Can't say I'm surprised. This can't be appealed now as it is the highest court but it seems highly unlikely that the government will lose any vote in parliament.

http://news.sky.com/story/government-loses...0-10740799 LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Last edited by The Doctor on 24th Jan 2017 10:31 am. Edited 1 time in total

It won't make any difference as all the government has to do is pass the relevant legislation to have a vote on it which they will win as they have a significant majority, including all the turncoats, now in favour of brexit.

J

As per the article, the timetable is set to move ahead as planned and the government are comfortable. It was really a case of public law and the separation of powers as a principle. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Will still have to pass through HoC and HoL, which means it can be amended by opposition parties, rather than just a straight-forward trigger art. 50.

LoP

This does seem to be rather odd, the referendum was legal, the decision of the voting population was to leave ( that basically says to the government and parliament the UK must leave) however MP's are well known for doing their own thing ( check out capital punishment) Seems the legal decision is some what flawed, however the vagaries of the legal occupation are a mystery where common sense is not a condition on decision making, ( that is not a comment on the sensibilities of leaving the EU)
There was no percentage bias on the leaving as is normal where a 2/3 or3/4 majority is required, this seems to be a habit of recent referendums ie the Scottish, unlike the Maggie independence vote, where unless over 50% of the franchised electorate voted for independence then the status quo existed, ( great because only if you really wanted independence you had to waste your time voting) I rather suspect that had that been the case for Brexit we wouldn't be wasting money and supporting many lawyers pension funds on vague arguments.
Perhaps Mr Cameron was somewhat arrogant in thinking he was going to win and therefore failed to put reasonable steps to ensure that would be the case.  my PC is slightly to the right of Genghis
2012 HSE SD4 In Orkney Grey now gone, best car ever.

''Perhaps Mr Cameron was somewhat arrogant in thinking he was going to win and therefore failed to put reasonable steps to ensure that would be the case.''

I feel you have hit the nail on the head there, nobody in the ivory towers of Whitehall arrogance believed the public would vote to leave......

Right or wrong, good decision or bad decision, the majority of UK public voted to leave. That's what being a democratic society is all about.

There is the potential here that if the various houses and courts now vote against leaving, could we be facing a modern day peasants revolt ?

The arrogant city dwellers need to think long and hard about further reaching consequences of voting against triggering article 50 maybe ?

This ruling is being misunderstood. It is simply a matter of Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. The government govern our country, Parliament debate and create legislation including sentencing guidelines for Judges and the courts rule on matters of law. Such rulings must be complied with so it goes full circle effectively.

It is nicely summed up by Lord Neuberger below. In simple terms, the government has decided to act on Article 50 without any support in the legislation. So in the interests of the constitution, it must be put through Parliament.

This is a good article for anyone thinking a vote might go against the government in Parliament and cancel out the referendum result: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...43301.html

Lord Neuberger said the judgment was not about the referendum result or a comment on the merits of leaving or staying in the EU.

“The referendum is of great political significance, but the Act of Parliament authorising it did not say what would happen afterwards,” Lord Neuberger said, meaning any action taken now must be in keeping with the UK’s constitution.

*On a side note, the Supreme Court only came into being in 2009. Prior to this, the highest court was the House of Lords. How's that for going against the separation of powers? It was possible that some members of the H of L could help create legislation that they would then rule on as a final court of appeal. Didn't take them long enough to get it changed  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

RogB wrote:

Right or wrong, good decision or bad decision, the majority of UK public voted to leave. That's what being a democratic society is all about.

Quote:

could we be facing a modern day peasants revolt ?

Well how do you know what those that didn't vote would have voted to remain? Every single one of them could have voted to leave. Surely you must be aware by now that it's only those that can be bothered to vote get a say in things. Even 50.0001% is a clear majority. Get over it. Past: FL2 TD4 HSE Auto
Evoque SD4 Dynamic Lux Auto
Present: Audi A3 S Line.

Steve D wrote:

Well how do you know what those that didn't vote would have voted to remain? Every single one of them could have voted to leave.

Quote:

Get over it

Okay, okay. How about 'the majority of the UK public that were eligible to vote and actually voted, voted to leave'. That's much more accurate wouldn't you say?

Why should you get over it? Because it's going to happen and us voters say you should. Past: FL2 TD4 HSE Auto
Evoque SD4 Dynamic Lux Auto
Present: Audi A3 S Line.

I would reiterate - GET OVER IT.

Continental Europe may well get a shock if Marie lePen or Geert Wilders get returned later this year. Even Angela Merkel is looking over her shoulder so you may need to get used to the failed experiment falling apart along with your UK pension losing its purchasing power.  MY 09 GS manual in Lago Grey, Wood Co arm rest and side bumper strips - now sold.

MY 15 SD4 SE Auto Orkney Grey with colour coded Bumper Door Mouldings

Steve D wrote:

Okay, okay. How about 'the majority of the UK public that were eligible to vote and actually voted, voted to leave'. That's much more accurate wouldn't you say?

Quote:

Why should you get over it? Because it's going to happen and us voters say you should.

tenet wrote:

Continental Europe may well get a shock if Marie lePen or Geert Wilders get returned later this year.

Quote:

with your UK pension losing its purchasing power.

With a 72.4% voter turnout returning a majority vote of 51.9%, we can reasonably assume that the vote fairly represented the country as a whole.

Funny thing is, had the result been 51.9% for 'Remain' it would have been seen as an incontrovertibly fair and just result by the Remain voters.

Sour grape 🍇 Remainers certainly wouldn't be whinging and whining about how the 51.9% wasn't the majority of the British public or how we should keep having referenda until such time as the vote returns the 'right' result.