The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[cyrusr]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

On the face of it - and given the article by Paul Craig that I posted - that looks much less likely to succeed (than the general case against the Government going too far with the prorogation) at this point in time, no?

The point being that there is still a political avenue (in a however narrow a window) to prevent a 'no deal' withdrawal. I guess there could be some form of judgment that leaves the door open for the case to be brought again if the government uses further measures to evade that political avenue (such as ignoring laws being passed or witholding assent)?

The article deals with the much more basic principle of parliament > government in terms of sovereignty, the NI case relies upon a specific legislation that they say the the government will breach. I think it is a different type of argument but no less relevant. 

The point of the court cases will ultimately say to the government "you cannot pass over parliament" but remains the question as to what they do with it thereafter. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I don't think the answer is in the court's,  I think they have it covered and the time element involved doesn't help.  Just a guess but they must have planned for all this,  they are not stupid.

Rees-Smog does not come across as a bloke who forgets to check an angle especially on what a government can or can't do ? Remain is just counter punching but can't get near at the moment.

[snowychap]

Given these are the tweets of LBC's political editor, I'm guessing they're a correct transcription of the conversation:

 

 

[NurembergVillan]

9 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

What laws have they broken ? 

There's a difference between believing in laws and overtly breaking them.

Ignoring news laws in Parliament would be one such example.

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

You’re going to have to be more specific than that and less patronising 

again what laws have the broken? 

The ones that parliament may pass in the near future that prevent them doing what they want to do. I'm perfectly sure you already know this too

[blandy]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Your point was that he was showing an uncommon level of critical thinking whereas everyone else was acceppting the content of the thread because it was 'written by someone with a particular position on Brexit'.

No, that wasn't quite my point. The first part yes. To my reading @HanoiVillan had taken the twitter thread, looked at it and determined that a number of the assumptions and arguments made in it were essentially "leaps of faith" that didn't have the strength to support the conclusions reached, and that perhaps the tweeter's own views on Brexit might have influenced, one way or another, the logical argument the tweeter was laying out.

It's one of the things with social media, that many people (and I've done it myself) see a tweet, or series of them, and click "like" or "retweet" and move on to the next "outrage", their biases re-inforced, their positions fortified.

But sometimes, as HV pointed out, the case behind the message being put out is weaker than strident tweets appear to imply. So my gentle compliment to HV was kind of "Yeah, you don't often see people doing what you did and examining the case in more detail with a sceptical eye, have a (VT) like" HV is not the only person to do it, but it's rarer than we/I'd like isn't it? Surely you've only got to look at all the responses to his tweet to see that so many responders to it had not used the same level of critical thinking as HV, so many had seemingly missed, or not taken into account in their own responses that the tweeter had dismissed the potential other avenues of explanation with a  'I don't think much of that" and "not convinced of that" and didn't have as strong an argument as they were then extrapolating to demand this that and the other "be done about it".

The second part, you say my point was " whereas everyone else was accepting the content of the thread because it was 'written by someone with a particular position on Brexit'. - No, absolutely not. I think I said, without going back to check, HV's approach was "rare" [on Brexit]. To me I think there's almost no reasoning left in most of the coverage we get, online, TV, radio, newspapers... and of course by the actual proponents of Brexit (now at whatever cost).

[NurembergVillan]

57 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

You’re going to have to be more specific than that and less patronising 

again what laws have the broken? 

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

The ones that parliament may pass in the near future that prevent them doing what they want to do. I'm perfectly sure you already know this too

Ok so we've gone from breaking laws to ones they may break in the future  ..glad we've cleared that one up

[NurembergVillan]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Ok so we've gone from breaking laws to ones they may break in the future  ..glad we've cleared that one up

We haven't.  You introduced the notion of breaking laws when you quoted me.

The original discussion was about believing in laws.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The second part, you say my point was " whereas everyone else was accepting the content of the thread because it was 'written by someone with a particular position on Brexit'. - No, absolutely not.

Oh, come on. You're very much better than that.

The clear implication was that those not showing HV's 'use of hiw own brain' were therefore accepting something written because it reinforced their bias and that this bias was based on an anti-Brexit message.

You even had to look around for support, after the event, for this line of attack and you happened to stumble on a blog that wasn't written by the person in question.

Your line is this is exceptionally poor. At least HV's line had some substance.

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

We haven't.  You introduced the notion of breaking laws when you quoted me.

The original discussion was about believing in laws.

sorry , i may have mis -interpreted your original meaning , but I did then specifically ask what laws "have they broken"  and Bicks replied to that very question  (twice)

... had I quoted you in my reply then maybe you'd have a valid point , but i quoted Bicks   

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by tonyh29

[LondonLax]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Ok so we've gone from breaking laws to ones they may break in the future  ..glad we've cleared that one up

How does Gove’s cocaine use fit in this discussion?

[tonyh29]

Just now, LondonLax said:

How does Gove’s cocaine use fit in this discussion?

I'm no expert on drug laws but i believe usage isn't a crime  ..its possession that is the crime  , maybe he found a way to take the drugs without ever possessing them   ?

but , I'm fairly sure the question was around "governments" not individuals  , i suspect intended more as a response to the governments current legal proroguing  of parliament and the perceived coup

 

[NurembergVillan]

12 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

12 hours ago, colhint said:

So is that the law of the land? Surely you believe in the Law don't you? I guess if I moved to a foreign country I would abide by the laws of that land, wouldn't you.

The case I quoted was someone who moved here as a child having been born overseas and held a British passport.  Exactly like my eldest daughter.  She came into the country on a tourist visa.

The whole point is that these people ARE abiding by the laws of the land.

And yes, I do believe in the law.  Which is more than can be send for many of those who are currently in place to govern us.

 

11 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

12 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

And yes, I do believe in the law.  Which is more than can be send for many of those who are currently in place to govern us.

What laws have they broken ? 

@tonyh29  Not trying to be a pedant here (perhaps it comes naturally!) just showing where the conversation originated and how you, Bicks and I seem to be having two slightly different conversations.  The start point wasn't the government as a whole or law-breaking as such.

[snowychap]

33 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

i suspect intended more as a response to the governments current legal proroguing  of parliament and the perceived coup

No, it's in response to Gove's comments yesterday and Williamson's comments today that indicate that the Government (by way of two ministers) cannot give categorical assurances that they would obey laws that Parliament had passed.

[Xann]

[blandy]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Oh, come on. You're very much better than that.

The clear implication was that those not showing HV's 'use of hiw own brain' were therefore accepting something written because it reinforced their bias and that this bias was based on an anti-Brexit message.

You even had to look around for support, after the event, for this line of attack and you happened to stumble on a blog that wasn't written by the person in question.

Your line is this is exceptionally poor. At least HV's line had some substance.

Never change, Snowy. 

On 30/08/2019 at 21:25, blandy said:

Have a massive like for using your own (excellent) brain and not just accepting what's written by someone with a particular position on Brexit. Critical thinking is largely absent from all the to-ing and fro-ing on the whole thing.

This place just wouldn't be the same if people could simply commend another poster for critical thinking, without someone else divining it as a "line of attack".

[TheStagMan]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Well done you, thats a very constructive addition to the debate.

[bobzy]

12 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

Well done you, thats a very constructive addition to the debate.

Agreed - it was an excellent post.

[Xann]

13 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

Well done you, thats a very constructive addition to the debate.

We did the insightful stuff years ago, but it was all a bit whoosh for some, or dismissed as Project Fear.

Know your audience.