High Court Ruling.?

[anneasquith]

8-3 against TM. Fair ?

[Gromit]

The people spoke:

// David Cameron's plans to replace local council cabinets with directly elected mayors have been rejected by voters in nine English cities. Manchester voted against the proposal by a margin of 53.2% to 46.8%. //

But when got this pointless election anyway:

// The date has been revealed that the first ever Mayor of Greater Manchester will be elected. Northern Powerhouse Minister James Wharton has announced the important date will be on Thursday, May 4, 2017. //

[jno]

personally, I quite like living under the rule of law, even if it's "technical". But you're such a rebel, TTT!

[ToraToraTora]

you know very well what I'm saying, yes the referendum is technically only advisory, but in reality any government would find it very difficult to ignore.

[whiskeryron]

// As I said the day after the result was announced, I will believe Brexit is happening when it actually happens.

In theory a bill will be passed easily through Parliament, but I suspect EU membership will be like a condemned man on death row with endless legal challenges being made to keep him there as long as possible.// Hear,Hear.

[New Judge]

“…but I suspect EU membership will be like a condemned man on death row with endless legal challenges being made to keep him there as long as possible. “

I wouldn’t be at all surprised. But what intrigues me (and what I don’t think the Remainers quite get) is that if the result had gone the other way there would have been no talk of “endless legal challenges” to reverse the result. On June 24th it would have been proudly announced that the electorate agreed with Mr Cameron, our membership would have simply continued and everybody would have (been told) they were happy. I know that there is more scope for the Remainers to challenge the referendum decision, but I cannot help but conclude that they are a bunch of very sore losers, unused to being told they cannot have their own way.

[jno]

why would there be endless legal challenges to keeping things exactly where they were? There would have been nothing to challenge that wasn't already in place.

We do know that Farage said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." Remainers seem to have taken him up on this.

[Old_Geezer]

Unfinished business in that after a couple of decades it would be reasonable to see of the population had come to it's senses yet.

[EDDIE51]

New Judge, jno has it here, if it has gone in favour of 'Remain' there would be no 'legal challenges' as nothing would be changing, so there would be nothing to challenge.

[hereIam]

I'm starting to think that we will never leave.

[whiskeryron]

I knew I wasn't the only one.

[mikey4444]

Of course its fair !

I have been out at work all day and I don't have time to read all the posts.

But perhaps Mrs Maybe could tell us why she wasted all this public money, making an appeal that was perfectly clear to everybody last year ?

TTT...of course A50 will be revoked in March, but it will be revoked by Parliament, not on the whim of a Prime Minister. That is what the Court ruling meant, twice, so get used to it !

[vortex]

invoked perhaps Mikey4444 :-)

[jourdain2]

NJ 14.48 - quite right. I now know several people who would change their vote from 'stay' to 'leave', by the way.

[jourdain2]

^^^ E.g. I believe in 'ghosts', but not in the conventional sense, because I have experienced odd 'unnatural' things.

[jourdain2]

^^^ Went on wrong thread, sorry. :(

[naomi24]

vortex, // invoked perhaps Mikey4444 :-) //

Or perhaps not. ;o)

[ToraToraTora]

well mikey at least you have the honesty to acknowledge the inevitable. Many on here are deluding themselves with various delaying scenarios so congratulations there. I just don't want to end up with some watered down claptrap that's all.

[New Judge]

“New Judge, jno has it here, if it has gone in favour of 'Remain' there would be no 'legal challenges' as nothing would be changing”

Yes, I quite understand that, Eddie. What I’m trying to get at is that (and I hate to use such a term) there seems to be a considerable element of “sour grapes” among the Remainers. The electorate voted to leave. The legal challenge that has just taken place, whilst I fully agree with the principle to be tested and indeed the result, need not have been made. There will be no difference in triggering A50 between the PM doing so under executive powers and her doing it with permission of Parliament. I can only assume that the challenge was made with the intent of thwarting Brexit.

Despite her announcements during her campaign, Ms Miller does not strike me as a person who is overly concerned with upholding Parliamentary democracy. She and her friends launched this action because they did not like the result of the referendum and sought (and will continue to seek) ways to annul it. Not an option open to Brexiteers I accept and I could not say with any confidence that they would not stoop to taking similar measures it was. But it simply smells of sour grapes. I stated quite categorically before the vote that if it returned a Remain result I would be bitterly disappointed but I would respect it and move on. I just wish some of the Remainers would do the same.

[Zacs-Master]

What 'similar measures' could the Brexit voters have taken, had the majority vote been to remain?

[New Judge]

As I said: "Not an option open to Brexiteers". My contention is hypthetical. IF any such measures were available I'd like to think (though could not be sure) that they would not be taken.

Throughout this campaign Ms Miller has claimed that her only aim is to see that Parliamentary Democracy holds. I suggest that is a load of cobblers; her only aim is to see Brexit thwarted. There is nothing in it for her to see Parliamentary Democracy maintained on this particular issue. As I said there is no difference between A50 being triggered under executive powers or with the consent of Parliament.