Brexit and power to the people

@thatbags

My understanding (for what it's worth) is that the argument isn't that a withdrawal from the EU would "lead to the removal of the rights of UK citizens" but the notification of the withdrawal. In other words, that constitutionally parliament represents the people and is the only body with the right to vote on the withdrawal, not Theresa May and her cabinet, who are claiming that they have the right to make decisions without the support of parliament.

It's an important constitutional issue, not just with reference to Brexit, but to any future decisions the PM should make. It's the beginning of a slippery slope, if PMs are allowed to make decisions without putting them to a parliamentary vote.

A vote would, of course, put many MPs in a very difficult position. If their own opinion differed from their constituents, which would be the case for many, it could mean personal political suicide.

Here we go again! ( enjoy!)

Yes mamie

Lord Wolfson -Next chief ex. and Tory peer who was a strong leave supporter, has warned May that hard brexit- a stance favoured by May- will isolate Britain and could destroy the economy

One example would be the right to the freedom to live, work and retire in other EU countries. This is something that some of us hold very dear and would want our children and grandchildren to benefit from as well.

Amigo!!!!!!

Daphne well
Amino should have read Amio - phone keeps correcting me. That is my querky description of the 3Brexiters.
1 is Davis.
The court case is about the Royal Prerogative and sovereignty and who is entitled to withdraw the UK from the EU.
It's people V the government and about our constitution.
The challengers are two individuals and "the people" represented by 3QCs
Hope that helps.
Boring maybe but I love this sort of stuff

bags it isn't my argument it is the Qcs
As far as I understand
The EU has instilled rights to the UK citizens through various treaties etc. Like hours directive etc, which have been enshrined in UK law through the peoples representatives in Parliament. The argument therefore is that only parliament can take these rights away, and not some arcane royal Prerogative (my words)

Perhaps I did not get enough sleep last night, but I don't understand whitewave
Who is Amino 1?
What is this court case?
Who is "the challenger" and what are they challenging?
Maybe a link (to the Ladybird version for my befuddled brain this morning) might enlighten me?

I follow the argument about the importance of parliamentary democracy. What I don't understand from your post, ww, is why a withdrawal from the EU would "lead to the removal of the rights of UK citizens".

UK citizens had rights before the EU existed. UK Parliamentary democracy existed before the EU.