Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This. I mean its not like these metropolitan elites were elected by the same people whose vote to leave must be respected is it....

Post of the day.

[zidane's child]

Nigel Farage and Gina Miller on the Andrew Marr show tomorrow!

Grab your popcorn! 

[Antlion]

3 hours ago, zidane's child said:

Nigel Farage and Gina Miller on the Andrew Marr show tomorrow!

Grab your popcorn! 

Has Nigel got the gig presenting it whilst Marr's on holiday? The BBC need to justify giving him his own dressing room and makeup team, after all.

[Redstarstranraer]

12 hours ago, McSpreader said:

I personally think it's a good thing that we ( well people with enough money) are able to take the Govt to task if they feel they have  superceded their powers, but we also reserve the right to criticise judges who have allowed their political leanings to sully their judgements.......It works both ways!!

 

9 hours ago, McSpreader said:

Not at all . An independent judiciary  and the rule of law is fundamental to Democracy, but those judges are not beyond reproach if they get a judgement wrong. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

I don't think it's healthy to put anyone on a pedestal.....Judges, politicians, junior doctors, celebrities., ...whoever. Everyone and everything should be questioned and open to scrutiny.

These two statements taken together really don't add up.  You think it's a good thing to be able to take the government to court for acting beyond their legal authority but then the judges should be criticised for slapping the government down because they got the judgement 'wrong'?  That really makes no sense whatsoever.  We need an independent judiciary but we should barrack and hound judges who take decisions that are politically unpopular because they're 'up on a pedestal' and make unpopular judgements??  You either believe in the independence of the judiciary or you don't, it's that simple.  You apparently don't.  And the Supreme Court, funnily enough, is part of the judiciary; we don't have a Supreme Court to chastise judges for making unpopular decisions but as the final legal court of appeal on legal terms.  If they overturn the decision it will be on legal terms, not because you or Nigel Farage don't like it.

You see the thing is it really doesn't 'work both ways'.  The courts are tasked with determining (independently as you suggest) solely if the government in situations such as this has acted legally and within the limit of the powers it possesses.  As I and any number of posters have pointed out the government on this occasion was found in court by said independent judiciary to have been intending on exercising its executive power in a manner that was incompatible with the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. That's a straightforward legal question and nothing more.

In this instance this is nothing to do with 'metropolitan elites' or judges getting things 'wrong' or acting in accordance with their own political leanings; it was the opinion of the court the government had proposed to act in an unconstitutional manner, nothing more.  But then you knew that.

Nobody is putting these judges 'on a pedestal' (like the way you slipped in the junior docs there as well, top trolling, shame you don't know what trolling is); they were asked and have given their opinion on the legal position as is their proper constitutional role.  The fact that the same British judges exalted just a few months ago by the leave campaigners as fundamentally superior to their European counterparts, the very same judges to whom it was imperative more 'control' be given, have turned around and infuriated the Brexit camp by, erm, upholding the British constitution, is absolutely priceless.

Mind you I'm all in favour of undermining the power of the Westminster elite.  I'm not going to pretend however that the likes of Boris Johnson, John Redwood, Liam Fox or Jacob Rees-Mogg are somehow outsiders to it or 'men of the people'.

[McSpreader]

11 hours ago, mjw said:

 

 

[Tony Ferrino]

Probably really old

 

 

[ayrmad]

13 hours ago, jupe1407 said:

 

You could, and no will give the slightest whiff of a shite about it.

Also, next time you don't give a f**k about something, try to either ignore it, or simply post a single "I don't give a shit", instead of boring the tits off everyone with a look-at-me-a-athon on your university of life/school of hard knocks education.

HTH.

 

I'll quite happily bore tits like you all day long, I don't give a f**k about words used against her but I do give a f**k about a few rich people trying any means possible to block Brexit, her pals and her had their say like the rest of us, that fact that she like me didn't like the outcome is just tough titties.

[vikingTON]

Leaving the EU was only the first step in regaining Sovereignity.

There's more work to do.............

 

Don't think you understand how "sovereignty" works in a (semi) liberal, democratic state tbh. Why do you now object to the standard instrument of British sovereignty - Parliament and an independent judiciary - having an influence in such a significant process? Was that not what the majority of the electorate voted for? It's a toughie.

Hint: "Sovereignty" is never determined by the outcome of single plebiscites; unless you're the fan of a tool used by dictators like, erm, Adolf Hitler to secure absolute, authoritarian power.

That isn't a violation of Godwin's Law - that is historical fact. Indeed targeting the judiciary as "traitors to the people" is literally straight out of 'Germany in the 1930s' behaviour. Which is all the more ironic given that the right-wing leanings of the judiciary actually stopped the likes of Hitler being executed for treason in the first place.

These are facts.

[McSpreader]

7 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Don't think you understand how "sovereignty" works in a (semi) liberal, democratic state tbh. Why do you now object to the standard instrument of British sovereignty - Parliament and an independent judiciary - having an influence in such a significant process? Was that not what the majority of the electorate voted for? It's a toughie.

Hint: "Sovereignty" is never determined by the outcome of single plebiscites; unless you're the fan of a tool used by dictators like, erm, Adolf Hitler to secure absolute, authoritarian power.

That isn't a violation of Godwin's Law - that is historical fact. Indeed targeting the judiciary as "traitors to the people" is literally straight out of 'Germany in the 1930s' behaviour. Which is all the more ironic given that the right-wing leanings of the judiciary actually stopped the likes of Hitler being executed for treason in the first place.

These are facts.

I've never called anyone traitors and I have already said on here that an independent judiciary is fundamental to a free democratic system. so I agree with you.

Doesn't stop judges being open to scrutiny. Doesn't mean we have to put them on a pedestal......

[dogmc]

I've never called anyone traitors and I have already said on here that an independent judiciary is fundamental to a free democratic system. so I agree with you.

Doesn't stop judges being open to scrutiny. Doesn't mean we have to put them on a pedestal......

You said the judges were wrong. What's your basis for that in legal terms?

[McSpreader]

20 hours ago, Antlion said:

You're a hypocrite. You oppose "complete integration" if the UK's sovereignty is at stake, but you demand it for Scotland.

I say you're anti-foreigner because you claim being against total integration for a nation means being anti the nations one doesn't wish to be integrated with. If you believe that, then *you're* obviously anti-foreigner. Here I am just using your own criteria for accusing people of xenophobia. If being against total integration into the UK superstate is being anti-English, then being against total integration into the EU superstate is anti-European. The difference is the latter is a BritNat bogeyman and the former has been going on for centuries.

Unfortunately the whole premise of your statement is flawed because you compare Scotland to the UK when England is the proper comparison.

As I have NEVER argued for England to be independent then I can't possibly be a hypocrite. You, however , are blinkered.

As for the nonsense that follows all I'll say is that I have always clearly stated my love, respect and total ease with 'foreigners' and have not argued for leaving the EU based on any anti foreign sentiment. If others have that is for them to answer for their opinions.

Whereas the Nationalists on this forum put all their energy and effort in to demonising the English and Welsh and try to portray them as a separate species. If you aren't fundamentally embarrassed by that then you are part of the problem. You know I'm right .........

One other thing. I don't think you have a clue what 'BritNat' means. There are so many layers of affiliation to the British state. British Asians, West Indians , Irish, West Country Folk, Essex Man, Welsh folk, Scots, Channel Islanders, Gibraltarians, Geordies  etc etc etc all have a differing understanding and experience of what it is to be British and whereas for ScotNats it's a catch all term of abuse , by using that term you are advertising your ignorance and prejudice for all to see.

[sparky88]

Farage  getting his arse handed to him by the court case wifey on Sunday politics. 

Pleasing.

[Antlion]

37 minutes ago, McSpreader said:

Unfortunately the whole premise of your statement is flawed because you compare Scotland to the UK when England is the proper comparison.

As I have NEVER argued for England to be independent then I can't possibly be a hypocrite. You, however , are blinkered.

As for the nonsense that follows all I'll say is that I have always clearly stated my love, respect and total ease with 'foreigners' and have not argued for leaving the EU based on any anti foreign sentiment. If others have that is for them to answer for their opinions.

Whereas the Nationalists on this forum put all their energy and effort in to demonising the English and Welsh and try to portray them as a separate species. If you aren't fundamentally embarrassed by that then you are part of the problem. You know I'm right .........

One other thing. I don't think you have a clue what 'BritNat' means. There are so many layers of affiliation to the British state. British Asians, West Indians , Irish, West Country Folk, Essex Man, Welsh folk, Scots, Channel Islanders, Gibraltarians, Geordies  etc etc etc all have a differing understanding and experience of what it is to be British and whereas for ScotNats it's a catch all term of abuse , by using that term you are advertising your ignorance and prejudice for all to see.

So just to keep me up to speed here, you're actually claiming that Scots who oppose the nation of Scotland being completely integrated via political union must be prejudiced against the other nations (and their people) within that union; but Brits who oppose the nation of the UK being integrated (even loosely) via political union are not prejudiced against the other nations (and their people) within that union?

Bullshit. In fact, if disliking political union equates to hatred of the other nations within that union (your claim, not mine) then BritNats like yourself must be more intolerant that ScotNats, as the European Union withholds fewer powers from members than the British Union.

[mjw]

Farage  getting his arse handed to him by the court case wifey on Sunday politics. 

Pleasing.

Its not the Parliament he wants to be sovereign now,its the people apparently .
It was a struggle hearing him over the noise of the goalposts shifting.

[John Lambies Doos]

Unfortunately the whole premise of your statement is flawed because you compare Scotland to the UK when England is the proper comparison.

As I have NEVER argued for England to be independent then I can't possibly be a hypocrite. You, however , are blinkered.

As for the nonsense that follows all I'll say is that I have always clearly stated my love, respect and total ease with 'foreigners' and have not argued for leaving the EU based on any anti foreign sentiment. If others have that is for them to answer for their opinions.

Whereas the Nationalists on this forum put all their energy and effort in to demonising the English and Welsh and try to portray them as a separate species. If you aren't fundamentally embarrassed by that then you are part of the problem. You know I'm right .........

One other thing. I don't think you have a clue what 'BritNat' means. There are so many layers of affiliation to the British state. British Asians, West Indians , Irish, West Country Folk, Essex Man, Welsh folk, Scots, Channel Islanders, Gibraltarians, Geordies  etc etc etc all have a differing understanding and experience of what it is to be British and whereas for ScotNats it's a catch all term of abuse , by using that term you are advertising your ignorance and prejudice for all to see.

You are a twat. Look at the recent headlines in the daily mail or express. That's a 'britnat'. Of course JK Rowling as said nothing

[sparky88]

22 minutes ago, mjw said:

Its not the Parliament he wants to be sovereign now,its the people apparently .
It was a struggle hearing him over the noise of the goalposts shifting.

All over the place. The bit when he asked her what her view on whether Britain should remain a member of the single market was particularly cringeworthy.

[ayrmad]

Hopefully Nicola implores her MP's to vote for the motion when asked "should we trigger Article 50", our chance of a YES vote in the next decade might depend on keeping certain brexiteers on side rather than alienating them.

[NotThePars]

Corbyn's suggested he will have Labour vote to block Brexit unless it retains access to the single market. Seems fair and I can't see why the PLP wouldn't back him.

[Poo]

3 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Corbyn's suggested he will have Labour vote to block Brexit unless it retains access to the single market. Seems fair and I can't see why the PLP wouldn't back him.

They won't back him. Even if they agree with him.

[ayrmad]

9 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Corbyn's suggested he will have Labour vote to block Brexit unless it retains access to the single market. Seems fair and I can't see why the PLP wouldn't back him.

That would end well for Labour, it's looking more and more like the UK is going to need a shiny new party to materialise and become a genuine 2nd option.

I can seriously envisage the Tories forming majority, minority and coalition governments for the next 20 years due to the positions opposition MP's appear to be taking.