Turn on thread page Beta

Why do Brexiteers hate the rule of law? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    All referendums are not legally binding so what's the point of having them? Imagine Scotland voted to leave and Westminster didn't allow it because the referendum wasn't legally binding. The results of all referendums should go the way the public voted or none of them at all. There is no point having any referendum if the government can pick and choose which ones they follow up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Indeed, they are doing their job, the antagonism is entirely unwarranted. And I voted to leave.
    Respect.

    Not only is the antagonism unwarranted, it is incredibly dangerous. It attacks the independence and integrity of our judiciary, one of the besr and oldest legal systems anywhere.

    It attacks the principle of the rule of law , that no one, not even the government is above the law.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There is only one to blame for all this, and it's not the judges, it's David fuc*ing Cameron who promised the people an unconstitutional vote. Did he not, for the life of God, check if the referendum is legal in the first place before holding it? If the vote of MPs was needed in the first place why in the name of Zeus did he hold a referendum?
    Regardless, the referendum result is not now irrelevant. MPs will be stupid not to vote for Brexit, that's certain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Smurf)
    All referendums are not legally binding so what's the point of having them? Imagine Scotland voted to leave and Westminster didn't allow it because the referendum wasn't legally binding. The results of all referendums should go the way the public voted or none of them at all. There is no point having any referendum if the government can pick and choose which ones they follow up.
    Referendums can be legally binding - the AV referendum was.

    Why should our judges be criticised for upholding the rule of law?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Liz Truss needs to explain why she has stayed quiet, despite her obligations as Lord Chancellor.

    Then she should resign.
    Because she's a coward.
    Like May, she seems intent on jumping on the right wing populist bandwagon that is sweeping all before it.

    A government is meant to lead, not follow.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Referendums can be legally binding - the AV referendum was.

    Why should our judges be criticised for upholding the rule of law?
    So you would be okay if Scotland voted to leave but Westminster didn't allow it? Or if remain vote won but article 50 was still triggered? Those referendums were not legally binding guess after all.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This kind of traitor language feeds into what creates people like that Britain First person who killed Jo Cox.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Smurf)
    All referendums are not legally binding so what's the point of having them? Imagine Scotland voted to leave and Westminster didn't allow it because the referendum wasn't legally binding. The results of all referendums should go the way the public voted or none of them at all. There is no point having any referendum if the government can pick and choose which ones they follow up.
    It could have been legally binding, if the Tories had even bothered to consider this posibikity (which they absolutely should have). Not surprising though this Tory government has been awful at writing law and they should feel the full brunt of attacks on this issue.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Smurf)
    So you would be okay if Scotland voted to leave but Westminster didn't allow it? Or if remain vote won but article 50 was still triggered? Those referendums were not legally binding guess after all.
    It's not about whether or not I would be happy about it, it's about what the correct legal decision is.

    The judges were asked a legal question and they gave a correct legal answer, as a matter of British constitutional law.

    Besides the court is not stopping Brexit, it just certifies the lawful way of leaving.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Smurf)
    So you would be okay if Scotland voted to leave but Westminster didn't allow it? Or if remain vote won but article 50 was still triggered? Those referendums were not legally binding guess after all.
    For a referendum to be binding, the legislation calling for it needs to explicitly state so.

    All the MPs who voted for the European Referendum Act 2015 knew that the referendum result wouldn't be binding. And those MPs who are now claiming to be surprised at the current situation or are pretending that they've been done over somehow, are either stupid or lying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This kind of traitor language feeds into what creates people like that Britain First person who killed Jo Cox.
    Absolutely.
    When someone is not just your 'opponent' but an 'enemy of the people', it is no surprise to see violent attacks carried out on them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The populist right wing uprising which is happening accross the world poses far more of a threat to civilisation than Islamic extremism ever has.
    Typical thing for a lefty to say.

    Don't you think Islamic extremism is fuelling the populist right-wing uprising in the first place?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I supported Brexit, not mob rule. I am disgusted that the government has done nothing to reprimand the press for their absurd headlines.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Typical thing for a lefty to say.

    Don't you think Islamic extremism is fuelling the populist right-wing uprising in the first place?
    Islamic extremism scares me, but I am confident that it will be restricted to isolated (albeit horrific) attacks of terror. I am confident that they will be defeated.


    Right wing populism is a tide sweeping all before it and threatens strongly the values of tolerance, openness and liberty. It challenges the social progress that society has made and wants to turn the clock back.

    When our press and MPs call our judges 'enemies of the people', when the woman who brought the legal challenge faced calls online for her to be 'publically hanged', when MPs like Jo Cox are murdered for holding liberal beliefs, when refugees are dehumanised and accused of all sorts and attacks on Polish communities are seen as the norm, it is deeply worrying.

    The main cause fuelling the populist uprising is the devastating effects of globalisation on many communities and the working poor. I like globalisation in general, but not enough (nothing) has been done to compensate those who have lost out so heavily.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Islamic extremism scares me, but I am confident that it will be restricted to isolated (albeit horrific) attacks of terror. I am confident that they will be defeated.


    Right wing populism is a tide sweeping all before it and threatens strongly the values of tolerance, openness and liberty. It challenges the social progress that society has made and wants to turn the clock back.

    When our press and MPs call our judges 'enemies of the people', when the woman who brought the legal challenge faced calls online for her to be 'publically hanged', when MPs like Jo Cox are murdered for holding liberal beliefs, when refugees are dehumanised and accused of all sorts and attacks on Polish communities are seen as the norm, it is deeply worrying.

    The main cause fuelling the populist uprising is the devastating effects of globalisation on many communities and the working poor. I like globalisation in general, but not enough (nothing) has been done to compensate those who have lost out so heavily.
    Liberal democracy's flaws made all this turmoil possible. If we had listened to neoconservatives instead of demonising them, perhaps this wouldn't be happening. If we had been more resolute in defence of our civilisation in the face of threats from Islamic extremism, and if we had done more to curb the corrosive effects of globalisation, we would not be seeing the rise of the far-right in the first place. Liberal democracy logically culminates in nihilism, because it does not seek to promote any one value over the other, but allows people to choose, so intolerance and tolerance become equals. Sometimes a healthy bit of intolerance is required for a prosperous and stable society - in this case, intolerance of creeds that are fundamentally opposed to our way of life, especially Islamism. Unfortunately lefties like yourself have consistently opposed this, and blowback is occurring.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Liberal democracy's flaws made all this turmoil possible. If we had listened to neoconservatives instead of demonising them, perhaps this wouldn't be happening. If we had been more resolute in defence of our civilisation in the face of threats from Islamic extremism, and if we had done more to curb the corrosive effects of globalisation, we would not be seeing the rise of the far-right in the first place. Liberal democracy logically culminates in nihilism, because it does not seek to promote any one value over the other, but allows people to choose, so intolerance and tolerance become equals. Sometimes a healthy bit of intolerance is required for a prosperous and stable society - in this case, intolerance of creeds that are fundamentally opposed to our way of life, especially Islamism. Unfortunately lefties like yourself have consistently opposed this, and blowback is occurring.
    This is rather silly.

    It has been the libertarians and centre right who have not done enough to compensate those who have lost out to globalisation with their belief that 'the market will fix everything'. Well it hasn't and now we face a right wing, populist backlash.

    I will always support the values of tolerance, openness and equality. I call out people from any religion that pose a threat to that, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian. I am immensely critical of states like Saudi Arabia and other states which treat women like second class citizens.

    Right wing populism however challenges those values more so. Right wing populism makes it okay to scapegoat immigrants for all our problems and to murder MPs who stand for liberal values. Right wing populism makes violent attacks on the Polish community acceptable. It makes it acceptable to describe people who disagree with it as 'enemies of the people' or 'traitors'. It makes it acceptable to support a candidate who boasts about sexually assaulting women and who mocks disabled people.

    For the first time, I worry about the safety of the people in Britain. Because if you happen to disagree with the right wing populist narrative, you will dubbed a 'traitor' and an 'enemy'. That type of language would not look out of place in 1930s Germany.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I have seen several MPs argue that the court decision was wrong because '17.4 million voted to leave'. The referendum had no legal effect and cannot be taken into consideration in a court of LAW.
    There is no robust mechanism to ensure that MPs are intelligent or well informed. Some of this obfuscation will have been deliberate but others are simply vulnerable to the same weak minded thinking as many voters.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What annoys me is that the country voted and almost all those eligible to vote turned up and a majority said they wanted to leave, now 3 men have the right to just turn up and tell us the population of the country that we have no right to decide how our country is run.
    The unfairness that over half the eligible population wants something to happen but 3 random people can just say 'no' and halt the whole movement. These people, as stated by most newspapers were un-elected so we have no say in who is actually judging this, and it is unlikely it was done 100% professionally leaving all bias outside of the court room as it is a decision that will affect them.
    I mean surely if you are not allowed to be the judge or on the jury for the trial of someone you know, surely the same thing should apply to this: it's gonna affect them in some way so they will have bias and therefore will not be able to make a fair decision.
    And then bringing up the murder of MP Jo Cox, now that/'s jut blatantly ignorant. She was not killed directly for her beliefs, she intervened in a struggle which led to her being killed. She was not targeted out, she tried to break up a fight and was then caught in the middle of it. Whilst there are idiots like you trying to infer she was murdered for being a socialist.
    But back to the point. How can you claim that it is fair for 3 un-elected, biased fools to tell the majority of Britain that, although given the choice of whether or not they wanted to be in the EU, now their opinions count for nothing?
    This was only bought about by raving cooperation owners that believe they are less likely to make money out of the UK if we leave.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Samonia)
    It sets a little bit of a dangerous precedent as it could become that every vote that is taken would become subject to a MP vote until the "right" answer is obtained.
    The ruling was on the legal matter of whether the executive has the power to unilaterally strip British citizens of rights established by an Act of Parliament in relation to the European Communities Act 1972; it's nothing to do with trying to get a 'right' answer politically.

    Anyway, referenda in the UK have always been rather like consultations - unless established otherwise by Parliament (so, if anything, a precedent is being followed). The 1979 referendum on whether Scots supported the proposed devolved Scottish legislature was passed 52-48 (like the most recent one), but the law establishing it was repealed (by MPs) anyway thanks to an amendment to the law which stipulated that 40 percent of the total electorate must approve for it to be upheld - the turnout was low enough that the threshold wasn't reached. Substitute the judiciary for the amendment and the hysterical Leave voters for the SNP, and it's plain that this overreaction is what is unprecedented.

    Shows you how poor civics education (or lack of it, rather) is in this country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    What annoys me is that the country voted and almost all those eligible to vote turned up and a majority said they wanted to leave, now 3 men have the right to just turn up and tell us the population of the country that we have no right to decide how our country is run.
    Oh dear. Oh dear. The judges did not block Brexit or overturn the referendum. They just certified the correct legal procedure for leaving the EU as a matter of constituional law.

    The judges made the correct legal decision as a matter of British constitutional law. Maybe you want our judges to scrap legal principles, scrap the rule of law and just decide a case on its political merits, but that is not how our legal system works.

    We have one of the finest legal systems in the world. Judges should be unelected, that allows them to be impartial and independent.


    The judges were asked a legal question and gave a legal answer. The referendum was not legally binding and therefore cannot be taken into consideration in a court of LAW.

    If you think that our judges should scrap legal and constitutional principles, then quite frankly you hate Britain. You hate our rule of law.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,107

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.