...and there we have it again. In this unique case it's not the Tory party that came up with the idea of leaving the EU, it was the majority of people who voted in the EU referendum. People who until the emergence of UKIP had no one to champion their cause. The mistake made by everyone supporting the legal challenge is to apply the process that is required to prevent any one political party creating laws unchecked to a situation where the people, who Parliament are suppose to represent, have expressed their view directly.

I don't believe that this process should be in the hands of the court. The public felt that they were being asked their opinion on whether we should remain in the EU or not. What the public now see is one person delaying and potentially derailing a decision requested by over 17M people. Are you saying that is democracy?

Of course not but the whole point is what people were directed to believe. The whole basis of a parliamentary democracy is the consensus from the electorate who accept, even a minority government, that that government is acting as part of the country as opposed to acting as rulers of the country. It is a delicate thing and the whole EU concept has seriously damaged it.

Can you advise me of the benefit of holding an advisory (as opposed to mandatory) referendum? Can you indicate how the government brought it to the public's attention that the referendum was advisory and that the result could be rejected? Can you indicate how the government was advised by the result of the referendum?
I understand that normally a government is elected to govern for the people holistically and not on specific issues. However on this occasion the government said to the people that we want you to make the decision. If you firmly believe that asking the people their opinion and then just ignoring it is an effective form of government then being unpopular will be the least of your problems.



You're talking rubbish.

You won't get them to admit that they are wrong; they'd rather profess opinions that make them look ridiculous.

This is going around in circles. The government asked the people do you want to leave the EU and the people said yes. The government said ok lets do it until one member of the public said 17 million people can't make that decision, we need to ask the same 650 people who gave us the original choice again. If they decide that they no longer agree with the 17 million people, we can't leave. This apparently is democracy in action.

Sigh....

Actually to trigger article 50 as I understand it all the UK has to do is make a formal statement in the Council of Ministers. Parliament has already provided that power to the executive. The UK is a democratic dictatorship, we saw that with the whole EU project where we joined and signed up to all sorts of things that the electorate were demonstrably not in favour of.

We are a Parliamentary Democracy, much and all you may dislike the fact. It is entirely up to Parliament whether we hold referenda at all and whether they will be binding or advisory if held. Equally it is entirely up to Parliament as to what, if anything, it does with the advice it receives from any party that gives it advice.

Had Parliament wished for the referendum to be binding, they merely had to legislate for it. This they did NOT do. That was their democratic decision and you can lodge any complaints you have about it with the Leave politicians who had the opportunity to propose it be binding when it went through Parliament.


Not at all. Parliament is a legislature. It is the job of MPs & Peers to draft legislation. If supporters of a particular position, such as Leave, don't propose a legislative procedure to advance their cause and argue for its merits in Parliament, they have only themselves to blame if that results in a judicial nightmare. That's where we are now and that's "the easy bit" that comes before getting anywhere near the complexity of international trade negotiations.

It could do, it could help it set up it's own version of the European Medicines Agency for starters. Once all the extra civil servants we need to renegotiate just all the trade deals we already had in the EU have been paid for. And all the regional funding the EU used to send back has been replaced. And all the new customs and immigration officers have been hired.

Parliament doesn't "hold a position". It expresses its wishes by making and removing laws.

You said "the law needs changing", it's not pedantic to ask "which law?"

You've got it completely wrong. A party with a minority of the vote but a majority in Parliament can exactly create laws unchecked. So more than 50% of the vote can go to parties opposed to a measure but if if the party with a majority on a minority of the vote gets in then that measure will be passed.

No, the basis of Parliamentary democracy in this country, (we are not Italy however much you'd like us to be) is that a party with a minority of the vote can do what it likes if it has a Parliamentary majority. We vote for leaders, not followers.

Not according to the Courts it hasn't.

Perhaps one person out of the 17 million should have enquired re the legal process of leaving the EU, but I suspect most didn't care as they thought they wouldn't win.

So the main Brexit players should have made those enquiries, especially those that are members of Parliament who wanted to 'take back control' from the EU.

Its ridiculous to support something when you don't know what you are supporting. Given some of the crass comments, "brexit, means brexit", "we should leave now" ....... Well how do you propose to do that and why didn't the brexit campaign have a strategy for leaving? Its not an opinion, its a fact that the leavers had no idea and still don't. All they could go one about is how we are going to save 350 million for the NHS.

The one thing that really irritates me is that the leavers such as yourself are critical of remainers but have yet to tell us how you would leave the EU. You wanted it, it's your problem, if it goes wrong its still your problem.

The court case is not about trying to stop the uk leaving the EU, the uk is leaving the EU its about the government not wanting parliement involved. If i were you i would warch or read the court case that way you would understand what the court case is about. Uk parliament and uk courts are part of democracy.

Gina Miller believed otherwise, as was her right in a democracy. So the matter is now going through the correct legal process. The government actually delayed things by going to appeal instead of accepting the High Court ruling.

Exactly! Do the people that voted leave and are complaining about the court case not have any respect for the legal process of the UK (not exactly showing the supposed patriotism some of them harp on about if not). Many of the key players of the leave campaign decided to run away once the referendum was over showing that they were full of hot air with no idea on how to implement what they so dearly wanted.

The above compounded with an ignorance on how referendums work in the UK show that Farage etc should be kept as far away from any decision making processes as possible. Yes, the vote was to leave and I (as some one that voted remain) believes that we should respect that vote, BUT, the terms of how we leave should be negotiated on what would be best for the country not the over inflated egos of Farage, Johnson, Gove etc.

It's immaterial how I would leave the EU, as I have no power to implement any procedures. I could set out my manifesto, if you like, but it would be as much use as the whining that is common on this forum from those who don't accept the referendum result.

Similarly, the Leave campaigners could have had a brilliant strategy for leaving, but so what? They weren't in Government at the time; it was the Government who should have had a strategy, and manifestly didn't.

As for it being our problem if it goes wrong, I'd accept that - if remainers such as Miller et al were not deliberately trying to trip up and delay the process. No, if the Government is stymied because of vexatious court cases, it's the remainers fault.

I'm only critical of remainers when they talk nonsense.


Now do you really think that? Or have you just swallowed Miller's spin?

Of course, she would say that, wouldn't she?

Remainers should learn to be a bit more savvy and critical - but I suppose if they were, they wouldn't be remainers, would they?

It was Cameron who ran away. Boris, Gove, Leadsom stood for PM. - hardly running away.

Farage is not even an MP, he has no official position. He remains an MEP (and, far from running away seems too ubiquitous to me).

Perhaps you should look at what is actually happening instead of believing what you are told is happening by the pro-EU media?

The more delay the better, that gives the government time to get the exit strategy correct, as it stands it appears they aren't ready, so Miller could be doing them a favour.

If you think it's spin then read the court minutes, it makes things clear and it also shows that Miller can't stop the UK from leaving the EU.

Did you know that Boris Johnson was not a candidate in the 2016 Conservative party leadership contest ?

I think thats why they appealed. civil servants heads are reeling at the size of the task