Miller and Major.........

[arcobob]

If you scream about the will of the people while simultaneously being scared to ask the people again in case they’ve changed their minds, then you’re being a hypocrite.

And if you scream about democracy and then ignore it, that is hypocrisy.

 

[Danllan]

The idea that democracy means a single vote and then no possible change of mind until the outcome is enacted is nonsensical and runs counter to every other part of our democratic system. Situations change, information becomes available that wasn’t previously the case, and declaring that we must follow a course of action because years ago people thought it was the best action to take is frankly stupid.

If I ask the group whether we should go to the local Chinese restaurant or Indian restaurant and then prior to our visit we find that our initial choice has had a terrible food safety report, then should we go anyway because that was what we voted for?

Since 2016 we have discovered a huge amount about the potential consequences of leaving with various types of deal or no deal. Unlike some people I’m perfectly happy for a second referendum to include a no deal option, and if that’s what people vote for then that’s exactly what the government should do. Now we know all the consequences if people want to just walk away, then let them do exactly that. But don’t tell me people aren’t allowed to have a say three years later with the final decision in sight, because that isn’t democracy. Either the people want to leave under these conditions or they don’t. Ask them.

Quite so and, since you seem to want to give the whip-hand to Parliament with regard to sovereignty, you would clearly think it right for a people's choice to be implemented by a Parliament capable, and willing?, to do so. As we have seen, this is extremely hard to do when a government has no decent working majority.

It is clear that the parties currently in opposition are just trying to make hay out of the situation, so the obvious thing to do is to give the country, the people, the choice of a new Parliament - Commons, anyway - and a so a new government - with the mandate and numbers to act in a given way, be it to call for another referendum with remain as an option, or to leave regardless on a given date.

Don't tell me that the people should be consulted and then ignored, for three years. You say that people should have a say because it's 'three years later', do you think that should apply to General Elections and any other referenda too, or only ones where you haven't managed to get your way?

A few times now you have been asked why you are so scared of a General Election, you have dodged it each time, why is it?

This validity of advice bit concerns me rather. There has been a lot of invalid advice flying about over the years which has never been brought to court to defeat governments. Is this the new way forward I wonder and if so the legal profession will reach mammoth proportions.

There weren't a lot of snowflakes having tantrums before.

 

[FlyBy]

Quite so and, since you seem to want to give the whip-hand to Parliament with regard to sovereignty, you would clearly think it right for a people's choice to be implemented by a Parliament capable, and willing?, to do so. As we have seen, this is extremely hard to do when a government has no decent working majority.

Of course parliament should have sovereignty, we're a representative parliamentary democracy. It is literally their entire role to represent the best interests of their constituents, not to simply carry out the publics desires at any time.

There's two ways you can look at this, either MP's are deliberately standing in the way of the public will, or alternatively that MP's have found that carrying out the public will is damaging to the public good and are unwilling to press ahead with an act of national self harm without a further mandate to do so.

It is clear that the parties currently in opposition are just trying to make hay out of the situation, so the obvious thing to do is to give the country, the people, the choice of a new Parliament - Commons, anyway - and a so a new government - with the mandate and numbers to act in a given way, be it to call for another referendum with remain as an option, or to leave regardless on a given date.

No it is not obvious that they're just trying to make hay out of the situation, but setting that aside what happens when an election returns another hung parliament, which is the most likely outcome realistically?

A few times now you have been asked why you are so scared of a General Election, you have dodged it each time, why is it?

I'm not at all scared of an election. I do however fully support the opposition parties desire to lock in place preventative measures against a no deal first, to prevent government game playing. The reason I'd personally prefer a second referendum first is twofold: Firstly Brexit to me is a stand alone issue that does not fit well into the traditional political party division. Determining a 5 year parliament based on a single non-standard issue like this could well result in a government that post-Brexit does not represent a direction the country would otherwise have chosen. I think that's potentially dangerous. Secondly as I mentioned above, there's a very real chance that a general election will just return another hung parliament, and we'll be stuck in the same situation we are now, but with even more time wasted.

Basically Brexit needs to be resolved one way or another, and a general election may not do that. A second referendum with swift action taken afterwards to implement it would resolve it, and allow the country to then enter a new general election to decide the countries path on other issues.

 

[bobk]

Lord Sumption , previously a Supreme court judge has just been on sky , saying judges cannot take a view on political motives only to uphold the Law , as there are no laws relating to prorogation this is just another remainer tactic .

 

[arcobob]

Lord Sumption , previously a Supreme court judge has just been on sky , saying judges cannot take a view on political motives only to uphold the Law , as there are no laws relating to prorogation this is just another remainer tactic .

My view exactly. How can a judge make a ruling on perceived intent. If a judge perceives that someone has evil intent but there is no hard evidence he cannot act on hearsay just because some high profile git is pressing him to do so.

 

[Danllan]

Of course parliament should have sovereignty, we're a representative parliamentary democracy. It is literally their entire role to represent the best interests of their constituents, not to simply carry out the publics desires at any time.

There's two ways you can look at this, either MP's are deliberately standing in the way of the public will, or alternatively that MP's have found that carrying out the public will is damaging to the public good and are unwilling to press ahead with an act of national self harm without a further mandate to do so.

No it is not obvious that they're just trying to make hay out of the situation, but setting that aside what happens when an election returns another hung parliament, which is the most likely outcome realistically?

I'm not at all scared of an election. I do however fully support the opposition parties desire to lock in place preventative measures against a no deal first, to prevent government game playing. The reason I'd personally prefer a second referendum first is twofold: Firstly Brexit to me is a stand alone issue that does not fit well into the traditional political party division. Determining a 5 year parliament based on a single non-standard issue like this could well result in a government that post-Brexit does not represent a direction the country would otherwise have chosen. I think that's potentially dangerous. Secondly as I mentioned above, there's a very real chance that a general election will just return another hung parliament, and we'll be stuck in the same situation we are now, but with even more time wasted.

Basically Brexit needs to be resolved one way or another, and a general election may not do that. A second referendum with swift action taken afterwards to implement it would resolve it, and allow the country to then enter a new general election to decide the countries path on other issues.

Waffle, all hedging about the fact that you do not want a GE while it would give a majority to a leave-orientated Tory party.

The fact that you don't recognise that there can be no measure to prevent or lock out a no-deal, which a later government with a majority couldn't overturn, shines a pretty bright light on your understanding of the situation. For someone advocating parliamentary sovereignty is one line to be supporting the binding of a future parliament in another line is laughable.

Each new parliament is sovereign, no parliament can bind its successors, that is the absolute core of parliament's claim to sovereignty and without it, and the concomitant doctrine of implied rescission, laws made nigh on a thousand years ago would still be in force, which, of course, they aren't. Got it yet?

So, crack on with your daft Bennite Surrender Law etc., because there will be an election and sooner or later there will be a majority in the Commons to leave, full stop. And nothing enacted before will then matter in the slightest because there will be a majority to vote for something to trump it.

Lord Sumption , previously a Supreme court judge has just been on sky , saying judges cannot take a view on political motives only to uphold the Law , as there are no laws relating to prorogation this is just another remainer tactic .

Jonanthan Sumption is a star! He is a very liberal Conservative, more or less, and a remainer but he is - and was while on the Bench - absolutely detached in giving legal opinions. A good man and utterly incorruptible.

He's right, and I'll be astonished if the Supremes think otherwise - but, then, I'm still pretty surprised about the Scottish ruling.

 

[FlyBy]

Waffle, all hedging about the fact that you do not want a GE while it would give a majority to a leave-orientated Tory party.

The fact that you don't recognise that there can be no measure to prevent or lock out a no-deal, which a later government with a majority couldn't overturn, shines a pretty bright light on your understanding of the situation. For someone advocating parliamentary sovereignty is one line to be supporting the binding of a future parliament in another line is laughable.

Each new parliament is sovereign, no parliament can bind its successors, that is the absolute core of parliament's claim to sovereignty and without it, and the concomitant doctrine of implied rescission, laws made nigh on a thousand years ago would still be in force, which, of course, they aren't. Got it yet?

So, crack on with your daft Bennite Surrender Law etc., because there will be an election and sooner or later there will be a majority in the Commons to leave, full stop. And nothing enacted before will then matter in the slightest because there will be a majority to vote for something to trump it.

Please don’t try and put words in my mouth. I have absolutely no desire to tie the hands of the next parliament, and am perfectly aware that it is not possible even if we did wish it (which I don’t).

The point about locking in preventative measures is to prevent the current government forcing a no deal BEFORE the next election is held, not after. Something they have made perfectly clear they wish to do. They could easily have put forward legislation to ensure this could not happen, but they chose not to because they are deeply untrustworthy and it’s obviously their preferred option.

 

[Ley253]

Waffle, all hedging about the fact that you do not want a GE while it would give a majority to a leave-orientated Tory party.

The fact that you don't recognise that there can be no measure to prevent or lock out a no-deal, which a later government with a majority couldn't overturn, shines a pretty bright light on your understanding of the situation. For someone advocating parliamentary sovereignty is one line to be supporting the binding of a future parliament in another line is laughable.

Each new parliament is sovereign, no parliament can bind its successors, that is the absolute core of parliament's claim to sovereignty and without it, and the concomitant doctrine of implied rescission, laws made nigh on a thousand years ago would still be in force, which, of course, they aren't. Got it yet?

So, crack on with your daft Bennite Surrender Law etc., because there will be an election and sooner or later there will be a majority in the Commons to leave, full stop. And nothing enacted before will then matter in the slightest because there will be a majority to vote for something to trump it.


Jonanthan Sumption is a star! He is a very liberal Conservative, more or less, and a remainer but he is - and was while on the Bench - absolutely detached in giving legal opinions. A good man and utterly incorruptible.

He's right, and I'll be astonished if the Supremes think otherwise - but, then, I'm still pretty surprised about the Scottish ruling.

First, no surprise in the Scottish ruling, glowing example of "lets cause England trouble.
But can some one explain how taking the government to court can overturn a decision made by the Sovereign? The PM made a request, the queen fulfilled this.

 

[arcobob]

First, no surprise in the Scottish ruling, glowing example of "lets cause England trouble.
But can some one explain how taking the government to court can overturn a decision made by the Sovereign? The PM made a request, the queen fulfilled this.

A perfectly normal and legitimate request was made to the Queen and she granted it. She was not asked to judge the motives or consider whether such a move was popular unlike some judicial bodies who play the man and not the ball.

 

[capfits]

@Danllan do you think the Scottish judiciary is impartial?
@acrobob @Ley253 @caveman @wanton dwarf looks like you guys are in good company

Kwasi Kwarteng criticised for 'biased judges' comment

Kwasi Kwarteng tells the BBC that "many people" think judges are not impartial on Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

May I suggest that you checkout this guy https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/munich-1933-the-good-bureaucrat-josef-hartinger/
When law is ignored by the judiciary to benefit politicians.

 

[arcobob]

@Danllan do you think the Scottish judiciary is impartial?
@acrobob @Ley253 @caveman @wanton dwarf looks like you guys are in good company

Kwasi Kwarteng criticised for 'biased judges' comment

Kwasi Kwarteng tells the BBC that "many people" think judges are not impartial on Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

May I suggest that you checkout this guy https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/munich-1933-the-good-bureaucrat-josef-hartinger/
When law is ignored by the judiciary to benefit politicians.

I am not suggesting that parliament should manipulate the law to suit its own ends but at the same time nor should anybody else.

 

[Danllan]

Please don’t try and put words in my mouth. I have absolutely no desire to tie the hands of the next parliament, and am perfectly aware that it is not possible even if we did wish it (which I don’t).

The point about locking in preventative measures is to prevent the current government forcing a no deal BEFORE the next election is held, not after. Something they have made perfectly clear they wish to do. They could easily have put forward legislation to ensure this could not happen, but they chose not to because they are deeply untrustworthy and it’s obviously their preferred option.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, merely removing your foot so as to allow them to be more plainly understood.

'...locking in preventative measures...' which has been done via the Surrender Act... doh! And which is why there is now no reason not to have a GE... doh again! But it counts for nothing if a Government with a majority comes in and is against it, and is unnecessary if a Government with a majority comes in and supports it - so where is the argument for not having a GE now?

First, no surprise in the Scottish ruling, glowing example of "lets cause England trouble.
But can some one explain how taking the government to court can overturn a decision made by the Sovereign? The PM made a request, the queen fulfilled this.

The Court can't, but the Queen is obliged to act upon the best advice available, if it can be shown the advice was not pukka it puts pressure on the Gov't to ask the Queen to reverse the earlier decision.

 

[Danllan]

@Danllan do you think the Scottish judiciary is impartial?
@acrobob @Ley253 @caveman @wanton dwarf looks like you guys are in good company

Kwasi Kwarteng criticised for 'biased judges' comment

Kwasi Kwarteng tells the BBC that "many people" think judges are not impartial on Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

May I suggest that you checkout this guy https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/munich-1933-the-good-bureaucrat-josef-hartinger/
When law is ignored by the judiciary to benefit politicians.

Odd question; I don't know if the Judges in question are impartial or not. I think so, I hope so and I presume so, I can't see anything in their ruling to suggest otherwise. But I don't know so.

I do think it poor form for politicians to question judicial independence without extremely good reason to do so. There's none I'm aware of in this instance; in the earlier Miller case there were some grounds for complaint because a Judge(s) had, astonishingly, made their political views known.

I also do think that the current matter is entirely capable of being adjudged either way. I write that because it is quite reasonable on one side to say that it is a matter of requirement for advisors to the Queen to be accountable - in the Courts if necessary - and, on the other side, to say that this is an entirely political matter and so the Courts should keep out of it and leave it to Parliament to sort out. Clearly I'm in the latter camp, but that doesn't mean I see no value in the former argument.

That written, the Judiciary, when asked, will tend to the (small 'c') conservative route and avoid political entanglement whenever possible. Minding that, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Senior Bench in Scotland - also being aware of it - made the ruling they did on the presumption that the Supreme Court's would differ.

We shall see.

 

[Farmer1001]

And if you scream about democracy and then ignore it, that is hypocrisy.

May 17th 2016 Quote "there could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said. "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." He didnt even wait for the result. And had it been a vote remain then Im pretty sure Leavers would have (not) been shouting "respect the democratic will of the people Nige" as Nige ran around shouting "its too close a call, remainers didnt know what they were voting, and now we know what remain means for so lets have a peoples vote to decide". Democracy is a funny old thing, a bit like hypocrisy. BTW, I dont want another ref and do respect the result.

 

[nivilla1982]

The Court case in Belfast arguing that prorogation of parliament and the government's brexit strategy was a threat to the peace process has been dismissed.

 

[Danllan]

May 17th 2016 Quote "there could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said. "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." He didnt even wait for the result. And had it been a vote remain then Im pretty sure Leavers would have (not) been shouting "respect the democratic will of the people Nige" as Nige ran around shouting "its too close a call, remainers didnt know what they were voting, and now we know what remain means for so lets have a peoples vote to decide". Democracy is a funny old thing, a bit like hypocrisy. BTW, I dont want another ref and do respect the result.

I would have and would be; I wrote that I would on TFF before the vote. I meant it. I'm a democrat.

 

[Farmer1001]

I would have and would be; I wrote that I would on TFF before the vote. I meant it. I'm a democrat.

As am I.

 

[alex04w]

I liked the Judges conclusions in the Belfast case:-

"Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society."

Hopefully the media will take notice!

The full judgment only runs to 67 pages (these judges can write pretty quickly!!) can be found here for those who want some bedtime reading.

https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/McCord%20%28Raymond%29%2C%20JR83%20and%20Jamie%20Waring%27s%20Applications%20v%20the%20Prime%20Minister%20and%20others.pdf

The BBC summary on the case is at:-

No-deal Brexit legal challenge dismissed by Belfast judge

Troubles victims' campaigner Raymond McCord was one of three people to bring legal action.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Danllan]

I liked the Judges conclusions in the Belfast case:-

"Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society."

Hopefully the media will take notice!

The full judgment only runs to 67 pages (these judges can write pretty quickly!! If can be found here for those who want some bedtime reading...

That, or they can dictate to a secretary who can type pretty quickly.

 

[caveman]

May 17th 2016 Quote "there could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said. "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." He didnt even wait for the result. And had it been a vote remain then Im pretty sure Leavers would have (not) been shouting "respect the democratic will of the people Nige" as Nige ran around shouting "its too close a call, remainers didnt know what they were voting, and now we know what remain means for so lets have a peoples vote to decide". Democracy is a funny old thing, a bit like hypocrisy. BTW, I dont want another ref and do respect the result.

What a ridiculous position to take.
You don't take into account at all, that remainers hold the status quo.
Where as the leave camp, in a 52/48 loss position, would still be striving to win something that is not had.