I dont understand this post. Sturgeon and Miller have always been very clear where they stand - so what do you want them to do ? Bercow has put Parliament before the government - I think that is his job as speaker for the hourse - not speaker for the government Corbyn - maybe you have a point there but dont hold your breath
For a set of judges to initially get it wrong suggests to me it was a closer run thing than the eventual unanimous result.
"The buck stops here". "I'm the one in charge, willing to take the glory and responsibility when things are going well. However, when things start to go wrong, I'll run for cover, shirking from that same responsibility & find myself a 'patsy', or 'fall guy', whether they're willing to be so or not."
I mean they say they were acting in the interests of the public getting the no deal Brexit bill passed. They weren't though. They're remainers prolonging Brexit in the hope that it won't happen.
Yes, I was a bit surprised that the outcome was unanimous, considering the initial decision, but maybe that way there's less chance of criticism. Who knows?
The bill you refer to prevents no deal - it doesnt prevent us leaving with a deal - but in any case their positions are clear (except for Corbyn) Sturgeon is a remainer - she has said she is a remainer, she points out that scotland voted remain and that in the scottish indy ref they were told that they had to vote to stay in the UK if they wanted to remain in Europe. Her position is if the rest of the UK wants to leave she doesnt care as long as they dont take Scotland with them. Miller is clear - she isnt an MP but she supports parliament if Parliament is allowed to do its job she wont intervene No idea what you want from Bercow - he has purely acted to give parliament its say - if Parliament wanted a no deal he wouldnt do anything to stop it His position on leave/Remain is irrelevant as as speaker he is impartial
Didnt the first set of Judges say they werent sure if it was something they should rule on but immediately kicked it upstairs to the Supreme Court because they knew thats where it would end up anyway - more ducking the decision than coming out stongly the other way?
Does it not occur to you that they think that stopping Brexit altogether IS acting in the interests of the public?
I would be happy with a confirmation referendum now we have had 3 years to review everything. I would accept whatever the result was despite believing that the deal that we currently have is the best one for the country.
I'd go along with that too providing it wasn't advisory and it was legally binding and government had to deliver it's outcome.
Will the government or Boris Johnson mount a legal challenge over parts of the Brexit bill. In particular the part about being made to ask the EU for an extension. It's obvious that Parliament won't agree to anything the Prime Minister puts forward. However, party leaders aren't going to vote for a GE until assurances over not leaving without a deal are made. I thought bill assured them of this already unless I've missed something. Is the bill likely to fall to a legal challenge? Is that why Sturgeon and Corbyn are getting their knickers in a knot?
Would the price of Welsh or New Zealand lamb go up or down when the country leaves the eu? I hope it’s down, I love lamb me