Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The government of this country consists of Parliament, the Courts, the Monarchy, the civil service, ministers and other institutions like local authorities and the armed and police forces. However, the greatest of all of these has always been Parliament since about 1649 when they decapitated the king to make it so.

    We don't and never have had a system where everything is decided with referendums. David Cameron opted for it this time because he was too weak and timid to face down a bunch of sad idiots planted in his backbenches by an offshore tycoon with a dodgy past and links to organised crime.

    The referendum itself was not legally binding and Parliament remains sovereign.

    If you don't think it is, please find a country more to your liking, perhaps Putin's Russia or China under the unelected one party rule of the Communist Party?
    Parliament now exists on a practical basis because it is not viable or cost-effective to hold a national referendum for every issue. Parliament is therefore a highly condensed representation of the whole country, voting on our behalf. 100,000 people in a city are condensed into a handful of MPs who vote on their behalf. When you do hold a national referendum the need for Parliament is totally unnecessary because the people as a whole have voted rather than delegating it to Parliament to decide for us on practical grounds.

    The idea that a small group of representatives should supersede the will of the millions of people they are supposed to represent is something more akin to Putin's Russia or China.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Legally the move makes sense, if they win the appeal we still get brexit, if they lose the appeal we'll probably still get brexit as I imagine most MPs outside of the SNP won't have the balls to u-turn on the referendum vote.

    calm it

    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Do politicians normally ignore what people want? I don't think they do.
    Yeah the people definitely wanted the expenses scandal, plebgate, and to be lied to about the reasons for the Iraq war.


    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I wish that we could just hurry up and leave just so people will finally stop saying brexit as though that actually constitutes a real word.
    Sounds a bit like a cereal brand, doesn't it?
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It is the word representative they are acting against someone can not claim to represent a group by acting against it wishes
    Then it's likely that the MPs of your area will vote the same way as their constituents.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    but unfortunately the UK's electorate has decided that they're all suddenly political and economic experts
    You are aware of course that it is possible for ordinary people to have informed views on political issues, and that those people are not limited to just your side at all?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    You are aware of course that it is possible for ordinary people to have informed views on political issues, and that those people are not limited to just your side at all?
    Well..yes but that also extends to Shelly from Grimsby who hasn't got a GCSE to her name.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Theresa May has conceded that an Act of Parliament will be required to invoke Article 50.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-of-parliament

    Probably no need for it to be appealed to the Supreme Court now.

    Parliament will now be able to attach amendments demanding that Britain stay in the Single Market.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    People would be up in arms if Trump tried to challenge Hillary being elected in court.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    You are aware of course that it is possible for ordinary people to have informed views on political issues, and that those people are not limited to just your side at all?
    It is of course possible, but if you're trying to tell me that any significant proportion of the electorate was properly informed then I'd struggle to take that seriously. I'm certainly not suggesting that ignorance is exclusive to Leave voters, but if you're unprepared to educate yourself about a topic sufficiently such that you feel you're in a position to make a personal decision about an issue as important as this, the next best thing is to use the expert consensus. And given that the expert consensus on practically all issues was overwhelmingly on the remain side, I think I'm well justified to argue that Leave supporters cared much less about facts and well-reasoned arguments than Remain supporters.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    The idea that a small group of representatives should supersede the will of the millions of people they are supposed to represent is something more akin to Putin's Russia or China.
    You clearly are not a believer in Parliamentary Democracy, which is fine, but I think all of the Brexiteers who are not (including Nigel Farage, who has many times indicated his disdain for Parliament) should state clearly that they want it to be replaced with dictatorship. The views you espouse would have been fully acceptable to Stalin for example.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    People would be up in arms if Trump tried to challenge Hillary being elected in court.
    Gore/Bush was decided in court. It isn't unheard of for US elections to end up that way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    It is of course possible, but if you're trying to tell me that any significant proportion of the electorate was properly informed then I'd struggle to take that seriously. I'm certainly not suggesting that ignorance is exclusive to Leave voters, but if you're unprepared to educate yourself about a topic sufficiently such that you feel you're in a position to make a personal decision about an issue as important as this, the next best thing is to use the expert consensus. And given that the expert consensus on practically all issues was overwhelmingly on the remain side, I think I'm well justified to argue that Leave supporters cared much less about facts and well-reasoned arguments than Remain supporters.
    Remain voters wanted to protect the institutions the Eu have gave us such as the NHS and make sure nandos could stay in the uk.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Well..yes but that also extends to Shelly from Grimsby who hasn't got a GCSE to her name.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    According to Michael Gove, during the referendum, Shelly's views counted for more than 'experts', who were to be derided. People like, er, business managers, economists, exporters, that kind of thing. Shelly mattered more.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    And given that the expert consensus on practically all issues was overwhelmingly on the remain side, I think I'm well justified to argue that Leave supporters cared much less about facts and well-reasoned arguments than Remain supporters.
    Would you apply the same argument to the refugee issue? I am sure the cold, hard facts reveal that they are a net drain on the system, yet of course many (rightfully) don't care about all that and would rather listen to the emotive argument.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You clearly are not a believer in Parliamentary Democracy, which is fine, but I think all of the Brexiteers who are not (including Nigel Farage, who has many times indicated his disdain for Parliament) should state clearly that they want it to be replaced with dictatorship. The views you espouse would have been fully acceptable to Stalin for example.
    False dichotomy alert. I don't believe in Parliament superseding a national referendum, no - for the reasons I already mentioned. In other circumstances where the people delegate decision-making to Parliament, then yes I am fine with Parliament having supremacy over judges, local councils, international organisations, etc.

    You are saying that a handful of people who have been delegated the job of representing millions of people (for practical reasons) should be able to turn around and supersede the will of those millions of people because of the archaic idea that Parliamentary Sovereignty is somehow divinely above everything else, including the will of the entire electorate. That sounds like something a royalist would have said about the Divine Right of Kings during the civil war.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    Would you apply the same argument to the refugee issue? I am sure the cold, hard facts reveal that they are a net drain on the system, yet of course many (rightfully) don't care about all that and would rather listen to the emotive argument.
    There is not only one metric that matters in the world. You need to look at problems holistically. In the case of the EU, the economy is certainly not the only thing that matters (although it's pretty important, given that it's an economic union) but in pretty much every single aspect, from geopolitics to the environment, the expert opinion was overwhelmingly that it's a bad idea to leave. Refugees are most certainly not a primarily economic issue, it's a humanitarian issue. So it's complete nonsense to analyse it in terms of whether it gives us a net positive effect (and indeed if you asked an economist they would not tell you "It is bad because it costs money" because they'd be intelligent enough to realise that it is not a problem you can find an answer to with economics alone).

    I'd also argue that there's a pretty poor emotive argument for leaving the EU. Total sovereignty is impossible in a globalised world and I don't even think it's remotely desirable given the fact that we now live in a world where most important issues are international rather than national, and where competing national interests are putting the human race in serious risk.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand this in general.

    Lots of leavers seem to think it'll stop Brexit.

    Lots of remainers seem to think it'll stop Brexit.

    It won't stop Brexit.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    People would be up in arms if Trump tried to challenge Hillary being elected in court.
    That's isn't what happened here. Brexit was not challenged today, nor was the notion of a hard Brexit.

    Today's ruling simply stated the legal process by which the UK must leave the EU according to British constitutional law.

    We will still leave, it just means that to legally do so our parliament, not government must trigger Article
    50.

    I don't see the issue. Our courts' role is to decide a case on its legal merits, not its political merits and legally parliament must vote to trigger article 50 whether or not that is politically desirable.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jee1)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    There is not only one metric that matters in the world. You need to look at problems holistically. In the case of the EU, the economy is certainly not the only thing that matters (although it's pretty important, given that it's an economic union) but in pretty much every single aspect, from geopolitics to the environment, the expert opinion was overwhelmingly that it's a bad idea to leave. Refugees are most certainly not a primarily economic issue, it's a humanitarian issue. So it's complete nonsense to analyse it in terms of whether it gives us a net positive effect (and indeed if you asked an economist they would not tell you "It is bad because it costs money" because they'd be intelligent enough to realise that it is not a problem you can find an answer to with economics alone).
    Refugees and the EU are many things to many people, the reasons for embracing or rejecting both ranging from pure economics to emotion. Just because you subjectively view refugees as primarily a humanitarian issue does not objectively invalidate another person seeing refugees through a purely economic prism. So I just don't see how someone being for Brexit on emotive grounds and ignoring objective data is somehow wrong, whereas someone being for more refugees on emotive grounds and ignoring objective data is somehow right. I don't think you saying refugees belong under a different sub-heading really changes that.

    I'd also argue that there's a pretty poor emotive argument for leaving the EU. Total sovereignty is impossible in a globalised world and I don't even think it's remotely desirable given the fact that we now live in a world where most important issues are international rather than national, and where competing national interests are putting the human race in serious risk.
    Why does that necessitate a domestic parliament having to give away powers to international bodies? Why can't those international bodies have more of an advisory role?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,052

people online now

1,567,000

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

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.