Brexit watch

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Nïckslïkk2112

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 05, 2016, 13:58:52 pm
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.

Which is a very good piece of beef. Are the legal challenges being done because people are concerned by the legal and constitutional issues over Brexit, or are they been driven by a bunch of sore losers.
Legend in my own Mind


Nïckslïkk2112

Quote from: döm on November 05, 2016, 13:27:48 pm

The Mail and Express are absolutely despicable.  All that is hateful about the UK in a nutshell.

I read the D**ly M**l, it really isn't that bad - apart from when it supported BLiar in the early days - you know exactly where it stands, so you can read between the lines of what it is saying and many of its journalists - especially in the sport pages - come out with views which are very much at odds with perceived M**l opinion.

Although I must say I find it hard to believe how the M**l has been so much on the side of Stephen Lawrence. I thought they didn't care for people of colour?
Legend in my own Mind


döm

Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on November 05, 2016, 21:27:19 pm
Which is a very good piece of beef. Are the legal challenges being done because people are concerned by the legal and constitutional issues over Brexit, or are they been driven by a bunch of sore losers.



It was wrong for the government to railroad through their version of Brexit without parliament's approval.


Justice has been done and the motivations of those who brought the issue to the courts is immaterial.
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

NeilP

The Mail under Dacre has been criticised frequently for its racist attitude towards the stories it chooses to cover, ie rarely where black folk are the victims. I think they were going to be anti Stephen Lawrence originally until their journalist Hal Austin discovered that Neville Lawrence had worked as a plasterer on Dacre's house... the news desk instructed Austin to "Do something sympathetic" about the case.


Slim

Quote from: Moving Target on November 05, 2016, 11:02:30 amQuite frightening fascist propaganda.


Neither fascist, nor propaganda. Speaking up for the people against the establishment which would deny them liberty.

DavidL

November 06, 2016, 01:29:19 am #155 Last Edit: November 06, 2016, 08:07:20 am by DavidL
Quote from: Slim on November 05, 2016, 22:30:05 pm
Neither fascist, nor propaganda. Speaking up for the people against the establishment which would deny them liberty.
Yes, I agree. To call those opinions fascist is hysterical nonsense.

Matt2112

Quote from: DavidL on November 06, 2016, 01:29:19 am
Yes, I agree. To call those opinions fascist is hysterical nonsense.



Yes, "fascist" isn't appropriate, but much of the invective is plain ad hominen at best and hardly measured or rational.  That's the tabloids all over - more interested in sensationalist character assassination than engaging in a healthy discourse.
The keys to happiness

DavidL

Quote from: Matt2112 on November 06, 2016, 09:50:59 am

Yes, "fascist" isn't appropriate, but much of the invective is plain ad hominen at best and hardly measured or rational.  That's the tabloids all over - more interested in sensationalist character assassination than engaging in a healthy discourse.
Of course, sensationalism is an accurate description of much tabloid journalism. In terms of the Express: for a paper that has campaigned for six years to give the electorate a say on EU membership, the headline is not irrational. These judges may have denied the expressed will of the majority. I also believe that healthy discourse is to be found within these papers but headlines are usually, inevitably, sensational.
Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, as you concede, Express headline writers are probably not.

NeilP

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas put it in this way: "The sole question in this case is whether, as a matter of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Crown - acting through the executive government of the day - is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 for the United Kingdom to cease to be a member of the European Union."
He stressed that it was a "pure question of law" with "no bearing" on the merits of the UK withdrawing from the EU.
Lord Thomas says: "An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers."
So, prerogative powers are strictly limited and in the relationship between them and Parliament it is Parliament that very firmly has the upper hand, because, "This subordination of the Crown [ie the executive government] to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom", he says.
In other words, Parliament is king - top dog of the constitution.
The government cannot use executive powers to override legislation. Only legislation can override legislation.

This view was expressed but ignored by the press months back when the case was first brought before the courts.
The appeal should be dropped and the Govt should get on with 'leaving' the EU

DavidL

Quote from: NeilP on November 06, 2016, 12:39:35 pm
The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas put it in this way: "The sole question in this case is whether, as a matter of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Crown - acting through the executive government of the day - is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 for the United Kingdom to cease to be a member of the European Union."
He stressed that it was a "pure question of law" with "no bearing" on the merits of the UK withdrawing from the EU.
Lord Thomas says: "An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers."
So, prerogative powers are strictly limited and in the relationship between them and Parliament it is Parliament that very firmly has the upper hand, because, "This subordination of the Crown [ie the executive government] to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom", he says.
In other words, Parliament is king - top dog of the constitution.
The government cannot use executive powers to override legislation. Only legislation can override legislation.

This view was expressed but ignored by the press months back when the case was first brought before the courts.
The appeal should be dropped and the Govt should get on with 'leaving' the EU
That's fine but the conundrum remains - on what basis would most MPs vote to trigger article 50 other than their desire for the UK to remain in or leave the EU?

Slim

I was interested to read that Theresa is "confident" of this odious ruling being overturned, I hope that's justified.

Meanwhile a fascinating development in the Labour Party this morning - despicably, Corbyn has given an interview to the Mirror in which he describes a number of "red lines" which he will insist on, or block Article 50. One of these is access to the single market. Yet this morning Tom Watson, interviewed on 5 Live, asserted quite unambiguously and rather more honourably that even if Labour didn't get its own way, it would not block Article 50. He claimed that he hadn't read his leader's interview.

If it comes down to it, I think Watson's stance carries more weight and support among Labour MPs than Corbyn's.

Meanwhile Owen Smith is still hoping for a second referendum. He made the claim that the Leave voters had been lied to, and literally in the same breath insisted that we must remain in the single marked. Contemptible hypocrisy, but comical at the same time.

Slim

Oh yes, Smith was also asked if he'd be prepared to take his case to the country in a General Election. I'm paraphrasing, but his reply was more or less "no, because we're 15 points behind in the polls and we'd get hammered".

Moving Target

November 06, 2016, 13:45:27 pm #162 Last Edit: November 06, 2016, 14:00:01 pm by Moving Target
Quote from: DavidL on November 06, 2016, 01:29:19 am
Yes, I agree. To call those opinions fascist is hysterical nonsense.
You don't think that calling judges 'enemies of the people' for upholding the law regarding Parliamentary democracy is a fascist thing to do?  We have had an MP gunned down in the street. Maybe a judge is next. When populists blow the dog whistle, disturbed and angry people will turn into dogs and bite. Fascism is on the march across Europe and the USA, and the Mail just encouraged the fascists.

DavidL

Quote from: DavidL on November 06, 2016, 13:16:11 pm
That's fine but the conundrum remains - on what basis would most MPs vote to trigger article 50 other than their desire for the UK to remain in or leave the EU?
Anyone?

DavidL

Quote from: Slim on November 06, 2016, 13:22:48 pm

If it comes down to it, I think Watson's stance carries more weight and support among Labour MPs than Corbyn's.

No change there, then  :)