She’s let the whole thing go to her head and is overreaching herself now. Rather than saying “let’s have a second referendum” she’s gone too far by promising to revoke Art 50 and in so doing has alienated a significant portion of the electorate. Not only that, but it’s undemocratic (in the general non-technical sense) because shit show that Brexit has turned out to be, slightly over half the uk voted for it and so, even though I’m a staunch Remainer, I believe a second ref is the best way to achieve a firm mandate one way or the other and to start to heal the divisions in this country. I think she believes they can turn a general election into a pseudo second referendum and thus grab the keys to No 10 but my feeling is that she has ideas above her station.
It's interesting watching even leftish commentators in the news ask her where is the liberal and where is the democracy in that?
I think they are banking on the fact that nobody knows who they are after 2010 coalition fiasco so they can now do and say what they like without scrutiny....
I can only conclude that a divided society is their aim. Instead of accepting the democratic decision of the people and working together to deliver the best outcome, they and their like (oposition MPs & Remainers of all sides) have obstructed the process, and now openly tantalise a way to ignore the majority and keep the pot boiling. It's disgusting how they then lay the blame for division on those that do accept the majority decision of the people. On the bright side...she's at least made them even less likely to gain any sort of majority come GE time.
I’ve not been following the hearing closely today but I’ve checked for updates and although I discovered a long time ago that trying to call the outcome of other people’s cases has roughly about the same success rate as tossing a coin, the judicial questioning does seem to indicate a lack of sympathy for HM Govt’s case. However, sometimes judges do that in order to be rigorous and appear scrupulously fair. I once watched an appellate judge tear my opponent a new one, mostly by working step by step through my skeleton argument and he only just stopped short of calling the other guy a fool. The other side concluded their case at around 1245 (ie: just before lunch), so seeing which way the judicial wind was blowing I tentatively asked “Do I need to address your lordship?”, which received a response along the lines of “Yes you do. For all you know I might have just been toying with him, so you’ve had fair warning”. It turned out he hadn’t been, and he found in my favour, but you never know, as sometimes you think you’re ahead, only to get a nasty surprise when judgement is handed down.
I have had it mentioned to me, by intelligent folks who follow the news of the day, that there seems to be a sense of a Government fostering a mood of public disquiet, chaos and even fear, in order to promote some unspoken agenda. I'm not talking about the traditional and prosaic fear-mongering of the State which demands our loyalty in the face of the Nazis, the Soviets, Putin, terrorism, bogeyman-of-the-week, but a deliberate destabilising of everyday, ordinary life. I cannot quite commit to this point of view or theory, mainly because I cannot see what the endgame is, other than chaos and bloodshed for its own sake. I don't see how there can be an Establishment conspiracy whose goal is simply to watch its own country burn. However, if a country in flames is the goal, the actions we are seeing now are precisely the means you'd go about achieving it. It's a puzzle.
It's almost as though the eu had everyone in the matrix on the blue pill but then them damm brits took a red pill one day and the eu has been trying to push us back into the bottle of conformity and when they couldn't, they sought to undermine the whole society. Yesterdays Luxemburg prime ministers sillyness would never have been done by a british prime minister
Sorted I now have a ready supply of these. Please order now to avoid dissapointment in case of long customs delays...
this case isnt about the EU or brexit noob. This case is about determining where the ultimate seat of power rests within the UK. In effect, the position of the British Government is that the UK is an elective dictatorship in which a Prime Minister gains power on the basis of their party winning the largest number of seats at a General Election, and is then able to do pretty much as they please without subjecting themself to Parliamentary scrutiny. This Government believes that as the leader of the executive branch of government the Prime Minister has the right to avoid such scrutiny and to silence MPs when it’s convenient to whatever goal the Prime Minister may have in mind. This, they claim, is a matter of politics, not of law. . The plaintiffs in this case seek to establish that it’s the House of Commons which is the higher body, and the right of that body to question, scrutinise, and ultimately vote down the actions of the Prime Minister is paramount. They argue that the operation of that Parliament cannot be silenced by a Prime Minister merely because Parliament is likely to disagree with the executive. If that position were to be upheld by the Supreme Court, that would be the legitimisation of tyranny. Sovereignty in the UK rests with Parliament, not with the Prime Minister exercising the functions of the monarch. The Prime Minister is only able to exercise such functions in the first place because he or she commands a majority in the House. That is clearly not the case with this particular government and this particular prorogation.
Surely you mean “previous British Prime Ministers”, as the present one has, amongst other foolishness, compared himself to a fictional fantasy hero who threatened to smash his way out of the EU and continually and blatantly lies in an almost toddler-like way without considering how ridiculous he sounds?
This ^ There are much much bigger issues than Brexit here. If BoJo can shut down Parliament for 5 weeks in order to stifle debate and subvert its will, then who is to say some other tin pot dictator-in-waiting sometime in the future won’t shut it down for 5 months or even 5 years? Because our constitution is unwritten and is a creature of custom and convention, setting a precedent such as this can be very dangerous indeed. In my view the rot set in during the Blair years where he (a former barrister, oddly) set about repeatedly attacking the independence of the judiciary, undermining the Rule of Law, restricting access to justice and displaying contempt for the legal system and all who practice within it.
did you like that? its all my own work... not. i i eddited out the scottish content. but for the full unedited version https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/the-future-of-democracy/
I would say no, I would agree that is what it has been turned into One of the reasons for leavers was that the eu commission was an unelected by the people body and they could not be removed. Because of this we had all of europe being run by a management company who would not listen because there was no reason for them to listen nor was there a consequence We knew our mp's had to listen and use democracy or they would be finding a p45, so the hope was, our parliament would not disrespect the peoples democratic majorities votes. Our own elected parliament, is now less democratic than the eu's own top table They have sought to muddy the waters with other arguments to hide that and distract us away from the basics. Parliament has now set on a course of picking and choosing what peoples democratic majority votes it wants to abide by and if they don't get the vote they want, they will bring the whole system crashing down no matter what the people want or the cost to the people. We are now secondary in this dick waving contest between politicians The mp's should be the representatives of the people and NOT the ignorer's of people and their votes.
A bit like ignoring the referendum result could set a dangerous precedent in my eyes. Whether you voted leave or remain our democracy is at risk, worryingly that doesn’t seem to matter as long as remainers get their wish. Obviously not all of them as there are many who accept the result.
Then let me put this to you fin. Say the scots had a vote on indi 2 and decided to leave, 3 years later you still hadn't left because the side opposing it has used every dirty trick in the book to stop you leaving and refusing to accept your majority peoples democratic vote would you be saying "seems fair, we did it to them on the eu" ? if not, what would you be saying?
i would rather find out that what was being done in my name is leagal and water tight. you can grumble, you can whine, you can continue to cry. you wont convince me the mess is not due to the brexiteers and their lack of planning for a leave result, and the scenarios they presented to secure the result. the result of the court case in its self, wont stop brexit.
