General Brexit discussion thread

[Ciaphas]

"The judiciary" are political appointees all of whom sponsored the labour party at endless £50 and up a plate dinners and more arranged by Blair's co-pilot and equal idiot in a disastrous employment law case, Derry Irvine....



I wonder if that judgement had gone that way if the highest court in the land were still the house of lords instead of the political invention of that Warmongering bastard Blair.....

In the interests of acccuracy here is how they are appointed - https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html">https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appoi ... tices.html">https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html



The reasoning behind the Supremes unanimous ruling was clear and reasonable. What parts did you consider to be incorrect?

[BeElBeeBub]

"The judiciary" are political appointees all of whom sponsored the labour party at endless £50 and up a plate dinners and more arranged by Blair's co-pilot and equal idiot in a disastrous employment law case, Derry Irvine....



I wonder if that judgement had gone that way if the highest court in the land were still the house of lords instead of the political invention of that Warmongering bastard Blair.....

Our judges are not politically appointed - they are selected by judges (I believe the SC selects it's new replacements and recommends then to the Lord Chancellor who then appoints them, or not. Politicians don't get to pick who is suggested)



The Blair changes mostly moved the law lords out of the HoL into a separate body (supreme court) and modernised (eg they don't wear robes and wigs) the institution. You could argue that moving the highest court out of one of the houses of parliament was the very opposite of politicising it.



It is unlikely the decision would have gone the other way, it was a unanimous ruling off the full court (11 if the 12, apparently one has to sit on the subs bench to make sure it can't be a "hung" decision) and two of the current supreme court including Lady Hale were law lords under the old system.

[BeElBeeBub]

Creating false arguments this time.  I didn't argue there could be a "unified" will of the people, which is an absurd idea.  You really are clutching at straws.  The interpretation you have given is not an interpretation, it is an additional thing.  And you didn't answer my questions.

But if there isn't a unified "will of the people", how can MPs defy it?



If an MP supports a ban on fox hunting they will be making a choice that some voters dislike whilst others approve of.



Similarly the MP opposing the ban will be disappointing and delighting different voters.



So MPs must make up their own minds. This means that "the people" cannot be sovereign over Parliament.



My interpretation of the referendum result is perfectly legitimate and complies exactly with the question asked.  It may not be an interpretation you or others subscribe to but that's my point.

[Scott777]

Nothing ambiguous. MPs must use their judgement to decide on matters.  There is no way of them knowing what the "will of the people" is on any one issue.



Are you saying there is another way to interpret the instruction "The United Kingdom should leave the European Union" than



Because *if* there is another interpretation then there cannot be a unified "will of the people" for MPs to follow.



Each one *must* make their own judgement (which may include their personal calculation on how a given decision will effect their chances of reelection)

Creating false arguments this time.  I didn't argue there could be a "unified" will of the people, which is an absurd idea.  You really are clutching at straws.  The interpretation you have given is not an interpretation, it is an additional thing.  And you didn't answer my questions.

[BeElBeeBub]

What you are doing is using lots of completely ambiguous words and phrases to fit with your predetermined opinion.  I can do the same.  My interests are to leave the EU, as were 17.4M peeps, which hasn't been done.  Electing another MP doesn't mean the new one will do what we have asked, either.  Or the next.  Or the next.  Would that be in my interest?  If so, it might comply with the sovereignty of the people.  if not, then it doesn't.



They can do whatever they like, in that they are physically able, but it wouldn't necessarily be what we want, and we haven't consented to them doing that, and it therefore isn't compatible with the sovereignty of the people in a representative democracy, so it is irrelevant that they can do whatever they want.

Nothing ambiguous. MPs must use their judgement to decide on matters.  There is no way of them knowing what the "will of the people" is on any one issue.



Are you saying there is another way to interpret the instruction "The United Kingdom should leave the European Union" than

... to enter treaty negotiations so that a new set of treaties could be created allowing the UK to remain in the SM, CU, Euratom etc whilst ceasing to be a member of the EU

Because *if* there is another interpretation then there cannot be a unified "will of the people" for MPs to follow.



Each one *must* make their own judgement (which may include their personal calculation on how a given decision will effect their chances of reelection)

[BeElBeeBub]

Can you explain a bit?  What's the contradiction?

Really?



Clearly two of the leading proponents of brexit cannot agree on what brexit actually is, but somehow everyone knew what brexit was.

[BeElBeeBub]

If you think that's anger you wait till it kicks off.

<Snip>

I hope you get to find out the way I did

You and your eldest have nothing but sympathy for that tale..



I'm not sure how it relates to the EU or our constitution but it does illuminate why you are so very angry.

[Scott777]

Well even in the last days



PM - "Vote for me as my deal with the EU is the best".



Farage - "Scrap Boris Deal as it's rubbish".



Many Brexit supporters - "Every single person who voted leave knew exactly what they were voting for".



 :fcplm:

Can you explain a bit?  What's the contradiction?

[Scott777]

I'll quote JohnOfGwent because he put it well



"...using their best judgement,in the interests of their constituents."



We elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. If we don't like the decision they make, we can elect a different MP next time.



Between elections, MPs can make whatever judgement they like and the only sanction is they might not get elected next time.



To the extent that anyone consented to their MP (it is likely that over half their constituents didn't vote for them) making decisions on their behalf that consent is to make any decision they like.

What you are doing is using lots of completely ambiguous words and phrases to fit with your predetermined opinion.  I can do the same.  My interests are to leave the EU, as were 17.4M peeps, which hasn't been done.  Electing another MP doesn't mean the new one will do what we have asked, either.  Or the next.  Or the next.  Would that be in my interest?  If so, it might comply with the sovereignty of the people.  if not, then it doesn't.



They can do whatever they like, in that they are physically able, but it wouldn't necessarily be what we want, and we haven't consented to them doing that, and it therefore isn't compatible with the sovereignty of the people in a representative democracy, so it is irrelevant that they can do whatever they want.

[johnofgwent]

The judiciary agrees with me.

"The judiciary" are political appointees all of whom sponsored the labour party at endless £50 and up a plate dinners and more arranged by Blair's co-pilot and equal idiot in a disastrous employment law case, Derry Irvine....



I wonder if that judgement had gone that way if the highest court in the land were still the house of lords instead of the political invention of that Warmongering bastard Blair.....

[johnofgwent]

You have accurately described parliament and, as Javert pointed out, also shown that MPs have a duty to use their judgement as to the best interests of their constituents.



After all there are many prominent Leave MPs like Liam Fox or Iain Duncan Smith who are MPs for majority remain constituencies.



But you failed to answer the question of who speaks for "the people"?  If I wanted to know the people's sovereign will on the question of Marmite where do I go?



Also, you appear to have some serious anger issues.  I know it's a tough day for some Leavers but please try and tone it down. We're all supposed to be adults here

If you think that's anger you wait till it kicks off.



I STOOD as a candidate for this nest of vipers. I KNOW what they're supposed to do. I know what they're doing and it isn't democracy. They got elected, as I have pointed out endlessly to wreckers like you, on a promise to respect the 2016 referendum. Ten times as many people stood as got elected, and among them were more extreme offerings on both ends of the spectrum and both were rejected in favour of over 400 who promised to respect the declared will of a majority of 52% of those who could be arsed to express a preference, and from the morning after 2016 when that white hater Lammy stood up and said the referendum was only advisory and could quite easily be ignored, wave after wave of wreckers have done their damndest to F@@@ us over.



You haven't seen me angry



Angry was when I found my eldest had been raped by one of the Islamic filth let into this country without the health checks that would have stopped him getting into Saudi. Because he had fucking AIDS. And got here after buying qualifications that he presented in order to do a "degree" in Islamic finance.



In Newport "university".



And Gwent Plod have copies of the documents I procured that prove every word of the above



But just like half a dozen other labour ghettoes, the Islamic vote counts more than British law.



Which is how the piece of shit was able to flee back to his native India right on the Bangladesh border to die.



The one thing I will say is two chaps I've known a HELL of a long time from the Sunni community were so effing shocked they had their cousin cross the border at some risk and got me a copy of the death certificate and a picture of the bastards grave.

Which is more than the SHIA community and the poisonous corrupt AM at their head did. They helped get the bastard out of the UK. But then again, he was one of theirs.....



That death certificate and photo will make a nice 21st birthday present for the kid he created. I'll give it to her in 12 years time. Ironically through my mother she has a greater claim to the throne of Hywel Dda than that arse Charlie and his second wife.



And since she speaks Welsh now, there's s pretty decent chance Plaid will actually warm to her .....



Like I said, you've no fucking idea what anger is.



I hope you get to find out the way I did

[Javert]

Well even in the last days



PM - "Vote for me as my deal with the EU is the best".



Farage - "Scrap Boris Deal as it's rubbish".



Many Brexit supporters - "Every single person who voted leave knew exactly what they were voting for".



 :fcplm:

[BeElBeeBub]

You seem to be struggling.  MPs are there to make decisions that represent what we want.  We consented to them doing this.  We didn't consent to them doing whatever they want.  Their sovereignty is by our consent.  Get it?



Yes, the referendum is the most perfect example of the will of the people.  There are far fewer interpretations of leaving the EU than there are of voting for a party.  What are you voting for?  Which items of the manifesto?  And interpretations of leaving are irrelevant, given that we currently have not left in any possible interpretation.

I'll quote JohnOfGwent because he put it well



"...using their best judgement,in the interests of their constituents."



We elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. If we don't like the decision they make, we can elect a different MP next time.



Between elections, MPs can make whatever judgement they like and the only sanction is they might not get elected next time.



To the extent that anyone consented to their MP (it is likely that over half their constituents didn't vote for them) making decisions on their behalf that consent is to make any decision they like.



How do you propose to limit their decision making? What happens if a decision comes up that wasn't even discussed? How did any MP know what their constituents wanted after the WTC attacks?  How did any MP know what their constituents wanted during the banking crisis?



So what is the single and only interpretation of the result of the referendum "The United Kingdom should leave the European Union"?



I choose to believe that the only interpretation would be to enter treaty negotiations so that a new set of treaties could be created allowing the UK to remain in the SM, CU, Euratom etc whilst ceasing to be a member of the EU.



That would 100% fulfil the referendum result.



Unless you and every other UK citizen agree with me your argument about there being one single defined "will of the people" cannot be true.

[Scott777]

I go back to the problem, who speaks for "the people"?



Yes the electorate can remove the members of parliament in elections but what other mechanism is there for "the people" to express their sovereignty?



Do you speak for them?  How about BJ?  Maybe Nigel Farage?  Where do we go to to find the definitive "will of the people" at any given time?



Even a referendum is murky.  The question was should the UK leave the EU. But there are many interpretations of that.



A Norway++ brexit would satisfy that but some say that isn't proper brexit.



Why is one particular interpretation better than another and who decides?

You seem to be struggling.  MPs are there to make decisions that represent what we want.  We consented to them doing this.  We didn't consent to them doing whatever they want.  Their sovereignty is by our consent.  Get it?



Yes, the referendum is the most perfect example of the will of the people.  There are far fewer interpretations of leaving the EU than there are of voting for a party.  What are you voting for?  Which items of the manifesto?  And interpretations of leaving are irrelevant, given that we currently have not left in any possible interpretation.

[BeElBeeBub]

The parliament certainly doesn't, because it's terms of reference are that those elected shall govern, or loyally oppose, in the name of her majesty, using their best judgement,in the interests of their constituents.

You have accurately described parliament and, as Javert pointed out, also shown that MPs have a duty to use their judgement as to the best interests of their constituents.



After all there are many prominent Leave MPs like Liam Fox or Iain Duncan Smith who are MPs for majority remain constituencies.



But you failed to answer the question of who speaks for "the people"?  If I wanted to know the people's sovereign will on the question of Marmite where do I go?



Also, you appear to have some serious anger issues.  I know it's a tough day for some Leavers but please try and tone it down. We're all supposed to be adults here