The full judgment in the Scottish case about Article 50 is online:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b35bf9b2c94e01ed255185c

There is an interesting paragraph in the judgment which demonstrates what a shambles we have here regarding the EU's own views and the desperation of anti-Brexit campaigners to ignore democracy:

"On 12 July 2017 the European Commission published a statement that article 50 TEU cannot be unilaterally revoked, stating ""It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for unilateral withdrawal of the notification.""

And still the losers in the EU referendum will use any mechanism, any at all, to try to overturn the vote.

In July 2018, Swansea's Tidal Lagoon was stuck in estuarine mud, going nowhere, but kept afloat by gullible Green money. (Actually gullible Greens authorised to waste other people's money)

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/plans-swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-14952875

I stumbled on this by accident, but it looks like more evidence for the EU being like Hotel California (h/t golf charlie) - "You can check out any time, but you can never leave":

"European Court to rule on whether UK can halt Brexit"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45601394

Anti-Brexit campaigners have been given permission to take their case to Europe's highest court as they seek a ruling on whether it can be halted.

The cross-party group of politicians argue that Article 50 can be revoked if MPs vote to do so.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh had previously rejected their bid to have the case referred to European judges.

But they have now won an appeal, and the European Court of Justice will be asked to give a definitive ruling.

The panel of appeal judges at the Court of Session said the "urgency of the issue" - with the UK due to leave the EU on 29 March - meant its request to the European Court was being done under expedited procedure.The UK government said it was "disappointed" by the decision and was giving it "careful consideration".

But a spokesman stressed that the government remained committed to implementing the result of the EU referendum and "will not be revoking Article 50."

The legal case has been brought by politicians including Scottish Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler and SNP MEP Alyn Smith, who have claimed that Brexit is "not inevitable" and "there is still time to change course".

Welcoming the ruling, Mr Greer said: "If negotiations collapse, as appears to be happening, we have to know that a no deal disaster is not the only option on the table."

The politicians have been joined by lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project, who said the latest ruling was a "bombshell" that could "decide the fate of the nation" and potentially allow the country to "wake up from the nightmare that is this government's Brexit".

Prime Minister Theresa May has admitted that negotiations with the EU have reached an "impasse" after her Brexit plans were rejected at a summit in Salzburg earlier this week.

But in a speech outside Downing Street she insisted that: "Nobody wants a good deal more than me - but I will not overturn the result of the referendum, nor will I break up my country."

The speech was described as "dreadful" by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who claimed Mrs May's so-called Chequers proposals for Brexit were now a "dead duck" and that Brexit "should not happen" if the PM was not going to keep the country in the single market and customs union.

The petitioners argue that the UK should now effectively be allowed to change its mind on Brexit, without needing the permission of the other 27 EU members.

If it is successful, their case could strengthen the hand of any attempt by MPs to keep the UK in the EU after the final details of its departure terms are known.

This is because it would give parliament the power to unilaterally halt Brexit if it feels any final deal - or no deal - is unacceptable, even if the government wants to leave regardless.

Court of Session judge Lord Boyd ruled in June that the case could not go to the European Court in Luxembourg as it was "hypothetical" and did not reflect political reality as it "seems highly unlikely that this government will revoke the notification".

he campaigners appealed against that decision, and on Friday the court ruled in their favour.

The ruling was delivered by Scotland's most senior judge, Lord Carloway, and his colleagues Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young.

The appeal judges said matters had "moved on" since Lord Boyd's original ruling, with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act now setting out how parliamentary approval is to be sought once the negotiations between the UK government and the EU conclude.

Lord Carloway said it was therefore "clear" that MPs at Westminster would be required to vote on any Brexit deal agreed by the EU and the UK government.

He stated: "It seems neither academic nor premature to ask whether it is legally competent to revoke the notification and thus to remain in the EU.

"The matter is uncertain in that it is the subject of a dispute; as this litigation perhaps demonstrates.

"The answer will have the effect of clarifying the options open to MPs in the lead up to what is now an inevitable vote."

The judge also said the European court would not be advising parliament on "what it must or ought to do".

Instead, he said it would be "merely declaring the law as part of its central function", adding that "how parliament chooses to react to that declarator is entirely a matter for that institution".

In their draft reference to the European Court, the judges ask: "Where a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member state?

"And, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the member state remaining within the EU?"

Nick Robinson trying to defend the BBC's coverage of BREXIT and their scaremongering, on the basis of reporting the opinions of experts.

He fails to mention how wrong the BBC's selection of experts has been proved for over 2 years.

The BBC is starting to report "difficulties" with negotiating with the EU, as experienced by May. Is this because the BBC would tather have May as Conservative Prime Minister, than Boris or Jacob?

stewgreen & Tiny, Paul Homewood is onto it:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/tidal-lagoon-left-high-dry-in-cva/

This is his comment:

"As I pointed out previously, Shorrock won’t be the ones who loses out. As Private Eye has reported this week, Shorrock paid just £70 for 25% of the project. Meanwhile he has raked in millions in “service fees”.

The rest of the investors in TLP look likely to kiss goodbye to some £35m."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/21/video-whats-wrong-the-the-surface-temperature-record/

"The head of the UN body that leads on sustainability and green issues has been criticised for extensive and expensive air travel."

Googling Erik Solheim reveals how he has led the Norway and the United Nations when it comes to Green Hypocrisy.

"Erik Solheim (born 18 January 1955 in Oslo, Norway) is a Norwegian diplomat and former politician, and the current Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.[1]"

"Diplomat. Solheim was formerly a politician for the Socialist Left Party (SV); he led its youth branch, the Socialist Youth, from 1977 to 1981, was party secretary from 1981 to 1985, and served as a member of the Parliament of Norway from 1989 to 2001. He was leader of his party from 1987 to 1997. Solheim later expressed his support for the centrist Green Party and was active as a strategic adviser for the party during the 2015 elections.[2][3]"

"Mr. Solheim is currently Chair of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a post he has held since 2013, and is serving as UNEP’s Special Envoy for environment, conflict and disaster. Known as the 'green' politician, he held the combined portfolio of Norway’s Minister of the Environment and International Development from 2007 to 2012, and served as Minister of International Development from 2005 to 2007."

"Having spent most of his career fighting for the environment in national and Global politics, including through non-governmental organizations and during his combined ministerial portfolio, Mr. Solheim has focussed on the challenge of integrating environmental and developmental issues."

From UN Page about Solheim, this:
★Did you know? Every dollar spent restoring degraded forests can result in $30 in economic benefits.★

So if the UN had spent Solheim's $488,000 on restoring forests, instead of aviation fuel, the economic benefit would have been over $14.5million

When Delegates from around the World gather in Katowice for COP 24 with empty suitcases awaiting their stuffing with other people's hard earned cash, eyes will turn to Solheim. He may be in the Maldives of course.