That is 100% conspiracy theory.

Just 2 of the Judges have ANY EU responsibilities and they are only on an "ad hoc" basis. Their jobs won't finish after Brexit at all. Their EU function is a tiny part of what they do. As EU members I am actually surprised more of them aren't required to provide support.

Of course there is a Scottish judge. This is a UK court! One is from Wales and another from NI. Do you think they should all be English? I don't think too many in the other countries would be happy about that!

None are "former EU judges" but if they were, so what? They are judges, trained in the law. That's their profession. They are NOT politicians.

So far as I can see only 2 of the current Justices previously served as Law Lords, and whether they were Tory, Labour or independent appointees is totally irrelevant. They are Supreme Court Justices. Not Law Lords with a different name. The other 9 have all been appointed since the Supreme Court was created. So no party affiliations of any kind.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

And they would all be 'wrong' if they did...According to you.
Exactly the response one would expect from a narcissist.

My understanding is that Lady Hale described the 70+ MPs who jumped on the prorogation bandwagon started in Scotland as a ‘cross party group’, however none was a Conservative or a member of the DUP. Most were Labour MPs but few, if any, seem to represent one of its estimated 148 Leave-supporting constituencies.

The size of the chip on leavers’ shoulders about their intelligence is hilarious - have some confidence in your beliefs; why do you need remainers to tell you you’re right?

Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (07 Oct 2019 11.50am)

I have no idea where that idea has come from but it seems like you are whistling in the wind to me.

Firstly, no-one can go directly to the Supreme Court as it is the final court of appeal. You would have to go to the High Court first and then appeal. That takes time.

Secondly, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty having been invoked has already been extended, thus setting a precedent. These are the relevant paragraphs:-

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the
Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of
the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it."

It seems pretty clear to me that the involvement of the EU comes after a request to extend by the Member State and that they have no role in deciding whether, how, when or by whom the member makes a request. After they do the EU takes over and the Member is not involved. Johnson cannot veto his own application.

The Benn Act specifies what must happen in the UK and EU law does not appear to me to have any part to play here.

If I am wrong I would be interested to learn why people think that is the case.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion which has been formed entirely on my comments here, which I suggest is not a particularly accurate way to determine character. I also form opinions on some of the others here, but I try to keep them to myself and concentrate on the posts, and not the poster.

Donald Trump has been accused of being a narcissist and we all have a huge amount of direct visual, oral as well as the written evidence, of his character to help us form our opinions. However, the professional psychologists in the USA refused to confirm it because they say that a clinical examination is needed before any such assessment is possible.

I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions from those remarks as you seem to like to do that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

"properly" = our way = staying in the EU institutions or as close as possible whilst being able to claim that we have left

"properly" = by the will of our elected Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

'No-deal Brexit could spark rise in dogging', cabinet minister warns.

At last a benefit from leave......

As opposed to that wonderful 'Remain' campaign and all that 'Project Fear' hogwash.

Apropos accepting Article 50, this is certainly not the case as far as the 'Lib Dems' are concerned nor the SNP.Labour have repeatedly waffled on about "Respecting the referendum" but will have voted against ANY deal that Mrs May brought to Parliament and will continue to be obstructive as they simply cannot stomach voting for a Conservative agreed deal with the EU.

I think I have spouted enough on this matter on HOL. It has been consuming my life outside this cherished site much to the chagrin of my dear wife who has had enough of my pontificating on this subject,hence I have concentrated on the football debates.I shall now bow out gracefully!