Most Brits are in favour of showing passports in every country they visit because it makes them feel safer. Ease of travel will not diminish. I will still be able to fly abroad via an aeroplane - I won't have to swim. There are relatively few Brits who would put "ease of travel" at the top of their list of important things. Travel is a choice, a right to have that choice. It is not being taken away from us. We can still travel.

You wont be guaranteed the right to live in any EU country you want, you would have to apply and hope for the best. That in itself is losing a privilege and i maintain people dont like losing things.

I don't give a toss about going to live in another EU country, and I doubt the majority do either. It's a "privilege" I wouldn't miss at all.

Out of a population of around 63.1 million people, only around 1.3 million Brits live and work in other EU countries. I'm pretty sure the remaining 61.8 million people would cope. A privilege is being able to live in a democracy that gives us choices and opportunities. If a person is good enough to fulfil their dream and to put into practice their skill, then not being in the EU won't be a barrier for them. I will still be able to go on holiday to Malta or Spain. I just might have to get a Visa before I go. But I will still be able to go! That part of my democratic life won't change. What else will we lose? Nothing.

Umm wasn't meant to make sense, how embarrassing for you not to realise that


Again if parlaiment can't debate on because the government isn't allowing them to, then it is for parliament to sort out. There are plentiful select committees that have great influence on government policy to. The Official Opposition can force the appearance of any Secreatary of State through an urgent question, or use their opposition day debates. Again I have no qualms Parliament keeping the Government in check, that is their sworn duty, to uphold the laws of this land and ensure the Government follows and enforces them.

Judges should have no place in a democratic process unless that very process has been tainted on threatened. Seeing as the EU Referendum was fought under a free, fair and open contest it complete abhorrent that a group of unelected judges get to decide the fate of A50 and how its triggered. Parliament has the power to force changes on the Government and its legislative programme, MPs are elected and have that mandate to do so....the Judiciary don't since like the Lords they gain their position via appointment (for life).

Who says I want to move to another country to work or live?

I would probaly argue a good 80% of this country have no desire to move abroad for work or retirement, most are happy where they are. Its a negligible privilege at that, something people really don't care about, just the aspect of being able to go on holiday. If the EU becomes a dick around visas and short term travel for holidays. then the Tourist Industry in Greece, Portugal and Spain will collapse overnight, there will be other countries like Turkey and Morocco who will happily offer concessions for Brits in order to take their money.

The way Leave people complain about the challengers you would think the result was a massive vote in their favour; it was a lot closer than what they would like people to think. Had it gone the other way, by the same difference, I am sure there would be as many people challenging the result as we now see.

There wouldn't have been any way to challenge the result as we would have stuck with the status quo had a majority voted to remain. Literally nothing would have changed and we would've plodded on as usual. Cameron and Osbourne would still be in their jobs and they would be still targetting a budget surplus but 20/21.

A win for Remain wouldn't have led to legal challenges, as there would be nothing to challenge seeing as the legal relationship in a technical sense with the EU wouldn't have changed. We would have still been full members, paying in £12bn or so a year NET. We would still be accepting uncontrolled immigration from the EU......literally nothing would have changed......save altering some of the rules on welfare.

The thing is we voted on whether or not we wanted to leave the EU, not the EEA. There are countries, such as Norway, that are part of the EEA which are not part of the EU. While all EU countries are part of the EEA, not all EEA countries are part of the EU.

Actually getting this legally clear is very important - leaving the EEA requires the triggering of a different article, and it impacts the kind of Brexit we have, not whether or not we leave the EU

What would have happened though is that Leave campaigners would have been more scrutinous about everything. They would be monitoring how Cameron's "deal" proceeded and if it was voted down by the European Parliament, that's when the vocal unease and challenges would have begun. But, Leave would have accepted that the process would need to be allowed to happen and the "complaining" and "challenges" would have been forthcoming if the UK was perceived to be getting an unfair predicament that did not suit the UK but only the EU.

There is nothing wrong with challenging the process at all. But the mistake remainers made was to try and prevent the process from happening at all. They can sugar coat their purpose as much as they like, they can pretend it's for "democracy" as much they like and they can try and persuade us all that it is for all our benefit as much as they like. But they are blatantly hoping the process of leaving will be thwarted. Will they be bitterly upset that democracy was thwarted if they get their own way? Of course not.

I can't belive they complain about the challengers at all seeing as they claimed to vote to leave over "sovreigniety" and "getting the country back". Which is exactly what these challenges are about.

One could argue that we are EEA members because of our EU membership and not aswell as our membership. That means leaving the EU would indeed mean leaving the EEA and we would need to apply for EEA membership once we leave the EU.

Do you really think that? Honestly? If so, why? And, why do you fail to acknowledge the importance of what Gina Miller said to a "The Week" reporter?

And one would be wrong - if we had remained in EFTA in the 70s we would be members of the EEA now

When the EEA was created the UK became a member through its EU membership - we did not join separately as the UK but collectively as one of the EU member states.

If I join a gym that gives me reciprocal rights to use another club if I quit the former I lose my eligibility to use the latter. Same situation.

When we stop being an EU member our membership of the EEA ceases. if the UK as a newly independent nation decides to join the EEA then we can of course become a new member.

Is this the Brazilian hairdresser again (Deir Dos Santos of Notting Hill) leading the action or just Mrs Miller alone this time without her hairdresser?

Farage actually said so : he said before the referendum that if it the result was a 52-48 split in favour of Remain, Brexit would be "unfinished business".

Neither presumably, just about anyone is free to lodge an appeal at the High Court (they would need money of course though, it's an expensive business).

But they're not trying to prevent the UK leaving the EU are they?
No, not at all. They keep saying that is definitely not the case whatsoever by any stretch of the imagination.

In a way, it's immaterial what their ultimate aim or what their thinking about Brexit is. Anyone lodging an appeal with the High Court doesn't have to include a written note explaining why they are launching an appeal.....they can be motivated whatever way they like. The only thing the court has to consider and adjudicate on are the actual legal issues.

The EEA didn't exist then.

I don't think cases like these should be able to be brought anonymously.

Article 50 states

***1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.***

Any notification of article 50 (triggering of article 50) must be within constitutional law and must be absolutely "watertight" with no likelihood of legal appeals.

It's best that any such legal appeals be sorted now before notification, otherwise appeals after notification will hinder the article 50 process.

Why?

So Social Media trolls can make their life hell?

1. The majority of cases are crowdfunded and not brought by rich people.

2. Court challenges are part of our democratic system.

3. May can pretend to be a dictator all she wants. There are questions that need to be answered before A 50 can be triggered. She's not willing to find out so the courts are the only option.

a. Is parliamentary legislation required to trigger A 50?
b. Can the UK government ignore the devolved nations?
c. Is A 50 reversible?
d. Does triggering of A 50 by default include giving notice on leaving the EEA?

These are just the constitutional and technical questions that must be answered before proceeding with A 50. Triggering it against constitutional requirements would render any and all work done void, should a legal challenge succeed further down the line.

As a side note - any hardline Brexiter who actually believes it is ok to piss off half of the country by pretending that half the country can be ignored based on an extremely narrow referendum result (a result that likely would be exactly 50/50 or in favour of remain if taken today and that was based on lies in any event) is really deluded.
Similar applies to people who think the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland can be ignored.

Be it at their peril.

Any capable PM would have addressed the nation and stated that we will leave the EU but due to the closeness of the result and in particular because of the Scottish and NI results, a compromise solution will be implemented.... but obviously May is far from capable.

These are the sort of people who are pro EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ce-before.html

and even after all the scandals Sadiq Khan thinks this is wise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0acb6e4b899ef

But Mandelson's not fussy about who we engage with for some things.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...backed-project

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party elevated Khan to be the official Labour candidate for London Mayor within months Khan was attacking Corbyn and his policies. Nay within hours.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...g-london-mayo/

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ays-sadiq-khan

So when you put all that in context it is really about them it isn't about the country or the people in it.