BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Why "The Will of the People" is simply bowlocks:

“will of the people” is seriously flawed.
Here are some figures which might help put things in focus:

1. UK Population at time of the EU Referendum: 65.64m = the Populace

2. Of which Electorate with the right to vote: 46.5m = the People

3. The Electorate voting Leave: 17.41m = the Leavers (37.44 per cent)

4. The Electorate voting Remain: 16.14 m = the Remainers (34.71 per cent)

5. The Electorate not voting: 12.95m = the Abstainers (27.85 per cent)

Thus: 62.56 per cent of the Electorate did not vote Leave.

Which is bleedin' obvious really.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...

Just thought I would point out that the situation we are in was voted for by a minority of the electorate who didn't know what they were voting for.

That exactly fits the definition of stupid as demonstrated by the last 39 months of stupidity.

This comes up time and again but as Stevo patiently points out, if you don't vote your opinion can't be counted can it?

Plus an Act of Parliament

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/20 ... rawal.html

Democracy. Not perfect but better than the alternatives eh?

Longshot

This is ridiculous. Forget Brexit for a moment and think about this rationally.

The SC (and legal system) is independent (in part) to protect "The People" from the Government of the day, just in case they try to enact something that is not in The People's best interests. Otherwise, a Government could pass any ridiculous laws if they have a sufficient majority and loyalty amongst their MPs.

An example would be that they decide to lengthen the term that a Government can sit in power to, say, 100 years. Actually, they can't just do that (unless I've missed a change) because the House of Lords have a specific veto over this. They could however abolish the HOL (which would not be a hugely unpopular move) in order to stop the veto and then give themselves long term control.

Would you want that? Assume it's the party you don't vote for that do it.

Private citizens have the right to bring actions to the Courts in order to test whether such moves are permissable under law and we must protect this right. Absolutely.

If you are a supporter of Brexit, are you pissed off with the SC result? Yes? OK, I understand that and would feel similarly disappointed in your shoes BUT let's not lose sight of the woods for the trees here. Regardless of your views on Brexit, BJ and co are slippery individuals and the last thing we need is them having complete freedom to do whatever they want. Your views may coincide with them on Brexit, but they are looking out for their own and I doubt that many, if any, of us on here fall into that category.

bianchimoon

Robert88 wrote:

Why "The Will of the People" is simply bowlocks:

“will of the people” is seriously flawed.
Here are some figures which might help put things in focus:

1. UK Population at time of the EU Referendum: 65.64m = the Populace

2. Of which Electorate with the right to vote: 46.5m = the People

3. The Electorate voting Leave: 17.41m = the Leavers (37.44 per cent)

4. The Electorate voting Remain: 16.14 m = the Remainers (34.71 per cent)

5. The Electorate not voting: 12.95m = the Abstainers (27.85 per cent)

Thus: 62.56 per cent of the Electorate did not vote Leave.

Which is bleedin' obvious really.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

And the clown PM wants to give 37.44% - 100% of the spoils

ballysmate

Longshot wrote:

This is ridiculous. Forget Brexit for a moment and think about this rationally.

The SC (and legal system) is independent (in part) to protect "The People" from the Government of the day, just in case they try to enact something that is not in The People's best interests. Otherwise, a Government could pass any ridiculous laws if they have a sufficient majority and loyalty amongst their MPs.

So the court gets to decide what is in the People's best interest? Why bother with elections, let's just get a few tame judges to run things.
Sometimes governments pass poor laws or laws that I don't like or agree with, but, living in a democracy, I accept that.

An example would be that they decide to lengthen the term that a Government can sit in power to, say, 100 years. Actually, they can't just do that (unless I've missed a change) because the House of Lords have a specific veto over this. They could however abolish the HOL (which would not be a hugely unpopular move) in order to stop the veto and then give themselves long term control.

Not even going to bother replying to something you yourself state could not happen

Would you want that? Assume it's the party you don't vote for that do it.

Private citizens have the right to bring actions to the Courts in order to test whether such moves are permissable under law and we must protect this right. Absolutely.

"Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional."

So here we have a court deciding for Parliament what is important enough so that proroguing is unlawful. That is for Parliament to decide surely?

If you are a supporter of Brexit, are you pissed off with the SC result? Yes? OK, I understand that and would feel similarly disappointed in your shoes BUT let's not lose sight of the woods for the trees here. Regardless of your views on Brexit, BJ and co are slippery individuals and the last thing we need is them having complete freedom to do whatever they want. Your views may coincide with them on Brexit, but they are looking out for their own and I doubt that many, if any, of us on here fall into that category.
I voted Remain and as I have stated, would not change my vote. If BJ is a slippery character and Parliament doesn't want them to have complete freedom, it should have done its job and held the government to account with the tools given to it by the constitution.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.

If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.

If they are sitting.

Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Article 9 is part of an Act of Parliament. It has always been the court's role to interpret Acts of Parliament. I don't see that anything has changed. What do you think has changed? If there is a boundary between what is a proceeding in parliament and what isn't, then someone needs to determine where that boundary is when it is questioned. It makes sense that that someone is not parliament itself, except by further Acts of parliament.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.

If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.

If they are sitting.

Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

The court didn't stop the proceedings in parliament though. Quite the reverse.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.

If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.

If they are sitting.

Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Article 9 is part of an act of Parliament. It has always been the court's role to interpret Acts of Parliament. I don't see that anything has changed. What do you think has changed?

This is true and no nothing has changed in that regard.
This situation has come around because someone, Gina Miller, felt that Parliament had not prevented prorogue.

Article 9 is part of an Act drawn up by Parliament to provide Parliamentary Privilege. We now have the bizarre situation whereby the court is telling Parliament what Parliament meant when drawing up its own act.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years.

Article 9 is part of an Act drawn up by Parliament to provide Parliamentary Privilege. We now have the bizarre situation whereby the court is telling Parliament what Parliament meant when drawing up its own act.

You think some of the same people are involved now?

ballysmate

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years.

Article 9 is part of an Act drawn up by Parliament to provide Parliamentary Privilege. We now have the bizarre situation whereby the court is telling Parliament what Parliament meant when drawing up its own act.

You think some of the same people are involved now?

Doesn't matter.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years.

Article 9 is part of an Act drawn up by Parliament to provide Parliamentary Privilege. We now have the bizarre situation whereby the court is telling Parliament what Parliament meant when drawing up its own act.

You think some of the same people are involved now?

Doesn't matter.

Why? Who interprets what a law means, if not the courts?

Longshot

Ballysmate wrote:

So the court gets to decide what is in the People's best interest?


No. The court gets to decide if the Government have broken the law. Just because a Government says something doesn't make it legal.

Not even going to bother replying to something you yourself state could not happen

No, that's not what I said if you read it. It could be done.


That is for Parliament to decide surely?

No!

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.

If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.

If they are sitting.

Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Article 9 is part of an act of Parliament. It has always been the court's role to interpret Acts of Parliament. I don't see that anything has changed. What do you think has changed?

This is true and no nothing has changed in that regard.
This situation has come around because someone, Gina Miller, felt that Parliament had not prevented prorogue.

Article 9 is part of an Act drawn up by Parliament to provide Parliamentary Privilege. We now have the bizarre situation whereby the court is telling Parliament what Parliament meant when drawing up its own act.

It's not bizarre it is the way it's been since the the re-establishment of the monarchy. Why are you suddenly bothered about it now?

darkhairedlord

Ballysmate wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.

If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.

If they are sitting.

Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Yeah, parliament, not government.

The government still held the confidence of the House and with no VONC, acting with their consent. If Parliament had so wished, it could have prevented the prorogue, but it didn't even try. A private citizen, not Parliament, brought the case to court and the court found that the prorogue unlawful.
So, if the government was acting with Parliaments consent, we have the court deciding what Parliament must do.

I know this will be difficult for some on here to comprehend, but I am not arguing this from a Brexit/Remain perspective.What is done is done.
My concern is the ramifications on our democratic constitution now that the court has decided which matters are important enough for it to interfere with Parliament.

Parliament wasn't prorogued.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Why "The Will of the People" is simply bowlocks:

“will of the people” is seriously flawed.
Here are some figures which might help put things in focus:

1. UK Population at time of the EU Referendum: 65.64m = the Populace

2. Of which Electorate with the right to vote: 46.5m = the People

3. The Electorate voting Leave: 17.41m = the Leavers (37.44 per cent)

4. The Electorate voting Remain: 16.14 m = the Remainers (34.71 per cent)

5. The Electorate not voting: 12.95m = the Abstainers (27.85 per cent)

Thus: 62.56 per cent of the Electorate did not vote Leave.

Which is bleedin' obvious really.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...

Just thought I would point out that the situation we are in was voted for by a minority of the electorate who didn't know what they were voting for.

That exactly fits the definition of stupid as demonstrated by the last 39 months of stupidity.

This comes up time and again but as Stevo patiently points out, if you don't vote your opinion can't be counted can it?

Plus an Act of Parliament

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/20 ... rawal.html

Democracy. Not perfect but better than the alternatives eh?

I am very patient aren't I? It's simple - if you don't vote then effectively you are leaving it to those who do vote to decide the matter.

That said, I'm sure if the UK was not a member of the EU and we held a referendum about joining it but decided not to do so, then some people's views on those who abstained might be slightly different.

robert88

The Queen prorogued parliament, albeit at the request of a minister, unelected as such by the people. If the Prorogation hadn't been stopped then in effect the monarch would be suspending parliament.

King Charles' treatment of parliament proved fatal, quite literally. Luckily for the Queen we know that she was lied to by the Man who would be King.

Longshot

Robert88 wrote:

Luckily for the Queen we know that she was lied to by the Man who would be King.

Misled!

tailwindhome

It seems to me that the most obvious way out for Boris is to find a *legal* way to force the EU27 not to grant the extension he asks for.

What that is I don't know.

kingstongraham

Yes, obviously the vote was to leave.

BUT, if the leave vote gets mutated into "hardline leave at all costs, the people will pay any cost to free ourselves from this unconscionable burden", then I find it hard to accept that any major proportion of those who did not vote would have thought like that. They didn't care either way enough to vote based on what they were told at the time.

pearceygy

Not sure what you mean by hardline leave? Same for soft Brexit, hard Brexit blah, blah, blah this is all a load of nonsense initiated by the remain side. The vote was simple and we voted to leave plain and simple. Leaving with a deal that benefits both the U.K. and the EU would be great but if a good deal is not possible than we just leave which is what we should of done 3 years ago, because the one thing I’m sure of is that if we had of done left a good deal would be well in place by now.

imposter2.0

pearceygy wrote:

Not sure what you mean by hardline leave? Same for soft Brexit, hard Brexit blah, blah, blah this is all a load of nonsense initiated by the remain side. The vote was simple and we voted to leave plain and simple. Leaving with a deal that benefits both the U.K. and the EU would be great but if a good deal is not possible than we just leave which is what we should have done 3 years ago, because the one thing I’m sure of is that if we had of done left a good deal would be well in place by now.

What benefits are you expecting from being outside the EU?

elbowloh

pearceygy wrote:

Not sure what you mean by hardline leave? Same for soft Brexit, hard Brexit blah, blah, blah this is all a load of nonsense initiated by the remain side. The vote was simple and we voted to leave plain and simple. Leaving with a deal that benefits both the U.K. and the EU would be great but if a good deal is not possible than we just leave which is what we should have done 3 years ago, because the one thing I’m sure of is that if we had of done left a good deal would be well in place by now.

I'm pretty sure the leave campaign told us all that we'd get a great deal to leave the EU.

kingstongraham

pearceygy wrote:

Not sure what you mean by hardline leave? Same for soft Brexit, hard Brexit blah, blah, blah this is all a load of nonsense initiated by the remain side. The vote was simple and we voted to leave plain and simple. Leaving with a deal that benefits both the U.K. and the EU would be great but if a good deal is not possible than we just leave which is what we should have done 3 years ago, because the one thing I’m sure of is that if we had of done left a good deal would be well in place by now.

No you aren't.

And I meant what I said. "Leave at all costs, the people will pay any cost to free ourselves from this unconscionable burden". I'd disagree that there is any evidence a majority of the UK believed that in 2016.

surrey_commuter

pearceygy wrote:

Not sure what you mean by hardline leave? Same for soft Brexit, hard Brexit blah, blah, blah this is all a load of nonsense initiated by the remain side. The vote was simple and we voted to leave plain and simple. Leaving with a deal that benefits both the U.K. and the EU would be great but if a good deal is not possible than we just leave which is what we should have done 3 years ago, because the one thing I’m sure of is that if we had of done left a good deal would be well in place by now.

so to clarify, the way to get a good deal is to leave with no-deal?

asprilla

Where is that super-cut of Hannan, Farage, Boris, Gove, et all reassuring people that 'No-one is suggesting we leave the single market and all the benefits it brings because that would clearly be madness'?

Oh, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

No deal was not what people voted for.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

It seems to me that the most obvious way out for Boris is to find a *legal* way to force the EU27 not to grant the extension he asks for.

What that is I don't know.

I have suggested previously that one way would be to not appoint a commissioner, but everyone disagreed with that.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Why "The Will of the People" is simply bowlocks:

“will of the people” is seriously flawed.
Here are some figures which might help put things in focus:

1. UK Population at time of the EU Referendum: 65.64m = the Populace

2. Of which Electorate with the right to vote: 46.5m = the People

3. The Electorate voting Leave: 17.41m = the Leavers (37.44 per cent)

4. The Electorate voting Remain: 16.14 m = the Remainers (34.71 per cent)

5. The Electorate not voting: 12.95m = the Abstainers (27.85 per cent)

Thus: 62.56 per cent of the Electorate did not vote Leave.

Which is bleedin' obvious really.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...

Just thought I would point out that the situation we are in was voted for by a minority of the electorate who didn't know what they were voting for.

That exactly fits the definition of stupid as demonstrated by the last 39 months of stupidity.

This comes up time and again but as Stevo patiently points out, if you don't vote your opinion can't be counted can it?

Plus an Act of Parliament

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/20 ... rawal.html

Democracy. Not perfect but better than the alternatives eh?

I am very patient aren't I? It's simple - if you don't vote then effectively you are leaving it to those who do vote to decide the matter.

..

The word I'd use does begin 'Pat..' but..

Anyway,

First, the referendum was agreed as an advisory exercise. Its result was not intended to be binding.

As such it was not unreasonable to make its result dependent on a single vote (because it was only advisory) instead of maybe a 66% result; nor was it unreasonable not to make voting compulsory because of course, it was only advisory.

The stupidly simplistic options might also have seemed reasonable, because of course it was only advisory, a kind of opinion poll.

Now of course it has become doctrine and to question it, heresy and treason.

That's both stupid and duplicitous.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Why "The Will of the People" is simply bowlocks:

“will of the people” is seriously flawed.
Here are some figures which might help put things in focus:

1. UK Population at time of the EU Referendum: 65.64m = the Populace

2. Of which Electorate with the right to vote: 46.5m = the People

3. The Electorate voting Leave: 17.41m = the Leavers (37.44 per cent)

4. The Electorate voting Remain: 16.14 m = the Remainers (34.71 per cent)

5. The Electorate not voting: 12.95m = the Abstainers (27.85 per cent)

Thus: 62.56 per cent of the Electorate did not vote Leave.

Which is bleedin' obvious really.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...

Just thought I would point out that the situation we are in was voted for by a minority of the electorate who didn't know what they were voting for.

That exactly fits the definition of stupid as demonstrated by the last 39 months of stupidity.

This comes up time and again but as Stevo patiently points out, if you don't vote your opinion can't be counted can it?

Plus an Act of Parliament

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/20 ... rawal.html

Democracy. Not perfect but better than the alternatives eh?

I am very patient aren't I? It's simple - if you don't vote then effectively you are leaving it to those who do vote to decide the matter.

..

The word I'd use does begin 'Pat..' but..

Anyway,

First, the referendum was agreed as an advisory exercise. Its result was not intended to be binding.

As such it was not unreasonable to make its result dependent on a single vote (because it was only advisory) instead of maybe a 66% result; nor was it unreasonable not to make voting compulsory because of course, it was only advisory.

The stupidly simplistic options might also have seemed reasonable, because of course it was only advisory, a kind of opinion poll.

Now of course it has become doctrine and to question it, heresy and treason.

That's both stupid and duplicitous.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

You're changing the subject now.

Advisory or not, if you don't vote then your views can't be counted. As mentioned several times above. Or is that too complicated for you?

joenobody

pearceygy wrote:

The vote was simple and we voted to leave plain and simple.

I've been thinking about this recently and, unless I've missed it, I'm surprised the following hasn't been considered:

The Remain campaign position, pre-vote, was "a vote to leave means we leave everything". The Leave campaign position, pre-vote was "a vote to leave means we get to keep all the good stuff (e.g. single market, or whatever), but ditch all the bad stuff". On that basis, many voters will have followed that campaigning and voted accordingly. Therefore, a vote to remain was a vote to avoid leaving everything, while a vote to leave was a vote to keep only "the good stuff". Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like a reasonable assumption to me. And yet here we are, hearing people saying it was clear that a vote to leave was a vote to leave everything. You could almost argue that the Remain "keep good and bad" and the Leave "keep good, ditch bad" is absolutely not the current "the best option is to ditch everything".

Alejandrosdog

the latest campaigning is pitching Brexit battle as a battle of good against evil. Its is a terrible situation.

Longshot

Alejandrosdog wrote:

the latest campaigning is pitching Brexit battle as a battle of good against evil. Its is a terrible situation.

Indeed.