The European Union: We're out...!!!

[S4fedr1ve]

Really, and there i was thinking that one of the reasons the" Brexit brigade" wanted out was so that our democratic parliament could once again decide on our laws and our future. Except in this matter by the look of it.

Mike

[Colorado Gull]

The High Court's decision is a breach of our electorate's democratic right and does not align with how our Parliamentary constitution works to pass legislation. Was the Referendum legally binding? No, technically, it wasn't. However, when one of the judges from our 'independent' judiciary has openly supported the EU Law Integration group, it doesn't sound conspicuously straightforward. Furthermore, because this country has never had a situation like this before, a vote which has contradicted the status quo of the establishment, then one can only come to the conclusion that this outcome was full of Europhile bias propaganda. It is a pitiable move. This should never have gone to the Courts in the first place and the only reason it had was due to the Romoaners who can't get over the fact that they lost! £9 million of taxpayers money was spent on a leaflet which stated that "this is your decision. Government will implement what you decide." We voted to Leave. If the UK voted to Remain, we would not have seen this debacle.

It is unknown for Parliament to scrutinise what Government plans to do. That is not how our system works. Parliament has binding legislation power, but that only comes at the end of the process and after Parliament explores what the Government HAS done. Our powers are separated between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The executive runs the day to day events of what happens in the UK, then require legislature approval by going to Parliament and then Parliament provides redress of grievance. Why is there no grievance in this case? Because there is no decision (that we know of, so many discussions are made behind the scenes) of what Brexit actually is.

[Gullscorer]

Really, and there i was thinking that one of the reasons the" Brexit brigade" wanted out was so that our democratic parliament could once again decide on our laws and our future. Except in this matter by the look of it.
Mike

The plaintiffs in the High Court action made much of their support for the sovereignty of Parliament, all of them Remainers who want the UK to stay in the EU where the sovereignty of Parliament would be subsumed into a monolithic anti-democratic political union.

[Gullscorer]

Interesting points raised in the comments section here: http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/left ... democracy/

'One wonders why the Government conceded in the High Court that the referendum was advisory only, and why the High Court only looked at the issue of the Royal Prerogative versus the sovereignty of Parliament. This is an error which can be rectified at the Supreme Court.

And of course the Government must appeal the High Court judgement. How on earth could such a legitimate appeal undermine the judicial system? We live in a country where no-one, not even judges, are immune from error, bias and buffoonery, which is why we have an appeal system, and it is essential that cases involving such important constitutional matters should be considered by the Supreme Court.

As I and others have already pointed out elsewhere, by means of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, Parliament, in the matter of the EU referendum, ceded sovereignty to the electorate. The Act itself does not, nor did ministers in their public statements either to Parliament or outside, say that the referendum result would only be advisory. On the contrary, they repeatedly said that the referendum would allow the British people to decide the question of whether we remain or leave.

Furthermore, in the Government's own referendum leaflet, on the page headed 'A once in a generation decision' it stated that: 'The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.' It did not say 'it is your chance to advise on whether we should remain, the actual decision being taken by Parliament'. And it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic: 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

It is right that the Supreme Court be given the chance to reconsider the judgement of the High Court in this appeal, but also the question of where ultimate sovereignty lies: with Parliament, or with the people: the electorate. In such an important constitutional matter, justice requires nothing less.'

Absolutely right. Sovereignty lies with the electorate. The referendum was not advisory. It was mandatory. On the question of Brexit, the Government must therefore implement Article 50 without further reference to Parliament.

[stefano]

......... On the question of Brexit, the Government must therefore implement Article 50 without further reference to Parliament.

I wish they would. We could throw the whole bloody lot of them in jail then for contempt of court!

[Dave]

Whilst S4fedr1ve has fair point. The point being missed is, parliament has already had their say, had their vote, and passed this into law; http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... endum.html so parliamentary democracy has already been upheld, parliament passed the decision over to the people, and majority of the people voted leave, end of.

But it's a lack of understanding of the process that gets me, so some very rich woman took the government to court to stop article 50 being trigger with out another vote in parliament, well whoopee shit and well done for wasting your money.

The triggering of article 50 in terms of our country actually leaving the EU is meaningless, it's document stating your countries intention, parliament was always going to get a vote on the great repeals bill, which has to be come law prior to our country leaving the EU, triggering article 50 is not legally binding, our country could still change it's mind right up until the last minute, and the EU can NOT force us to leave because we triggered article 50.

The government has already appealed, and could win such an appeal, but if it's does not, it could call a general election and with the Tories 18 points ahead in some polls, even factoring a big margin for error, it's likely they'll win with a bigger majority, and vote through the brexit they what through, unchallenged, it's better that all sides of the house together now and come up a solution that suits the 17.4 million who voted out, and takes into account the wishes of the 16 million that voted in.

However, all I can say is, if the palace of Westminster want to ignore the wishes of 17.4 million people, just be careful of what you wish for, the consequences of that could be quite damaging in many walks of life.

[Colorado Gull]

However, all I can say is, if the palace of Westminster want to ignore the wishes of 17.4 million people, just be careful of what you wish for, the consequences of that could be quite damaging in many walks of life.

Plan B

[Gullscorer]

As Nigel Farage has said, Remainers who thwart the democratic will of the people by preventing or delaying our exit from the doomed European Union have no idea of the level of anger they will provoke.

Not to mention the BBC, who's blatant unashamed bias is once again exposed: http://www.davidsedgwick.co.uk/blog/rev ... -life-back

[Gullscorer]

On EU immigration: http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/kath ... oreigners/
BBC's fake news: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 ... as-prices/

[Gullscorer]

Pro-EU traitors in Government and Civil Service:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/747243 ... n-brussels
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 ... exit-vote/
More legal challenges attempt to thwart the democratic will of the British people:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748345 ... Article-50
A bright future outside the EU: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 ... utside-eu/

[Gullscorer]

Historic quotes of 2016:

'Our Independence Day!'
Nigel Farage

'Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to re-join it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government and Parliament to make sure we do just that.'
Theresa May

'This case was about process, not politics.'
Gina Miller

[Gullscorer]

'Project Fear' exposed: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01 ... -partisan/

Blair puts £9.3m into anti-Brexit Institute: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01 ... -populism/

[Southampton Gull]

Some are too ready to believe the propoganda that leaving the EU would destroy our economy.

Surprise surprise, that isn't actually the case....................

http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/boe-chief- ... iticism-w/

[Dave]

Doesn't surprise me either Dave SG. The stupidly gullible failed recognise that a lot of these so called economic think thanks, and organisations are partly funded by the EU, as are a number news media outlets, so they have a vested interest in the UK staying with in the EU.

Who does the governor of the Bank of England answer to, oh yes of course the British government, is the Bank of England truly independent from the British government, well really ? of course it isn't. So do we think they were going to say in the build up to June's vote.

[Gullscorer]

The Bank of England, along with all the other 'national' banks, the Federal Reserve, the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organisation, the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank, and all the other similar unaccountable international organisations, is part of the global financial, legal and political elite. They run 'shadow' governments and control international courts and the military, even to the extent of arranging wars to their advantage.

The B. of E. didn't have a Michael Fish moment. They lied. They all lied. Simple as that. According to the Remainers, of course, it was only the Leave campaign who lied..