What mandate does parliament have to prevent Brexit ?

Why do you put unelected with the judges but not with people?

You can’t have an elected electorate imo ,you could/should have elected judges though

No one picks the electorate but panels of judges are selected

When the anti-Brexit establishment enlists the help of the Supreme Court that is unelected, to overrule a decision of the government that was elected.
And all done in the interests of preventing the carrying out of Article 50 which is an act of Parliament. It shows that UK democracy is a sham.

The court said their decision wasn't political, yet their ruling has political consequences that they were fully aware of.
So how can they be impartial in those circumstances?

They could simply have said it was not their business to interfere, like the High Court did before and no one would have blamed them.

bit of a give away when all the usual arch remoaner suspects were outside the court afterwards celebrating like their team had just won a cup final

The government celebrated after they won the semi final

I think it could set a dangerous precedent as anyone could challenge anything they do not like or disagree with.

Yes but was it not part of the leave agenda to escape  the brussels  control and have our own laws and judgements and taking back control , so the British supreme court did this and said 11-0 that Bullingdon was  wrong , people cant have it both ways

Whatever happens there is poison now and this will carry on for a long time regardless of a deal or no deal or remain

We're about a week away from brexiteers claiming the earth is flat and Elvis lives above their local Laddies.

Seething ,Hypocrites  , two words to describe   48 % of the UK , Tragic really , I am afraid the Words Great Britain are

Finnish

Still in England there are a lot less  % wise  of the Tw@ts

Have another ref , By Country, COME ON BORIS call it , THE UK IS NO LONGER UNITED ,Krankee would pish her knickers .She could

can even Rebuild the Wall, As for Norn , Let Ireland take care of it ,I am sure they would love to they really care about the

People of Norn ...............

Where to begin with this mess?

Title mentions parliament. Post mentions 11 judges which have nothing to do with parliament .

Anyway for those that don't quite get it, parliament is sovereign. There is also no evidence at all that parliament is trying to prevent Brexit. This goes back to the frequent con these days that no deal = Brexit, except it doesn't. Parliament is trying to prevent no deal, like it was elected to do when 54% of people voted for parties that rejected no deal in 2017.

Some of the more moronic papers dressed it up as 17 million versus 11 judges - it's laughably simplistic and anyone who buys into it is a moron

The judges had to decide whether the PM could effectively do whatever he wanted on any topic, and suspend Parliament without presenting any justification. They rightly decided he was acting way beyond his powers, and everyone should be damned pleased that they did, otherwise we would be living in an effective dictatorship

Parliament is trying to prevent no deal,

If only that was their only motive they could merit some respect but this step has blocked any sensible negotiation with the EU,like fighting with two hands tied behind your back.

that may well be true, but the OP posted about the judges opposing 17 million people which is a wilful misinterpretation of the facts

it's completely disingenuous to suggest this parliament will vote through any deal boris might bring back. not a chance in hell

No it's not a misrepresentation at all FatherMaguire.

The fact remains, that the Supreme Court could have taken the same view as that of the High Court with is that parliamentary procedure is not the business of the courts.

Instead the Supreme Court made it their business. Which is in their powers to do, but not something they were obliged to do.

Therefore the decision to intervene looks politically motivated.

Sep 26, 2019 -- 11:28AM, mafeking wrote:

it's completely disingenuous to suggest this parliament will vote through any deal boris might bring back. not a chance in hell

boris isn't interested in a deal.  He simply wants a GE based on "parliament vs the people".

Sep 26, 2019 -- 2:59AM, n88uk wrote:

Where to begin with this mess?Title mentions parliament. Post mentions 11 judges which have nothing to do with parliament .Anyway for those that don't quite get it, parliament is sovereign. There is also no evidence at all that parliament is trying to prevent Brexit. This goes back to the frequent con these days that no deal = Brexit, except it doesn't. Parliament is trying to prevent no deal, like it was elected to do when 54% of people voted for parties that rejected no deal in 2017.

The 11 judges have everything to do with “Parliament” encompasses the Two houses ,commons and lords ,previously the lords passed all bills and acts and turned them into law ,house of Parliament does not pass laws it’s passes bills and acts . The lords used to contain the committee of law lords that passed judicial review ,this is now a stand alone body in a 3rd building and it’s called the Supreme Court ,my question was to people who understood this not some numpties that know diddly squat about anything . My question is how can parliament be sovereign and supreme when some unelected body called the Supreme Court can intervene between the PM and the sovereign to act against 17.4 million of the electorate who gave parliament a mandate to remove the country from  the control of the EU . I will help the question along a bit and further request some clarification as to why the gov passed a bill which passed  through the lords I presume and into law allowing the the EU referendum to take place to remove from the country from the EU but had no actual legal terms in it or legal means to pass it .Were the law lords in any way responsible for this ? This act was a betrayal and Parliament ,(house of lords ,commons and Supreme Court ) all know it full well and are all acting against the electorate imo .

And further I have not seen confirmation that “Parliament “ encompasses the 3 house ,if it does not the inference is that the Supreme Court is Supreme ,I think their actions have confirmed this . ,they are above parliament ,the electorate The Crown and God it appears .

May I ask a question breadnbutter  is it playing on your mind ?

Not overly ,just a mild irritation 

Irritation only exists if you let it... take the misses and kids out chap,enjoy ,don’t be ruled by circuses

How did you vote in referendum ?

Lmao ,vote ,I don’t,  I live my life not one I’m told to ....who ever you vote for governments win..tis  for fools. No matter what happens it won’t change your life ,just your mind

And may I ask a question? Where did you get your information from ,radio,telly ,YouTube , propaganda bud be careful

What information are you referring too and I will provide a link/ref ,but stop  going off topic

Perhaps you should do some research before you say anything more ,come back armed with some facts ,with all respect your waffling now

Not at all ,your waffling, what facts do I need,?

And your facts ,as I said telly ,YouTube ,internet?...be careful

What have I said that upsets you ,you ask where I got my info ,suggesting my comments are untrue or not factual ,what exactly is it that you need clarification on ? Hurry up I’m not here for a prolonged waffle session with someone that does not even participate in the democratic process .

bandb
The referendum elected to have Parliament act on the voters behalf to get the UK out of the EU. A referendum is not a legal act it's just an expression of opinion. The government's attempt to prorogue Parliament was purely intended to stifle debate and leave on the 31st October come what may which is not acting on behalf of the people who voted for it but purely for the government. The Supreme Court deemed this to be unlawful.

I'm quite prepared to be educated on this though.

That’s not correct it depends on how the act and law is passed that allows the referendum ,in this case there was no laws or acts to make the result binding ,was the referendum that took us into the EEC not binding either then ?

Parliament was blocking ,stymying and suffocating the will of the people ,prorogation was used correctly imo .

A referendum just asks the government to act on their behalf. No it wasn't binding.

Not sure if I should have said Parliament or government then.

No it doesn’t ,if it did the act of acting on the result would have been written in as legislation ,it wasn’t

Sep 27, 2019 -- 7:03PM, breadnbutter wrote:

Parliament was blocking ,stymying and suffocating the will of the people ,prorogation was used correctly imo .

By saying we're shutting up shop for six weeks isn't acting on behalf of the people it acting purely on behalf of the government or in this case the PM.

Why would you research politics?its nonsense,...governments win. Enjoy your weekend it will soon be Monday

Sep 27, 2019 -- 7:05PM, breadnbutter wrote:

No it doesn’t ,if it did the act of acting on the result would have been written in as legislation ,it wasn’t

Not sure what your No it doesn’t refers to.

The PM is head of parliament and he and the Queen act for the people ,Parliament was acting against the people who voted in good faith in a legally held referendum .

Sep 27, 2019 -- 7:03PM, Charlie wrote:

A referendum just asks the government to act on their behalf. No it wasn't binding.

That’s what my reply was in response to .

You can't just close down Parliament because you don't like how they're voting. That's why it was found unlawful.

A referendum has no legal basis. All it is is an expression of what people would like. Government, Parliament can just say fck that if they want. Politically it would be a bad move but legally ok.

I disagree but that’s not the point of the thread ,although the fact remains ,prorogation is lawful but the law lords in their supreme knowledge decided that the prorogation was done incorrectly (I think ) .Parliament was not shut down or suspended it was prorogued ,can’t stress this point enough . And it was prorogued to prevent the people being rode over roughshod .I think BJ will try another way and succeed for what it’s worth ,all will become clear imo as to why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did and suspect there is a few good reasons . And bye the way I respect the Supreme Courts decision 100% absolutely .

Charlie you started out saying one thing and now your onto another and in full waffle ,please give it a rest bud

You can't disagree over whether referendums are legally binding in the UK as they aren't.

Parliament wasn't prorogued. Remember Bercow saying that? Supreme Court said it was unlawful.

So my posts are waffle but your's are superb apart from when you get your facts wrong?

I get the message I wont bother.

People wanting Boris to apologise for breaking the law. There was no such law when he did it. The Supreme Court have only just deemed it so. Or am I missing summat?

In case he missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHlmtEKqXLw

Parliament was not shut down or suspended it was prorogued ,can’t stress this point enough You really should stress this point more.

Sep 27, 2019 -- 7:03PM, Charlie wrote:

A referendum just asks the government to act on their behalf. No it wasn't binding.

Was the EU referendum "advisory"? - Full Fact
Search domain fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/
A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way.

So there it is a referendum can be legally binding ,but this one was not ,hence my saying your waffling ,making statements that are incorrect and making out the power of a referendum in the U.K. is worthless when this is not simple not true Charlie ,try and be more accurate please .

Ok, I'll change it to not generally legally binding. I'll try and be more accurate. The last one wasn't legally binding as you said.

You said they were legally binding. You also said Parliament was prorogued. So you can apologies for waffling.

No I never ,I said a lawful referendum

I'll try and write that in English. You said referendums in the UK were legally binding. In general they aren't inducing the 1975 one and this one.

I would not use the term legally binding as I know it was not ,hence my earlier post and what I want to expand this thread on ,”Parliament” (the three house ) know and knew the referendum was non binding ,were the law lords part of that process and if not who acted for the people in this process ,it had to pass through the lords and get two readings in parliament ,who in the entire process considered the wishes of the people ?

The only two people I can see that have acted in good faith are the PM and H.M Queen Elizabeth

The Queen is irrelevant in this. The PM has certainly not acted in good faith. He's trying to bluff and bluster his way through this for his own ends not the good of the nation. He tried to close up shop for six weeks to get his own way and avoid debate. There are very many brighter people in the houses than him. Stifle debate, become a dictator and fck democracy.

Watching footy now,

It was not legally binding in the same way as the Scottish referendum was not legally binding

Why not ?

Because it would be unthinkable for parliament to overturn it

Or at least that’s what we thought Britain was like

Now can you imagine what might happen  if Scotland votes for independence

And Parliament says no , it’s not going to happen

Vote again

Now we know the sort of dishonest individuals remainers are ,

Don’t trust people like that , they don’t deserve to be trusted

Sep 27, 2019 -- 7:53PM, Charlie wrote:

I'll try and write that in English. You said referendums in the UK were legally binding. In general they aren't inducing the 1975 one and this one.

Where did I say that ,please quote ,if I am wrong and did say that I will apologise and retire from the thread .

When we voted in the referendum no one said at the time it was advisory
This only came into play after the remainers lost

They’re like that , that’s all you need to know when they start waffling about it not being binding

They’re bad losers and liars in truth

And he never tried to close up shop ,he PROROGUED Parliament .Nor was it for six weeks ,not anything like it ,nor is the HM Queen Elizabeth irrelevant .

Now hurry up and quote me or move along chap

lfc1971
It was not legally binding in the same way as the Scottish referendum was not legally binding
Why not ?
Because it would be unthinkable for parliament to overturn it
Or at least that’s what we thought Britain was like

Excellent point lfc. Nailed it.

Can you imagine some clown after Scotland vote for independence ( if they do )

Saying sorry it’s not fking happening , go away it’s advisory

It’s amazing the sh1te remainers pretend to believe

Lfc spot on.

that might be a first from detraveller , to me

fooo ! I can’t be rude to you  if you’re going to be nice detraveller :)

What a mess we have made of this , but make no mistake where the blame lies
And it’s with the Labour Party , the libdems , and each and any remainer who tries to overturn
that democratic vote
If that happens it will be the most disgraceful episode in Britain’s long history

And the damage cannot be repaired

Yes ,nice points Trilby and lfc ,just to add the entire hard/soft Brexit was invented by the remaniacts  upon realising defeat

As soon as the referendum result was known there shouldn’t have been any remainers in Britain

Not one

Now ?  We should leave on Oct 31

Three and a bit years too late

We voted the wrong way in the referendum lfc1971 as far as Parliament were concerned

They think we are better staying in....so they are trying to find anyway they can to avoid Brexit

Another referendum would do it, but is hardly democratic.

just to add the entire hard/soft Brexit was invented by the remaniacts upon realising defeat
And they've been milking the Leavers ever since. You can't deny that they've done a good job of it and will eventually succeed.

Not that difficult really detraveller when probably 3/4 of the house are remainers. And thats before we get to the House Of Lords & Supreme Court which is even heavier balanced towards remain.

No disrespect to anyone on here but from a european natve why dont you just feck off ?

no disrespect taken irishone ,but as already been said stfu and mine ya wall

It is the problems in where you live that is keeping us in irishone!

Where is the border going to be between the UK and the EU?

Sep 26, 2019 -- 2:59AM, n88uk wrote:

Where to begin with this mess?Title mentions parliament. Post mentions 11 judges which have nothing to do with parliament .Anyway for those that don't quite get it, parliament is sovereign. There is also no evidence at all that parliament is trying to prevent Brexit. This goes back to the frequent con these days that no deal = Brexit, except it doesn't. Parliament is trying to prevent no deal, like it was elected to do when 54% of people voted for parties that rejected no deal in 2017.

You attempt to promulgate a lie that 54% of the electorate voted for remain parties ,show me where you got this lie from as I can prove it to be the total lie that it is .Labour party stance at last election (2017 ) was that whilst they favoured a soft form of Brexit they maintain the result of the referendum must be honoured .Theresa (Brexit means Brexit ) May of the Conservative party also campaigned on a leave promise .Quite where you have pulled the 54% lie from needs scrutinised,although I suspect I know where you must have extracted it from . Please elucidate .