Suspending Parliament was unlawful, court rules

Original post by Vinny C

Better than running into it over and over... no wonder Gove has that surprised carrot look.

You cannot pick and choose what democracy entails. If this was another nation, we would have concluded that the Parliament was undemocratic. Yet, we want to use convoluted words and processes to destroy the will of the people.

We even have the Lib Dems openly approving ignoring the referendum. Imagine, Johnson had said he would ignore the SC ruling or the will of the people, he would have been attacked as a tyrant. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Reply 102

Deyesy

Original post by shadowdweller

0% of the people voted on a No Deal Brexit though, because this is never something we were asked to vote on - similarly, any prospective deal was not something that the people voted on either. People voted to leave, but never how; and unfortunately some politicians seem to be taking this as 'leave by any means possible' which is not what was voted on.

I absolutely agree. People wanted out of the EU and it was a very dichotomous choice. There'll be a lot of people who didn't have the foggiest what they were actually voting for.

Reply 103

SHallowvale

14

Original post by shadowdweller

0% of the people voted on a No Deal Brexit though, because this is never something we were asked to vote on - similarly, any prospective deal was not something that the people voted on either. People voted to leave, but never how; and unfortunately some politicians seem to be taking this as 'leave by any means possible' which is not what was voted on.

BrExIT mEAnS bReXIt!!!!!

Reply 104

Vinny C

Original post by Wired_1800

You cannot pick and choose what democracy entails. If this was another nation, we would have concluded that the Parliament was undemocratic. Yet, we want to use convoluted words and processes to destroy the will of the people.

We even have the Lib Dems openly approving ignoring the referendum. Imagine, Johnson had said he would ignore the SC ruling or the will of the people, he would have been attacked as a tyrant. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Agreed... but we can pick and choose what is and isn't working. Empirical elimination is the basis of all modern science.

Reply 105

Original post by Vinny C

Agreed... but we can pick and choose what is and isn't working. Empirical elimination is the basis of all modern science.

Yes, I agree.

Reply 106

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by Wired_1800

That is exactly the point. Foolish people want to move the goal post to argue against Brexit. Some say that 52% is not a good majority, but I bet if it was 60% they would still want a higher percentage.

If it was 60% yes. Two thirds majority voting (i.e. 67% of the vote) is a common requirement for major constitutional change. That would have been a perfectly reasonable place to set the threshold

Reply 107

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

If it was 60% yes. Two thirds majority voting (i.e. 67% of the vote) is a common requirement for major constitutional change. That would have been a perfectly reasonable place to set the threshold

The Government set the rules for the referendum and the voters performed according to the rules. It is silly to change it because we are not happy with the result. The agreement was a simple majority and that was what was given by the people.

Reply 108

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by Wired_1800

The Government set the rules for the referendum and the voters performed according to the rules. It is silly to change it because we are not happy with the result. The agreement was a simple majority and that was what was given by the people.

The referendum was never intended to force a constitutional change, it was intended as advisory, a "would you prefer" if you like. To now treat it as an inviolable requirement to leave means it was not set up correctly in the first place to provide that. If it's absolutely imperative that the result of that referendum be carried out, it should have required a qualified majority, not just based off 1 or 2% of the vote

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 109

username1799249

19

Original post by Wired_1800

What is nonsense about the majority wanting Brexit and stating that it was the will of the people? Scotland voted 60% for Remain and the SNPs shout that they are pushing for the will of the Scottish people. Isn't it double standards?

It is true that the advisory referendum marginally returned the instruction to leave although the information that informed that vote has long been shown to be misleading on all sides.

However, if we are talking democracy, shortly afterwards we had a general election. This election returned a minority government unable to follow through on the advise of the referendum. I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Parliament is sovereign andvthat is why the UK has been and still is one of the greatest democracies.

Reply 110

Original post by Wired_1800

I think we should not get too assertive about the Prime Minister. He is trying to follow the will of the people.

No he isn't.
1. Leave is the will of a minority of the people.
2. The vote was over 3 years go. We're on our 3rd PM since then! There have been much shorter lived governments.
3. No one voted for No Deal, so he should rule out No Deal. No Deal is not the will of the people.
4. If you think that "the will of the people" is Johnson's motivation for anything, you are sadly deluded.

Reply 111

Original post by Burton Bridge

I think Brexit may of just opened a huge can of worms. I'm getting more and more concerned regarding the future of our country by the day, i failing to see how this can end well, in reality.

There. Fixed that for ya.
And it's "may have..." BTW. I hope the "i failing" was deliberate irony.

Reply 112

Original post by QE2

No he isn't.
1. Leave is the will of a minority of the people.
2. The vote was over 3 years go. We're on our 3rd PM since then! There have been much shorter lived governments.
3. No one voted for No Deal, so he should rule out No Deal. No Deal is not the will of the people.
4. If you think that "the will of the people" is Johnson's motivation for anything, you are sadly deluded.

1. The majority of voters, who voted.
2. So??
3. People voted to leave.
4. Ok

Reply 113

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

If it was 60% yes. Two thirds majority voting (i.e. 67% of the vote) is a common requirement for major constitutional change. That would have been a perfectly reasonable place to set the threshold

The clear agreement was a simple majority. So it means that if it was 52% remain, then it would be fair to hold another vote because it was not a 2/3 majority?? Ridiculous!!!

Reply 114

Original post by Burton Bridge

I'm even starting to support him myself, which a a great worry, if I'm honest

Why is that a worry? You usually come across as fawning to right wing demagogues and their agenda.

Reply 115

Original post by Burton Bridge

I think people with this view, the ecstatic joy about this are being exceptionally short sighted to its implications to future political decisions.

Seriously. Stop using that random text generator. It's making me feel odd.

You may very well be on the receiving end of this beast that's just been unleashed, sooner than you may think.

Fnarr!

Reply 116

Original post by Burton Bridge

But is that totally true? I don't think so

Reply 117

Original post by ByEeek

It is true that the advisory referendum marginally returned the instruction to leave although the information that informed that vote has long been shown to be misleading on all sides.

However, if we are talking democracy, shortly afterwards we had a general election. This election returned a minority government unable to follow through on the advise of the referendum. I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Parliament is sovereign andvthat is why the UK has been and still is one of the greatest democracies.

80% of the vote went to Parties who said they would respect the referendum.

It is a bit ridiculous to claim that Parliament should be respected when many of them have publicly gone against the will of the very people the claim to serve. It is abominable.

Reply 118

Original post by Burton Bridge

Time will tell if I'm correct or incorrect, I hope I'm incorrect and you are right but I don't think so at the moment.

Democracy is certainly not being served by the majority of parliament, that's unequivocally true. Borris is the only PM in history to be accused of shutting down democracy by asking for a general democratic election!

I'm no fan of borris but I fear huge implications of this ruling, it certainly does set a president and is possible to spiral, its bigger than leave, remain, labour, Tory political fights.

Brilliant!

Reply 119