"Don't Trigger Article 50, Just Leave" Says Professor Of International Law

I would say the number one reason people voted to leave the EU was to bring an end to freedom of movement, I have no doubt in my mind that this was the key issue, sovereignty and the rest of it is secondary.

No one in their right mind voted for the £350 million that was emblazoned on the side of the leave bus.

There are many in the Labour party that agree with her!!! It's not a party political thing. There are Tories strongly opposed to her plans to exclude them from being able to scrutinise the dealings.

Why should she be allowed to behave in an unconstitutional way? What gives her such great powers? Remember - she was voted into the PM job by zero people, she has not won an election, and she was a Remainer before June 23rd.

Putting the negotiations before Parliament does not mean that Brexit will be stopped. It means that Parliament can scrutinise the plan (if there is one) for leaving the EU with the UK in the strongest position it can be.

ALL MPs? All our democracy requires is a simple majority and that was achieved last night. Your Gina Miller and her multi-million Pound dream team have been wrong-footed by a Prime Minister who is more canny than she is credited.

The case before the Supreme Court has absolutely nothing to do with our negotiating position, simply that Parliament ratifies the result of the Referendum with its own vote. Which, I repeat, it has. But no, the government should not reveal its negotiating position and why should it - the EU isn't going to reveal its position in advance of the talks, is it?

Ah, a response typical of someone who is not prepared to answer others' questions but nevertheless
insists on his being answered. I am not playing that game.

"Cave-in"? Not at all, a sensible tactical manoeuvre to ensure maximum support for tiggering Article 50 which she duly received.

Well, I know a number of sensible and intelligent people who voted purely because of that one issue.

Apologies, I meant the majority of MPs. But, that ALL MPs get the chance to scrutinise the plans.

As for not answering your questions, I merely re-iterated the questions I put earlier. What makes a University lecturer a greater authority on this than the number of practicing lawyers? I think she may have written the majority of that article during break-time.

As for last night's vote - do you think it would have happened if there wasn't a case being sat in the Supreme Courts?

Also, does last night's vote convince you that there isn't a master plan to stop Brexit? It was never in doubt!

I would say they are in a very small minority, I would like to think there will be some spare cash around for the NHS once Brexit is finalised in a few years time

It could do with it now, but the falling tax revenues and the spectre of some major banks leaving Brexit for the Red White and Blue of France negates that somewhat.

I'm looking forward to the time when it is clear which direction the Government is taking us with Brexit.

At the moment the Government is constantly trying to fend off attacks from Labour and the Lib Dems wanting to know about the UKs negotiating position, once the Government makes everything clear then there can be some lively debate, until then its all speculation.

From a personal point of view I want the so called Hard Brexit, you know it makes sense

Before you sneer at her in a style normally associated with the Establishment when confronted with a populist, perhaps you should take the time to find out a little more about her. She is a barrister with Three Stone Chambers having been called to the Bar in 1977. Her Chambers' bio-note states:

"Ingrid Detter de Frankopan is a distinguished international jurist and Lindhagen Professor Emeritus having held the Chair of International Law at Stockholm University. She advises on aspects of public and private international law, on the law of the EU, including the right to leave the organization. She is also an expert on French, German and Italian law as well as on the law of all the Scandinavian countries, and on the Law of International Organisations and on the Law of War. She is a Former Fellow of St. Antony’s College and Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford University. She was Adviser to Pope St. John Paul II between 1984 and 2005 and has been Adviser to various Governments during her long and distinguished career in inter-State conflict resolution.

Ingrid Detter was educated at Lyceum, Stockholm, Sweden & Mon Fertile, Morges, Switzerland; and at the Universities of Stockholm, Oxford, Paris and Turin.

Recently she has attended the Human Rights Sessions on the Convention on Discrimination of Women at the United Nations, New York, and advised the Lord Chancellor Michael Gove on legal aspects of Brexit."

Hardly a chalkboard scratcher as you patronisingly portray her.

Yes.

No.

There is no such thing as "hard" or "soft" Brexit; these are terms coined by Remainers but are meaningless. Brexit means Brexit - as Theresa May finds herself repeating at regular intervals. Brexit means ceasing membership of the single market - otherwise we have to continue to allow uncontrolled migration - and leaving the customs union - otherwise we can not negotiate our own free trade deals with the rest of the world.

I am sure Andrew will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe "soft" Brexit means remaining a member of the single market, remaining a member of the customs union, continuing to pay into the EU coffers but have absolutely no say and no vote - we'd lose our Commissioners and MEPs. That's the "option" Clegg, Farron and their ilk prefer. But it isn't on offer by the EU and won't be, they have made that very clear; but Clegg & Co are selectively deaf when the subject is broached.

I will feel better when the Government confirms what you have stated, no single market and no customs union, then I know we can control our borders.

I for one do not want Britain to be humiliated by the EU when exiting of the EU negotiations begin, I would prefer to get a bad deal than go cap in hand.

Brilliant! Basically, then, there is nothing to negotiate. And, we can just ignore hundreds of years of Parliamentary history and UK constitution and just press on, as your loopy University lecturer believes can happen (but actually can't).

She IS the Establishment.

Which countries in the world actually "control" their borders? People usually quote the Australians (immigration per capita is higher than the UK), and Canada (huge problems with overstayers from America).

The world is a small place now, there will always be a pull for migrants to move from poorer areas to more affluent areas. We should know that better than anyone.

And this my friend is exactly why I voted to leave the EU, I've never been to keen on the riff raff that has turned up on our shores whether they be so called asylum seekers or low skilled workers from the EU.

Like many people I'm all for high skilled immigration (better class of people) that is required for industry and the NHS but dead against swarms of fruit pickers and the like.

I may come across as a bit of a snob but I just have old fashioned values that have done the country proud for many years

No, you are.