Have a stab at answering my original question.

If any form of freedom of movement is retained, would you accept it or would you be happy for someone to use the law to challenge it?

I would accept it for the time being and wait cautiously for the next general election which will be a good indicator of how well that policy was received by the UK electorate. The UK populous should decide on such issues and their elected politicians enact their wishes. This is preferable to the status quo.

I don't think it should be ignored, but that isn't the same as giving May a blank cheque to do anything she wants without any checks or ballances.

We live in a democracy with the rule of law, an advisory referendum didn't make us a dictatorship.

Brexiters seem to want us to be a dictatorship. Democracy and sovreignety clearly stop when they won't get them what they want.

Is that because you don't like outright lies being pointed out to you?

Can you explain your legal background in thinking this, as you are obviously an experienced legal mind with extensive knowledge of parliamentary law?

Because he's a sniveling git?

When was this plan agreed, if there were no plans on the table?

It shouldn't be, and it won't be. However, even though Brexit means Brexit and is red, white and blue, no-one actually knows what Brexit involves.

They have the right to vote against an advisory referendum, as it is only advisory. However, it is unlikely they will ignore the advice.

Do you think MPs should just hand over all decision making to May (who became PM on the say so of fewer then 200 Tory MPs) on everything?

1. What law?

2. Maybe so, but until it is changed it requires Parliament to overturn an act, in this case the 1972 Act.

Parliament is sovereign, not the people. That goes for all issues unless parliament explicitly binds itself to the outcome of a referendum.
It didn't in this case.
One of many oversights in the enabling legislation.

Because he decided that we should leave but that he wasn't the person to do it.

None of that affects the law one iota.

Sorry, but you are going to have to remind me what it was.

If the SC rules that, under our constitution, a decision on whether or not we leave the EU is entirely up to Parliament then we clearly would not have a "constitutional crisis" should Parliament make such a decision (and irrespective of what it so decides).

In fact, the SC ruling may well bring our "constitutional crisis" to an end as it will establish what the correct procedure should be. And, it should be noted that our leading Leave politicians literally had decades in which they could have brought legislation to Parliament in which a procedure for leaving the EU could have been voted upon which would have made the job of the SC much simpler and saved everyone the current court cases.

No, they didn't vote for that. That may have been what some wanted but it wasn't on the ballot paper. And I'm sure there's plenty of leavers who'd like enough "delay" to thrash out a proper deal with the EU.

Legally, yes they do. You can then vote them out at the next election. That's how our parliamentary democracy works.

Not necessarily but the whole conversation as regards this was to do with the voters voting in ignorance. The whole point is that it was not the electorate's fault that they were kept in ignorance.

Most politicians are saying that the EU is the bee's knees. Most politicians have to compromise, in a democracy I would expect no less.

You are now saying all that Farage says is the truth and that he is the fount of wisdom. How times change when it suits the moment. The 350 million was a mistake because it could too clearly be criticised, then money going to the NHS (which many seem to persist in seeing as a promise from those not in a position to promise anything) cannot yet be shown to be a lie because we are still a member of the EU and pay the subs accordingly.

As I've said in previous posts the checks and balances (of Parliament) must come after the government have negotiated, in private, what they believe is the best deal for the UK. I don't see that as the UK sliding into a Stalinist regime.

How on earth you can suggest that the PM acting directly on the will of the majority of the people as sliding towards dictatorship is beyond me. It's normally the other way around. There are plenty of examples past and present to draw from. I am not suggesting that Parliament can't vote (I insist that they do) on the final proposed arrangements with the EU, however Parliament do not have any legitimacy to prevent (and by inaction, delay) Brexit.

A contradiction that the government could do as they said. Most of the electorate believed the government could trigger article 50 as soon as they said, no MP indicated that this was not possible.

I would agree, it does not however negate the point as regards 'should'.

None of that makes it legally possible.

What is the point of a vote after the negotiations are complete? We leave the EU two years after triggering A50, whether we've agreed to a deal or not. She could negotiate the worse deal on Earth that pleases no one and voting against it will just mean the chaos of no deal at all when we leave, and probably 1000 court cases being launched to challenge anything anyone tries to do. Utter madness.

I didn't mention Stalin. There are many flavours of dictatorships.

Most EU law is implemented by civil servants here. Much EU regulation is drawn from civil servants here.

Brexit isn't just one thing, it contains almost infinite options and possibilities. This isn't something for our Prime Minister to decide alone, that's not how a parliamentary democracy works.

I very much doubt Parliament will try to prevent Brexit, but they might try to get a flavour of Brexit that doesn't only appeal to a few fanatics.

I disagree, I think Parliament should be supreme, I don't want to be more like Switzerland.