I did not ask you that, i did not ask about the EU. I asked . Do you believe David Davis is a trustworthy and honest and will stick by what he believes ?

It would have been nice if the populous had had the right to challenge the method of joining the EU but we did not why on earth would we get a say in how to leave. That duty belongs in Parliament. We should have had a say whether we should join and we did have a say as regards leaving.

ECJ will have ruled that A50 can be untriggered by then 😉

It will be Tory deal / UKIP not supporting deal just wanting to fall out of EU / other parties wanting to untrigger A50 so that we stay in or get a better deal. Likely vote of no confidence in Tory government to put options to British public at general election.

I answered, he may compromise in his beliefs as every politician did who did not want to join the EU in the first place. Trustworthy and honest? I have no reason to believe he is less trustworthy and honest than most and have reason to believe he is more trustworthy and honest than many.

No parliament is supreme because it draws that power from the electorate. It is the electorate that lend that sovereignty to parliament to act in the best interests of the electorate. That is why any act by Parliament to dilute or change the sovereignty of the electorate should seek the permission of the electorate to do so. That has always been the way until the the EEC arrived.

i don't think any politician has said that.

are you just making stuff up?

MPs & Peers are there to make decisions on our laws based on what THEY believe is in our national interest. They don't have to "compromise" - a nice euphemism for them
voting against what they may (or may not) believe is in the national interest.

The vast majority of them will be perfectly aware that measures such as tax hikes and spending cuts are rarely ones that a majority of the electorate support yet frequently in the national interest.

Yet becoming part of the government, meant throwing away what he believed in and was and did take the government to court not. But now to stay in his job he must back the government against the people which he said he was fighting for. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...Yi5ud4hoh1JfWA

Please elaborate on how this specific slogan is a lie? 'We send the EU £350M a week. Let's fund our NHS instead' I interpreted it as the net balance of payments to the EU could be used to increase the NHS budget. They could be split across a number sectors (eg research grants etc). Personally, I believe that initially all UK recipients of EU (ie UK) grants should remain at 100%, to be reviewed in a few years time as part of the normal budgetary review process. Of course it makes emotive headlines to accuse the originators of lying when the money is not yet even available, nor do they have the power to spend it!


Ah sarcasm, one of my favourite modes of communication. Sorry to disappoint you however I am not a member of the bar. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what crime she would be guilty of committing? Could she be put on trial by standard jury? What if her jury just happened to be Brexiters who found her innocent as she was not acting against the will of the people!


Which is your opinion of his character, not an explanation of his decision. What do you think he should have done that morning?



I'm not aware of any official plan, however this is how I would play it out.


The ballot said should the UK leave the EU or remain in the EU. I, and the majority of those who voted, ticked leave. Based on the question on the ballot paper I expect the UK to leave, unconditionally, the EU. A new relationship can then be negotiated with the remaining EU states collectively, or individually should their country wish to leave the EU too. I am happy for these negotiations to commence earlier as long as they do not delay our departure.


I didn't fully read the government leaflet that was sent to every house in the country. Did it boldly indicate that the referendum was advisory and that the government could ignore the result if it didn't like it?
If, as you say, Parliament are unlikely to vote against the public, as the PM / government have said all along, they will present the new proposed EU relationship to Parliament for ratification prior to any agreement with the EU and therefore I see no need for the legal challenge on this specific issue. Total waste of public money.


This last statement of yours just hits the nail on the head as to why so many people are hacked off with this legal challenge. No, Parliament is there to debate and vote on all legislation initiated solely by the government. As I've said previously, this is essential to prevent a stealthy rise of dictatorship hysterically voiced in this thread. I agree with the process in general. However.... this issue is unique as Parliament approved the referendum without mandating that Remain was the only valid outcome. Therefore the PM, and her government, have been told directly by the electorate to leave the EU. Parliament represent the constituents however on this occasion the constituents have indicated their desired outcome directly to the government. Therefore the UK government have a direct mandate from the people to take the UK out of the EU. Parliaments does not need to be consulted again on this unique issue.

You know what I mean.

That is the nature of the consensus upon which parliament has sovereignty. If you think it is something else then it would be interesting to know what.

Ask niceguy1966...


If this is the legal situation then as PM I would quickly and simply create a bill stating only, and without any qualification, that Parliament overturn the 1972 Act. This should have been rushed through Parliament as soon as the legal challenge was made. This will put challenge Parliament to fall in line with the people who elected them and demonstrate what a complete ass and waste of money this situation is. Should Parliament do the unthinkable then a constitutional crises looms.

So Parliament can act against the will of the people? I thought Parliament was created in its current form to represent the people, not oppress them?

'Any thoughts on why Cameron didn't come out that morning and tell the worlds press that the referendum was actually advisory, he's considered the will of the people and has decided that in his view the UK is best served by remaining in the EU and hence it's business as usual?'

Thats why we have elections - to get rid of governments.
They are elected to govern - the clue is in the name.
Referendums are advisory as has been pointed out, but it would be a suicidal government that ignored the result.
The activity in the High Courts is not about ignoring the referendum. Its about making sure that it happens legally so that it can't be challenged later. Parliament fell down badly when it framed the referendum bill. It is fairly common for poor legislation to be clarified later in the courts. And that is what is happening here.
All the drama and hyperbole whipped up by some parts of the press is from ignorance. Journalists are not constitutional lawyers.
Oppression is a very real problem in some countries. Not in ours.

Yet another attempt to avoid answering my question. He didn't change his mind and join the Leave camp. From what I'm being told on this forum he had every right to disregard the outcome of the referendum and soldier on against public opinion. Why didn't he do that? After all we are learning that it was only an advisory referendum.

He lost an argument where he'd strongly backed the other side. He had to resign. That's why he didn't stay on.

Electoral suicide, and it would break the "trust" that is needed between the voters and parliament.
And I reckon he knew he had screwed up big time and didn't have a fekkin clue about implementing the outcome. Not a clue.

We only send the EU about 250m a week. The 350 is a lie.

You said the law needs changing, I asked which one.

That's exactly what is required.

It's to lead. So a Tory govt elected with less than 50% of the electorate can make laws the other parties representing over 50% of the electorate oppose.

It's the Parliamentary democracy we have instead of the endless Coalitions they often have in systems where the MPs better represent the electorate.

I agree with you entirely if Parliament and the people hold the same opinion. However should Parliament vote against the will of the people (who elected them to represent their views) then only an idiot would be convincing themselves that all is well in the world.


Please explain how leading Leave Labour / Tory politicians could have brought such legislation when the nether party endorsed leaving the EU in the first place. Think it through.....

...and neither did the ballot paper say 'use up endless parliamentary time fannying around over the definition of Brexit until everyone agrees or hell freezes over, and then leave.'

May must press the button now and everyone should talk while the clock is running. Better still, as a so called expert on international law explained it, there is no need to invoke article 51 and it's 2 year negotiation period, the UK could leave tomorrow. If true, that would certainly focus everyone rather than procrastinate until the next global extinction...

MPs are not elected to represent peoples' views.
That has never been the case in the UK.
They are elected to represent their constituents best interests, and if they win the general election, to act in the nation's best interests.
They aren't and never have been puppets.