It's been puzzling me?

I understand (but don't agree) with the Supreme court's decision that Parliament must have the right to vote before Article 50 is invoked in March by Theresa May.

What I am finding hard to understand (maybe someone can enlighten me) is why, when the Maastrich Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty were both signed, handing over the rights of the British people to the EU and which should have signalled a referendum in both cases, legal challenges were made to the courts to stop it happening and subsequently thrown out.

Could someone tell me then why, when it comes to taking back those same rights, the legal challenges made by such as Gina Miller and the four ridiculous anonymous Europen workers were not thrown out too.

Is it one rule for those in favour of the EU and another for those against it?

It just puzzles me. What was so different with these cases?

Re: It's been puzzling me?

Hi

The thing is this Shroppy.

The Supreme Court decision was not about the Referendum, but the Referendum Act, which did not give the Government the power to write the letter, so Parliament must now give the Government that power.

It is no great shakes, just a very badly worded piece of law written by those who never thought we would vote to leave.

The legislation which took us in was much better written and therefore no challenge was available.

The Supreme Court ruling was actually very helpful to Brexit, it kicked Nicola and her threats into touch.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

Hi

Loads more challenges to come apparently, this is one of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...P=share_btn_fb

Re: It's been puzzling me?

Dublin.??????

Well if he wins does show we have no power.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

In that link they're talking about reversing Brexit.

Have I understood that right?
To me that's not quite the same thing as the recent hoohah dickering over legal procedure and delaying it ... but reversing it.

So much for asking the people want they want.
The people's vote and the people's wishes seem to count for nothing.
I'm getting heartily sick of politicians ..
Come back Nigel you took a backseat far too soon.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

Hi

One of the people leading this is UJ's favourite, Caroline Lucas.

They are taking the case in Dublin, hoping it gets referred upwards, which from Dublin, would be the European Court of Justice.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

You have decided that my wishes and 16 million others count for nothing.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

Here we go again. I often feel like a table tennis ball with the Brexit argument when I post on here now.

I just don't understand your thinking Purwell. Of course your wishes and 16 million others are and were respected. Surely that is why every person eligible to vote was given the opportunity to do so. We all voted and the majority voted to leave the EU. You lost! what can you not understand.

More to the point, why is it that, after the legitimate result of the referendum, and because the vote went against you. you feel that it is permissible for you and MP's of those respective constituencies that supported Remain, the right to dismiss the result and demand an alternative result as if the seventeen and a half million people that won the vote can be ignored. That way lies anarchy!

Our democracy is being abused alright, by those who cannot accept the decision of the people. What a sad state of affairs, and how pathetic. Learn to live with it. We are leaving regardless of the underhanded dirty tricks now being played by those who care little for the democratic ways of this country.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

No I haven't .. that is democracy, you accept the majority vote.
It's more accurate to say that some people, apparently you included, are totally disregarding the majority of voters who voted for Brexit.

Let's face it ... did anyone understand a referendum to mean the losing side would win?
Perhaps if we'd all voted to Remain it'd now be called a landslide victory to Leave.

Re: It's been puzzling me?

Your point is well made Shropshiregirl.

The thing is, the British Constitution very clearly mandates that no-one should ever hand the country or its judiciary over to a foreign power.

Everyone who has participated in the passing of the various EU treaties is therefore guilty of treason as those treaties very much did transfer power and the justice system over to a foreign power (the EU and ECOJ).

The Queen, who should surely be where the buck stops on such treasonous issues, sadly broke her Coronation Oath and failed to stop the treaties. She SHOULD have used her power and right to refuse to give Royal Assent to those treaties given they directly conflicted with the Constitution and undermined it. Unfortunately she didn't.

When the King or Queen of your very country gives royal assent to effectively sell the country down the river to a foreign power and to allow its justice system to be overruled by a foreign justice system then something is VERY VERY wrong.

You have to ask, what then is the purpose of the monarchy? Why is it there? If it refuses to uphold the most simple basic core tenet to preserve the country from foreign powers then should it not be swiftly removed and replaced with a monarchy that WILL defend the country?

The UK should never ever have been taken into the EU. The UK Justice system should never ever have been sold down the river to the European Court Of Justice.

The EU Treaties should simply be completely repealed as being wholly unlawful and at total opposition to the British Constitution that has been in place for 100s of years.

That's all it takes to leave. Repeal the fraudulent treaties.

There then remains the issue of rounding up all the key figures who have had a hand in pushing those treaties through and charging them with treason.

Then the British Constitution needs to be re-established, written and ratified in indisputable law so that this travesty can never again befall this country.