Brexit watch

Started by Nick, October 20, 2016, 18:02:39 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Slim

Quote from: döm on November 03, 2016, 12:07:18 pm
Parliamentary democracy 1 - Authoritarian Government 0


Hm I see. So the democratically expressed will of the people in a free referendum in which both sides had months to make their case, then delivers a result that the government doesn't actually WANT is "authoritarian government".

This ruling is extremely problematic, because it provides parliament with the means to betray the people. It's no surprise or coincidence that those who have been most gratified by this ruling are those who don't actually want the UK to leave the EU. It's the old story of people believing passionately in democracy until it doesn't suit them, then they are quite happy to express contempt for it.

People of good character on both sides of the argument - because that argument has been won now, and the verdict delivered - will hope that the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling. But in the end I believe the people will win. 70% of voters in Labour constituencies voted for Brexit, it's in a shambolic state at the moment in any case, and if it comes to a General Election a strengthened and reinvigorated Conservative government will, ultimately, fulfil the wish of the people. And then I'm afraid the likes of Clegg, Miliband and Farron and the rest who want to live on their knees will have to find some other outlet to gratify their cowardice.

Slim

Quote from: Moving Target on November 03, 2016, 18:02:45 pm
If Parliament has to enact an Article 50 Act, the Lords will get a say, and they do not answer to any constituents.

Poor old Brenialers. They wanted supremacy of Parliament over the EU, supremacy of British courts, and when the one is upheld by the other they squeal.


The government has already ceded the question of membership of the EU to the people Rob. It is duty-bound to honour the people's instruction. If Parliament betrays the people it will sow seeds of disenfranchisement and disaffection that will ultimately exact a heavy price.

döm

It's a great thing that the UK has an independent and strong judiciary, not swayed by Government or Public opinion,  doing its job according to the facts.


No one is saying Brexit shouldn't happen, only that it should happen correctly, in accordance with the Law.
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

Moving Target

Quote from: Slim on November 04, 2016, 00:24:33 am
The government has already ceded the question of membership of the EU to the people Rob. It is duty-bound to honour the people's instruction. If Parliament betrays the people it will sow seeds of disenfranchisement and disaffection that will ultimately exact a heavy price.



I would disagree with that.  They are sworn to the Crown, not the people, though they represent their constituents who elect them and can sack them at a later election.  Is Goldsmith honouring his constituents by supporting Leave?  Quite clearly not.  Brexit will still happen but now Parliament will be in control, according to the constitution, rather than the PM applying Royal prerogative.

Slim

Quote from: döm on November 04, 2016, 11:15:20 am
It's a great thing that the UK has an independent and strong judiciary, not swayed by Government or Public opinion,  doing its job according to the facts.


I hope that's true; recent events give me cause to doubt it.

Slim

Quote from: Moving Target on November 04, 2016, 13:10:24 pm

I would disagree with that.  They are sworn to the Crown, not the people, though they represent their constituents who elect them and can sack them at a later election.  Is Goldsmith honouring his constituents by supporting Leave?  Quite clearly not.  Brexit will still happen but now Parliament will be in control, according to the constitution, rather than the PM applying Royal prerogative.


So if a political party makes a promise in its manifesto, then is elected with a majority, there is no duty to carry it out? I disagree. We'll have to wait and see, but this could be rather messy. It's a shame the difficulties weren't foreseen I must admit, but then no-one could have expected the remainers to display such a squalid loathing for democracy, and in any case the government expected Remain to win all along. As I did until about 2:30AM on June 24th.

Bez

Quote from: Slim on November 04, 2016, 14:30:17 pm
So if a political party makes a promise in its manifesto, then is elected with a majority, there is no duty to carry it out?


There's plenty of precedent for that....
RC1.1 abd g/n 11/0/bcd/tG PeW/- ~600 x 0 61%

Moving Target

November 04, 2016, 17:03:41 pm #127 Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 18:54:54 pm by Moving Target
Quote from: Slim on November 04, 2016, 14:30:17 pm
So if a political party makes a promise in its manifesto, then is elected with a majority, there is no duty to carry it out? I disagree. We'll have to wait and see, but this could be rather messy. It's a shame the difficulties weren't foreseen I must admit, but then no-one could have expected the remainers to display such a squalid loathing for democracy, and in any case the government expected Remain to win all along. As I did until about 2:30AM on June 24th.



I'd say 'honour' is a better word that 'duty' in this case. Did the LD have a duty to uphold their foolhardy promise to oppose tuition fees made in their 2010 manifesto, if it meant that universities would go to the wall as a result?

I also note the words of the philosopher and Tory MP Edmund Burke, on whose thought so much of our coonstitutional law is based, to the effect that he would uphold the will of his Bristol constituents, but his higher duty was to his own conscience and he would follow that first and foremost.

If nothing else the High Court ruling will get people to think about what democracy means in the U.K. Technically we are not a democracy, but a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament is sovereign - not the monarch and not the people.

Slim

Quote from: Bez on November 04, 2016, 15:07:13 pm
There's plenty of precedent for that....


There are some precedents for that, but not really on an instruction delivered by 17 million people of enormous constitutional importance.

döm

Quote from: Slim on November 04, 2016, 17:10:08 pm
There are some precedents for that, but not really on an instruction delivered by 17 million people of enormous constitutional importance.



The score wasn't 17 million to nil you know.  It's as if the 16.1 million who voted to remain don't exist at all.  We're not talking Jeremy Corbyn levels of unanimity here.
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

DavidL

Can someone please explain what it is that Parliament has been given permission to approve?

Matt2112

November 04, 2016, 22:36:10 pm #131 Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 22:38:54 pm by Matt2112
Quote from: DavidL on November 04, 2016, 19:59:15 pm
Can someone please explain what it is that Parliament has been given permission to approve?



Quite.  This legal decision has been brought about because a clan of bitter, petty Remainers dredged up a law from antiquity and chanced their arm, apparently motivated by little else but spite.  Utterly pointless and actually does far more harm than good to the functioning of our democracy.


I voted Remain and Leave won.  There wasn't an option for "Leave-But..".  So I expect the prevailing outcome to be implemented as soon as is practicable, without cynical filibustering tactics from those who clearly can't bring themselves to accept defeat.
The keys to happiness

NeilP

Matt, you're not correct there....EU directive requires UK legislation through an act of parliament to implement them.
The EU referendum wording was "Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?" iirc. The outcome of the referendum was that no, the UK should not.
That's fine. But that is all that the referendum asked.
What would not be fine is for May, together with Fox, Davis and Boris to decide (dictate) what path is taken in related areas such as trade - e.g. going for an EEA option or WTO rules option - without proper recourse to the democratic institution of the UK i.e. parliament. Quite how anyone (in the press, on this forum, wherever) can claim the judgement regarding A50 is anti-democratic and at the same time claim the outcome of the referendum was about sovereignty and democracy is baffling to say the least.

Matt2112

Quote from: NeilP on November 04, 2016, 23:03:00 pm
What would not be fine is for May, together with Fox, Davis and Boris to decide (dictate) what path is taken in related areas such as trade - e.g. going for an EEA option or WTO rules option - without proper recourse to the democratic institution of the UK i.e. parliament.



They were voted into power to exercise that power all within the remit of that self-same democratic institution.  They are accountable to their respective constituents and the wider voting public and will stand or fall on their decisions.  They can't dictate by definition.  So it strikes me this ruling is trying to fix what isn't actually broken.


QuoteQuite how anyone (in the press, on this forum, wherever) can claim the judgement regarding A50 is anti-democratic and at the same time claim the outcome of the referendum was about sovereignty and democracy is baffling to say the least.



I'm not saying it's necessarily anti-democratic per se, just that it seems superfluous at best, and maliciously designed to create chaos and a conflict of interest at worst.
The keys to happiness

döm

Superfluous and designed to cause chaos?


That sounds like Brexit tbh !
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!