Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

dj that is so scary. Mind you what was the DM doing in the thirties?

Daily Mail and calm reflection. Seems weird to have those two concepts in the same paragraph.

I take your point, but what you're implying is that the government will have to give in to hard Brexiters otherwise there will be a rebellion. That's the argument Zac Goldsmith is using. So the choice is between hard Brexit to appease UKIP & Co or hard Brexit because the government is bullied by a revolution. Hmm!

I'm sure I remember some of the Vote Leave bods saying not to worry about the single market, because they're sure to have us anyway, because they need us more than we need them. Hmm!

You're right that it's probably impossible to deliver what voters want, but it would be a good idea to find out what they really do want.

If Daily Mail headlines led to fascist government, we would have had jackboots in the streets decades ago. What we need is a bit more calm reflection. The Government will follow the Supreme Court ruling, which will probably be the same as the High Court. The biggest danger is that Parliament will then tie the Governments hands in a way which makes Brexit impossible - that will truly polarise the country.

i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/161106-Enemies-of-the-People.jpg?w=530

From cartoonist Gary Barker.

On the comparison with the Scottish referendum, had the vote been yes, negotiations on the detail would have had to follow, and legislation would have been needed to put the split into effect. But the vote was no, so no legislation or other parliamentry action is needed - things just stay as they are. But the EU vote was to leave. There was never any doubt that parliament would have to pass laws to put that into effect. All the judgement has done is say that parliament must also agree to trigger article 50. All that aside, some of the comments here are verging on the bizarre- nothing that has happened is even remotely close to anything like a fascist regime. I'm an avid remainer but the "advice" from the majority, albeit a small majority, was to leave. It's unlikely that the EU will give us all we want out of a soft brexit (in particular both free market access and immigration controls) so if parliament demands that, the govt. just won't be able to do what the voters asked for. Grist to the mill for the next UKIP election campaign, and goodness knows what else from the most recalcitrant leavers.

If using the common terminology 'Political Class' is good enough for The Times and The Guardian it's good enough for little old me.

Sigh.

I object to the term "political class". I think it is divisive and undermines the perception of democracy.
There has been a tendency, I agree, for those who rise to the top of their parties in recent years, to have been on a political career path since they graduated. I think this breeds leaders who do not have a good grip on what happens outside Westminster and have never grappled with the challenges of leading and/or managing within the public and private sectors.
However the mass of MPs do not fall into this group. They have usually had other careers and are chosen by their constituency party and then by voters to represent them.

Very true

We will see if the political class listen at all to the 'plebs'.

It will certainly be interesting to see if voters stick to the rosette on a pig scenario any longer won't it if they feel their voice is worthless.

I genuinely think some will not bother voting at all as they will be so disillusioned with politicians.

however many obstacles, obfuscation, etc we may see might happen once the Brexit question goes to sovereign parliament, we must be content that democracy has won the day.

pogs

Referendums can only ever be advisory in the U.K. It is because of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

To answer your question about Sturgeon -I have no idea, but my guess is because she knew she couldn't win a referendum, and won't challenge it until she think she can win.

Type it out on here Ana?

The Scottish referendum was an "advisory referendum on extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament", whose result would "have no legal effect on the Union"

The gap between No and Yes was about 10%. Unless another referendum were to be held, Sturgeon would find it difficult to argue that leaving the Union is the will of the people.

(I didn't see your post, Ana, so don't know how that answer compares.)

I did actually attempt to answer the Scottish Referendum question either yesterday or the day before, but no one picked up on it!

Think it must have been on another thread though as I can't find it in here.

whitewave

"with regards to the Lords. Ironic that the Tories have traditionally been the party to support the Lords."

It's also ironic those who have wanted the extinction of the House of Lords now are happy to use them to do their dirty work.

I have no problem with the judges decision , so be it , however what will follow could be a bigger constitutional crisis than Brexit if the House of Lords overrule the referendum result or attempts to delay the triggering of Article 50 ad infinitum which they are openly suggesting they want to do.

I think the Scottish ref was different because the legislation was drafted and passed with different wording pogs
Quite, Penstemon, it was not a referendum to replace the sovereignty of parliament with the sovereignty of referendum results.
Highly irresponsible of papers and Farage to spread the idea that the judiciary is a bad thing - or that the judgement is somehow undemocratic.
Farage has been saying Powell-esque things on Marr show this morning apparently.
After this year I would thought many world leaders will think twice about calling a referendum . Not only our fiasco, but the one in Colombia where years of negotiation to bring about a peace ended in the people rejecting the terms of the peace.

Write to Nicola Sturgeon and ask her, POGS.

Not sure POGS (amazing that nobody else on here has attempted to answer)
But my only thought is that it may have been in a bill passed by Parliament?

I don't wish for either dd (although am sure a few do) I simply couldn't resist the fun of saying it.

Whitewave

Please explain to me why the Scottish Referendum is not advisory? Given yours and other responses why has the Scottish Independence question not been taken away from the people and put in the hands of Parliament and the House of Lords to decide. That is exactly what is happening to the EU referendum . Explain to me where I am obviously going wrong in equating the two referendums and their outcomes.

It's a fair question I keep asking.

Scotland was given a referendum vote.

The Scottish electorate voted Remain in the UK

The decision is accepted.

-----

The UK was given a referendum vote

The UK population voted Leave

The decision is only advisory.

The only answer I see so far is we are not a plebicite democracy but a Parliamentary one. So why does Sturgeon the SNP not challenge the Scottish Independence referendum result , after all it must be only advisory.

No, it wouldn't and that's why Parliament should be sovereign. Be careful what you wish for!

Would it be better if the small clique were revolutionary socialists who don't know their ass from their elbow ? Just asking.

We shall see what and if it happens with regards to the Lords. Ironic that the Tories have traditionally been the party to support the Lords.

My point however is that sovereignty lies with parliament, and the use of the arcane "Royal Perogative" is undemocratic and anachronistic. The voter through our parliamentary democracy will decide what Brexit Britain looks like, not a small clique of reactionary right wingers who don't know their ass from their elbow.

Whatever happens, we will be leaving the EU, but if the present argueing and wrangling goes on and on it will damage the economy in a way that it wouldn't if we were allowed to get on with it by triggering the process.

I don't believe that POGS is confusing anything...her post is quite clear.If the House Of Lords shilly shallies/blocks/ plays for time/ uses any trick in the book to delay, or any MP's on either side of the political divide does the same, then they will be attempting to thwart the decision on June 23rd.If they agree to try and pass legislation that triggers article 50, and then try and work with the government for the best outcome, then fair enough, if they don't then decidely not fair enough.