Brexit and power to the people

If the outcome of the referendum had been Remain, there would not have been a case, so I'm not sure of the point of your argument.

No, there wouldn't have been this same case of course, but it was taking issue with a 'power to the people' from the point of view that if Remain had won the day as it were, how much sympathy would there have been for trying to change the outcome of a democratically held referendum.
I believe the group who brought this claim to court were a mix of legal and business people.

The worry is, that Parliament will be tied up for ages in sorting this out, and uncertainty is the one thing that really does hit financial markets.Yes, Supreme Court now, so have to wait and see.

The point of the argument is that had remain won by the same majority, it would have been acceptable without a murmur. But because it didn't go the way of the vested interests of the business, money oriented bureaucrats and bankers, the result was some how unfair, unjust and plain ridiculous and must be overturned at all costs. I so nearly abstained, and now wish I had. I'd certainly never vote in another referendum, although I doubt they'll ever be another after this farce. As Henry Ford once famously said, you can have whatever colour car you like so long as its black!!

But nothing would have happened if Remain had won, so what's your argument?

This is an important constitutional issue.

One of the named claimants is a British hairdresser, who voted to leave.

This is what Angela Smith, the Labour Leader in the Lords, says:

"We will scrutinise. We will examine. But my Lords – we will not block. But neither will we be bullied into abdicating our responsibilities.

We have to be adult about this. We can’t have the most enthusiastic Brexiters crying foul every time Parliament asks for more details or seeks to scrutinise.

This can’t be the only issue on which the Government is allowed a blank cheque without any accountability. It’s complex, it’s difficult. And the Government should see this House as an asset and not try to avoid helpful scrutiny."

This is an important constitutional issue and would set a precedent for the future. It needs to be decided who is responsible - Parliament, made up of MPs from a number of parties, or a handful of Cabinet ministers, all from the same party. It's not just about Brexit.

The issue is that who decides to strip the British citizens of their rights. So that is why Brexit and who makes the decisions is so important. If the vote had been remain it would not have mattered because the British citizen and their existing rights would not have changed.

It is about where power and sovereignty resides.

The Brexiters are trying to say that is about remainers scuppering Brexit.

Nothing could be further from the truth, it is about where sovereignty lies. It is particularly important in this case as the country is split down the middle and the whole of the electorate must be taken along with this momentous decision and what the UK will look like. Sovereignty resides in Parliament and has done so since something like 1609 (someone can correct that). It is a constitutional matter and is enormously significant.

Out of interest I looked up the results of the 1975 referendum, when the majority wanted UK to join the EU.
The results were
Yes 67.23%
No 32.77%
Turnout 64.03%
A much more decisive majority. And it seems that the issue was debated, and voted on, in the Commons for some time in preparation. Which didn't happen this time.

Not so far! Let us hope our parliamentary representatives get the chance to indicate to May exactly what they want from Brexit.

The UK had already been in the EU for two years by 1975. The referendum was whether to stay, but you're right. It was debated in parliament for ages - both times.

So off to the Supreme Court where the referendum result will be part of the considerations.

So.. it has to go to Parliament.....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

I thought the government would lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Confused! I thought the government is going to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court too. Where have you read that the referendum result will be part of the considerations, Anya?

Whatever the outcome (and I suspect that parliament will vote to trigger Article 50), the point is that a decision such as this should not be made by a handful of ministers without debate/consultation/vote in parliament. That really is the beginning of a very slippery slope constitutionally.

I thought that Farage had said that he would challenge it if remain won by the same percentage. Or was it Johnson?
Anyway, Brexit would not have just accepted it.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/03/article-50-for-one-sweet-moment-britain-is-sober-again

'Today’s ruling brings us back to something approaching normality. The prime minister cannot use ancient royal powers to force through the most radical possible interpretation of a marginal popular vote. Parliament must be consulted on actions which will have a deep and lasting effect on the country. Things should proceed calmly, purposefully and patiently on matters of great importance.'

As far as I can see the Royal Perogative only covers certain areas - and again as far as I understand it the only possible area that this can be invoked is under foreign affairs which still come under the RP. But as the EU legislation has now become part of the UK domestic law then I don't see how the RP can be used.

It was Farage Jen - he said a 4% majority would not be accepted and he would carry on until another referendum was held - whereas a 60/40 split either way would put an end to it.

Sauce for the goose comes to mind!

DD Listening to a debate on Radio 4 I think...though it could have been another channel as GS1's been fiddling with car radio again.

I also heard a snippet of gossip - Farage is being considered as a contestant on 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here'

Never watch rubbish like this usually but I'd make an exception in that case!

c**p programme - but oh I wish he could be got out of here indeed

I saw a report which claimed he said he was not doing the jungle as he was taking up a post in Trump's Govt!

Even the wonderful thought of him lying in a pit full off scorpions/poisonous snakes etc would not be enough to make me want to see his loathsome face again [yuk].

r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/h4aghewynale3d.html

Crowdfunding the court case.