O/T Democracy

[rolymiller]

Lets see what happens at the GE Vaterland. Based on what you are saying, anyone who campaigns for Brexit should walk it. If this proves to be true there may be some substance to your treason argument . I suspect that it won't.

[mikemiller]

Lets see what happens at the GE Vaterland. Based on what you are saying, anyone who campaigns for Brexit should walk it. If this proves to be true there may be some substance to your treason argument . I suspect that it won't.

I'm not for Remain, but I'm not for the Boris "Do whatever I like" plan either... just getting the impression now that he is deliberately burgering up negotiations, and has been from Day One, over several years, just stringing us along... Need a general election now

[BigLadonOS]

Where are you going with this Biglad ? , it's the Supreme Court and that makes everyone accountable and that's something we should be proud of , this isn't 1930's Germany .

I'm a leaver all day long but feck me there's an end of the road and thank your lucky stars the likes of Johnson can't entirely beat everything placed in front of em .

It's the end of the road , accept it mate .

Animal, the separation of powers forbids the civil law to interfere with political law but parliament gave the law the chance to dip it's feet in to political law and therefore breaking the code of the separation of powers. In other words it asked the law to do it's dirty work.

Now once the supreme court were given permission to step in to this arena it made the prorogation a civil law matter and not a political matter.

Parliament makes the laws of the land and the courts uphold those laws. Now that the remoaners have got what they wanted there is no reason to let this continue and will pass a law that will forbid the courts to rule on political matters which the supreme court would have to obey unless they were invited in again.

The 3 judges who said it was a political matter were correct and it should have been left at that but the remoaners did not like that ruling so chose to ignore it and take it to another court.

I know Kerr will confirm this when he gets the chance.

[BigLadonOS]

2 things

1: you srill don't take account of more than a quarter of the electorate not voting at all at the referendum when you talk of treason. The biggest majoriy of the electorate did not want to leave ie the remainers plus non voters against the leavers. I didn't vote myself but I certainly didn't want to leave under the tory party. Maybe others thought the same who didn't vote. If we left even now under the tories I would be pissed off. Then you might say why not vote remain. I didn't want to do that either i wanted more choice. I feel I had a right to a further choice because to me it wasnt a binary option.The referendum was flawed as far as I'm concerned and it could be that a quarter of the electorate agreed with me.

2. The ruling by the supreme court was made at a time when more people are for remain than leave.

Times have changed since the referendum. The referendum was 3 years ago. Things have moved on. Voting intentions have changed. THe world is a different place. It is stupid to base the will of the people now on something that happened 3 years go.

What a load of bollox. So if people did not vote it meant they wanted to stay? How the feck do you jump to that conclusion? How many of them were undecided? How many of them forgot to vote? Nobody on planet earth knows why all those people did not vote but you take it upon yourself to presume they wanted to stay. And you call Boris a liar. Unreal.

[vaterland_miller]

2 things

1: you srill don't take account of more than a quarter of the electorate not voting at all at the referendum when you talk of treason. The biggest majoriy of the electorate did not want to leave ie the remainers plus non voters against the leavers. I didn't vote myself but I certainly didn't want to leave under the tory party. Maybe others thought the same who didn't vote. If we left even now under the tories I would be pissed off. Then you might say why not vote remain. I didn't want to do that either i wanted more choice. I feel I had a right to a further choice because to me it wasnt a binary option.The referendum was flawed as far as I'm concerned and it could be that a quarter of the electorate agreed with me.

2. The ruling by the supreme court was made at a time when more people are for remain than leave.

Times have changed since the referendum. The referendum was 3 years ago. Things have moved on. Voting intentions have changed. THe world is a different place. It is stupid to base the will of the people now on something that happened 3 years go.

Listen to David Starkey's explanation - the link was posted more than once last night. Alternatively, take a quick look at this article in the Spectator that explains why "The Supreme Court’s decision is a constitutional outrage":

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...ional-outrage/


1. It is irrelevant what people who did not vote wanted - that is simply the nature of democracy. We can't just keep having referendums and then ignoring the result until we get one we like. And opinion polls have no place in our constitution.

2. Opinion polls have no place in our ancient constitution. And neither does the "Supreme Court" which is an invention of the Blair government - the House of Lords was our highest court from 1399 to 2009. Just like the House Of Lords, this new court still has no power to overturn primary legislation made by Parliament.

All parliamentary democracies are based on "the will of the people" at some historical point in time - e.g. British elections are held at the most every 5 years - whether or not it is "stupid".

[vaterland_miller]

It is correct that we need a general election mikethemiller but that is being prevented by a parliament that has chosen to implement Brexit - parliament could bring down the government any time they wish but they have chosen not to do that. Consequently the government is Britain's legitimate government and it is in crucial and delicate negotiations with a powerful foreign government - the EU has the power to financially harm the UK and it has stated that it will do that. Deliberately undermining our legitimate government's negotiating position is an act treason. Isn't that obvious?

[KerrAvon]

Did the people who took part in the remain campaign agitate for 25 years to force a referendum?

Raging, my dear chap, you posted this in response to one of my posts, but I think you may have made a mistake and meant it in response to another.

You will recall that you argued that the divison in the country today was all down to Johnson and Gove and I responded:

If taking part in a Leave campaign created division then surely those MPs who took part in the Remain campaign did too?

And if arguing against the May deal created division created division then surely that puts Labour equally into the frame doesn't it? And what of your part? Didn't you argue against the May deal on here and tell us that you were in contact with your MP to urge him to vote against it?

Picking two people from the Leave side and heaping all the blame on them seems illogical and demonstrative of bias, but I am, as always, willing to hear your rationale for doing so.

I'm sure that you must have intended to respond to my post and I am always interested to hear your views and so am happy to re-post for you to give you the opportunity that you clearly indvertently missed. I would also like to ask an additional question if I may? You argue that the divison in the country is down to Gove and Johnson, but what about Corbyn and McDonnell who were trying to secure a referendum as long ago as 2011?

As for your question - how odd! It's hard to see why people who wished to remain in the EU would seek a referendum on the issue isn't it?

[vaterland_miller]

It's not fit for purpose but shutting down parliament given the country is facing its biggest crisis is perfectly fine .

Give over , save the Blair straw man line whilst you are at it .

If parliament considers that our government is "not fit for purpose" they have the power to depose it via a vote of no confidence rather than choosing to undermine it.

I mentioned Blair's lying in relation to the Iraq war simply because of the hypocrisy of the Labour MPs bleating about what they say are our current's PM lies - until Boris drags us into a war by deceit, they need to look at their own record in supporting government lies.

[KerrAvon]

Ask the 11 judges of the supreme court big lad if you don't believe he is...and I guess you know best. Have you got some law qualifications by the way? You can say what you like about Corbyn but he isnt the one at the moment taking us over the precipice deliberately to make a few bob for himself and his pals by the sound of it...and STILL you believe in him! Incredible!

There are no straws to clutch at it is so obvious...

Look up "criminal" in a good dictionary and you will see it defined as a "law breaker". Boris broke the law=criminal. Nowt slanderous about it

Roly, dearest, I fear that you are wrong.

A person is a criminal if he breaks the criminal law. There is no suggestion that Johnson did that in respect of the prorogation. The finding against him was that he had made an improper use of a prerogative power.

It's understandable that the opposition will make much of the Supreme Court's decision, but, on the face of it, the Attorney General advised him that his actions were lawful and three very senior judges in the English High Court agreed with that, which, I think, makes it a little harsh to do so from a ‘he broke the law’ stance. The better point is that his action in proroguing Parliament was quite clearly designed at stopping Parliament exercising its function.

[KerrAvon]

Agree with you Animal. That how I see it roughly. I am happy to come out of the EU but not with an ERG / Farage/Boris agenda.

I'm not sure you are right when you say the new left will duck the fight and they don't want out of it, Corbyn aint no dumpling whatever you think of him. Most serious lefties have always hated the EU.I think we could get quite a lefty brexit if corbyn was to get in with a decent majority eg one that supports workers rights/ environmental protection etc.

I would support this sort of line personally and would be surprised if you didn't with the views you hold put on here.

Rolykins, how do you envisage that a Brexit could deliver support for workers rights/ environmental protection etc.?

Surely the issues that you have highlighted would be for the UK Parliament to determine (as they largely are at the moment) after we leave the EU? Are you suggesting that we leave the EU, but continue to be subject to laws created by it, even though we have no say in making them? Doesn’t that seem a little unwise?