There is an obvious problem with the Davidson coup. There is no Tory seat in Scotland which could be considered safe in a by election save perhaps Mundells.
There is another problem. There is no evidence whatsoever that she is up to the job.
When was the last time the Tories elected or chose a Scot as their leader unless he [ since there were no female Scottish leader ] came from the upper classes ? What will be the reaction of coffee mornings in Chipping Sodbury ?
Probably Ramsey MacDonald, who while technically National Labour, headed a government made up predominantly of Conservative MPs.
IDS was a Scot.
A satisfying use of the past tense.
Less of a Scot than Tony Blair though, Blair was a proper Scot, even the surname Blair couldn't be any more Scottish.
I feel McBlair would be a bit more Scottish.
The most Scottish name I've ever heard of is 'Jocky Scott', apparently he was a football manager
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
I am shortly embarking on a Mediterranean cruise and while I have complimentary time on line it is not always easy to connect
Bon voyage!
Thank you so much
Who are you sailing with?
Princess on Royal Princess - our 9th cruise
Enjoy! Not sure about the glass walkway! (Cantilevered out over the side of the ship 13 decks above the waterline!)
I have always had an ambition to be a ship's captain and standing outside on the bridge high above the water would be something that would give me no problem, so hopefully the cantilever should be fine
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
I thought only the ECJ could decide on whether or not it could be revoked?
Only if one party took it there. I think there was a case in a Dublin court about this which was withdrawn, I believe.
Which would have inevitably gone all the way to the ECJ. The fact is we don't know, but the UK government is acting under the assumption it is not (see Miller).
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
I thought only the ECJ could decide on whether or not it could be revoked?
Only if one party took it there. I think there was a case in a Dublin court about this which was withdrawn, I believe.
Which would have inevitably gone all the way to the ECJ. The fact is we don't know, but the UK government is acting under the assumption it is not (see Miller).
Correct. Unless there is this legal advice which they are not revealing.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Yes, some spinner is still doing their job right. As I've noted before, neither party contested that A50 could not be withdrawn in the Supreme Court case, so that part was never tested ('it is common ground that notice under article 50(2)...cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn'). Though a dissenting justice did state 'taking account of the agreed(albeit possibly controversial) assumption that the article 50(2) notice is irrevocable'. So it is interesting that the wording is left open such that it could be.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Chilcot report finds legal basis for Iraq invasion 'far from satisfactory'
Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.
The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”
The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.
In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.
In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
Apart from the LDs is any party's position to have another vote, in parliament or with the people, on reversing Brexit? I'm interested in the legal question - I presume the answer will be 'possibly' - but if, despite the nature of any progress, or not, it is not at least Labour's position, the advice hardly matters at this stage. Is it Labour's policy?
Also, why would European leaders be worried about not reaching a satisfactory deal? They do not need a deal, we do, we have been told many times, and that they would be happy with no deal if we do not do as they say.
Whilst I wouldn't do anything to stop Brexit, I suspect if we're facing a cliff edge/hard/WTO Brexit I suspect some MPs might wish to pause/stop Brexit.
I imagine they would. Heck, some of us softer leavers might even join them, depending on the situation. But unless it is party policy at some point to change course if the waters become choppy enough, it won't really matter. Labour, as the most likely next government particularly if anyone was suggesting Brexit was going so badly we needed to stop it, would need to be saying they are not prepared to go through with it if it gets too bad, and honestly I'm not sure on any party's position except the LDs (I think).
And of course as noted legal advice is just that, advice. The government, as governments tend to be, was publicly extremely confident about its A50 case, and IIRC Mr Meeks raised very early that plenty of legal experts thought they were wrong, and so it proved (by majority of the court).
Chilcot report finds legal basis for Iraq invasion 'far from satisfactory'
Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.
The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”
The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.
In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.
In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.
Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.
Disquiet has been growing among pro-remain MPs, and within the legal profession and business community, about what is becoming known as the government’s “kamikaze” approach. Ministers insist that stopping Brexit is not an option, as the British people made their decision in last year’s referendum, and the article 50 process is now under way, however damaging the consequences might turn out to be when negotiations are concluded.
Worry about lack of flexibility has intensified following the chaotic Conservative party conference in Manchester, and May’s ill-fated speech. European leaders now doubt whether she has the political authority to move negotiations forward towards a satisfactory deal.
"A DExEU spokesperson said: “We made our position clear in the supreme court. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn. The British people voted to leave the EU and we will deliver on their instruction. There can be no attempts to remain inside the EU and no attempt to rejoin it.” "
Clever statement. It avoids saying that our notification can be withdrawn.
Chilcot report finds legal basis for Iraq invasion 'far from satisfactory'
Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.
The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”
The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.
In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.
In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.
Chilcot report finds legal basis for Iraq invasion 'far from satisfactory'
Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.
The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”
The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.
In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.
In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.
So we don't know, essentially. Just that the confidence with which it was stated it was legal, was not justified?
Yup. International law is murky.
Oh, I thought we were talking about our own law - I've always taken it as a given that international law is, by and large, useless, as noone ever seems to believe they have breached it no matter what they have done. It's probably a case of the effective stuff not getting noticed.
So we don't know, essentially. Just that the confidence with which it was stated it was legal, was not justified?
Yup. International law is murky.
Oh, I thought we were talking about our own law - I've always taken it as a given that international law is, by and large, useless, as noone ever seems to believe they have breached it no matter what they have done. It's probably a case of the effective stuff not getting noticed.
Our own law is murky when it comes to constitutional matters.
What we've done is codified parts of our constitution and left other parts untouched/unexplored.
Just remember prior to The Fixed Term Parliament Act, the principles on whether a monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter written to The Times, under a pseudonym.
So we don't know, essentially. Just that the confidence with which it was stated it was legal, was not justified?
Yup. International law is murky.
Oh, I thought we were talking about our own law - I've always taken it as a given that international law is, by and large, useless, as noone ever seems to believe they have breached it no matter what they have done. It's probably a case of the effective stuff not getting noticed.
Our own law is murky when it comes to constitutional matters.
What we've done is codified parts of our constitution and left other parts untouched/unexplored.
Just remember prior to The Fixed Term Parliament Act, the principles on whether a monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter written to The Times, under a pseudonym.
I am shortly embarking on a Mediterranean cruise and while I have complimentary time on line it is not always easy to connect
Bon voyage!
Thank you so much
Who are you sailing with?
Princess on Royal Princess - our 9th cruise
Enjoy! Not sure about the glass walkway! (Cantilevered out over the side of the ship 13 decks above the waterline!)
I have always had an ambition to be a ship's captain and standing outside on the bridge high above the water would be something that would give me no problem, so hopefully the cantilever should be fine
Have fun Big G! Sure there's life in the old battery yet!
and the correlation between touching pitch and being defiled holds steady at 1.
Are the voters following the government or the government following the voters?
In the end if the Hungarian government - which enjoys huge leads in current polling - and the voters don't want to accept migrants that Germany wanted initially but now doesn't why shouldn't the democratic will prevail?
Comments
http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-supreme-court-article-50-notice-cannot-be-withdrawn-2017-1
Goodnight, everyone ! With the reassuring statement that Brexit is doooooooooooooomed.
Definitely, goodnight now !
I wonder if they got similar advice on APD? titters...
Lord Goldsmith was attorney general to the Labour government at the time of the conflict and provided a legal basis for the invasion, which today’s report said took place before “peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”.
The report stops short of expressing a view on whether military action was legal but in a statement, Sir John Chilcot said: “We have however concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”
The report notes the change in advice given by Lord Goldsmith between February and March of 2003 – from saying that a second United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution was necessary for military action, to the judgement that “on balance” it wasn’t.
In mid-January 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Blair that a further Security Council resolution would be necessary to provide a legal basis for military action. He did not say until the end of February that, while a second resolution would be preferable, a “reasonable case” could be made that it was not, putting this advice in writing on 7 March.
In response to requests for more clarity from the military and the civil service on whether force would be legal, Lord Goldsmith then advised that the “better view” was that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action without a further Security Council resolution.
http://www.legalweek.com/sites/legalweek/2016/07/06/lord-goldsmith-qc-named-as-chilcot-report-finds-legal-basis-for-iraq-invasion-far-from-satisfactory/
And of course as noted legal advice is just that, advice. The government, as governments tend to be, was publicly extremely confident about its A50 case, and IIRC Mr Meeks raised very early that plenty of legal experts thought they were wrong, and so it proved (by majority of the court).
What we've done is codified parts of our constitution and left other parts untouched/unexplored.
Just remember prior to The Fixed Term Parliament Act, the principles on whether a monarch would grant an early election was based on a letter written to The Times, under a pseudonym.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
"As Overdose Deaths Pile Up, a Medical Examiner Quits the Morgue"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/us/drug-overdose-medical-examiner.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
In the end if the Hungarian government - which enjoys huge leads in current polling - and the voters don't want to accept migrants that Germany wanted initially but now doesn't why shouldn't the democratic will prevail?