Brexit and power to the people

Gibraltar can't be given to Spain under any circumstances unless the people of Gibraltar specifically agree, and Judging from Gibraltarian friends, hell will freeze over sooner than that happening! Read the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 to clarify. Why do you hate Gibraltar? Has it or its population done you down in some way? If not surely a rather sweeping statement!

Better than the Tower of London.

I hate Gibraltar!! Anyway it will be given to Spain as part of the negotiations!

I think us remoaners will all be sent to Gibraltar. If we don't all try to sit/lie down/breathe in/out[?] at the same time we might fit in.

Free at the point of delivery? Limits you a bit

Oh I hadn't thought of that I was thinking about the weather. I know someone from Croatia who insists they have a better health service than we do- no waiting times.

I need somewhere with a good health service. Any ideas?

I quite like the idea of the Cayman Islands. New Zealand might be nice if Australia isn't possible. "beyond the seas" gives a lot of scope doesn't it?

They can transport me to Australia, saves me saving up for months and months.
What do I have to do?

Oh, I forgot, the Australians won't let you in if you have a criminal conviction

Oh transportation! That would do me.

Dear oh dear and we vote for these idiots

No tax as well, Maisie.

I think that the punishment set out in the 1948 Act, which he suggesting the amendment to, is transportation.

Unfortunately, the Australians have a points sytem, don't they?

I wouldn't mind being transported to the Cayman Islands, though. They're still under Brit control so I think we'd get in quite easily.

How utterly ridiculous! Honestly where do they find these people. Would the Tower be roomy enough for half the population?! Is hung drawn and quartered still on the books?!

Which makes it very expensive to police.

Talking about the courts,

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/call-to-keep-uk-in-eu-should-be-treason-urges-tory-councillors-petition

We may need to be very careful what we say in future.

I have twice written Boris and got that silly survey coming up about me being a BT user. Are they watching now?

Yes it is all on precedent and set by the courts. I'm just wondering if the court will be willing to overturn the royal prerogative relating to foreign policy. I can't think of a reason why it should be returned to the will of the people.

We do have a constitution; it's just not a written one.

waitingfortax.com/2016/10/16/brexit-the-important-role-of-the-court-of-justice/

I thought we didn't have a constitution.

Another bit of useless information.

The royal prerogative covers stuff like being able to award bling, and accepting a pms resignation and asking someone if they could form a government and other unimportant fal lals but crucially it does cover foreign policy, which presumably what May is banking on in their argument in court next week.

But as our constitution is based on court law and precedent I suppose there is the possibility that the judge could decide that progress would be made if the foreign policy bit should be taken into the jurisdiction of parliament along with everything else, and move the UK constitution closer to the 21st century.

bag plebiscites can be set up in a great variety of ways and this is why they can be non binding unless certain criteria are met. This referendum was set up to have the result 'advisory' only - to be binding the majority percentage is normally stipulated - being 60/40 or a two thirds one - this is why the Irish one failed a few tears ago. The referendum was badly set up and not specific enough which is why this idea of the 'will of the people' etc is ridiculous - it was a 72% turnout - normally 75% is required - and with a much higher majority. Even Farage said before the vote that 48/52 was no majority to go by - changed his mind when it was unexpectedly for leave. The results are questionable because of the lower turnout and also the majority being so small - it was only 37% of the electorate and 28% of the population who voted 'out'. There is also the question of at least 25% of postal voters not receiving their papers in time. A very unsatisfactory result all round for such a massive change affecting the whole of the population.
However the Court case is not about this at all but not making a precedent with Parliament not being required to consent.

jalima yes she's one of a number of representatives.

No certainly not! I am worried about the way everything is going in the country

Are you questioning the indendence of the judiciary, whitewave?

It is up to the courts to interpret the law objectively. That is, without any regard to the political situation that obtains at the time. If the challenge falls it should be on a point of law, not on what the Executive (TM) wants.

Should the 'Great' Repeal Act ever go ahead I think there will be further challenges as TM has already proposed that subsequent amendment of UK legislation would not be debated in Parliament. Chilling....

The OP is quite enigmatic and does not name names but I presume, after googling, that it refers to this case:

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/gina-miller-the-woman-who-could-derail-brexit-a7361221.html

I can't see that the court will go with Parliament in this climate though.