Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

Why is it that judges only get called 'political' when they make a ruling that people don't like?

Why is it that some people seem to think that the only possible reason that the judges could have to pass on this ruling is because they're shills for the EU and attempting to thwart "the democratic right of the people"?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Do you really think it appropriate that a Supreme Court judge should be talking over technical legal aspects of something in a lecture to students just a few days before one of the biggest decisions they are likely to make for a long time?

I called it ‘political’ but should have also called it 'stupid' because it makes it look as if she has already decided the outcome without having a hearing.
I have done jury service – if we had done something remotely like that we would have been hauled before the courts on contempt charges.

Anyway, that is just one of the reasons I said we should try and avoid such conflicts with the courts and let Parliament decide.
I presume you agree with that?

 

[Oerdin]

Ah, any opinion contrary to yours is idiotic. I've finally been enlightened.

You do not read very well, in fact what you wrote is so completely false it is hard to believe you are not trolling. I said, very specifically, that the claim made by a dutch politician that there can be no free trade is so untrue as to be idiotic. What is your major malfunction which prevents you from understanding that sime sentence? Why do you have to lie and create strawman arguments unless your goal is to troll?

 

[Oerdin]

Why is it that judges only get called 'political' when they make a ruling that people don't like?

Why is it that some people seem to think that the only possible reason that the judges could have to pass on this ruling is because they're shills for the EU and attempting to thwart "the democratic right of the people"?

Mostly because a politician's job is to be political and even a priest's job is to advocate while a judge's job is to be impartial.

 

[Arakhor]

Do you really think it appropriate that a Supreme Court judge should be talking over technical legal aspects of something in a lecture to students just a few days before one of the biggest decisions they are likely to make for a long time?

I'm not aware of the specifics of the situation, but that is that something that can be misinterpreted, I agree. Given that the nature of his profession though, I would assume that he knew where the boundaries of the law lay.

Anyway, that is just one of the reasons I said we should try and avoid such conflicts with the courts and let Parliament decide. I presume you agree with that?

Of course it would be a good idea to let Parliament decide - it would be the most constitutionally sound thing to do, after all - but since the Government is trying really hard to not let Parliament have a say, what exactly do you think can be done otherwise?

Mostly because a politician's job is to be political and even a priest's job is to advocate while a judge's job is to be impartial.

Indeed. It's just a shame that so many people instantly start insulting the imagined lack of partiality, simply because a ruling went against their wishes.

 

[aelf]

Have Remainers not been equally hysterical at times?

The nationalism part weighs more than the hysterical.

 

[Lohrenswald]

but given that the English (and Welsh) voted almost 3:2 to bulldoze the economy and abolish civil rights

What do you mean?

Really? I thought Brexit was all about Parliamentary and legal sovereignty?

I don't know what british leave-voters think or what was said during the campaign, but if I where in that situation it wouldn't be sovereignty of parliament I would think about but the sovereignty of the people

 

[really]

I don't know what british leave-voters think or what was said during the campaign, but if I where in that situation it wouldn't be sovereignty of parliament I would think about but the sovereignty of the people

British history - parliament fought the king for the people. (simplified version)

By contrast the reason Ireland has referendums every few weeks is because our parliament voted us into the UK.

 

[EnglishEdward]

What do you mean?

I don't know what british leave-voters think or what was said during the campaign, but if I where in that situation it wouldn't be sovereignty of parliament I would think about but the sovereignty of the people

That is exactly it, the sovereignty of the UK people.

Leaving the EU is all about self determination and democratic accountability.

Much of the hyperbole from the campaigns was simply disregarded as completely over the top.

Our Parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people, in the absence of more
direct democracy such as a referendum, but it has not been doing that very well for some time.

Parliament took the UK into the European Economic Community, European Community,
European Union etc without any mandate from the UK people, and the UK into Iraq etc.

I await the outcome of the UK Supreme Court regarding Article 50. All I can say is that the
courts seem quite selective regarding the Crown perogative. I don't remember them ruling
that the UK invasion of Iraq was illegal because the grounds put forward, WMD, were lies.

 

[Lillefix]

I don't remember them ruling
that the UK invasion of Iraq was illegal because the grounds put forward, WMD, were lies.

Was there ever a legal case against it?

Why do you think the parliament shouldn't have a say in how Brexit should be managed? Do you think they don't want the best for your country?

 

[EnglishEdward]

British history - parliament fought the king for the people. (simplified version)

Thank you.

By contrast the reason Ireland has referendums every few weeks is because our parliament voted us into the UK.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800


I thought that the Irish refererendum on gay marriage was a good idea, the democratic way to go.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Why do you think the parliament shouldn't have a say in how Brexit should be managed?

Your statement is simply incorrect. I do think that the UK Parliament should have a say as to how Brexit should be managed.
However that ought to be less about saying goodbye to the European Union and more about engaging with alternative futures.

Do you think they don't want the best for your country?

Sadly they seem to represent special interests and lobbying more than they represent what their constituents' or the country's interests are.

 

[JohannaK]

That is some impressive mental gymnastics you do, Edward. So the goal of Brexit is to give power back to the people through Parliament, the democratic quality of which we will not discuss now, but Parliament should not be able to decide whether Brexit is effected or not, in spite of the referendum being ostensibly consultory, that is, non-binding, and therefore the Parliament being the only appropriate avenue for the people to express their will regarding Brexit.

 

[Arakhor]

British history - parliament fought the king for the people. (simplified version)

I doubt it was anything remotely to do with "the people" and more to do with Parliament fighting for Parliament because the King refused to let them sit and discuss matters.

I await the outcome of the UK Supreme Court regarding Article 50. All I can say is that the courts seem quite selective regarding the Crown perogative. I don't remember them ruling that the UK invasion of Iraq was illegal because the grounds put forward, WMD, were lies.

Did anyone actually bring forward a legal appeal against the invasion of Iraq? High courts don't randomly produce rulings without cases being brought to their benches.

Sadly they seem to represent special interests and lobbying more than they represent what their constituents' or the country's interests are.

Which is of course why the Cabinet should have the only say on Brexit for years to come?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Did anyone actually bring forward a legal appeal against the invasion of Iraq? High courts don't randomly produce rulings without cases being brought to their benches.

I understand that initial attempts were bounced early on.

Then they came up with the brilliant wheeze of having a Chilcot enquiry to delay things for years and years.

Various people are trying to crowd source legal action still.

The thing is that big money has no interest in challenging the goverment over the Iraq war.

And it is an uphill struggle when those who exercised the perogative have unlimited tax payers money to obfuscate things.

There is a lot of history on this, but I do not intend to go down that particular rabbit hole in this thread about the UK leaving the EU.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That is some impressive mental gymnastics you do, Edward. So the goal of Brexit is to give power back to the people through Parliament, the democratic quality of which we will not discuss now, but Parliament should not be able to decide whether Brexit is effected or not, in spite of the referendum being ostensibly consultory, that is, non-binding, and therefore the Parliament being the only appropriate avenue for the people to express their will regarding Brexit.

Let me simplify.

Parliament's job is to reflect the people's will, not oppose it.

 

[Lillefix]

Let me simplify.

Parliament's job is to reflect the people's will, not oppose it.

I thought the idea was that the Parliament will trigger Article 50 when they are happy with the Prime minister's plans.Or have they said they will never trigger Article 50?

 

[Tahuti]

Parliament's job is to reflect the people's will, not oppose it.

Parliaments do whatever they please whether you like or not. The election is a judgment by the electorate of the previous parliament's performance and to decide who is to replace members who are deemed incompetent or have resigned or died.

 

[JohannaK]

The job of the Parliament is not to represent anything, but to govern through legislation. It is the electoral system that has for a goal to translate the will of the electorate into the Parliament's composition. Alas, the UK has one of the worst systems for that.

 

[Tahuti]

The job of the Parliament is not to represent anything, but to govern through legislation.

I'll have a beer to that!

It is the electoral system that has for a goal to translate the will of the electorate into the Parliament's composition. Alas, the UK has one of the worst systems for that.

Every electoral system in history evolved through history based on the political needs of those in charge over it. To say the UK has one of the worst systems is to say UK political history - which has led to this situation - is one of the worst. That's a very subjective matter indeed.