It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
GoonerMuzz wrote:Personally find it a bit worrying that the unelected judiciary can circumvent the plans of the elected political party in charge of the country but then i guess it's been coming for a long time, one man one vote democracy completely dead in this country?
I know our political system is rife with problems and totally unbalanced but this really puts things in perspective, all the countries that we've ever criticised for being corrupt or undemocratic must be pissing themselves this evening
I think you've got it completely wrong.
In corrupt countries the President controls the judiciary. Our judiciary is independent and is there, among other things, to prevent Parliament exceeding its powers. The laws it considered are very old and the judiciary is much too Eton & Oxbridge for my liking, but it largely does its job well.
Cameron could have made the referendum binding, but he chose not to.
We have a parliamentary democracy and referenda don't have a settled place in the constitution. The judiciary was upholding the law, a cornerstone of our democracy. You should be proud.
A higher court may find differently, but hopefully parliament will be consulted and they will recognise the will of the people.
I think I've just agreed with something Nutflush said. I feel dirty.
GoonerMuzz wrote:Personally find it a bit worrying that the unelected judiciary can circumvent the plans of the elected political party in charge of the country but then i guess it's been coming for a long time, one man one vote democracy completely dead in this country?
I know our political system is rife with problems and totally unbalanced but this really puts things in perspective, all the countries that we've ever criticised for being corrupt or undemocratic must be pissing themselves this evening
I think you've got it completely wrong.
In corrupt countries the President controls the judiciary. Our judiciary is independent and is there, among other things, to prevent Parliament exceeding its powers. The laws it considered are very old and the judiciary is much too Eton & Oxbridge for my liking, but it largely does its job well.
Cameron could have made the referendum binding, but he chose not to.
We have a parliamentary democracy and referenda don't have a settled place in the constitution. The judiciary was upholding the law, a cornerstone of our democracy. You should be proud.
A higher court may find differently, but hopefully parliament will be consulted and they will recognise the will of the people.
I think I've just agreed with something Nutflush said. I feel dirty.
GoonerMuzz wrote:Personally find it a bit worrying that the unelected judiciary can circumvent the plans of the elected political party in charge of the country but then i guess it's been coming for a long time, one man one vote democracy completely dead in this country?
I know our political system is rife with problems and totally unbalanced but this really puts things in perspective, all the countries that we've ever criticised for being corrupt or undemocratic must be pissing themselves this evening
I think you've got it completely wrong.
In corrupt countries the President controls the judiciary. Our judiciary is independent and is there, among other things, to prevent Parliament exceeding its powers. The laws it considered are very old and the judiciary is much too Eton & Oxbridge for my liking, but it largely does its job well.
Cameron could have made the referendum binding, but he chose not to.
We have a parliamentary democracy and referenda don't have a settled place in the constitution. The judiciary was upholding the law, a cornerstone of our democracy. You should be proud.
A higher court may find differently, but hopefully parliament will be consulted and they will recognise the will of the people.
I think I've just agreed with something Nutflush said. I feel dirty.
Agree with all of that
(especially the nut flush bit)
Not as dirty as you'd feel if I was a spud .
Fortunately from a very young age I saw the light. COYG.
The High Court decisions was nothing to do with circumventing democracy - the opposite in fact.
Referenda are legally non-binding, everybody who turned their minds to the issue understood that to be the case.
The Government can only exercise executive power where there is an established prerogative for them to do so (e.g. National security emergency). Otherwise the role of Parliament would be pointless. They tried to argue that the referendum created a new prerogative power in itself in this respect, whereas in reality this was never envisaged and not legally supported by the mealy-mouthed wording accompanying it.
It's only right as a matter of fundamental constitutional process that Parliamentary approval is sought if that is what required - can't suddenly chuck the rule of law out the window.
If anybody is trying to defy the will of the people it won't be the judges, it'll be any MPs who (overwhelmingly) voted for the referendum to take place and then try to practically frustrate the implementation of the outcome.
northbank123 wrote:The High Court decisions was nothing to do with circumventing democracy - the opposite in fact.
Referenda are legally non-binding, everybody who turned their minds to the issue understood that to be the case.
The Government can only exercise executive power where there is an established prerogative for them to do so (e.g. National security emergency). Otherwise the role of Parliament would be pointless. They tried to argue that the referendum created a new prerogative power in itself in this respect, whereas in reality this was never envisaged and not legally supported by the mealy-mouthed wording accompanying it.
It's only right as a matter of fundamental constitutional process that Parliamentary approval is sought if that is what required - can't suddenly chuck the rule of law out the window.
If anybody is trying to defy the will of the people it won't be the judges, it'll be any MPs who (overwhelmingly) voted for the referendum to take place and then try to practically frustrate the implementation of the outcome.
Exactly what I have been saying, without Parliament our democratic processes are defunct. Also whilst the majority have said they want to leave the EU, ultimately it should be the politicians that decide in what shape or form. However, each and every politician needs the mandate of their constituency and, therefore, an election should be called so that no one can say that it wasn't clear what route we would take out of the EU.
The media aren't helping, quite honestly who admits to buying the Daily Mail with their front page today. If the remain campaign was scaremongering, this is just pure divisive journalism at its worst.
the whole thing is a complete and utter mess, and the reason is that LEAVE appears to mean LEAVE in different ways to a lot of people.
for me it is simple - we voted to leave the EU and if we leave the EU we also leave the single market.
there is no hard, soft, half way house or any other kind of Brexit. Brexit means Brexit!
thats the only thing I have in common with leavers though. if we go down that route then I personally believe it will be a disaster for the country, and it is why I have been moaning about it. thats a democracy! for 40 years Nigel and his band of brexiters have also been able to moan about being inside the EU. they didnt shut up, so I am also not going to shut up! the big problem for this country is that 16 million people (and growing) also feel the same way as me.
Gunner Rob wrote:the whole thing is a complete and utter mess, and the reason is that LEAVE appears to mean LEAVE in different ways to a lot of people.
for me it is simple - we voted to leave the EU and if we leave the EU we also leave the single market.
there is no hard, soft, half way house or any other kind of Brexit. Brexit means Brexit!
thats the only thing I have in common with leavers though. if we go down that route then I personally believe it will be a disaster for the country, and it is why I have been moaning about it. thats a democracy! for 40 years Nigel and his band of brexiters have also been able to moan about being inside the EU. they didnt shut up, so I am also not going to shut up! the big problem for this country is that 16 million people (and growing) also feel the same way as me.
2017 is going to be a rough ride...
Disagree, there are many aspects of Brexit that can be adopted or thrown out. Brexit doesn't mean all or nothing, nor should it.
It should mean what is best for our country, whether that is the removal of free movement of EU citizens, sovereignty of our laws (we have seen that in practice) or tariff free trade. Just because you like I are a remainer, it shouldn't mean that you wish ill on this country just to prove your point.
Having a parliamentary vote will give the discussion more structure and the government more credibility, as would a General Election.
Gunner Rob wrote:the whole thing is a complete and utter mess, and the reason is that LEAVE appears to mean LEAVE in different ways to a lot of people.
for me it is simple - we voted to leave the EU and if we leave the EU we also leave the single market.
there is no hard, soft, half way house or any other kind of Brexit. Brexit means Brexit!
thats the only thing I have in common with leavers though. if we go down that route then I personally believe it will be a disaster for the country, and it is why I have been moaning about it. thats a democracy! for 40 years Nigel and his band of brexiters have also been able to moan about being inside the EU. they didnt shut up, so I am also not going to shut up! the big problem for this country is that 16 million people (and growing) also feel the same way as me.
2017 is going to be a rough ride...
Disagree, there are many aspects of Brexit that can be adopted or thrown out. Brexit doesn't mean all or nothing, nor should it.
It should mean what is best for our country, whether that is the removal of free movement of EU citizens, sovereignty of our laws (we have seen that in practice) or tariff free trade. Just because you like I are a remainer, it shouldn't mean that you wish ill on this country just to prove your point.
Having a parliamentary vote will give the discussion more structure and the government more credibility, as would a General Election.
In an ideal world I agree with you.
However it wont be up to us to decide what we would like or not like from Brexit.
The EU will just go NO NO NO to everything that makes Brexit more tolerable.
If you think that we can get some aspects such as staying in the single market then great, but I am not holding out any hope.
northbank123 wrote:The High Court decisions was nothing to do with circumventing democracy - the opposite in fact.
Referenda are legally non-binding, everybody who turned their minds to the issue understood that to be the case.
The Government can only exercise executive power where there is an established prerogative for them to do so (e.g. National security emergency). Otherwise the role of Parliament would be pointless. They tried to argue that the referendum created a new prerogative power in itself in this respect, whereas in reality this was never envisaged and not legally supported by the mealy-mouthed wording accompanying it.
It's only right as a matter of fundamental constitutional process that Parliamentary approval is sought if that is what required - can't suddenly chuck the rule of law out the window.
If anybody is trying to defy the will of the people it won't be the judges, it'll be any MPs who (overwhelmingly) voted for the referendum to take place and then try to practically frustrate the implementation of the outcome.
Exactly what I have been saying, without Parliament our democratic processes are defunct. Also whilst the majority have said they want to leave the EU, ultimately it should be the politicians that decide in what shape or form. However, each and every politician needs the mandate of their constituency and, therefore, an election should be called so that no one can say that it wasn't clear what route we would take out of the EU.
The media aren't helping, quite honestly who admits to buying the Daily Mail with their front page today. If the remain campaign was scaremongering, this is just pure divisive journalism at its worst.
I don't agree with all of that. I don't think that the terms need to be voted on by MPs and this isn't what the court said. This misunderstanding is what's winding people up and where the risk of going against the people's will comes from because the danger is MPs using this as an excuse to make it practically very difficult with unrealistic demands.
The majority government was elected on a manifesto including a pledge to hold a referendum. MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of a referendum with the assumption being that it would be followed. They need to formally vote on triggering article 50 because that is required by fundamental parliamentary procedure. The question put to them should solely be yes or no to triggering article 50, and MPs would still vote yes because refusing to do so is kissing bye to most Leave voters in their constituency.
Calling for another general election is just complete nonsense and an excuse to stick another big hurdle in the way.
northbank123 wrote:The High Court decisions was nothing to do with circumventing democracy - the opposite in fact.
Referenda are legally non-binding, everybody who turned their minds to the issue understood that to be the case.
The Government can only exercise executive power where there is an established prerogative for them to do so (e.g. National security emergency). Otherwise the role of Parliament would be pointless. They tried to argue that the referendum created a new prerogative power in itself in this respect, whereas in reality this was never envisaged and not legally supported by the mealy-mouthed wording accompanying it.
It's only right as a matter of fundamental constitutional process that Parliamentary approval is sought if that is what required - can't suddenly chuck the rule of law out the window.
If anybody is trying to defy the will of the people it won't be the judges, it'll be any MPs who (overwhelmingly) voted for the referendum to take place and then try to practically frustrate the implementation of the outcome.
Exactly what I have been saying, without Parliament our democratic processes are defunct. Also whilst the majority have said they want to leave the EU, ultimately it should be the politicians that decide in what shape or form. However, each and every politician needs the mandate of their constituency and, therefore, an election should be called so that no one can say that it wasn't clear what route we would take out of the EU.
The media aren't helping, quite honestly who admits to buying the Daily Mail with their front page today. If the remain campaign was scaremongering, this is just pure divisive journalism at its worst.
I don't agree with all of that. I don't think that the terms need to be voted on by MPs and this isn't what the court said. This misunderstanding is what's winding people up and where the risk of going against the people's will comes from because the danger is MPs using this as an excuse to make it practically very difficult with unrealistic demands.
The majority government was elected on a manifesto including a pledge to hold a referendum. MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of a referendum with the assumption being that it would be followed. They need to formally vote on triggering article 50 because that is required by fundamental parliamentary procedure. The question put to them should solely be yes or no to triggering article 50, and MPs would still vote yes because refusing to do so is kissing bye to most Leave voters in their constituency.
Calling for another general election is just complete nonsense and an excuse to stick another big hurdle in the way.
As you know enacting Article 50 is only the start of the process, but read this from the Guardian:
"A formal bill would grant MPs and peers the opportunity to stage a full debate before article 50 is triggered; to table amendments and, some hope, debate the broad principles on which the government will conduct negotiations with the other 27 EU member states."
Thats my point, we should now be focusing on how we Brexit. As things stood before yesterday the Government where going to do what they liked. Now whatever they propose is open to scrutiny. Enacting article 50 in a way is the least of our problems, it's how do we leave the EU and under what terms is what I think needs to be debated. As Rob has pointed out the Europeans may not be very accommodating but only time will tell. The election is a must, if the Government get their fingers out it can be arranged just before article 50 is triggered. The members of Parliament would then be reflective of the opinions of their local communities.
Without the high court ruling, the way the Government was behaving was anything but democratic. You don't dismiss 15m people who voted to remain or those brexiteers that don't like the route we are taking. Have a referendum today and the result would be totally different.
northbank123 wrote:I fail to see how an election is a must?
How about endorsing an unelected PM and ratifying a process to leave the EU. The Conservatives would win anyway but they have to be clear what we are going to do. The referendum only starts the process.
