Who Rules This Country, The Government On The People's Behalf, The Government Who Make The Laws Or The Judges Who's Job It Is To Enforce The Law?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898716/D-Day-Brexit-Britain-s-exit-EU-DELAYED-landmark-court-case-rules-Theresa-start-EU-talks-without-MPs-vote.html

[Islay]

A mixture of all 3 surely, but at the end of the day the government has to act within the law!

[ichkeria]

Judges are not there to enforce the law. That would be the police. They interpret the law and make judgements based on that.
Parliaments pass laws and governments carry them out and govern.
In a free country the judiciary should be independent of the government
They've ruled that parliament, a body elected directly by the people unlike the rest, should have a say in the 'how' of Brexit
If you are worried MOs are going to scupper Brexit then get lobbying. You'll have a better chance with that than the 48% and two constituent parts of the UK would have had trying to make their views known to the government.

[anotheoldgit]

Islay

/// A mixture of all 3 surely, but at the end of the day the government has to act within the law! ///

And what law have they broken?

I bow to your superior knowledge.

[Togo]

The electorate rules the Country OG. One way or another. And if the elected (notice that word) representatives of the rightful rulers wont do as they are bid, well we have ways of moving them off the bus.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Ms Miller launched the Brexit legal case along with London-based Spanish hairdresser Deir Dos Santos and the People's Challenge group, set up by Grahame Pigney and backed by a crowd-funding campaign. ///

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37861888

It's a foreign conspiracy.

/// Speaking after the High Court announced its verdict, Ms Miller said: "The result today is about all of us. ///

/// "It's not about me or my team. ///

/// "It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures." ///

Yeh! and if you believe that?

[youngmafbog]

On sky news she was asked a direct question on another referendum.

Interestingly her reply was 'No, that cannot happen now'. She does genunely seem to just want Parliament to ratify any agreement, and that has to be good.

The problem is the treacherous MP's in Parliament will use it as an excuse to derail Brexit so that they get the 'correct' answer in the end.

I'd be interested to see what the EU has to say about it. Most want us out - and always did. In addition they do not want a delay on Article 50, quite the opposite as the uncertainty hurts them too. They want shot of us ASAP.

[mikey4444]

AOG....We elect the Government, The Government makes the law, the Police enforce it and the Courts are sometimes asked to interpret it, which is what has happened in this affair.

The High Court could just as easily have made a ruling in the opposite direction, but presumably, if it had, you and others would not be questioning its viability to do so.

[youngmafbog]

And it would be the Lawyers off to the Supreme Court. So what is your point?

The problem many have with the Judiciary today is that many interpretations are almost deliberately not in keeping with the spirit in which the law was passed.

Laws are only any good if the majority agree, and if the law becomes an Ass it can be changed. Just as treacherous Politicians can.

[mikey4444]

YMB...Mrs May has the opportunity to appeal against the High Court ruling.

In fact, its the only think she can do, and I have no doubt that she is actively consulting the Tory Party lawyers, even as we type.

[youngmafbog]

Most likely.

Personally I have no issue with Parliament being involved, in fact if you read through my back posts I suggested cross-party 'negotiations' with the EU. And that is what this lawyer is trying to do. She is not trying to derail Brexit as some of the sour grape munchers seem to think. Listen to her talk on Sky News.

What I do have an issue with is any treacherous MP's using the fact they are being consulted on the way forward to derail Brexit. And some seem to be seeing it that way.

[jim360]

"The problem is the treacherous MP's in Parliament..."

Supposing this to be true, what was the point of voting to give back control to such treacherous people in the first place? This is the contradiction that I think anyone who is against this decision is going to struggle to resolve. You can't vote to take back control from the EU and give it to Parliament if you think that Parliament doesn't deserve it either.

[Old_Geezer]

The Government rules it, but is subject to the laws they themselves make. The Judiciary is supposed to help balance power and ensure no one gets so much that they do whatever they want.

[youngmafbog]

jim, the current Parliament was elected before the Brexit vote and so before many MP's will be potential exposed as treacherous.

Come election time then their day of judgment will come. If they get voted in again then your post has a point. The reason so many dont like the EU is because we have no direct say on how we are Governed by them. The UK Parliament is different, we do.

[youngmafbog]

I may be wrong of course and MP's will not be treacherous and will forge forward to get us the best deal we can in keeping with the majority Brexit vote.

[mikey4444]

YMB...."Personally I have no issue with Parliament being involved, in fact if you read through my back posts I suggested cross-party 'negotiations' with the EU. And that is what this lawyer is trying to do. She is not trying to derail Brexit as some of the sour grape munchers seem to think. Listen to her talk on Sky News"

Then it would appear that we both agree on that !

[jim360]

What counts as treachery? In, for example, the constituencies that returned a majority for Remain, it would certainly be non-treacherous for MPs there to vote in that direction. In the others... well, to call it treachery is pretty inflammatory rhetoric. Ill-advised, for sure, unless the MP was absolutely sure that the will of the people had changed. I don't see this decision leading to a rejection of Brexit -- merely, that it will be shaped by the will of Parliament and not of the cabinet.

[naomi24]

Jim, //what was the point of voting...//

After this latest travesty, I thinking precisely that.

[youngmafbog]

But do you agree with this?

//What I do have an issue with is any treacherous MP's using the fact they are being consulted on the way forward to derail Brexit. And some seem to be seeing it that way. //

[youngmafbog]

I hope you are right jim, unfortunately I think you may find some MP's doe not see it that way. Probably the ones who had their eye on the EU trough.

[jim360]

I guess, Naomi, like many others you just lost sight of the fact that this was an advisory referendum, ie not legally binding. All this judgement does is reaffirm that essential, and indisputable, truth. It remains the case that the result is pretty much morally binding. No travesty today, absolutely none at all.