nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mcmoustache

maebee wrote: »

I know it's Boris's line but the Daily Telegraph is saying that the 11 most senior judges in the UK are all trying to frustrate Brexit.

As Sturgeon pointed out, the prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit. But then again, the telegraph is just trying to muddle all this. Headlines are a shît concept.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

As predicted O'Neill goes after the 12 unelected judges.
Interestingly, the right wing papers are late publishing?

The PM* has a role in appointing the "unelected" justices.
9 out of the 11 were appointed since Labour last were in power.

the candidate's name is forwarded to the Prime Minister who, in turn, sends the recommendation to Her Majesty The Queen

*Technically it's the Lord Chancellor but there's been a new one every year since Michael Gove replaced Chris Grayling in 2015

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

Of course : I should have stressed the state has to be hard right and with a Johnson / Farage type figure in charge

I think the horseshoe theory is fully realised with the cult of Corbyn and the likes of Kate Hoey as the physical manifestation of it. So your hypothesis works for both of the main parties. It would just manifest differently.

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The PM* has a role in appointing the "unelected" justices.
9 out of the 11 were appointed since Labour last were in power.

the candidate's name is forwarded to the Prime Minister who, in turn, sends the recommendation to Her Majesty The Queen

*Technically it's the Lord Chancellor but there's been a new one every year since Michael Gove replaced Chris Grayling in 2015

There is an independent selection committee though.

Kermit.de.frog

Johnson to try again for election in parliament on Thursday according to the Telegraph.

sdanseo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It was refered to in an earlier debate in parliament that when it comes to prerogative powers, the role of the monarch is mearly to be a pen in the hands of the Prime Minister.

Within the existing constitution of the UK, the monarch does not have any discression, any deviation from their constitutional role would most likely come at the cost of abdication.

It would be somewhat morbidly fascinating to see what would happen if in Modern times, the Monarch did use their Discretion. And then did not abdicate, and generally speaking decided to become an absolute Monarch of their own volition.

If the initial decision was very popular it could be years before they were overthrown, and could end in a civil war, even these days.
Of course if not there would probably be a very short coup and the Monarchy abolished.

Hermy

sdanseo wrote: »

There are several tens of Monarchies left in the world but only one (Saudi Arabia) is absolute, with the Monarch actually making policy decisions. And they aren't viewed as all that wise.

More than one as per Wikipedia including the Vatican.

Roger_007

prawnsambo wrote: »

Would it not have been a good idea to read the judgment first? Opinions are great and all, but if you eschew the opportunity to inform them, they aren't worth a whole lot.

Again, I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Johnson to try again for election in parliament on Thursday according to the Telegraph.

All because Labour are fractured and leaderless.

maebee

Akrasia wrote: »

I predict that these two charlatans will be toast by the end of this year.

sdanseo

Hermy wrote: »

More than one as per Wikipedia including the Vatican.

I'm disappointed in myself, knew about the Vatican.

I'm sure Oman, Swaziland and Qatar all have monarchs who care just as lovingly for all their citizens as the Saudis.

maebee wrote: »

I predict that these two charlatans will be toast by the end of this year.

They could be twins.

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

There is an independent selection committee though.

But those paragons of virtue can veto candidates.

Akrasia

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Johnson to try again for election in parliament on Thursday according to the Telegraph.

how is he gonna do that?

Dare the opposition again?

Call them 'chicken' again?

Enzokk

devnull wrote: »

And all of the ERG are complete paupers aren't they.

I mean look at Jacob Rees-Mogg, he's certainly on the verge of poverty I bet.

I bet you that if you add up the wealth of all the Tory Brexiteers together they'd have more wealth than the rest of Parliament by a long, long way.

But apparently they're not the Elite or Wealthy, the left are.

Sigh.

I remember at one PMQs when the Tories decided to cut the high tax bracket from 50% to 40% (I think) and Milliband pointed to the front bench and asked them all if any of them was going to benefit from the tax cut. They just sat there with smug smiles on their faces, Cameron, Osborne etc., not replying because they knew he had them. They were all going to benefit from the tax cut. But posh accents seem to mean you know what you talk about.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All because Labour are fractured and leaderless.

He has to call for an election. He can do nothing without one. He has no majority and even if the 21 rebels vote his way, which they can't because some of them have joined the LibDems, he cannot get anything.

Him asking for an election is nothing to do with Corbyn but the numbers in parliament. That is why he was happy to rule out an election when he had a majority but as soon as he lost it he started trying to goad Corbyn into giving him what he wants.

Let him stew, don't give him the thing he wants. The longer this goes on the more powerless he looks and the worse it is for him perception wise in an election. The more Corbyn gets things done in the HoC where he calls the shots the more people will start to change their minds on whether he could be a good PM. That is one of the reasons why there is opposition to Corbyn leading a government of national unity, it would help people imagine him as PM and once they get used to that idea it will not be as scary to them and it could sway their vote, IMO.

Infini

maebee wrote: »

I predict that these two charlatans will be toast by the end of this year.

Honestly I would expect Trump to hold out till 2020 unless Binden is able to light a fire under the republicans to have him removed. There's little chance of him being pushed out unless they have something so solid that the republicans wont be able to defend it. He lasted this long and honestly I would nearly expect him to last till he's voted out next November.

Boris on the other hand is politically dead to right's though, if he doesnt quit hell be forced out and a Caretaker PM is likely the next step as they need to decide in 3 weeks wether to apply for an extention and likely Boris will keep playing games if hes still there. He's been found wanting in a court of law and I expect heads to roll or him and his ilk to throw anyone they can under the bus to save their skin but he's not going to excape for long expecially if parliment actually goes to town on him.

Hoppy Jack

The latest BBC Brexitcast is literally a joke. Katja Adler literally sings at the end. Do they take anything seriously at all???

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

The decision hinged on the duration of the prorogation vis a vis the stated reason for requesting it. They didn't match. So the court decided that the reason given was bogus and the real reason was to frustrate parliament at a crucial juncture of UK politics.

...and Johnson, the Government and the right wing press proved them right immediately by saying the judgement was an attempt to prevent Brexit.

10000maniacs

Akrasia wrote: »

Apology accepted

Btw, you’re fully entitled to hold an opinion, but humility demands that one should defer to the considered opinion of experts, at least until you have a good reason to believe that they are corrupt or deceived

It doesn't matter what is legal or not, it's how many people agree with Johnson and disagree with the supreme court that matters.
How many people have you heard interviewed on the BBC recently who said they just want Brexit done?
If it is over 50%, Britain is moving into facism territory. If Johnson wins an overall majority in the next election, it will be the biggest threat to UK democracy since the 1930s.
Corbyn will be as much to blame as the ERG if this happens. A perfect storm of an amoral do or die Boris Johnson and an incredibly weak opposition.

fash

briany wrote: »

I, for one, would still prefer another 3 months of no change at the border. A GE could be a mere reshuffling of the cards, but if delivering more of the same is the worst it could do, why not try, and grant an extension on that basis? The only people who would find a downside in it are those who want the UK out by hook or by crook.

Agreed- what the EU should do is look at what Johnson wants- then do the opposite: "we will be out on 31 October" etc.

Forty Seven

The supreme court judges didn't understand what they were voting for. We should make them vote again until they get it right.

A Dub in Glasgo

Forty Seven wrote: »

The supreme court judges didn't understand what they were voting for. We should make them vote again until they get it right.

Herein lies the problem, folk will really think the judges voted on this yesterday rather than passing judgement on the evidence presented. You and others who come out with stuff like this still have a lot to learn about the fundamentals of democracy

woohoo!!!

I've been giving this considerable thought. For me this is the most exciting thing since the A-team, it really is gripping. And so far the arch villain cannot exclaim that I love it when a plan comes together

SeaBreezes

Forty Seven wrote: »

The supreme court judges didn't understand what they were voting for. We should make them vote again until they get it right.

But they did. First vote was English system. Second vote was Scottish system this is the third decider.

Following the same logic. First vote was to join the EU.
Second vote was to leave.
Third vote should be if the terms on which you leave are acceptable?

I really don't understand the Brexit blindness

Or maybe I do. It's the difference in a divorce between the couple who put the kids first and negotiate maturely a seperation that will do them the least harm.

As opposed to the parent that shirks all responsibility and just disappears.

DOCARCH

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I've been giving this considerable thought. For me this is the most exciting thing since the A-team, it really is gripping. And so far the arch villain cannot exclaim that I love it when a plan comes together

The gift that keeps giving. The whole saga is GUBU.

lawred2

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Herein lies the problem, folk will really think the judges voted on this yesterday rather than passing judgement on the evidence presented. You and others who come out with stuff like this still have a lot to learn about the fundamentals of democracy

Surely he was being sarcastic

Forty Seven

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

The supreme court judges didn't understand what they were voting for. We should make them vote again until they get it right.

Herein lies the problem, folk will really think the judges voted on this yesterday rather than passing judgement on the evidence presented. You and others who come out with stuff like this still have a lot to learn about the fundamentals of democracy[/

It's a joke. Taken from a serious brexiteer discussion. As for needing lessons in democratic fundamentals. That's a high horse you're sitting on lad.

Forty Seven

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

The supreme court judges didn't understand what they were voting for. We should make them vote again until they get it right.

Herein lies the problem, folk will really think the judges voted on this yesterday rather than passing judgement on the evidence presented. You and others who come out with stuff like this still have a lot to learn about the fundamentals of democracy

And just to add. One of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy would be losers accepting when they have lost.

That's one independence vote and one brexit vote you've been on the wrong side of but you still look for ways to subvert the will of the populace.
Can't you just accept that you are in a minority and accept the democratic process?

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

And just to add. One of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy would be losers accepting when they have lost.

That's one independence vote and one brexit vote you've been on the wrong side of but you still look for ways to subvert the will of the populace.
Can't you just accept that you are in a minority and accept the democratic process?

Actually that is nothing close to being a cornerstone of democracy.

Your confusing accepting a result which people did with people sitting down and shutting up because they lost. In fact they are still allowed disagree with said result and demand another vote, THATS a cornerstone of democracy.

No Poll puts no deal as having a majority of support from either the public or in parliament, so im really not sure what majority your trying to claim here.

[Deleted User]

Forty Seven wrote: »

And just to add. One of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy would be losers accepting when they have lost.

That's one independence vote and one brexit vote you've been on the wrong side of but you still look for ways to subvert the will of the populace.
Can't you just accept that you are in a minority and accept the democratic process?

Government's are changed or confirmed every 4/5 years. I don't see anyone claiming that's undemocratic.

In the Brexit vote, people were asked should Britain leave the EU? They voted to leave, the government set it in motion and they were on the way.

Now that a deal (or none in this case) has been agreed on, it's been revealed that Brexit will harm an awful lot of the population. A good Govt would revert back to the population and ask them a simple," Should Britain leave under these terms?" ballot.

If Brexiters feel so strongly about it, and believe that the UK will be in a better place with this deal, they should have no fear of winning the vote.

PeadarCo

Forty Seven wrote:

That's one independence vote and one brexit vote you've been on the wrong side of but you still look for ways to subvert the will of the populace. Can't you just accept that you are in a minority and accept the democratic process?

You obviously don't understand democracy. After every election opposition parties don't just disband and not turn up parliament because they lost. The same for referendums people are perfectly entitled to continue campaigning for the losing side. You see it all the time in Ireland. People did accept the Brexit vote article 50 was triggered without any major issue. So that's Brexit sorted. Surely its undemocratic to not let people vote on the result of negotiations. Especially when you are looking at a no deal brexit and very few Brexiters were calling for that. The very opposite in most cases.

It is completely undemocratic to not let people change their mind. It's actually a key part of any healthy democracy. Every election gives people the chance to change their mind. Mind should Brexit be any different?