Brexit And Supreme Court.

[saintpeter48]

Just who is paying for this expensive farce, you and me no doubt!!

[mikey4444]

Well, it would be nice if it were Mrs May !

[naomi24]

We are - and it's all down to the dissenters.

[EDDIE51]

Farce is correct. The government have been told they have zero chance of success unless they have a new and legally valid reason the original decision was wrong. Yet still they insist on going on with it.
The Courts are funded by the taxpayer of course !

[lindapalmara]

Yes, all of us. Why not send the bill to the likes of Clegg, Major and Blair.

I watched about 10 minutes this afternoon and lost the will to live.

[EDDIE51]

naomi, It is about if the government can implement a law which alters the rights of UK citizens without full consultation with parliment. It is FAR FAR wider than just Brexit!

[mikey4444]

If we looking for someone to blame, then blame Mrs May and her Cabinet colleagues.

They are the ones that decided not to accept the Court ruling, otherwise this appeal would not be happening in the first place.

[naomi24]

Eddie, I know what it's about.

[naomi24]

Mikey, had the dissenters accepted the result of the referendum there would have been no Court ruling to oppose.... but we've said all this before so little point in re-treading old ground. All we can do now is await the outcome.

[david small]

Shafted, yet again. RIP Democracy.

[ToraToraTora]

we are paying so the SGB can hang on by their fingertips. Yes it's a farce because the whole thing is necessary. The people are the supreme authority, they elect parliament so to me it abundantly clear that the people have made the decision already. Anything else is just fudging by the anti democracy brigade. Would this case even have been brought without that stupid self gratifying Lady?

[ToraToraTora]

...I did not use the word "lady"!

[ichkeria]

This appeal was brought by HMG. So blame them if you don't like paying.

[ToraToraTora]

no this process was started by Gina Miller, she is to blame with those treacherous judges who failed to boot it out at the first opportunity. They are the enemies of the people and democracy.

[ichkeria]

Yeah yeah ...
Let's not bother with the law at all

[mikey4444]

TTT...drivel. The Court is protecting Parliament. They don't have an axe to grind. The Judiciary hasn't got an axe to grind......they are just applying the law !

[naomi24]

If the court upholds the appeal, will the dissenters accept that they are applying the law - or will they carry on moaning?

[ToraToraTora]

it's not the law it's an interpretation. The people elect parliament the people have given the government their instructions. A bunch of self serving popinjays will not be allowed, through their own self importance and vanity, to subvert the will of the people. The people are supreme they alone give power to parliament. Only a bunch of whining sour grape chompers cannot see that.

[fiction-factory]

I thinks some just don't get this, mikey. The lady may have been an opportunist but she was right (or at least the judges agreed with her) that the government was acting unconstitutionally.
I don't mind whether the appeal succeeds or not- we just need to get on with Brexit now.

[Peter Pedant]

// I watched about 10 minutes this afternoon and lost the will to live.//
I watched about four hours - and was told that instead of the second four hours I would have to watch Shameless replays - OK I suppose

some of it is here
http://www.france24.com/fr/20161108-brexit-cour-supreme-britannique-decembre-appel-gouvernement-may-article-50-parlement

and the transcript and papers are here
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/draft-transcript-monday-161205-am.pdf

The Beeb were doing vis " Brexit wots it orl abart ven ?
and standard cockney sparras were going like " Yeah dis Brexit ven. they so called Law Lords can shove it all up their .... "

Casciani's tweets [Beeb] showed he had no idea what the case was about, who the judges were and what they were deciding
where he was - who the lawyers were and so on

Three law professors were wheeled out at 1800

The govt side was suitably thread bare - they had withdrawn their contention that no court could discuss the use of Royal Prerogative - dear lord -
The law lords ( oops members of the supreme court) were giving the govt lawyers hell and interrupting....
" you agree that a treaty has to be incorporated into domestic law by an act of parliament"
" yeah we do..."
" and you contend that withdrawal from a treaty doesnt need parliamentary intervention ?"
yes my lords we do .....

the law lords did not throw their pencils down and murmur - what rubbish .... amongst themselves

It remains to be seen if the Lords give the remoaners hell in a few days

de keyser featured largely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-G_v_De_Keyser%27s_Royal_Hotel_Ltd

and also Burmah oil 1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmah_Oil_Co_Ltd_v_Lord_Advocate


which we have had on AB before
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/History/Question1304081.html

so you really can say you read it first on here

[EDDIE51]

If A50 HAD been implemented by 'Royal Prerogative' as May intended, the implementation would have been ruled illegal and overturned by the exact same law. I still think that is what was intended, so as to give the Government it's opportunity to do a U turn on 'Brexit'.