Good Day brexit fans and the Attorney General is telling their majesties the Supreme Court that 'they must not deny the will of the people.' That's outside the Court of course.

So Judges X1 1 Government 0 I think but its all to play for.

All the Judges are fit but Delaney not playing so could be vulnerable on the set-pieces.

Costs to be met by the tax-payer.

Ratings in January by Garth Crooks.

Thanks Steeleye. Have they announced who is on the bench? I think they'll need a solid defence and someone good to cut in from the left to counter the strong right defenders.

Here wig go here wig go here wig go.

Edited by Mapletree (05 Dec 2016 3.35pm)

Why is it different? If Farage said he'd push for another if it was a 52-48 split, why can't others?

In any case, the vote was for a departure, not a destination. Why do you think it's such a bad idea to check on the terms of that exit? Because people may assume the vote was about anti-establishment action, immigration, or strange fears of Turks or being part ofa super-state doesn't hold any water because that wasn't on the ballot.

Given that the campaign was run on the back of preposterous lies don't you think that subverts democracy?

F*ckin' hell the left v right tribalism 'we won, you lost, ner ner ner' is bloody tiresome.

Hold on a minute.... the original referendum in 1975 which resulted in us joining what was the common market was accepted in good grace by those who lost the vote!

Since then the previously innocuous common market has become the EU federal state.

If anything has been achieved by "preposterous lies" then surely that is what has happened to the UK with our enforced membership of the EU. No one in 1975 envisaged 300,000+ EU citizens arriving in the UK each and every year causing such hardship to communities with ghettos, lack of housing, schools, hospitals, etc.

As you said the ballot paper was self explanatory.... you voted to remain or leave.

Leave won this time, so just like in 1975, the losers should suck it up and accept that democracy has determined our departure from the EU.

No legal challenge, no 2nd referendum to ratify terms, no Parliamentary debate.

Brexit means Brexit now is just the same as our joining the common market in 1975 followed the people's voting decision.

I was disappointed in 1975, but I accepted it. Please have the courtesy and respect to accept the country's decision now.

I did say that I wasn't sure a while back, but having given it more thought and chatting with the family I am now convinced that I voted no because....

1, In those days whoever I voted for got beat.
2. My hatred/disdain for Germany and France.
3. My annoyance at De Gaulle's reluctance to let us join previously.

I am 99.9% sure I voted no.

Because the Lib Dems, hence part of their name, have always banged on about accepting democracy.

By saying they will ignore the result of the referendum because it doesn't suit them, has a big whiff of hypocrisy hanging over it.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

'We may be in the gutter, but we are looking at the stars'

Just to irritate H further European governments do ignore referendum results when its too close to call.

If you get a sizeable result like 65-35 60-40 like in 1975 and in the italian poll at the weekend thats far safer grounds.

The voters were asked their opinion 'should' the uk leave or stay that is why it is an advisory referendum and parliament is sovereign.

Not according to Mrs.May tho and her stooges.

It says SHOULD doesn't have to be in parentheses in your case you voted that we should leave.

That was your advice.

I don't think grace comes into it, but I am under the impression that the margin was much wider in 1975. In any case, the vote was for something rather than against it.

That to me makes a bit difference - yes, what the UK voted for in 1975 may have evolved to the EU of today, and some would say that's fair claim for a rview. But the vote was a bit empty - one side said we'll keep things roughly as they are and the other side said we won't.

But they didn't have a clear picture of any alternative. Brexit means Brexit is meaningless when Brexit doesn't mean anything in particular. So it seems reasonable to have a vote on the terms - either via an election or a referendum.

Why do you think the kind of scrutiny and planning for this is a bad idea?

Anyhow, I'm fed up with the language around 'sucking it up' - smacks of triumphalism and bypasses debate about what actually matters.

Not really, there was Labour against the EU, and obviously a lot of Euroskeptic Torys, but I don't remember any Lib Dems being for an exit.

Also, if they have a manifesto that includes 'remaining in the EU' and win a majority at an election, that is a democratic mandate to remain in the EU. A second referendum would arguably be more democratic, but either is democratic.

Its not undemocratic to overturn a referendum, if you do so in a manner that fulfils legal democratic due process. Now I don't agree with the idea, but its not hypocrisy, or wrong or undemocratic.

Hypocrisy is supporting only the democratic processes that you agree with, when they go your way.

And I very much doubt UKIP would have just 'given up and gone home' if they'd lost by a similar margin.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]