A fair point. But we had a vote on June 23rd 2016. A simple question. Two options. Leave or Remain. And more people voted for the former than the later.

I believe passionately that has to be acted upon. That failure to do so puts everything at risk that I have been bought up to believe in as sacrosanct in terms of how this country is run.

That voting is crucial. That votes have to count and that if you lose, you wipe your mouth and move on.

And to see that mocked and belittled by people such as yourself does enrage me in a way that very little else ever has because you want me to vote again because you did not like the outcome.

If it is madness to believe that 52 is a larger percentage than 48 then I wear the label with pride. And will do so to my dying day.

And deep down, I genuinely believe that most Remainers, if they were completely honest, believe me. That actually it is them that have lost all reason and rationale. Because what you want is simply beyond logical comprehension. You are willing to smash the most basic principles upon which our system of Governance is based.

But they have lost their s***. Become so wrapped up in this ludicrous notion of European Citizenship that they have thrown any semblance of logical thought out of the window.

Do you really have that much trouble with the truth?

For what I wrote is not just an opinion. It's the truth. All of it is out in plain sight in the public domain. Mrs Miller has no connection anymore to "Best for Britain" who are not involved in her court case.

A fair point. But we had a vote on June 23rd 2016. A simple question. Two options. Leave or Remain. And more people voted for the former than the later.

They did. It was a question which with hindsight was too simple. 3 years have since passed during which time it has become clear that such a question could not be answered with a straight, yes or no. It's Parliament's task to decide the how we leave and so far, they have not found a way they can accept.

I believe passionately that has to be acted upon. That failure to do so puts everything at risk that I have been bought up to believe in as sacrosanct in terms of how this country is run.

In that you are 100% wrong. We don't do things via a direct democracy. We do things via a representative democracy. One that undertook to respect the result but also one that can change their mind, if they believe to do is right. What you, or I, believe passionately is irrelevant.

That voting is crucial. That votes have to count and that if you lose, you wipe your mouth and move on.

In a GE, yes. In a referendum, no

And to see that mocked and belittled by people such as yourself does enrage me in a way that very little else ever has because you want me to vote again because you did not like the outcome.

We ought always to vote in a GE. That's our democratic duty. Referendums less so.

If it is madness to believe that 52 is a larger percentage than 48 then I wear the label with pride. And will do so to my dying day.

What's the point? If it was 99% and 1% and it was still impossible for Parliament to agree how to proceed then the same situation would apply.

And deep down, I genuinely believe that most Remainers, if they were completely honest, believe me. That actually it is them that have lost all reason and rationale. Because what you want is simply beyond logical comprehension. You are willing to smash the most basic principles upon which our system of Governance is based.

That's just hyperbole. Those fighting this don't all do because they want to remain. Some want to put that option back on the table now the electorate have had more time to consider and more information to use but most are just concerned to avoid unnecessary harm and protect British democracy.

But they have lost their s***. Become so wrapped up in this ludicrous notion of European Citizenship that they have thrown any semblance of logical thought out of the window.

More hyperbole.

Excellent post again Matov.

That's a matter of opinion.

If the Supreme Court finds against Boris they will have to explain what law he has broken, there isn't one.

You can be very confident that they will do just that.

This is a matter of parliamentary procedure, conventions and privilege. I have no doubt that Boris' actions were to suit his agenda and I am sure that every PM before him did the same thing.

That is a neat summary of the government argument. Whether it is accepted remains to be seen.

It seems that the key argument against him is what if a PM prorogued parliament indefinitely?

It's certainly one of the arguments but the key one seems to me whether this is a matter for the Courts to determine. I thought the advocate speaking for Mrs Miller yesterday put a powerful case as to why it is, and the whispers appear to be that at the moment the Court agrees with him. Never forget that we have only had the Supreme Court for less than 10 years and there has not been a controversial prorogation since then. We are in uncharted territory. It's really important stuff. Time will tell.

The answer is that parliament had the opportunity to stop this they could have called for a vote of no confidence or even passed a bill they didn't. Instead of Parliament sorting this mess out they have run to the courts for recourse.

That's another argument but one that is easily countered by the fact that time was short and they had the need to get through even more pressing legislation without trying to pass additional laws designed to stop the PM from prorogation which would then no doubt be subject to legal hurdles too.

I hope that the SC uses it's common sense and doesn't get involved. If it does be ready for further legal actions in years to come.

I hope they do because our democracy depends on them doing so and I think they realise that.

Assuming the action fails that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I would hope that in the future when sanity returns to parliament they look at executive privilege and also the fixed term parliament act.

These is a case for putting restrictions on the PM but not this way, constitutional changes need to be thought through. I give you the fixed term parliament act as an example of bad legislation. It now means we have a government that can't govern and an opposition that won't or can't govern and a parliament that won't agree to a GE.

You may be right. I don't think the Court will act in any way which attempts to over-ride the legislature. It may well issue some comments and even perhaps an injunction but leave the door open for Parliament to walk through.

Way to go MP's.

Are you of the belief that all left leaning people voted remain and all right leaning voted to leave.

British PM Johnson ‘only recently realised full meaning of single market’ for the first time.

Boris Johnson is said by an EU official to have “slumped in his chair” at a lunch in Luxembourg on Monday when the reality of how difficult it would be to strike a Brexit deal dawned on him.

One official said Mr Johnson had a “penny-dropping” moment when he was told that replacing the Irish backstop would not prevent customs checks that cross the border with Ireland.