Who Rules This Country, The Government On The People's Behalf, The Government Who Make The Laws Or The Judges Who's Job It Is To Enforce The Law?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898716/D-Day-Brexit-Britain-s-exit-EU-DELAYED-landmark-court-case-rules-Theresa-start-EU-talks-without-MPs-vote.html

[Zacs-Master]

No one has 'taken it to court'. It has been an independent ruling by 3 high court judges. The Govt you are declaring has gone against the will of the majority are appealing against that decision.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master , //No one has 'taken it to court'. It has been an independent ruling by 3 high court judges.//

Judges don’t act of their own volition.

//Brexit Secretary David Davis told the BBC the result of the EU referendum "must be respected". "Parliament voted by six to one to give the decision to the people, no ifs or buts, and that's why we are appealing this to get on with delivering the best deal for Britain."

But Gina Miller [an investment manager] the lead claimant in bringing the case to the High Court, urged the government to "do the responsible sober thing, which is to do the job we pay them for, to debate all the aspects to do with leaving and then have a vote".//

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37866411

Furthermore, Sajid Javid, said there is a "moral issue" at stake: "It was a clear result, clear instructions were issued... by the British people to their politicians…He said he was not criticising the judges, but the people who brought the case: "This is an attempt to frustrate the will of the British people and it is unacceptable."//

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37866411

As well as serving as a response to your post to Old_Geezer at 06:18, I trust that answers your question to me at 6.07 too.

[fiction-factory]

Well it looks as if an organisation sees that a government is proposing to do something that is illegal/unconstitutional it can take the matter to the High Court - that seems to have happened here. There might be a time on another issue when you are grateful that this safety net exists

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, // There might be a time on another issue when you are grateful that this safety net exists //

This isn't a safety net. It's a blatant attempt to thwart the will of the people.

[fiction-factory]

No- it is about following the law. The law should be changed if we want the government/PM to be able to override the views of parliament

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, // The law should be changed if we want the government/PM to be able to override the views of parliament //

But the government hasn't attempted to override the views of parliament. Parliament voted 6 to 1 to give the decision to the people, no ifs or buts. What's being overridden here is democracy - and that should concern us all.

[fiction-factory]

My no was misleading there- it is a blatant attempt to mess up the process but it is still valid in law to challenge it. The vote was always only ever advisory as was agreed on here again yesterday.
I hope it gets sorted soon and we get on with it but the law can't be overridden

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, //the law can't be overridden //

..but democracy can. A slippery slope.

[Old_Geezer]

The law hadn't been tested to know the situation until someone saw it as a way to cause an issue in what otherwise would be a much smoother process. Since the appeal hasn't been heard we still don't know if this is the law or whether the law has been misinterpreted. It is a valid point that parliament has already discussed Brexit pre-referendum and agreed to go ahead; so there is a good argument that the law has already been complied with. It is Remainers who are unhappy with the result, looking for loopholes, that caused the question of debating it yet again, then rubber stamping it, to be considered.

[anotheoldgit]

If on appeal, this ruling can't be overturned and it is left to Parliament to vote, then the people should be made aware of how their own particular member of Parliament voted, and there should be no 'abstainers' allowed, after all they are paid by us to act on our behalf.

[Kromovaracun]

Everyone seems to be assuming that parliament will be debating Brexit per se.

They might, of course. And the govt may try to push that line in order to shame the opposition into silence. But what would be more important would be a discussion of the terms on which we leave - because that was not on the ballot paper and is something that needs to be figured out by the best-qualified people available.

[naomi24]

Krom, I don’t think the ‘Leavers’ ever considered that there would be ‘terms’. They voted to leave – and that meant ‘leave’, with as we were promised, no 'ifs and buts'. As a result of this we'll all be drowning in 'ifs and buts' - and so will parliament.

[Bertrum]

This is what happens when the minions vote the wrong way and don’t heed the advice on their betters. They are only taking this action in your best interests

[naomi24]

Bertrum, thank you. That makes me feel so much better. ;o)

[Gromit]

I am sick of this will of the people nonsense.

32.1 million people didn't vote to Leave.
17.4 voted Leave.

[naomi24]

Gromit, no doubt you are .... but nevertheless it is the will of the people. Those who didn't take the trouble to vote must be assumed to have been happy to go along with the majority verdict.

[naomi24]

Nice attempt to spin figures, by the way. ;o)

[Gromit]

It is still the will of a MINORITY of the electorate.

[naomi24]

Gromit, And so is the ‘Remain vote – in fact it's an even smaller minority. Let’s put it another way. Of the 46 million who were entitled to vote, only about 16 million voted to remain. Following your line of thinking that means 30 million were happy to ‘Leave’. Whichever way you spin it, Gromit, the majority of the population wants to leave the EU.

[Gromit]

// the majority of the population wants to leave the EU. //

No it doesn't. 17.4 million is not a majority of the population/electorate.