Thomas Cook wasn't in best condition before Brexit for sure. I mean, it had already narrowly avoided bankruptcy 10 years ago. But things were looking up after that until Brexit, which devaluated the british pound, and as a result, made travels more expensive for British people, their main customers, which in turn traveled less than before. The debt it racked up in the past finally was getting too much as the income dried up to pay that debt.

Because Thomas Cook wasn't sustainable anymore like this. The 200M would only have kicked the problem down the road (and only saved a part of the company btw). So rather to have to bail out over and over and over again, they chose to end it here and now.

https://edition.cnn.com/uk/live-news/boris-johnson-supreme-court-ruling-dle-intl/index.html

Hahahaha

This is the end for Boris Johnson. 

Just to keep track of things: Did he win any vote yet?

I think 99% of politicians would resign under these circumstances. Unfortunately we seem to have gone the same route as the US and have the most shameless man in politics in our highest position...

I have no idea what he'll do but I'd be surprised if he does the decent thing...

This means that the judges made a political decision and that means that future UK governments WILL have to care about WHOM are sitting among the supreme court justices ...

No two ways about it ...

Can they even do so like in the US?

After all, they are appointed by the Queen and the Lord Chancellor, also appointed by the Queen, has the last word on it.

Also, I don't see the supreme court becoming nearly as partisan as the american one.

Thats just it.... The prime minster isnt the people's, hes the queen's.
Brits are still subjects, under the queens rule.

It gets odd once you think about how they dont even have a majority, and the Prime minster broke the law, to try and force a outcome.

US democracy isnt fantastic either.
Super voters? (ei. not every vote/voice counts equal?), The moveing of border lines to effect votes, when the vote is held (in order to effect outcomes), the fact that only winners count towards the totals ect.
Like in most other reasonable democacy's its just the popular vote = winner. 
US has odd rules, that make the entire thing slightly less fair imo.

Donal Trump had less votes overall than Hillary.
Yet hes the president.

Back to the UK:  Boris shouldnt even be Prime minster, once he lost the support for a majority, they should have found a new one.
How can you have a democacy where you dont even follow the simple rule of "majority = leads"?

---------------------------------------------------

Then theres this (slightly improvised):

Mrs. May : We want a Unicorn.
EU 27 : Unicorns don't exist. You can have a mule.
Mrs. May : We want atleast a pony.
EU 27 : OK, you can have your pony.

Parliament rejects the pony. Mrs. May resigns.

Boris Johnson : We rejected the pony. We want a Unicorn.
EU 27 : Tell us where we can find Unicorns and how to get there. We will find one for you.

After a while.

UK : We are discussing how to catch a Unicorn.
EU 27 : No, we are not discussing that. We are still waiting for the map of the place where Unicorns exist and the route to get there. If we don't have that map and route soon, you won't get your Unicorn.

UK : This is all political posturing from the EU 27. We will get our Unicorn. We are almost there.

Brexit is a joke.

Yes, there is a way to actually politically influence the British judiciary ... 

The Lord Chancellor is appointed by the queen on the advice of the Prime Minister itself!

The Lord Chancellor can theoretically just simply deny approving court justices from the selection committee until it can hit a justice they would prefer to appoint which could be a brexiteer justice. If you think courts can get away with appearing as being impartial then that is simply not true because there is bias in every human conscience which does not preclude political bias as well ... 

Seeing as how the UK doesn't have a codified constitution, supreme court justices in Britain arguably have more power than their American counterparts since they can write the constitution itself (more powerful than even the parliament) so it's far more worth it to put their selection under political pressure than it is in America even if their term limit ends at the age of 70! 

Just have to wait for old farts like Lady Hale for their mandatory retirement and then someone can stack the courts in their favour so that we can wait for the day of just 'when' to challenge the european communities act as being 'unlawful', haha ...

To give some insight on the financial situation TC's approach is a combination of higher ups still taking bonuses when the business plan has fallen through, what TC started doing was that the higher ups began receiving huge bonuses that began to eat into profits they tried to offset this by using the earnings of holidays from following years. The problem is things began to get inconsistent year by year as far as holiday makers go with newer companies bringing fierce competition as well as other factors so as the years went on the lower profits in a following year weren't making up for the prior year all the while the higher ups were still taking these banker like bonuses until as seen it all reached a dead end.

Bailing them out would have just had TC continue doing the same leading to the problem resurfacing again as their business plan was out of date and needed rethinking, ironically what has given a light at the end of the tunnel here is a EU ruling that will see people refunded or returned home but it's still a massive task had Brexit already happened especially with no deal the situation would be far more chaotic and would cost even more to bail them out.