The Supreme Court are simply the same Law Lords with a different name with a few dead ones replaced and a couple of judges thrown in. It is simply your opinion that it is all correct. Anyone else may come to the conclusion - as already stated - that the Common Law, applies to the whole country and parliament, despite convoluted attempts to suggest otherwise.
The precedent has been set that there should be an election when the government have a minority and cannot pass legislation. It is also the precedent in Britain that, when parliament fails to work - in this case seemingly cannot work - that a general election is called.
This act or that act does not change this unless the act was designed to allow political stasis for prolonged periods - which seems unlikely.
Any indignation about the supreme court is noted but have a look at who they are yourself. Obviously this won't change your mind but you may even think about it for a moment.

Red and Blue Army!

I almost posted but decided it was tongue in cheek. There is a lot of nonsense made about these Hedge Fund people and their supposed connections.

Simply put they are gamblers always looking for an angle. Of course they are exploiting Brexit for their own ends but if they can make a profit out of Remain they will. It's the unacceptable face of captialsim as someone once said they are short term opportunists who don't give a damn about anyone just the money they can make.

One more point

That was my old employer's director Ted Heath about Tiny Rowland and his company Lonrho

As I have said many times I don't want any more national referendums, on any subject, ever again.

Let me explain though why I think this might fly, despite my own preferences.

I am suggesting that what would be put before the people would end up as a binary choice, but start with 3, with a single transferable vote. Before though we look at that let's look at the simple binary choices that might be offered. They could either be for a "deal" or a "no deal" exit, or "remain" could be substituted for either. With any of them someone is going to be very unhappy. Not include "remain" and almost half the country won't be. Include "remain" and the other half won't be. What does that achieve other than more division?

If all 3 choices are included then if any one of them achieved over 50% then it's game over. That choice wins. Realistically how likely is that? Could you honestly see "no deal" getting 50%? I can't. I also think it extremely unlikely that "remain" would get over the 50% hurdle. It didn't in the first one and I think would decline now. I can though imagine a "deal" option achieving it. Just.

If though there is no overall clear winner then the votes of the option in last place would go to their second preference. What would they be? If that was "remain" then their second choice would be overwhelmingly "deal". If it was "no deal" then it too would be overwhelmingly (probably 100%) "deal". If it was "deal" which came last (which seems very unlikely to me) then it would be split between the other 2, but in my judgement weighted towards "no deal", because of people's desire to get this over.

My conclusion is that we would leave, very probably with a deal, the only one which is acceptable to the EU being the "May" deal, in slightly new clothes.

I think only the DUP and their ERG supporters would argue for "no deal", together with a sidelined Brexit Party. I don't think they would win, but they might.

Including a "remain" would be very unlikely to end up with that succeeding. What it would do is to give everyone the option of a second choice and the route to claiming some kind of mutually agreed compromise.

I am not sure I have explained that very well, but it is a strategic way to bring people together on some common ground.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I get what you are saying and for many it makes sense. However If some politicians currently say that we didn't understand what we voted for in a binary referendum you can bet they or a Gina Miller figure will argue the same in court e.g. I voted to remain not leave with a deal or I voted to leave with no deal not leave with a deal etc. ad nauseam.

And you are correct on your first point any referendum that did not include Remain disenfranchises a huge section of the population and would negate the validity of the vote. Likewise a the option of a Corbyn deal or Remain would have the same impact on Leavers.

I think the option of another referendum wont work, better to have a GE then people can vote for whichever flavour they like.

One more point

But a Remain option immediately strips it of any sense of legitimacy because that option was offered and was rejected. Democracy does not give a loser a second chance before the winning option has been implemented.

On June 23rd I walked up to my polling station in absolute good faith that the result would be implemented. Yes, I accept that referendums are advisory but I also believe that given not only the Government promise that it would carry out the wishes of the people but that almost any and every other major political figure/grouping of the time was in full agreement with that stance then the result would be honoured. But more fool me. Not again. That stunt can be pulled just the once.

A second referendum with Remain on the paper would be farcical and nothing more than the cause of even more bile and spite to pour out of people. Achieves nothing, especially when a GE would follow it anyway with Leave or Remain still firmly at the top of the issues being discussed and/or voted on.

We need a GE. A second referendum with Remain on the paper before that happens merely makes the divide deeper and heaps nothing but harm and pain on this country. Achieves nothing what so ever.

Edited by Matov (01 Oct 2019 8.47pm)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.