Anders_Limpar
Player Valuation: £750k
Have you and Pete got some weird brexiteer deal going on, in which he uses all your full stops?
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Have you and Pete got some weird brexiteer deal going on, in which he uses all your full stops?
magicjuan
Player Valuation: £60m
And that's some extremely dumbass inrerpretation of what I posted too.
Trying reading slowly and take things in context.
Those that used a protest vote did so against the system/status quo whatever of Westminster not Brussels, those that wanted out of Europe did so for a myriad of reasons, but you recognised this yourself. If you're confused, have some herbal tea.
Not that some Brexiteers aren't a bit daft like.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37869797
Not so much "they took our jobs" as "they took our democracy"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37869797
Not so much "they took our jobs" as "they took our democracy"
Kev The Rat
Player Valuation: £70m
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../517014/EU_referendum_leaflet_large_print.pdf
The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union. The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU. This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving. This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
At no point in the government leaflet sent out before the referendum did it say that a vote out would leave us still in the 'single market'. In fact, it used the threat of not being in that market as a reason to vote remain.
The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union. The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU. This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving. This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
At no point in the government leaflet sent out before the referendum did it say that a vote out would leave us still in the 'single market'. In fact, it used the threat of not being in that market as a reason to vote remain.
Last edited:
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
The Guardian view on Brexit ruling: the response to the courts threatens to undermine the bedrock of a democratic society
Editorial
Published: 18:59 GMT Friday, 04 November 2016
Follow Editorial
Newspapers reacting to the high court decision regarding the triggering of article 50. ‘This is rhetoric that goes beyond character assassination and right-wing posturing into something darker and more dangerous.’ Composite: The Sun/Daily Express/Daily Mail/The Daily Telegraph
Dissent is vital but attempts to shatter a nation’s confidence in judges as impartial guardians of the rule of law are wrong
The rule of law is the bedrock of a democratic society. It can check corruption and abuses of power. It permits individuals to order their lives. It allows private corporations, public bodies and the executive to regulate effectively their own activities. If the rule of law is to be upheld, it is vital that there should be an independent judiciary. This fact appears lost on Brexiter rabble-rousers. This voluble, influential political sect has unleashed gales of fury on the high court judges who ruled that only parliament has the authority to trigger article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the legal route for Britain to leave the EU. Leading the charge are rightwing newspapers, which claim themselves to be champions of free speech and traditional British liberties. Yet since the Brexit vote they have sought to delegitimise their opponents’ views and silence them through intimidation. This morning these newspapers laced racial innuendo with accusations of treachery, casting themselves as representatives of the people against unelected “out of touch” judges and their “loaded foreign elite” remainer acolytes.
This is rhetoric that goes beyond character assassination and rightwing posturing into something darker and more dangerous. Remember, we are only months away from the gunning down of a pro-remain MP in broad daylight. During the course of this case, the bench – headed by the lord chief justice – was compelled to remind the gallery that threats against the claimants would be taken as contempt of court. The hysterical, and frankly ludicrous, response to the ruling was to claim that the judges’ decision had sparked a crisis akin to that faced by Winston Churchill during world war two when he called on Britons to “fight them on the beaches”. This intolerance threatens to undermine political freedom and judicial independence. No court is infallible. One can dissent from judgments without trying, via newsprint and social media, to shatter a nation’s confidence in judges as impartial guardians of the rule of law. Judges don’t do opinions unless they are legal ones. Hence the need for politicians to speak up.
So we ask: where is the prime minister in all this? Has she lost sight of the obvious – that the rule of law requires that the courts have jurisdiction to scrutinise the actions of government to ensure that they are lawful? Where, pray, is the lord chancellor, Liz Truss, who – as former office-bearer Charles Falconer notes – has a constitutional duty to defend the judges? The government will have its appeal heard in the supreme court next month. Unless ministers make clear their support for the judiciary, it looks as if the government is colluding to try to cow the highest courts in the land. The high court used Jacobean case law – “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm” – to spike the government case that ministers have a right to invoke article 50 under the royal prerogative. The citizen must be able to challenge the executive before an independent judiciary. Because it is the executive that exercises the power of the state and because it is the executive which is a frequent litigator in the courts, it is from executive pressure or influence that judges require particularly to be protected. By standing by, ministers are encouraging mobocracy to overwhelm the rule of law.
Editorial
Published: 18:59 GMT Friday, 04 November 2016
Follow Editorial
Newspapers reacting to the high court decision regarding the triggering of article 50. ‘This is rhetoric that goes beyond character assassination and right-wing posturing into something darker and more dangerous.’ Composite: The Sun/Daily Express/Daily Mail/The Daily Telegraph
Dissent is vital but attempts to shatter a nation’s confidence in judges as impartial guardians of the rule of law are wrong
The rule of law is the bedrock of a democratic society. It can check corruption and abuses of power. It permits individuals to order their lives. It allows private corporations, public bodies and the executive to regulate effectively their own activities. If the rule of law is to be upheld, it is vital that there should be an independent judiciary. This fact appears lost on Brexiter rabble-rousers. This voluble, influential political sect has unleashed gales of fury on the high court judges who ruled that only parliament has the authority to trigger article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the legal route for Britain to leave the EU. Leading the charge are rightwing newspapers, which claim themselves to be champions of free speech and traditional British liberties. Yet since the Brexit vote they have sought to delegitimise their opponents’ views and silence them through intimidation. This morning these newspapers laced racial innuendo with accusations of treachery, casting themselves as representatives of the people against unelected “out of touch” judges and their “loaded foreign elite” remainer acolytes.
This is rhetoric that goes beyond character assassination and rightwing posturing into something darker and more dangerous. Remember, we are only months away from the gunning down of a pro-remain MP in broad daylight. During the course of this case, the bench – headed by the lord chief justice – was compelled to remind the gallery that threats against the claimants would be taken as contempt of court. The hysterical, and frankly ludicrous, response to the ruling was to claim that the judges’ decision had sparked a crisis akin to that faced by Winston Churchill during world war two when he called on Britons to “fight them on the beaches”. This intolerance threatens to undermine political freedom and judicial independence. No court is infallible. One can dissent from judgments without trying, via newsprint and social media, to shatter a nation’s confidence in judges as impartial guardians of the rule of law. Judges don’t do opinions unless they are legal ones. Hence the need for politicians to speak up.
So we ask: where is the prime minister in all this? Has she lost sight of the obvious – that the rule of law requires that the courts have jurisdiction to scrutinise the actions of government to ensure that they are lawful? Where, pray, is the lord chancellor, Liz Truss, who – as former office-bearer Charles Falconer notes – has a constitutional duty to defend the judges? The government will have its appeal heard in the supreme court next month. Unless ministers make clear their support for the judiciary, it looks as if the government is colluding to try to cow the highest courts in the land. The high court used Jacobean case law – “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm” – to spike the government case that ministers have a right to invoke article 50 under the royal prerogative. The citizen must be able to challenge the executive before an independent judiciary. Because it is the executive that exercises the power of the state and because it is the executive which is a frequent litigator in the courts, it is from executive pressure or influence that judges require particularly to be protected. By standing by, ministers are encouraging mobocracy to overwhelm the rule of law.
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
Granted.
But the opposition (Or at least the majority of remain) are the opposition because they lost the GE. Had remain won the referendum it'd not have been an issue for the majority of the opposition. So, in effect, they lost twice. If a boxer gets k.o'd in two title fights, it's not for him to demand the ruling body to decide on who fights who for the next title.
Martin's already lost almost everything – he voted leave to spread ...
"Parker wouldn’t normally have bothered to vote – “I couldn’t really care less about the EU” – but last week he walked through a rainstorm to put his cross next to leave. His vote was not only a sign that he, like many, had no prosperous future to risk but a message to the elites that he feels have let him down.
“People are sick and tired of being ignored,” he says. “I don’t suppose I’m the only one to use this opportunity. It was a chance to kick the whole establishment where it hurt, for us to send pain the other way. And we took it.”
"Many of his (Martin) possessions are gone, sold to get by. Two years into his three-year benefit sanction, he survives by “begging for small favours”: cleaning someone’s garage in return for food, say. Friends give him meals or bits of cash.
“It’s funny,” he laughs, quietly. “They’re all foreign. Polish. Italians. No one English has helped me.”
Martin was not unique in voting to 'kick the whole establishment where it hurts' and particularly the Cameron government. One of the results of getting rid of Cameron and Osborne is that it appears the DWP sanction regime is not as sneaky,snidey and vicious as it was against those claiming benefits.
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
From the comments section...
It's almost as if the leaders of the country are playing a game amongst themselves, and are so involved with trying to win that they have totally lost sight of of why they are actually there. The disconnect between those in government and the reality of their decisions as they play out among the populace would suggest that the wellbeing of people is not on their agenda at all. Look at the in fighting in the Labour party now - half of them desperately engaged in trying to remove a man that has the bigger mandate (from a public vote) than any other in recent times. The people want Corbyn but the Labour Party don't care, they know best.
Look at where this attitude has gotten us - floundering in total confusion with all the rage and fury of recent years seeping out of people and poisoning the whole country.
In a nutshell. Wake up, folks.
The thing is, we're in an age where politicians aren't telling people the truth, which distorts reality so much. It's akin to you having a weather forecaster saying we'll have 6 degrees and cloud tomorrow, and a populist coming along and promising 25 degrees and sunshine. Of course you want to believe it's going to be sunny and warm tomorrow, but reality suggests it isn't going to be.
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
Politicians not telling the truth? Distorting reality? My, your perspicacity knows no bounds, Bruce.
17m saw through the billshut. Many of them are getting increasingly pissed off with their aloofness, avarice and cantrip. The sooner they get the message that the plebescite's murmurs will soon become disorder unless they start listening and acting on advice, the better imo.
The proles have been shafted far too long. The out vote was a wake-up call that the politicians just won't heed.
The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
Thanks for posting this as it demonstrates how poorly advised the Government were in making promises to the electorate that they were not entitled to execute.
The bit in bold "The Government will implement what you decide." is clearly beyond the powers of the government as confirmed by the High Court on Thursday.
Parliament may (and probably will) pass legislation that allows the government to follow the result of the referendum, but the Government thankfully have been brought to task over their unconstitutional plans.
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
The Goverment....Not Parliament.
Talk about horses & stable doors. Where was all the hoo-hah when they knew it was gonna be a straight in/out choice?
joey_macmo
Player Valuation: £35m
You said the leave campaign 'didn't use an anti-establishment slant to gain support'.
One of the most prominent figures literally said 'it's us versus the establishment'
There were no caveats, it's quite clear that they did. You even accepted that you hadn't seen that.
A protest vote for a campaign which had the highest percentage of MPs in government doesn't really make sense either. But I suppose that's the point in all this.
You've been on here long enough - please mind your language. You know this site runs in large part because of the support from advertisers.
Regarding your point however, I don't doubt that globalisation has not worked for an awful lot of people (in the producer sense rather than the consumer sense), and I've said many things along those lines throughout this thread.
The point I'm making is that populist politicians around the world have swept in promising the earth, and they're leading people up the garden path. Brexit won't improve the lot of poor folks any more than Trump will or Syriza did.
Beware false prophets and all that.
joey_macmo
Player Valuation: £35m
Is that leaflet still being brought up as a counter argument to the law?
Really!?!?
Really!?!?
- Status