Brexit 6?

Ana No, they just moan.

It will make a difference in the future of constitutional law, because no precedent will have been set. It will also give MPs an opportunity to discuss the terms - that's what Parliament is supposed to be about.

Charlie Mullins (boss of Pimlico Plumbers and one of Cameron's 'golden boys') has been getting death threats, because he put up £80,000 for the court case.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-mullins/brexit-eu-referendum_b_8938688.html

Errmm! Nice people!

I am not moaning about the judgement; but I am not sure what difference it will make. I hope nobody sends or receives unpleasant messages but sadly, we know they will.

Allowing the cabinet to make important decisions would have been against constitutional law . Maybe but the passage of Maastrict and Lisbon Treaties, which had significant constitutional impact, were seemingly passed on the nod. It's a funny old world.

Do hope Miller isn't getting any unpleasant messages

daphnedill, has anyone actually said they won't or can't accept the judgment of the Supreme Court?

Certainly no one on GN has - for once we all seem to be in agreement that justice has now been seen to have been done.

PS. There was some nutjob on a Radio 2 phone-in earlier today, who kept ranting about the Supreme Court's judges' having committed high treason.

The court case wasn't about the legitimacy of the referendum. It was about how Article 50 is triggered.

It is vital that Parliament has a voice on this. 48% of those who voted didn't want to leave the EU and they do have a right to have their voices heard, so that negotiations take their views and concerns into account. Government cannot escape the consequences of Brexit, intended or unintended.

Has anybody invented a word like Remoaner for those who can't accept the judgment of the Supreme Court?

The elected Prime Minister proposed a Referendum after winning a General Election in which his manifesto stated that he would have a Referendum. Parliament voted to hold a Referendum by a large majority, opposed by the Scottish Nationalists but not by Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Green parties.

The Referendum was held during which it was made abundantly clear that Leave meant Leave and the Prime Minister said that, if the country voted Leave, he would trigger Article 50 straightway.

There is no question about the democratic legitimacy of the Referendum; and according to Remain and Leave campaigns, no question about what it meant, at least until the result was known.

I don't see a democratic deficit. I see a cock-up by Parliament, agreeing to a Referendum but not dotting the i's and crossing the t's in law. If Parliament had acted sensibly in voting for the Referendum, the position would have been as clear in law as it seemed to most of MPs, campaigners and the population.

So what happens next? There will be a debate about triggering Article 50 in which all the arguments will be re-aired. If we assume Article 50 is triggered, the people in government who have prepared for negotiations, will negotiate. I hope they will negotiate hard because the EU will.

In such negotiations, I think I would prefer May and Davies to Corbyn and Haddon.

My reply was to Ana.

Maybe not, but allowing the cabinet to make important decisions would have been against constitutional law. I guess that the British, the English in particular, don't think much about the role of the judiciary and parliament in our constitution, because we've muddled on for centuries without any great upheaval, but it is important as a matter of principle. Countries with younger constitutions and a more turbulent history know that.

May, Johnson, Davis, Fox -amongst others -all wanted to bypass parliament and decide on their own the way forward. An outrage to democracy in my opinion.

I don't know any Brexiters who wanted to shut democracy down.

It's important for the future too (not just about referendum issues).

The country should never allow a cabinet of a dozen or so people to decide what to do on an important issue, without a debate in Parliament. It would have been a very dangerous precedent.

This was about reinforcing democracy, not undermining it.

And then the people can decide!!! That is the entire point of my argument. Democracy in action. The Brexiters wanted to shut democracy down.

It's not really immaterial ww because if the Conservatives feel they are not supported by Parliament on the plan for Brexit, then a snap election may well be called( which the Conservatives would win.)

It is totally immaterial whether there is a general election or not, the whole point about it, is now parliament wil debate terms. Democracy has won the day. The 3Brexiters have been put back into their proper place. This isn't the Boris and David show it is a process of Parliament that is right and proper.

No it's right, but won't happen.In the event of a GE the the Tories would win.

So, an Act is passed and Article 50 triggered. Negotiations take place and a Brexit deal is done. It is put to Parliament. If Parliament accepts, the deal is done. If Parliament votes against, we have a General Election.

At the last General Election, Conservatives and UKIP had almost 50% of the votes cast. If Conservatives win, the Brexit deal is done. If the Conservatives lose, what next?

Is there another Referendum? Does the Corbyn/Haddon/Sturgeon alliance go back to Brussels and say: 'What would the terms be if we now stay in the EU?' Under Article 50, I thought we had to leave so maybe we step out and step back in again.

This is not a diatribe, it is a question. Is this scenario wrong?

The two line bill is an attempt to minimise debate.

May could have proceeded much quicker as the Brexiters wanted if she hadn't challenged the people.

'A Downing Street spokesman said: "The British people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will deliver on their verdict - triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today's ruling does nothing to change that."'

A two line bill is not involving parliament. Not in the spirit of the court ruling. May still trying to frustrate the people. She has delayed and delayed. She should have accepted the original court ruling and got on with it.

Of course it has ana that is what this has all been about. We have a representative parliament. They represent the people. The people are sovereign. The plan to push ahead without the people being involved in the final say. This government doesn't like scrutiny, but without this scrutiny what it planned to do would have been illegal

Only the people? Didn't realise that was in the judgment.