Brexit court defeat for UK government

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

Have you gone a bit mad? Did I miss the appeal hearing and subsequent Commons and Lords votes?

Or, have you so comprehensively lost this argument that your only recourse is to talk utter rot in the hope of deflecting from the fact you are unable to refute my statements?

The latter is the more certain, isn't it?

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

Have you gone a bit mad? Did I miss the appeal hearing and subsequent Commons and Lords votes?

Or, have you so comprehensively lost this argument that your only recourse is to talk utter rot in the hope of deflecting from the fact you are unable to refute my statements?

The latter is the more certain, isn't it?

There isn't an argument to lose as you have presented no facts.

The court case did not overturn the referendum. You are simply wrong.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

Have you gone a bit mad? Did I miss the appeal hearing and subsequent Commons and Lords votes?

Or, have you so comprehensively lost this argument that your only recourse is to talk utter rot in the hope of deflecting from the fact you are unable to refute my statements?

The latter is the more certain, isn't it?

There isn't an argument to lose as you have presented no facts.

The court case did not overturn the referendum. You are simply wrong.

LMAO sure sunshine, sure. And Nicky Sturgeon is gonna lead the Scots to the promised land.

Only David Blunkett would have more trouble reading and understanding what I wrote and quoted than you seem to.

If you maybe studied less Gaelic and more English, you'd have been able to understand that the facts I posted were actual facts, not made up rubbish like the SNP manifesto.

What has Nicola Sturgeon git to do with it and why would I have studied Gaelic? You are just typing random nonsense now.

The court case decided who has the authority to invoke article 50. Parliament or the cabinet. Nothing to do with overturning the referendum for the very simple reason that the referendum results did not have any force in law.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

Have you gone a bit mad? Did I miss the appeal hearing and subsequent Commons and Lords votes?

Or, have you so comprehensively lost this argument that your only recourse is to talk utter rot in the hope of deflecting from the fact you are unable to refute my statements?

The latter is the more certain, isn't it?

There isn't an argument to lose as you have presented no facts.

The court case did not overturn the referendum. You are simply wrong.

LMAO sure sunshine, sure. And Nicky Sturgeon is gonna lead the Scots to the promised land.

Only David Blunkett would have more trouble reading and understanding what I wrote and quoted than you seem to.

If you maybe studied less Gaelic and more English, you'd have been able to understand that the facts I posted were actual facts, not made up rubbish like the SNP manifesto.

What has Nicola Sturgeon git to do with it and why would I have studied Gaelic? You are just typing random nonsense now.

The court case decided who has the authority to invoke article 50. Parliament or the cabinet. Nothing to do with overturning the referendum for the very simple reason that the referendum results did not have any force in law.

Hey, you started it with the talking balls, I just joined in once it was clear you aren't actually interested in reality here.


If you really believe that this case was about ensuring parliamentary sovereignty and not forestalling brexit as I have, I believe, shown using the FT quotes etc, then I would like to offer you the chance to buy one of London's most famous bridges.

Have a nice evening Septic, old chap. I will be back tomorrow.

For the record;

The referendum was NOT legally binding.
Existing legal and Parliamentary procedure requires Parliament to discuss the results of referendum etc before even beginning to discuss Brexit process, procedure and strategies, including invoking Article 50.

To a certain extent I can understand that, after all my primary reason for voting to leave the EU was to re-establish Parliaments authority, its just that I seriously mistrust the motivations of those who brought about the court case and most, if not all, of the politicians who supported it.

Teresa May has been remarkable in her ability to do absolutely nothing whilst trying her best to appear as if she's done a lot.

One has to wonder why all the delay, empty rhetoric and predictable political sloganeering whilst the status quo remains in tact.

All of it just provides further evidence if ever it was needed that we need urgent and radical reform.

a reply to: Freeborn

I think you touch on an excellent point in that while people are complaining that this an attempt to stop brexit, it should be understood that May is under no more legal obligation to invoke article 50 than Parliament is.

This case simply decided who the authority lies with.

As you know I am every bit as critical of our current system as you are (although our options may vary on the best solution). However I think it is infinitely better that this level of decision rests with parliament, flawed as it is, rather than be entirely at the discretion of the cabinet.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I think you touch on an excellent point in that while people are complaining that this an attempt to stop brexit, it should be understood that May is under no more legal obligation to invoke article 50 than Parliament is.

Indeed.
But at what point do we, the people, stand up and assert OUR authority over Parliament.
Members of Parliament are supposed to represent the wishes and interests of their constituents first and foremost.
Very few do - the majority accede to the party line before anything else.
This was never the intention for Parliament - the party political system only started really developing in the 18th Century. We don't vote for a party to represent us we vote for an individual.
Political ideology takes precedence over the wishes of the people - that is not a fit for purpose system.

This case simply decided who the authority lies with.

Yes.
But should either Parliament or the Cabinet have authority over the will of the people?
At present both do.
For me that is not acceptable.

As you know I am every bit as critical of our current system as you are (although our options may vary on the best solution). However I think it is infinitely better that this level of decision rests with parliament, flawed as it is, rather than be entirely at the discretion of the cabinet.

Either way they should act on the will of the people.

I get the impression that those who have the power and authority, under the current system, are seeking to stall invoking Article 50 for as long as possible.
Yes, we have the rhetoric voiced for public consumption.....but acts speak far louder than words and as of today the government has actually done absolutely nothing to move towards acting upon the result of the referendum.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

Have you gone a bit mad? Did I miss the appeal hearing and subsequent Commons and Lords votes?

Or, have you so comprehensively lost this argument that your only recourse is to talk utter rot in the hope of deflecting from the fact you are unable to refute my statements?

The latter is the more certain, isn't it?

There isn't an argument to lose as you have presented no facts.

The court case did not overturn the referendum. You are simply wrong.

LMAO sure sunshine, sure. And Nicky Sturgeon is gonna lead the Scots to the promised land.

Only David Blunkett would have more trouble reading and understanding what I wrote and quoted than you seem to.

If you maybe studied less Gaelic and more English, you'd have been able to understand that the facts I posted were actual facts, not made up rubbish like the SNP manifesto.

What has Nicola Sturgeon git to do with it and why would I have studied Gaelic? You are just typing random nonsense now.

The court case decided who has the authority to invoke article 50. Parliament or the cabinet. Nothing to do with overturning the referendum for the very simple reason that the referendum results did not have any force in law.

I'd let it lie, anything you say that questions someones 'interpretation' is seen as lying and delusional.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Those who think the saintly Ms Miller only brought her case to uphold democracy ought to bear in mind that she is rabidly opposed to both brexit and the democratic right of the people to select their government and system thereof.

A quote from the FT. "Brexit is a disaster"

www.ft.com...


Those aren't the words of a person who accepts the will of the majority but a shill wanting to use anything to subvert democracy.

Where in your linked article does it say she is opposed to the democratic selection of government?

Doesn't need to does it? She's already trying to overturn a democratic mandate and if successful then we will be forced to remain in and be governed by the EU. Ergo my assertion is proven.

Her legal case wasn't about overturning the referendum. Ergo you are wrong.

Dead wrong there fella.
She 'said' it wasn't but when you see her real thoughts on brexit it's all too obvious that her real motivation and that of her backers is to stop the UK leaving the EU.

Lots of people think brexit could be a disaster, doesn't make them anti democratic.

The court decided that parliament has too vote on it. Nothing more nothing less.

Loads of people do think so. They don't launch a legal bid to overturn the outcome of a referendum though.

If you can't discern her real motives from her own words and actions, then that's on you isn't it?

She didn't.

Wow. You claiming a Mandela effect now? Cool.

You either missed her court case or it was one of those days that bucky was 2 for 1 in bargain booze.

The referendum decision wasn't overturned. Do you really not understand that or are you just plain making stuff up?

Because you missed it, my contention was that the case was brought with the intention of doing exactly that.
All this talk of doing it for democracy is a lie perpetrated by her and the anti democratic fascist scumbags that refuse to accept the will of the majority of voters.

So you did just make stuff up. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless you can show where the referendum was overturned?

I made nothing up.
I posted what she did and what she said, taken together the only reasonable interpretation is that she does not want Brexit to happen.
If you can't see that, the fault lies with your ability to understand, not my ability to explain.

Has the the referendum been overturned?

If your answer is yes provide a source.

If no then acknowledge you made that up.

Have you gone a bit mad? Did I miss the appeal hearing and subsequent Commons and Lords votes?

Or, have you so comprehensively lost this argument that your only recourse is to talk utter rot in the hope of deflecting from the fact you are unable to refute my statements?

The latter is the more certain, isn't it?

There isn't an argument to lose as you have presented no facts.

The court case did not overturn the referendum. You are simply wrong.

LMAO sure sunshine, sure. And Nicky Sturgeon is gonna lead the Scots to the promised land.

Only David Blunkett would have more trouble reading and understanding what I wrote and quoted than you seem to.

If you maybe studied less Gaelic and more English, you'd have been able to understand that the facts I posted were actual facts, not made up rubbish like the SNP manifesto.

What has Nicola Sturgeon git to do with it and why would I have studied Gaelic? You are just typing random nonsense now.

The court case decided who has the authority to invoke article 50. Parliament or the cabinet. Nothing to do with overturning the referendum for the very simple reason that the referendum results did not have any force in law.

I'd let it lie, anything you say that questions someones 'interpretation' is seen as lying and delusional.

Probably good advice. I mean if I wanted delusional nonsense I would just read the American politics threads.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Seems that anti democratic members of parliament will use the art 50 court ruling as a springboard to further stymie the will of the people.

Just as people alleged when Disco Dave announced he'd hold a referendum, the country will be forced to vote over and over until those with a ticket on the gravy train get the answer they want.

Offft...Another Blow to the Brexiters. for what it's worth, The UK Government knew this would happen. They knew the challange would fail but they need to be seen to be doing something publically to appease the Bigo...eh...Masses.

Brexit vote not legally binding..Supreme court judgment.

The EU referendum was not legally binding, a Supreme Court judge hearing the Government’s appeal against the Brexit legal challenge has said ahead of the December court case. Lady Brenda Hale made the comments in a speech to lawyers in Kuala Lumpar, during which she reflected on the upcoming case. All parties in the litigation accept the referendum is not legally binding.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Solo, anyone who knows anything about Parliamentary procedure knows that the Referendum was not legally binding....but it is morally binding and if Parliament fails to follow the wishes of the people then we face a crisis.

If Parliament attempts to unduly delay or fail to invoke Article 50 or significantly dilute Brexit conditions then I suspect there maybe repercussions.

Scots and Welsh can have say in Brexit court case

The Scottish and Welsh governments are to be allowed to intervene in the Supreme Court battle over how Brexit should be triggered. The government's appeal against the High Court ruling that MPs must vote on triggering Brexit will be heard in the Supreme Court from 5 December. It will last four days, with the decision expected in the new year. Theresa May has said she is "clear" she expects to start talks on leaving the EU as planned by the end of March. Counsel for the Scottish Government is being invited by the Supreme Court justices to address the court on the relevance of points of Scots law, so far as they do not form part of the law of England and Wales.

UK's efforts to abandon the sinking ship that was never meant to float is already dead in the water with the country stuck in Eurolimbo, independently of court rulings.