These 11 people will decide if Brexit is going to be triggered

>The Supreme Court will begin a landmark legal hearing on Monday into whether Parliament's consent is required before official Brexit negotiations can begin.
>Its 11 justices will hear a government appeal against last month's High Court ruling that only Parliament has the authority to trigger Article 50.
The event is due to last 4 days and will be streamed live
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38200115
Hold onto your butts.

Other urls found in this thread:

express.co.uk/news/uk/739363/theresa-may-house-of-lords-brexit-appeal-supreme-court-article-50
judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf
supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html
supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Qu6_2hFTw74
youtube.com/watch?v=T6tIf8ZWSFc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>THERESA May has belittled peers in the House of Lords, claiming they will be signing their own “death warrant” if they dare to defy the will of the people by voting not to trigger Article 50.
express.co.uk/news/uk/739363/theresa-may-house-of-lords-brexit-appeal-supreme-court-article-50

Trigger article 50 or trigger 50000 me's

How are these people appointed? Have they been known to be based?

They are all fucking White males!!!!!

Ughh

>these are the people who will pass article 50 so that the political system doesnt collapse completely and so that they aren't killed in the street a la jo cox

This should be interesting. Predictions?

They rule parliament decides. Parliament is much more in favour of the EU and larger agendas for britain, replacing the british that they vote no.

Its a depressing oligarchy we live in now.

i... is Theresa /ourgirl/ ?

>Old white people will decide the future of diversified UK's youth
IM LITERALLY SHAKING RIGHT NOW

Champagne socialist baby boomers you mean. The EU is their club.

>These 11 people
>12 people on your picture

>OLD
>WHITE
>MEN
>[CURRENT YEAR]

Dude there's a woman there, they classed as animals, not people

Apparently the Brits were smart enough to not let the woman decide.

The three high court judges were all remain biased

The result was accepted by the people as binding before the vote, sealed by Cameron's 'referendum not neverendum'

They are chosen by a commision, the positions are for life, they have to be approved by Prime minister. it's not an elected position if that's what you mean.
Top row far right is retired

ive been reading a lot about mudshits in germanistan, united caliphates of england and in swedish cuckland

apparently mudslimes that live in ghettos are so (((integrated))) that they believe 90%+ of the country is muslim

they literally never leave their little shitholes

I live in sheffield at it seems about 40% muslim, despite not even being known for it - so they likely arent wrong for certain areas.

Lord Sumption will save us.

calm down, 2014-6 has been great for you guys, what could go wrong?

>what could go wrong
Oh I don't know Singapore, more of our right, proper and sovereign clay could go independent.

If you'd read the actual high court judgement, you'd note that an advisory note was passed through parliament during voting on the Referendum Act, explicitly stating it's non-binding. See paragraph 107

judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf

Advisory means nothing.
It wasn't brought to the voters attention at the time and is therefore invalid as an argument.

>trigger civil war
Interesting how Brexit and the US election have shone a light on the illusion of democracy.

UK have to trigger article 50 and USA have to step back and let Trump govern or the system collapses. Or maybe they just hope that apathetic goy like to buy nice things more than have any rights or say and will tweet their anger for a few days and then go back to their crappy little lives.

Lol Bongs what ridiculous fucking outfits.

You dont understand how the British legal system works m8. What the voters think is completely irrelevant to the legal decision.

To overly simplify it, whatever parliament does is right and legal and nobody can overule it (kind of, it's more complicated than that). So if Parliament passes an advisory referendum, it's an advisory referendum even if nobody else thinks that.

If parliament is deceived and defrauded into passing an act of parliament it's still a valid act of Parliament (British Railways Board v Pickin)

If parliament takes away someone's property from them without giving them advance notice, even though under Parliamentary standing orders they're meant to give advance notice, it's still a valid act of Parliament. (Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope)

Basically, english legal system when it comes to Parliament, isn't really that fair.

>civil war
>UK

pick one and only one and not more than one

honestly i think greenland is more likely to engage in civil war than this place

To be fair they look like the sorts of old fuddy duddy fruitcakes and loons that tend to vote UKIP so Teresa May will have nothing to worry about.

So, armed with this information why is May so confident?
Is it because it would prove Cameron to have barefaced lied to the people? And the establishment would not allow that to happen?

You are going to watch the court case live, aren't you Sup Forums? Starts in 5 minutes.

supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html

supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

They determine if parliament or gov triggers it, not if it will be triggered at all, twat

Our court system is at least 4 times older than your country, fag.

How long will this take?

Is May confident?

Also it's not necessarily a "barefaced lie" some people have argued it was more practical to make the referendum not legally binding, because that way the government could be more flexible about things like when to trigger article 50.

no way, I can't understand that weird language you guys speak.

HEARING IS STARTING.

supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Legal English is translatable. There are some legalfags in this thread that can help, myself included.

4 days of hearings.

I'd go so far as to claim that a binding referendum is simply impossible in the British constitution. Parliament's authority cannot be infringed on by anything, not even Parliament itself.

It would be politically difficult for MPs to vote against Brexit. As you have demonstrated, most British citizens don't even realise that they're allowed to do that. It could spark civil unrest. But honestly, I think this is part of the reason why she's stalling. She wants to piss off Merkel enough to make her expel Britain. No need for a vote then.

If they say no, they can be voted out?

> She wants to piss off Merkel enough to make her expel Britain.
Will never happen. You cannot be kicked out of the EU legally and Merkel wouldn't do it anyway. She puts up with Greece's obvious trolling just to hold it together.

> Parliament's authority cannot be infringed on by anything, not even Parliament itself.

A binding referendum wouldnt necessarily be an infringement though. By this argument, Parliament giving Ministers the powers to make regulatory legislation is an infringement of Parliamentary power.

The Supreme Court are not elected, they are outside the reach of the public, which is actually a good thing. This is a matter of law, not politics.

The chairing judge was just talking about it.

Government's Attorney General is currently talking. This is a government appeal against the High Court decision which ruled in favour of the people trying to say that Parliament should be able to have a say on Brexit.

>...is about to leave the european union
>EEEEEEEEAUGHG

Already starting great

the time has come

execute order 66

She is the only politician with big enough balls to push the Brexit through, it's her only job and the only reason why she became Prime Minister, because the other Tories are pussies.

I don't think she is for it but it's laudable that she understands that it has to be done. It's more than you can say about like 90% of these globalists.

There are no good choices here. Britain kept the Pound, so it is reasonable to assume that they were always going to leave the E.U. This is just theatre to make it look like we have a healthy democratic system. The E.U. are vermin, but our rulers are not much better. They will still flood the country with foreigners even after Brexit, if it is in their interests.

Trump is the Snake.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qu6_2hFTw74

That is a LOT of white people.

Not sure this is really a fair fight.

Attorney General arguing that he has three points about why the Government has royal prerogative powers (i.e. formerly powers of the monarchy that have fallen to the Government, primarily focused on foreign affairs. Like Executive Powers for you Americans).

The constitutional significance of this case is going to be incredible. The spectre of the royal prerogative being curtailed in some substantial way hangs over this case.

Oh so this vote would be happening even if we voted remain? Yeah right you useful idiot

That picture just screams "underground pedo ring"

But this is a bit different, right? A binding referendum is essentially saying "We, the Parliament, promise to pass the Leave-The-EU-Act". The voter's vote, time passes, Parliament gathers to vote on the act. They are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with their previous promise, they're Parliament.

They don't get to decide. That's what the vote was for.

It wouldn't because if we voted remain there'd be no reason to question the legality of triggering a50 through the executive, because a50 wouldnt be triggered.

I'm not saying it's necessarily moral, just that it's a valid legal question.

Big enough balls=can be sacrificed by her party after she made good on the Brexit promise you mean. She'd never be a PM otherwise

I expect this reaction if they decide in favour.

>oppose Brexit
>accidentally topple the monarchy

excellent

That's not how things are done in the UK. Her competition was pathetic when she took over from Cameron, there will be no sacrifice due to it not being an unpopular vote. The people want article 50 to be triggered.
The only way she will be unpopular is if she fucks it up and we end up with a "soft brexit"

Yeah they cant bind themselves to pass an act. But they could say in the original referendum act, that legal rights or results are automatically granted upon the result of the referendum (i.e. bind the PM to send a letter to the EU triggering a50)

The first post-Brexit years will make her unpopular. Once things have evened out, she'll be replaced. It's quite obvious the tories picked a fringe STOP WATCHING PORN candidate who they'd never run with in a normal general election. In return she gets to be PM. She's old and she will retire comfortably after that.

There is no presumption about the state of Britain's membership, the ruling is whether to enact the outcome of the referendum or if it must go through parliament first. The same ruling could be formatted similarly with a remain vote - should remaining be decided by parliament? This is just comandeering of the best display of democracy in our history.

>>accidentally topple the monarchy

No no, these are powers that over the past few centuries have gradually passed from the monarchy to the executive (the government). What it would be is the Government being slightly weakened in its ability to conduct its affairs without consulting Parliament.

This case isn't about the EU. It's a domestic issue. If it gets appealed again to the European Court of Justice though... then it would be an absolutely humiliating event for the British people.

This.

As soon as this Brexit2 is called,
ENACT ARTICLE FIVE-OOOOO

Book 'em May-o

man on the right of the back row is the team coach

Can the PM do that? Just send a letter? I would have thought that the EU would only accept such a decision coming from the legitimate authority of the country in question, in this case the (Crown-in-) Parliament.

If the government had been allowed to trigger article 50 without a vote being passed in parliament then the floodgates would be open for them or a future government passing any law the want without it going through parliament.

This would create a lot of problems with laws that are likely to be unpopular with large sections of the public. For example in this case it's Brexit and even though the referendum was passed it was passed by a pretty fucking slim majority of less than 2%. If you want it to be passed without problems down the line you NEED parliament to vote for Brexit as well otherwise if it doesn't go 100% well by the next election the Lib Dems will be all "Muh parliament.", "Muh article 50 illegal." at the next election.

The libdems will likely get enough seats based on that to form another coalition and guess what one of their red lines will be. That's right, a referendum to rejoin the EU. If Brexit isn't going as well as hoped that slim majority from the last referendum will topple, even if it is then there will be enough people changing their minds because Cameron is gone now or elderly UKIPers dieing off for the result to be in favour of rejoining.

I'm pretty sure I killed them in Dark Souls 3

Hilarious if we have to go to the european court to ask them if we can leave.

I'm for Brexit but have no issue with them taking it to a vote. I kinda want to see what happens if they jew us.

Only by calling national referendums, the point of parliament is to have a functional government when you cant call a national referendum every time you consider passing a new hand washing act in the nhs.

No you dont understand the legal question at hand. If we had voted remain, then nothing would have changed, there would have been nothing to legally implement at all.

Because we have voted leave we have to trigger article 50.

Article 50 is an international treaty issue, and normally international powers are controlled by the royal prerogative (in the hands of the government).

BUT parliament has the power to remove the royal prerogative or limited it and if Parliament creates law in an area controlled by the prerogative it's their laws that are superior. You cant use the prerogative to undo an act of parliament.

The argument of the respondents is that because of the European Communities Act Theresa May cant use the prerogative, because that would involve the prerogative being used to overule an act of Parliament.

So it's a completely different situation to what would happen if we voted remain.

>If the government had been allowed to trigger article 50 without a vote being passed in parliament then the floodgates would be open for them or a future government passing any law the want without it going through parliament.

Only following a lawful, free-vote referendum. Not like they could just decide one day GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW

Parliament is not the legitimate authority of the UK, it is the legislative body only. The Government deals with foreign policy issues such as our relationship with the EU, as it is with most strong centrally run countries.

It wouldn't be on whether we can leave. It would be a foreign court telling a country how its own constitutional relationship should be working.

>the floodgates would be open for them or a future government passing any law the want without it going through parliament.

Wrong. Government currently implements an absolute fuck load of laws that don't go through parliament. Statutory instruments are the perfect example of this. The country would grind to a halt in days if every law had to go through Parliament.

OTHER COMMON LAW COUNTRIES MENTIONED.

The slim majority was only slim due to waves of misinformation from remain, all insitutions and media shilling for remain, false flags and the huge effect of the british voting for the status quo - without these the desire to leave was likely double points ahead.

I have feeling they are going to go pro brexit.

Watching it now.

Also I find it funny that everyone here seems to have forgotten that Eurosceptics tried to stop the government from signing the Maastricht Treaty in ex parte Rees Mogg.

The judges basically bent the law in that case to make it easier than it normally would be for Rees Mogg to challenge the decision.

>Articel 50 (1) Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

If parliament told Theresa May to do it, it would be within the UK's own constitutional requirements

Really? To me they seem quite pro eu.
Except from Lord Sumpington, I think he's /OurGuy/

Government's solicitor arguing that Royal Prerogative powers are not "relics" or an "anachronism" as claimed in the case of Burma Oil but instead valuable and part of effective government.

In Burma Oil, the government successfully argued that it could requisition land for the greater good (in this case blowing up oil wells in Burma during the Second World War to stop the Japs getting them).

There doesn't need to be any use of a royal prerogative, parliament is designed to represent the will of the people in a functional way. For larger issues the most exact way of doing this is via referendum, it circumvents any need of parliament. Parliament should be irrelevant here, seen as their job is to present britain, which decided it no longer wanted to be part of the union.

Past votes in favour of the union were taken as a given. Strangely this one is such an issue...

There's 12 in the picture. Is one of them a reptilian?

That Daily Mail article is a load of crock. It equates the European Court of Human Rights with the EU when they are completely different institutions.

>Only following a lawful, free-vote referendum. Not like they could just decide one day GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW

Not true. The government can use these same powers to start any war they want or pass any law they want.

This system was also mooted around the time of Gulf War II for Tony Blair to be able to have his fruity little war if Parliament voted against it.

Back right is retired, it's an old pic

If england backs out after a fair vote, I'm not going to stop keking till idk maybe 2025. lol

No they aren't - all EU member states must be part of the human rights convention.

Second submission (legal argument) by the Government is that having the legislature intervene in the sphere of the Royal Prerogative will lead to a need for further clarity on the extent and nature of its exercise, leading to a need for further legislation, that could damage the Government's ability to use the powers.

Third submission, is that the Royal Prerogative is the power of the Sovereign and Parliament has allowed Government to have access to these powers. This goes back to the Bill of Rights in 1689, when Parliament finally gained supreme power over the monarchy.

See the problem here is you're using the word "should" here.

Maybe parliament "should" do this, or the english legal system "should" be like that but it isnt. It just isnt.

Yes but the ECHR isn't EU law. You can't be overuled by an EU court to force you into obeying the ECHR. Someone can be pro-ECHR while being strongly anti-EU.

It's like saying being a democracy is the same as being a member of the EU, because the EU only lets in democracies.

>only one woman
Wat

how unprogressive.

Attorney General's next topic is on Dualism in the United Kingdom's constitution.

The European Court of Human Rights, despite popular misconception, is not the same as the European Court of Justice. They do not have the same jurisdictions.

Baroness Hale is pretty great, but traditionally women have never bothered to make it to the top of the legal tree.

Trust the woman to get confused and slow everything down.
supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
She's got everyone fumbling

>Old bint confused by what page we're looking at

Left your reading glasses at home dear?

That's precisely the point - if our government doesn't act like it should anymore, if knowingly disregards and subverts the will of its people then we have a problem.

To argue legal semantics above all else is short-sighted, it becomes separate and aloof like workers in stalinist russia trying to fix their situation by working legal terms in a system that no longer bothers to connect to them. You might as well just invent your own language and spend your time creating grammar.

Governance ultimately has a point, when it becomes a self-perpetuating machine with its own members and aims then it no longer serves that point.

but their white countries, what wrong with that?

You will be removed from being in the EU if you do not obey the ECHR, or duly punished.

Uneducated moron here:

What is Eadies official position?

Never said they were the same, i said they weren't completely different. They are deeply related to each other.

we need a vote, to see if votes count our not.

youtube.com/watch?v=T6tIf8ZWSFc

>You will be removed from being in the EU if you do not obey the ECHR, or duly punished.

The UK has already ignored at least one ECHR judgement, involving voting rights for prisoners.

Also, you hilariously don't seem to understand that the ECHR also has Belarus and Russia as members. How often do you think they follow human rights law?

>They are deeply related to each other.

Not as much as you seem to think. If you ignore human rights law you will be thrown out of the EU due purely to the public relations fallout. There is no legal mechanism whereby you will be kicked out because of any human rights violation specific to the ECHR. There are only advisory things in EU legislation that say as much.