parties agree but they might well tell her that the Tories cause the mess, they have to live with it until 2020.

The risk is there. The lower court result presumably has a status anyway, and thats a change that needs reversing, or amplifying, or replacing. And surely the Scots or Welsh could have brought their own case, if they wanted to, anyway.

May can't put any detail of priorities forward- as the detail will just reveal her wish list, and red lines, and she won't be able to deliver on it - because the EU decides- not us.

She might ask the Commons for priorities - but where you end up, is determined by where you start - immigration or the economy - and either way the commons is just going to divide , and she's going to upset about half the voters. Better to start vague, try for both, and let the 3 amigos sell the, compromise. deal to the leave voters.

This isn't being run by IDS, and the swivel eyed brigade - until Labour MPs decide to block the saner compromises. Its being run by the need to keep 40% plus of the 525 leave vote satisfied with the outcome.

The big emerging problem is that the Leave voters seem to want immigration control' and leaving the Eu and no financial cost to themselves. Its far from clear how any government deals with people, who were told that they could have this magic solution, by serial liars . Government can't tell people they were foolish to beleve liars, and its their own fault , and no party can deliver conflicting objectives. Its unexplored territory for UK democracy. Henry V111s answer would have been to blame Boris, charge him with treason, and hang draw and quarter him - infront of a large crowd of angry UKIP supporters.

I have to take your word for that.

As to my first para, you can twist it whichever way you want but this case was brought as a result of the intention to use the Royal Prerogative.

As to eating your own feet, if the appeal is successful, you won't have any to stand on let alone eat.

When the dust has settled on this ludicrous Brexit business there are far more serious issues to occupy our time. We need a proper written constitution, an elected two-chamber parliament, the abolition of the Royal Prerogative and the Privy Council, and that's just for starters.

I wouldn't, one of the judges rejected the "child of six" analogy which must have left the said QC feeling like one.