O/T Democracy

[BigLadonOS]

The courts have always had the right to 'interfere' in executive actions. Look up Judicial Review.

JR is an important tool that gives 'common people' the ability to challenge executive decisions that affect them.

The decision yesterday certainly pushed the envelope on the type of decisions that can be reviewed, but that is to be expected given BoJo's willingness to behave in such an unreasonable and high handed manner.

And have not the remoaners played dirty by doing everything they can to stop Brexit. What about those who were voted in to represent the constituency who voted to leave have hey not played dirty?

It's a joke and no matter what the judges say it is only an opinion they have judged on and not a crime. I do hope you understand that point.

[John2]

And have not the remoaners played dirty by doing everything they can to stop Brexit. What about those who were voted in to represent the constituency who voted to leave have hey not played dirty?

It's a joke and no matter what the judges say it is only an opinion they have judged on and not a crime. I do hope you understand that point.

No more dirty than Rees-Mogg group who voted down a deal to leave the EU. They voted to represent what they believed were their constituent's best interests, such as to get a better deal or a no deal. That's how our representative parliamentary democracy is designed to work. Advisory referendums don't suddenly rip up hundreds of years of democracy because extremist groups can't force through their own way in a highly anti democratic manner (like lying to the queen to shut down parliament so the people's elected representatives cannot have a say).

[KerrAvon]

And have not the remoaners played dirty by doing everything they can to stop Brexit. What about those who were voted in to represent the constituency who voted to leave have hey not played dirty?

It's a joke and no matter what the judges say it is only an opinion they have judged on and not a crime. I do hope you understand that point.

My views on Labour going back on their manifesto promise to respect the outcome of the referendum are well documented.


I am familiar with the difference between an opinion and a crime.

[BigLadonOS]

No more dirty than Rees-Mogg group who voted down a deal to leave the EU. They voted to represent what they believed were their constituent's best interests, such as to get a better deal or a no deal. That's how our representative parliamentary democracy is designed to work. Advisory referendums don't suddenly rip up hundreds of years of democracy because extremist groups can't force through their own way in a highly anti democratic manner (like lying to the queen to shut down parliament so the people's elected representatives cannot have a say).

For a start we were told that this was not a advisory referendum but a once in a lifetime one and that whatever the result it would be implemented. Once article 50 was invoked the law stood at a deal or no deal. The deal Treason May cam back with was a very bad deal and was rightly voted down by a majority of the house on all sides and not just the ERG but in no way let facts get in your way for your very weak and stupid argument. Once the deal was thrown out the law stated we would leave without a deal. The rest as they say is history.

[BigLadonOS]

Funny how these remoaners wanted Parliament back to discuss urgent Brexit matters but all they have done so far is have a dig at Boris. Un ****ing believable.

[KerrAvon]

Another one for you Biggie.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kHue-HaXXzg

[John2]

For a start we were told that this was not a advisory referendum but a once in a lifetime one and that whatever the result it would be implemented. Once article 50 was invoked the law stood at a deal or no deal. The deal Treason May cam back with was a very bad deal and was rightly voted down by a majority of the house on all sides and not just the ERG but in no way let facts get in your way for your very weak and stupid argument. Once the deal was thrown out the law stated we would leave without a deal. The rest as they say is history.

Politicians all said lots of different and contradictory things. Your problem, like so many, is you cherry pick everything thing that reinforces your position and ignore everything that doesn't.

The facts are the referendum was stated as advisory and was legally advisory.

The facts are we live in a parliamentary democracy where parliament decides the laws through centuries of established procedure. You really really wanting something doesn't magically change that.

[gm_gm]

The cost of access to the courts is an entirely different issue, gm. High level litigation has always been a rich man's game, particularly as Legal Aid provision has been progressively cut by governments if every hue for decades, usually under cover of 'fat cat lawyer' stories of the type that Grist seems to have read and likes to bleat along to.

I have seen nothing to suggest that the Court's decision was politically motivated. BoJo pushed the boundaries of reasonable democratic behaviour and the Court pushed back in a manner that we should all be grateful for.

In truth, the courts can't win. Back in the 80s they were accused by the left of making right wing political decisions when they appeared to extend the law on Breach of the Peace during the Miner's strike and upheld Thatcher's ban on unions at GCHQ. I think political animals simply assume bias when they don't get their way

The costs must have been substantial Kerr, the last time I employed the services of a barrister some 15 years it was £450 / hour, and he wasnt particularly quick at getting things done.

...He did offer to buy me lunch from his fees though

[BigLadonOS]

Another one for you Biggie.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kHue-HaXXzg

One back at ya Kerr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmENMZFUU_0

[Shark27]

Politicians all said lots of different and contradictory things. Your problem, like so many, is you cherry pick everything thing that reinforces your position and ignore everything that doesn't.

The facts are the referendum was stated as advisory and was legally advisory.

The facts are we live in a parliamentary democracy where parliament decides the laws through centuries of established procedure. You really really wanting something doesn't magically change that.

Plain and simple fact is that we voted to leave the EU and we haven't.