Dang I have so little respect for Nigel it is like I have a douche filter over everything he says. It doesn't help, I guess, that he kind of is a giant douche... but I should take what he says seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand. Anyhow it isn't a "betrayal" for the courts to rule against Brexit if they consider it unconstitutional. Their job isn't to play partisan politics. And yes it DOES suck when something good is stopped by courts (and great when something bad is stopped by them)... But I don't exactly consider the courts betraying the people. BESIDES there are ways around the constitution... Just do that
Neonivek that's not what Nigel's saying
No Nigel Faraday already said the courts betrayed all of the UK. His word is officially binding, because he is the King of England!
I don't quite know why Nigel portrays it that way mind you... He isn't stupid (A lot of things yes, but not stupid)
It is beautiful how the neoliberal world complains of the ignorance of the unwashed world, whilst proudly displaying their ignorance as highest intellect
I fucking died at King Faraday
If you're going to abandon the virtue of humility and plunge into full-smug, at least sit safely in a comfortable seat of objective superiority.
If you can't even get the person right you're smug and foolish. Anyways what Imperator Faraecilius Britanniae said is he fears a betrayal of what British voters voted for by their own MPs. He is not accusing the High Court of betraying British public, what he fears is that if our MPs are given the power to not invoke article 50, then they may very well do so in spite of their constituents wishes. Thus pro-EU MPs will proudly represent their constituents who voted to leave... By keeping Britain in the EU, which would make everyone sad :[
lol 1.9% is decisive.
51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
Remember when Farage was all "we won't accept a 52/48 split"?
Nick Clegg can fight for a referendum to join the EU, once we've left it - that is fair :]
May has said there's going to be no running commentary on their negotiating position. Far as I can tell, even four months hence, there has been no commentary whatsoever.
wat
There is too much commentary, right down to secret leaks
He's not well liked in the UK. He's well liked by bigots and morons, because he's a bigoted moron.
You're in good company with the ubermillenialSorry if I didn't respond to any comments aimed at me, I've been very busy with my projects.
Pretty much agreed
Parliament shouldn't have any say on whether or not the UK leaves the EU, since folk already voted for it - however thin the margin. They should, however, be able to represent their constituents by having a say on whatever terms the UK should push for in the negotiations.
Not everyone voted for the Tories, but as things stand, the Tories are now negotiating for everyone, despite the aforementioned vagueness of the referendum question. Representative democracy ftw.
The court didn't rule against Brexit, it ruled in favour of the basic manner in which our parliament has always worked. They'd do the same if the government tried to ignore parliament on any other issue.
The referendum was not binding, we knew from before it happened that any result would require a further act by parliament to implement.
My thoughts on the whole court ruling is mostly these two posts, and some more. Which I shall now talk on!
So the "Parliament" (for sake of ease I am drawing a distinction between the cabinet and the members of parliament, referring to the MPs as "Parliament", when in full literal terms, Cabinet draws its members from the Parliament) does not have the power or authority to propose its own policies or make its own decisions in regards to things like UK foreign policy. The Cabinet is the executive branch of British government, whilst the Parliament is the branch of government that enacts the Cabinet's policies into law, scrutinizes it before that, and if it does not like it - rejects or repeals it. It then gets passed down to our civil service or MOD, which enacts the law into reality in whatever manner they can. Likewise whilst authority lies with the Cabinet and Prime Minister when it comes to formulating policy, Parliament acts as the arbiter (well, the High Court acts as the literal arbiter, but you get the idea), especially on matters of domestic concern. The most relevant example (to this discussion topic) by far - legislation to enact a referendum on EU membership was shot down for years and years on end (with David Cameron counting on his opposition to ensure he did not have to keep his promise without losing face), accidentally outliving his opposition too well, resulting in parliament approving of the referendum act. Rather annoyingly, the same Parliament that passed this act, is the one in which a coalition is forming to ignore the result of the referendum they approved.
You can see why we're concerned that not all of our MPs are sincere in expressing our views <_<
Parliament has a second mechanism with which they can scrutinize and enforce their will upon Prime Ministers and Cabinet members, the motion of no confidence. If Parliament does not like the PM, they can hold a vote to get rid of them and force the dissolution of Parliament, thereby triggering a new general election. This is pretty rare and no one has suggested it yet, but it exists and is worth mentioning, if for example Theresa May's popularity in parliament plummets over some scandal in the future.
The third mechanism is not a Parliamentary one, so much as one of Parliamentary party politics - parties within Parliament can trigger leadership elections to get a new leader in who then reshuffles cabinet (see: firing everyone who lost). Good examples from recent times are the attempts by Labour MPs to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, though they have not had any success there. A very famous example would be Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher getting deposed through the Tory leadership election.
The public can also get rid of the Prime Minister by voting them out of their constituency. Whilst the Prime Minister could legally stay on as they don't have to be an MP, since before WWI every Prime Minister has been an MP for the simple reason that they most command the respect of the Commons and if they can't, they'll get removed soon. An informal check
Theresa May won the Tory leadership election and has support of the Commons and her constituency, so those options have been disabled for the time being. Parliament does however have this one trick up its sleeve, the one we've been talking about - since the high court ruling that the PM can't invoke article 50 without Parliament's support, this sets up an interesting precedent. As it stands now Parliament will vote to invoke article 50, it is simply not politically feasible for them to reject it; that is not where the fears from Leave are focused. The fear is that though Parliament will vote to invoke article 50, they will use the vote to force concessions from the government of the UK, to dictate the terms of Brexit - usurping the authority of the government, and placing effective executive power in the House of Commons.
To this end Nick Clegg is leading a coalition of MPs to try and force Brexit on his faction's terms. Rather exciting to see Nick Clegg back on the stage, as you may have found amongst many of my posts I have made many jokes about Nick Clegg, good to see him doing something relevant these days - my favourite politician with whom I disagree with. Anyways the terms Nick Clegg are describing are a soft Brexit, versus what he calls May's version as - hard Brexit.
Defining these terms and why they're problematic:
Essentially Phillip Hammond is arguing for what he terms 'soft brexit,' which is a formal withdrawal from the European Union that remains within EU institutions like the single market, whereas Theresa May is arguing for what Philip calls 'hard brexit,' which is withdrawal from all EU institutions. Again, rather surprisingly, I agree with Donald Tusk that there is no distinction between 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit,' only 'membership' and 'brexit.' Reason being if we stay in the common market then our external trade with the rest of the world would be controlled by the EU, which just wouldn't make sense since our world trade is the majority of our trade, and we would have to sacrifice migration & security controls in order to keep that. Sans being one of the negotiators of course, so it would be the worse end of everything for everyone who's not a banker lol
The European Commission does not want a UK enjoying the benefits of the single market and the government of the UK does not want the European Commission overriding any decisions of the UK - thus both will struggle to accommodate the wishes of the Remain faction. To make matters worse, there is a time constraint, given that both the EU and the UK want to start Brexit ASAP with article 50 triggered by March 2017, in order to minimize damage to the UK economy and the Eurozone economy caused by political instability. Parliament holding additional debates on top of the PMQs and Committees they have already held would greatly lengthen the whole ordeal to the detriment of both parties involved.
There is also the whole issue of MPs acting on their own conscience in spite of their constituents' wishes. This is an important guess here: Most MPs will most likely act in accordance with the votes of their constituents. It is for example, not surprising that the Liberal Democrat MPs (pro-EU) representing constituencies in London that voted Remain, want to keep the UK as closely integrated with the EU as possible. If you have no issue with Parliament exercising a newfound authority on the government, you would have no issue with that. Where opposition such as myself takes issue is if MPs representing constituencies that voted to Leave take this as an opportunity to decide the terms of Brexit, placing themselves above the Cabinet on the basis of representing their voters whilst simultaneously acting against their wishes on the basis that they are Oxbridge elite, their voters are plebians. Would an MP be willing to betray its voters who wanted to Leave? In my personal experience, they have more than enough moral rationalizations to do so. Unfortunately, without no general election, there is nothing to replace them with an MP obligated to obey their mandate.
One should expect MPs not to behave so, but given that they are politicians and the stakes are high, naturally constituents are suspicious. There would be an obvious solution here: To hold a general election. This would allow parties to set out their parties' terms on Brexit and ensure MPs who don't represent their constituents would be replaced, however again, there is that blasted time constraint. Our government, German, French, Italian, Dutch, the rest and the Commission are ready for this dual reformation. "Sucks if there is going to be delays because of this," is how I understate this. Honestly if it has to come to it, I would much rather have Europe and the UK suffer & trigger a general election than allow these smug gits a single chance at having their will above the world.
Some hilarious quotes from
The Guardian, which is pro-EU, quality British journalism (when their heads aren't in the clouds)
Thomas Parker-Jarvis, 59, from Sheffield: ‘I am fed up of the so-called elite not listening to us’
I am old enough to remember when we joined the EU and it was sold then as us entering the common market. But I believe they knew from the start that they wanted it to be something else: a superstate, which I have never agreed with. Finally, we were given the chance to vote on our membership in a referendum and people made their decision clear: we want control of our own destiny.
However, clearly the political elite think we are too stupid to make this choice, something they’ve been telling us for the past year, and I take unkindly to that(...) People want to discuss the terms of Brexit but the truth is that Theresa May must go and negotiate that. Stalling the decision will change nothing, we need to just sit down and talk to our European neighbours about our options. The court ruling will just make getting on with this 10 times harder.
I have never been a protester but if Brexit was stopped by putting obstacles in its way then I, and a lot of other people, would take to streets. People are fed up with not being listened to. We are fed up of the so-called elite not listening to us and we suffer. They gave us a vote, and we voted. As May says: “Out is out, so let’s get out.”
Sarah Newton, 47, from Northampton: ‘Having a government dictated by legislators is like going back in time’
I have no issue with immigration, that was not my reason for voting leave. I voted for Brexit to escape the bureaucracy of the European Union and I wanted us to regain control over legislation in this country. The latest ruling is yet more evidence for why this was the right decision. The country should not be ruled by any court system – including any European courts – and I am now more determined than ever to go. It’s dreadful that democracy can be overturned in court by law.
I am not sure what I would do if Brexit was blocked. Everyone who votes leave gets grouped together as racist bigots, but that’s not true for the majority. I wouldn’t protest as I wouldn’t want to be put in that bracket, but I wouldn’t keep quiet either. To me court system overruling democracy is dangerous – I cannot believe it can even happen, remainers should be worried about this too.
Some may argue that this decision will just force Theresa May to be more transparent about her plans, or perhaps trigger another election. However, the fact that the court has any say in what happens next is worrying. Why do we have democracy if we then don’t listen to the will of the people? Having a government dictated by legislators is like going back in time. It feels difficult to get my head around this.
Hamzah Bawkher, 35, from London: ‘The UK can recover from any impacts of Brexit more quickly if we get on with it’
When the referendum started, I was in the remain camp, but my opinion gradually shifted because of certain things, such as how the European Union treated Greece. People talk about remaining for unity but they weren’t very supportive of the Greeks. I also voted for more transparency and feel the EU needs a lot of reform. I had some voter’s remorse when I woke up the next day but now I stand by my decision. A lot needs to be sorted out to make it work, but leaving is the best way forward. I am, however, in favour of a soft Brexit, not a hard one.
I find the court ruling this week really strange. If you have a referendum and then don’t listen to the result – then what was the point of holding it in the first place? Was it just a polling exercise? I feel frustrated and confused because all these setbacks are just causing more economic confusion. The UK can recover from any of the impacts of Brexit more quickly if we just get on with it.
I agree that the terms of leaving should be discussed, but we need to approach it from the standpoint that Brexit is definitely happening.
Full article hereOh, and it's worth mentioning that the legal case was started by an anti-brexit campaigner who is butting heads with the Attorney General, who said she was trying to subvert the democratic will of the electorate through the back-door. Top lel, that it was started by fund managers operating from luxury homes in the EU also makes it a goldmine of smugness
Moving aside from the usual shite, what happens in high court with the repeal is gonna set a juicy precedent. On the popular front of things, you get your Sarah Newtons who hate unelected bureaucrats overriding democracy, and thus the unelected judges overriding democracy will not go down well. Then you got those complaining that the likes of Nick Clegg leading the parliamentary faction keen on overturning the clear mandate having been voted out, again same issue. Whatever happens, serious power shifts are bound to happen between the Government, Parliament and High Court. A severe fault line has been exposed in our constitution:
The Government acts foremost in foreign policy, the Parliament acts foremost in domestic policy. Brexit is an act of foreign policy with huge impacts on domestic affairs (indeed, on British sovereignty). Thus a legal precedent must be set.
To get an idea of how seriously the High Court is treating this, it is very rare for 9 justices to sit on a case in the High Court. For this matter, for the very first time in British history, all 11 will be present at and adjudicating at the case. So if you hear someone saying this doesn't matter - tell them though it may be boring, it matters immensely.
Those are just my opinions though lol
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 182467 times)