44 Comments

1. 

   @CharlieVane21

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   Gina's supreme court cases made Brexit possible. No one more than her made possible the Brexit that we have today. Quite an incredible journey.

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   @matthewmccallion3311

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   4:16 That's wrong (or at best, very very misleading). You're presenting it as if it was the one, single court case that started in England and was appealed to the court in Scotland. That is not true at all. There were two separate cases: one in England (Miller v Prime Minister, aka the "Miller No. 2" case) which was dismissed by the High Court of England and Wales then appealed directly to the UK Supreme Court ("leapfrogging" over the Court of Appeal of England and Wales due to the urgency of the case); and a different one in Scotland (Cherry v Lord Advocate, aka the "Cherry" case) which was dismissed by the Outer House of the Court of Session (basically the Scottish equivalent of the English High Court for non-criminal cases) on the grounds that it was a political matter (same reasoning as the English High Court) then appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the English Court of Appeal for non-criminal cases) which allowed the appeal and held that the Prorogation was unlawful. The government then appealed the Cherry case to the UK Supreme Court. The Miller No. 2 case and the Cherry case were then both heard by the UK Supreme Court at the same time.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   @brexitnow5398

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   The Courts are being reduced to a laughing stock by all these remainer plots….Especially after the prorogue case which was not even exploited by the remainers once they had won it and was a waste of the Courts and everybody's time…..The Judges would be wise to retain the respect for the Courts by the people by just dismissing these cases brought about by remainers who claim to be doing it for the sake of parliamentary democracy whereas they are actually doing it to undermine democracy by the people whist extolling the virtues of a second referendum while not even honouring the first one which is a ridiculous farce….The Courts should look at the actual reasons these remainers are bringing these cases and assess their merits on that basis and dismiss them as political not justiciable…as it is clearly all based on a lie from the start and does not originate from an honest or honourable pleading….!!!

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   @lunes-1

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   Explained:Brexit were based in lies by the Government so a Fresh Brexit Referendum👍

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   @tanyachou4474

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   In light of the new ruling, and we have another video now ?

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   @SinuousStudios

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   I could really do with a TLDR on the UK Supreme Court as I know more about the US Supreme Court then the UK’s.

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   @eanelson20001

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   1. Courts determine intent all the time.
   2. The Supreme Court likewise had no trouble.
   3. It would seem to me if a narrow margin voted for something without full disclosure of its full costs and collateral consequences, even to the point of having misinformation about the benefits of "leave" why not put before the electorate with the choices of "do it this way, do it that way, or don't do it at this cost we were told it free or would be a windfall"? A decision is only as strong as its data. It seems a premature decision was pushed and now no one wants the political cost of executing it except Steve Bannon cronies.

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   @sarahcousins4258

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   TLDR, Please can you make some videos explaining the policies of the main parties. Including lib Dems and greens?

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   @evannibbe9375

   January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

   The best way for the U.K. Supreme Court to resolve the crisis at hand is to call a Constitutional convention of say 100 people elected on open ticket proportional voting and 100 people from 100 districts with the same number of people in each that are programmatically as close to squares as possible with the Queen choosing who may speak and for how long each delegate may speak among those who stand up. Those delegates are then required to have a closed session where they shall write a proper Constitution which shall be voted on by the people. If it is rejected, then restart the process from the point of voting in the delegates as above. This shall continue until the people ratify the proper Constitution.
   If the U.K. Supreme Court doesn’t do this and instead tries to resolve the issue at hand, they will cause an indefinite crisis that could result in future authoritarian tendencies.

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    @davidsheppard6786

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    the more the people with power try to resist the will of the people the more they create shackles to restrict the people with power in the future. You are making your own bed of nails for tomorrow simple because you dont like what the common people asked for.

    Log in to Reply
11. 

    @gnomiovi

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    its powers… not it's powers

    Log in to Reply
12. 

    @waplington

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    They're elected to represent all the people, not just those who voted for them. The actual percentage of the population that voted Brexit is small with varying beliefs of what Brexit would be. A no deal Brexit is not the will of the people and parliament knows it

    Log in to Reply
13. 

    @lennyw99

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Boris’s real intention was always obvious. He and his supporters incriminate themselves in almost every interview when they link the suspension of parliament with the need to leave the EU. They deliberately planned to deny parliamentary scrutiny of their plan to drag the U.K. out of the EU “do or die”. Half the country went out on the streets protesting against the “coup” so it becomes hard to deny it… and remember even Boris’ brother Jo couldn’t stand by him. Roll on the Supreme Court judgement. Let’s hope they save our representative democracy from the mob rule “will of the people” hysteria whipped up by the Brextremists.

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    @AngloSaxon449

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Parliament should only be open on the 31st of February

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    @dave-in-nj9393

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Seems the house of lords can be like the US senate, bought and paid for and do whatever they like and ignore the will of the people.
    the left in the US used to day 'follow the money' that was until they began to have a majority, now, when we in the US 'follow the money' the billions paid for political power comes from foreigners. Those getting it like the Clinton Foundation, get billions and then have ambassadors killed, or hand over hundreds of millions in cash to terrorists or pay to have foreigners make up fake reports to try to overthrow the president of the other party.

    the best video here would be to 'follow the money'. what members of parliament are getting paid to keep the billions flowing out of Brittan ? as I understand, there is basically a cash payment every month of hundreds of millions that is just given to the EU for no actual use. the EU skims off the top, pays the Parliament to keep the money flowing, skims more for themselves, then in the tradition of the US democrats, creates programs that gives the poor a few pennies to get them to vote to keep the money flowing.
    Brittan can sign a treaty with the EU, do all the same trade stuff, keep the money, and keep themselves in self governed.
    does anyone remember WWII ? Brittan stood alone and freed the EU under the jack boot of a guy with a mustache.
    today, the EU is one step away from a coup, just as the USA and the dems are trying to pull of today.

    Log in to Reply
16. 

    @victor_venema

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    The referendum was advisory. The reason the UK is in this mess is what the parliament and government are doing. Your argument that prorogation is justified to execute the will of the people against parliament is thus not a legal argument, but a (bad) political argument.

    Log in to Reply
17. 

    @andreajosvai7435

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Britain has become a shithoooooole

    Log in to Reply
18. 

    @jordanjonwillett

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Once you get out of the London bubble, people just think the whole Brexit mess Is a big f**king joke.

    Log in to Reply
19. 

    @mccaboy

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    have been debating Brexit for 3 years now. ad nauseam. prorogue is the way

    Log in to Reply
20. 

    @theoddsbeater9671

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    The case itself has nothing to do with Brexit, it's about whether Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament illegally or not. Establishing the motive may involve the word Brexit.

    Log in to Reply
21. 

    @Destroyer83

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    "Now you might say that back and forth between courts, that disagreement, might have sounded quite interesting. So to prevent you from getting too excited, let's dive back into the books, and explain why this fight is actually happening." What's more exciting than diving into ancient judicial rulings and conventions? Not a lot, I can tell you.

    Log in to Reply
22. 

    @majesticspaceduck876

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Proceeeeedures

    Log in to Reply
23. 

    @thesunexpress

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    I can't wait for Dennis Skinner's commentary vis-a-vis the Queen's speech this year.

    Log in to Reply
24. 

    @ProfezorSnayp

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Brexit is like a bad Hollywood movie:

    "Big Trouble in Little Britain"

    Log in to Reply
25. 

    @ericedwards3055

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Im in Orlando FL. Thank you for helping me stay educated. Much more civil and interesting than our politics here.

    Log in to Reply
26. 

    @vinily93

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    there are no limits of smt that doesnt exist, remainer MPs are doing everything against the will of the people, they should be shut down and democracy should be ruled in favor of what people chose.

    Log in to Reply
27. 

    @vinily93

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Can we have "friends" series intro?

    Log in to Reply
28. 

    @braingain1

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    As a
    lawyer predict court will not intervene

    Log in to Reply
29. 

    @lawrenceholst3808

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    I’m very fortunate!

    Log in to Reply
30. 

    @grimTales1

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    5:10 Lord Panic
    lol

    Log in to Reply
31. 

    @TheShootist

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    every answer to BREXIT is simple. Do what the voters said do. Simple.

    Log in to Reply
32. 

    @davidmelling9714

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Simple answer. General Election. Let the electorate decide.

    Log in to Reply
33. 

    @sheilabutterworth1418

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    There bk on the 14 th anyway. My god. Must have money to burn. Corruption. Tax Haven,s. Well off. V. Not so well Off.

    Log in to Reply
34. 

    @PG-wz7by

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    I think you spelled Whether incorrectly. Just saying since this is journalism.

    Log in to Reply
35. 

    @carlosmiranda2005

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Enjoy your staying in continental Europe. Just let me know if you need any info about Pt.

    Log in to Reply
36. 

    @Slarti

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    You missed out the fact that Parliament was going to close for most of the prorogation period before Johnson prorogued Parliament. Johnson only added around 5 days to the time Parliament would be closed for conference season.

    Log in to Reply
37. 

    @TheGameZone12344

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Wait, you’re proroguing this channel to go to Italy and Portugal?

    Log in to Reply
38. 

    @richardfbarber1815

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    A lesson in how to tear up the constitution in one easy lesson! England needs parity as Ireland, Scotland and Wales we don't have the separate same individual constitutional right as they have.

    Log in to Reply
39. 

    @dissonantiacognitiva7438

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    The government is accountable to the people and so is parliament
    Nobody is talking about parliaments lack of accountability
    Why by-elections should be immediately triggered when MPs jump ship

    Log in to Reply
40. 

    @michaelmouse4024

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    It's a simple issue. Brexit is a heavily primed minefield with HE & Anti-Personnel items, IED etc. Boris Johnson, dressed as a clown, stands on one end of it asking 'the people' at the other end to run towards him. Juncker, Macron et al ask him if he's got a map and if he's given a copy to 'the people' and does he understand what he's doing? Johnson says he has, when he hasn't, is completely in charge and that it's only a short way across and that anyway we have the blitz spirit [ a bit like 'Remember the Alamo' ] and we should just 'be positive'… BOOM! Think positive… BOOM! Remember Dunkirk!… After Brexit the UK will resemble Hiroshima but after the bomb, or Berlin 1945 [ filled with looting mobs and blackmarketeer Spivs and starving children ], which is good apparently because the British People enjoy WW2 imagery.

    Log in to Reply
41. 

    @fairfourman6194

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    The part where you said "Direct democracy isn't all that common in the UK" so casually…

    Log in to Reply
42. 

    @altrag

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    There's a bit of a fine line parliament gets to walk though — "in the interest of the people" is not always the same as "what the people want." An drunk may want another beer even though they can barely stand, but its not really in their interest.
    Whether or not Brexit is actually in the interest of the people is a whole other question of course (especially with all the concern about the likes of Johnson and Farage having misled the public.) Most economists believe the answer to that is "no" — especially a no-deal Brexit — but only time will be able to tell for sure whether it will harm or benefit anyone (well, other than those who don't care about anything other than pure xenophobia — any Brexit is a win for them and the harder the better food and medical supplies be damned.)

    Log in to Reply
43. 

    @sirbarringtonwomblembe4098

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    Correction – the 'electorate' did not vote for Brexit; only 37% did so. My point is that no other advanced democracy would permit a major constitutional change without a qualified majority requirement, e.g. 2/3 of the turnout, or 1/2+ of the electorate; whichever is the lower in absolute numbers. So, eg, 2/3 of 2/3 is 4/9 of the electorate – 44.4%. Leave fell well short of this.

    Log in to Reply
44. 

    @tonydecastro6340

    January 1, 2024 at 10:58 am

    not quite accurate. the referendum became valid because Parliament ruled to accept it and therefore triggered Article 50. Parliament could have chosen to take the referendum as advisory, not as law. still, the issue is what kind of brexit was intended by the electorate. Johnson wants it to mean "NO DEAL BREXIT", something which is highly questionable and something RULED OUT by Parliament. so it will not do to equate Parliament and the referendum, as if they were competing authorities. no, the referendeum became authoritative because Parliament accepted it and declared it binding on itself. could Parliament go back on that? theoretically, yes. could Parliament determine what kind of brexit is required? again, yes, because the referendum did not specify what kind of brexit the electorate supported. could Parliament call another referencum? in principle, again yes. for as long as it is not the exact alternatives posed in the last referendum. the second referendum could be more specific: here are the available brexit alternatives: choose. in any case, the UK Supreme Court should I think accept that this is a justiciable case. and if it says yes, it can then go on to pronounce its judgment about whether Johnson acted lawfully when he prorogued Parliament or whether he was deceptive and therefore gave bad advice to the Queen.

    Log in to Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment Login