Brexit watch

Started by Nick, October 20, 2016, 17:02:39 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nïckslïkk2112

Quote from: döm on November 04, 2016, 23:05:58 pm
Superfluous and designed to cause chaos?


That sounds like Brexit tbh !

Sounds like a federal European Superstate to me.

Legend in my own Mind


DavidL

November 04, 2016, 23:46:26 pm #136 Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 00:24:58 am by DavidL
The time at which Parliament can be consulted over the form of the UK's leaving the EU can only be after negotiations have concluded.
Prior to that point in time the actual terms are unknown. The EU has repeatedly stated that no negotiations can take place before article 50 is triggered, so if parliamentary approval is required to trigger article 50, the nature of the preceding debate is academic. The government can only state their aims in those negotiations but for MPs to vote to trigger article 50 based on those aims would be pointless (and would probably weaken the negotiating position somewhat).
So, let's imagine that parliamentary approval of terms is what these Remainers want (rather than being given a say in when negotiations start). Knowing that MPs had that vote, why do you think the EU would ever give the UK favourable terms of exit? (considering that they do not want the UK to leave). In this case the EU would hold all the cards ("hooray" - Remoaners).
I agree with Matt's view and he is right to use the term filibustering because to obfuscate and delay the process of leaving the EU seems to be the intention here. If the outcome of the referendum is to be honoured, I cannot see how this ruling will not hinder the process. The ultimate outcome (Brexit-lite?) may well be celebrated by Remainers as it could be far removed from the situation Leavers thought they were voting for. Regardless, the (extra) uncertainty that this has caused will not help business or the financial markets, as we've seen today.
I'd like to add that as one who voted Remain, Matt, your position is (almost) uniquely honourable  ;)

DavidL


döm

Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on November 04, 2016, 23:44:09 pm
Sounds like a federal European Superstate to me.



Yes that works too!
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

Moving Target

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 04, 2016, 21:36:10 pm

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.






Judges independent of Parliament uphold British law, reasserting the supremacy of Parliament instead of allowing the PM to apply Royal prerogative like a medieval King, and you say democracy has been harmed? Are you Robert Mugabe in disguise?


DavidL

Quote from: Moving Target on November 05, 2016, 08:24:50 am

Judges independent of Parliament uphold British law, reasserting the supremacy of Parliament instead of allowing the PM to apply Royal prerogative like a medieval King, and you say democracy has been harmed? Are you Robert Mugabe in disguise?
Can you explain the merit of this judgement, in practical terms?

Moving Target

Quote from: DavidL on November 05, 2016, 09:02:49 am
Can you explain the merit of this judgement, in practical terms?
Well, the merit is that Parliament is in charge, according to our law since the English Civil War ended.


Would you prefer a system of plebiscites where we do away with Parliament and the Queen writes the will of the people into law?  It is 5 November, after all  ;)

Matt2112

Quote from: Moving Target on November 05, 2016, 08:24:50 am

Judges independent of Parliament uphold British law, reasserting the supremacy of Parliament instead of allowing the PM to apply Royal prerogative like a medieval King, and you say democracy has been harmed? Are you Robert Mugabe in disguise?



No, I didn't say democracy (per se) has been harmed, if you read the very post you've quoted a bit more carefully. 


And I do hope the crass Mugabe comparison is facetious; I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that one.
The keys to happiness

Slim

Quote from: Moving Target on November 05, 2016, 09:36:41 am
Well, the merit is that Parliament is in charge, according to our law since the English Civil War ended.


But Rob - Parliament does not normally approve everything that a government does. I found this interesting piece on the BBC's website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4267761.stm

Note that the Royal Prerogative even covers the "making of treaties" in foreign affairs, and negotiating trade deals is surely a notch or two below that. No-one's rewriting the constitution here. This notion that Parliament has to approve all of the government's actions is a new invention on the part of the Remoaners and a set of High Court judges who are apparently sympathetic to them.

The (then) government didn't even have to ask Parliament before going to war in Iraq in 2003. It did in fact organise a debate and a vote in the Commons, but was never bound by it.

Moving Target

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 05, 2016, 10:30:30 am

No, I didn't say democracy (per se) has been harmed, if you read the very post you've quoted a bit more carefully. 


And I do hope the crass Mugabe comparison is facetious; I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Harming the functioning of democracy seems to me to be the same as harming democracy, in practical terms.


Ok, you are not actually Robert Mugabe in disguise. I'm sure that you don't engage in mass murder and torture.  The courts held Mugabe up as he moved Zimbabwe toward populist totalitarianism, so the analogy to a move away from Parliamentarism and the rule of law seems appropriate, if admittedly hyperbolic. Though have a look at the Express and Sun headlines of late. Quite frightening fascist propaganda.

Nick

Quote from: Moving Target on November 05, 2016, 11:02:30 am
Though have a look at the Express and Sun headlines of late. Quite frightening fascist propaganda.


Yes a worrying slant to the nasty side of the right, very noticeable.
Everybody's got to evalate from the norm.

NeilP

I'm surprised that certain newspaper headlines re. the high court judges hasn't been condemned by a Govt minister tbh... presumably they agree with the incitement?

Nick

May hasn't spoken out about the attacks on the judiciary. Just as she has never spoken out to condemn the post-referendum hate crimes, let alone the xenophobic language that has become so prevalent.
Everybody's got to evalate from the norm.

döm

Quote from: Nick on November 05, 2016, 13:07:47 pm
May hasn't spoken out about the attacks on the judiciary. Just as she has never spoken out to condemn the post-referendum hate crimes, let alone the xenophobic language that has become so prevalent.



The Mail and Express are absolutely despicable.  All that is hateful about the UK in a nutshell.
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

Matt2112

Quote from: Moving Target on November 05, 2016, 11:02:30 am
Harming the functioning of democracy seems to me to be the same as harming democracy, in practical terms.


Generally, I would agree; however, what appears to be happening in this specific, exceptional and somewhat paradoxical instance is a conflict of two democratic stances.  The motivations behind Gina Miller's intervention do not appear to be limited only to a technicality but ulterior motives which do not sit well with the prevailing instruction of the voting public to Leave.

QuoteOk, you are not actually Robert Mugabe in disguise. I'm sure that you don't engage in mass murder and torture.  The courts held Mugabe up as he moved Zimbabwe toward populist totalitarianism, so the analogy to a move away from Parliamentarism and the rule of law seems appropriate, if admittedly hyperbolic.


Fair play - blame a pre-morning-coffee-posting if I came across as a bit jumpy.  :)

QuoteThough have a look at the Express and Sun headlines of late. Quite frightening fascist propaganda.


Indeed, the hysterical invective from the likes of these rags is disgraceful - no change there, of course.  The judges in making this objective, legally correct decision (subject to appeal) are absolutely beyond reproach - that must be made very clear.  My beef is with the thinking and motivations from an agenda-driven Remainer behind how the ruling would manifest itself, which don't appear to come from an entirely honest or honourable place, i.e. scupper Brexit by any means possible.
The keys to happiness