General Brexit discussion thread

[Ciaphas]

Well that's the spin YOU put on it.

The judiciary agrees with me.

[johnofgwent]

Yes, and it is that wording that allowed sourpuss or however you spell her name to stay claiming her loot. No matter that 9 out of 10 of her constituents say they want her out, if she can pass a lie detector stating she is acting in their best interests she is in fact doing her job...

[Javert]

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.

My bold - interesting that it says "in the interests of their constituents" rather than "according to the wishes of their constituents".

[johnofgwent]

It would be very helpful to the remainer cause if something nasty happened to her.

It would,wouldn't it.



I wonder if she's worked out Soros might have thought of that

[johnofgwent]

Interestingly once parliament is dissolved and they are out pounding the streets and knocking on doors it becomes a level playing field. Then we'll see who has the sovereignty.

No.



Once parliament is prorogued, the civil servants run the show



They're far worse than that bitch miller

[johnofgwent]

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?

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.

[johnofgwent]

It is ironic that Mrs Milller is being subjected to repeat threats from leave supporters because of her efforts to preserve and protect parliamentary sovereignty from attempts by the executive to usurp it.

Well that's the spin YOU put on it.

[BeElBeeBub]

I never said parliament isn't sovereign, only that the people are sovereign and that is the source of parliamentary sovereignty.  There is more to sovereignty than just the law.  And by the way, members of parliament are also bound by the law.

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?

[Scott777]

I never said parliament isn't sovereign, only that the people are sovereign and that is the source of parliamentary sovereignty.  There is more to sovereignty than just the law.  And by the way, members of parliament are also bound by the law.

[Conchúr]

This demonstrates so many misconceptions about the meaning of sovereignty, probably because you are confusing the general meaning with a more specific contemporary meaning of "political sovereignty".



Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Sovereignty: The will of the people as a whole.



John Locke described it where the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people.

In fairness, when it comes to UK constitutional law, the generally accepted interpretation of sovereignty in UK constitutional law is that of A.V. Dicey.  Under his interpretation, Parliament is sovereign because no person or body of persons can legally break the laws which Parliament sets.   The people are bound by Parliament's laws, and Parliament is not bound by any law of the people — because the people have no authority to make law.



Yes, Parliamentary sovereignty is indeed limited by the fact that membership of Parliament is granted by the people and the term of membership is subject to the process of general elections, but this does not change the fact that Parliament is sovereign.

[Scott777]

This implies so many misconceptions about how our (or pretty much any) political system works.  



Parliament is sovereign, not the people.



Sovereignty is a meaningless concept when it comes to "the people".



So how does a collection of people have sovereignty?  



Who speaks for that collection?

This demonstrates so many misconceptions about the meaning of sovereignty, probably because you are confusing the general meaning with a more specific contemporary meaning of "political sovereignty".



Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Sovereignty: The will of the people as a whole.



John Locke described it where the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people.

[T00ts]

Interestingly once parliament is dissolved and they are out pounding the streets and knocking on doors it becomes a level playing field. Then we'll see who has the sovereignty.

[BeElBeeBub]

When you say parliamentary sovereignty, I assume you mean the sovereignty that we lend them, and which is not being protected, but abused.

This implies so many misconceptions about how our (or pretty much any) political system works.  



Parliament is sovereign, not the people.



Sovereignty is a meaningless concept when it comes to "the people".



So how does a collection of people have sovereignty?  



Who speaks for that collection?



When Kate Hoey, Dominic Rabb, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Baker, Chris Grayling, Liam Fox, or John Redwood vote for Brexit despite their constituency being majority Remain are they abusing their positions?

[Scott777]

I can only conclude that her detractors are opposed to Mrs Millers efforts to protect parliamentary sovereignty from an an executive seeking to act unilaterally and without parliamentary scrutiny.

When you say parliamentary sovereignty, I assume you mean the sovereignty that we lend them, and which is not being protected, but abused.

[Ciaphas]

Why bloody awful — is it because she holds a view opposing yours and is in a position to be heard?

Personally I admire her campaigning efforts in getting the 48 percent a voice — but then she was born into a minority in a country of minorities where she must have learned it takes effort not to be walked over.



Hopefully the crowdfunding was  a sick protest. She's used to real threats (two have been arrested over threats to her and one was jailed), even her legal advisers have received abuse...

I can only conclude that her detractors are opposed to Mrs Millers efforts to protect parliamentary sovereignty from an an executive seeking to act unilaterally and without parliamentary scrutiny.



It's a worrying state of affairs that people can be turned so easily against parliament, the judiciary and those seeking to maintain the balance of power in this country.