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

[Dodgyknees]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Ah yes St Jezza managed to do a great job of persuading me to vote for Labour today... not

He did a really good job of making me want to repeatedly punch him in he face though, he's just so infuriating

When it comes to an election, I'll be voting for the best person in my constituency to stop the Tory candidate, that is all that matters.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, avfcDJ said:

When it comes to an election, I'll be voting for the best person in my constituency to stop the Tory candidate, that is all that matters.

I'm in a safe Labour seat populated by a bellend with no desire to have an independent thought. His opinion is always what the party leadership says, regardless of who that leader is or what the issue is. He's an automaton. He changed from Blairite to Corbynite overnight 

I'll be sticking with the Greens unless an Indie pops up I can trust

[jackbauer24]

People don't trust politicians. That's hardly news. We now live in a world where there is no 'truth' - everything can be spun and completely stubborn denial of facts is seen as a legitimate response. You show a politician what they've said or done in the past in black and white and they'll simply deny it happened. There is no reasoning with that stance. The press are largely in the hands of the politically motivated and will choose to slant things in one direction or the other, or simply omit the story if it doesn't fit their agenda. A 'fact' is now a dirty word that is either conspiracy or scaremongering and expert opinion is dismissed as geeky, unreliable pomposity. It is a scary, scary time for the UK and the world. The masses largely wish to follow and will go down the path of least resistance which leads to populism and easy soundbites. Party politics is broken and takes away the idea of a person representing you. Brexit is the epitomy of all this. 

The only way I can see through this is to ask the people on the front line. Go speak to your doctor, your policeman, your teacher and your business owner. Go speak to the people in the factories and those working in retail. I have. Nearly all, to a varying degree, can see only bad times ahead if Brexit is to happen. Some got there immediately, others eyes have been opened whilst some still, shockingly, are ambivalent to the whole situation. However, not one has been able to suggest life will get BETTER for them or their industry should we leave. We seem to have universally accepted it's damage limitation. But, most surprisingly of all, this doesn't stop leavers wanting to leave.

I'm not sure how it was achieved but 'Leave means Leave' seems to have become more embedded in society's psyche than any concept before it. It's almost been brainwashed. The belief that an idea, concept or even choice can't change is remarkable. I think, given another chance, the public would vote Leave again, purely because 'Leave means Leave' in the face of any concrete reasoning. That is a terrifying indictment of humanity. No-one is talking about what will IMPROVE at all and yet people still want to go through with it?

Your freedom to travel will go. Your money will be worth less abroad. Costs will rise. Supplies will be hit. NHS will strain or even crumble. Jobs will go. Academia will suffer. Tensions will resurrect in Ireland. Funding for projects will plummet and workers protections will evaporate. This isn't a political stance, this is that scary reality that the government (pro brexit) acknowledge but they still want to do it.

On the upside? Nothing. Not one thing is mentioned. How scary is it that NOW (not 2016) the choice should be so ridiculously obvious that there shouldn't even be a debate going on about carrying on from anyone other than those wishing for Britain's financial and societal destruction. So why the hell are we still here?! The best I've heard is we might, might, stand still. Hell of a gamble that.

Please. One person, whatever your political stance, tell me why leaving could be seen as a good thing. What part of our world will get better? One thing, one light at the end of the tunnel, one shred of comfort for all this madness. I need something. Even a no-deal couldn't give me the relief of a quickly pulled plaster, negotiations would still be needed in multiple areas for a generation.

I dispair. I really do.

[Genie]

14 hours ago, Genie said:

For a nano-second I felt sorry for Boris. Then I realised he brought this all on himself.

If he was cleverer he could have spun that round, "I'm here to see first hand what the situation is and if theres anything I can do to help. Thank you for your passionate input it's very much appreciated". 

He'd have looked less of a useless oaf then.

I see from his Twitter he has since been advised to respond pretty much as I wrote.

[cyrusr]

7 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Please. One person, whatever your political stance, tell me why leaving could be seen as a good thing. What part of our world will get better? One thing, one light at the end of the tunnel, one shred of comfort for all this madness. I need something. Even a no-deal couldn't give me the relief of a quickly pulled plaster, negotiations would still be needed in multiple areas for a generation.

I dispair. I really do.

Good post.

The only argument that I felt that had any weight for leaving was the sovereignty argument and making decisions as the UK rather than the EU.  The “idea” was that we were run by unelected bureaucrats/politicians and that sovereignty should be give it back to the UK people, which is ultimately back to parliament. Whilst disagreed with the unelected bureaucrats, I can understand the argument that we will make the decision ourselves. Didn’t agree with it, but could appreciate the point.

The only way that Brexit would have worked though is through gradual change. The systems are far too intertwined for a “clean break”, hence the utter confusion and mess we could be heading into. Rather than a “right we’re off, f*** you” mandate, it should have been treated as a change of policy and started the gradual process. If in years to come, we wanted to change trade agreements, then we could then but let’s maintain stability.

Instead what has happened instead is that we now have Boris (a barely elected politician) & Cummings (an unelected bureaucrat) trying to force us into a scenario we were guaranteed wasn’t going to happen. Any suggestion though that this is lunacy is met with utter anger. Whilst the issue of brexit is the focal point, the prorogation argument is a key question mark in the balance of power between the government and parliament. It’s resonance could be crucial for if the courts support the government, it will give the government a key power to silence parliament every time it didn’t like what it said. Imagine if someone like Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson  had that power? I’m not saying they will, but did we really expect to be where we are now?

So I think in answer to your question is that, there isn’t really positive. I think that the silver lining of a no deal brexit is that in years to come, if you survive, then grand dictator who has wrenched power from the evil EU might grace you with his presence, and give hand out free bread to you  

[Wainy316]

27 minutes ago, Genie said:

I see from his Twitter he has since been advised to respond pretty much as I wrote.

Maybe he reads VT

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

8 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

No-one is talking about what will IMPROVE at all and yet people still want to go through with it?

This is why my brain can't or won't try and compute this.  It is so illogical as to fly in the face of of many things that i thought were set in stone.

5 years ago these questions seem obvious but now ?

Quality of life in general,  would you like it to improve or get worse ?

Do you want less money in your pocket ?

Travel / Work restrictions,  want that ?

Money devaluation for abroad ? 

Restrictions or the running out of some basic stuff,  any good to you ? 

So,  a lot of people out there are actually choosing the above as the way forward.  It makes no ****ing sense.  Something else is going on i am 100% sure.  I don't know,  it seems so weird.  I am not there so I can look at it from the outside.  I genuinely think its so odd.

When someone said "Cake or Death" as a joke,  it's funny becasue the extreme underlying comedy stance is  'nobody would ever choose death so the question is moot" ,  is it I ask myself.  Is it ?

Edited September 19, 2019 by Amsterdam_Neil_D
Syntax error on Line 1

[desensitized43]

34 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

This is why my brain can't or won't try and compute this.  It is so illogical as to fly in the face of of many things that i thought were set in stone.

5 years ago these questions seem obvious but now ?

Quality of life in general,  would you like it to improve or get worse ?

Do you want less money in your pocket ?

Travel / Work restrictions,  want that ?

Money devaluation for abroad ? 

Restrictions or the running out of some basic stuff,  any good to you ? 

So,  a lot of people out there are actually choosing the above as the way forward.  It makes no ****ing sense.  Something else is going on i am 100% sure.  I don't know,  it seems so weird.  I am not there so I can look at it from the outside.  I genuinely think its so odd.

When someone said "Cake or Death" as a joke,  it's funny becasue the extreme underlying comedy stance is  'nobody would ever choose death so the question is moot" ,  is it I ask myself.  Is it ?

It makes sense if you assume that those people decided that they didn't believe any of your points...

Or if they believed points from "their" side that the EU was making most of our laws without us having any say or 100m+ Turkish people were going to be moving into a suburb near you in the very near future.

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, cyrusr said:

The only way that Brexit would have worked though is through gradual change. The systems are far too intertwined for a “clean break”, hence the utter confusion and mess we could be heading into. Rather than a “right we’re off, f*** you” mandate, it should have been treated as a change of policy and started the gradual process. If in years to come, we wanted to change trade agreements, then we could then but let’s maintain stability.

This, this, this, a million times this. I've always conceded that there is a case for leaving the EU, just as there is for remaining. But getting out is of necessity a complex business that takes careful planning. If the referendum had been treated as what it actually was (an opinion poll), we could have said "OK, looks like there is some disquiet about our membership. Let's look into the pros and cons of leaving, work out what the impact might be, and how we could go about it with the minimal disruption, and we'll get back to you". But no, we got this suicidal mania that a depressed lemming would baulk at. It's beyond insane. 

[mjmooney]

Quote

The Brexit Party has announced its general election candidate for Rutland and Melton, a constituency which includes the Vale of Belvoir.

Jim Bennett is a 70-year-old armed forces veteran who served 37 years in the RAF.

Born in Scotland, Jim now lives at Sudbrooke, near Lincoln, and has lived in Lincolnshire for 18 years

His RAF service has seen him located at many bases between the Shetlands and Cornwall. He also served in Kuwait, Cyprus, Germany and Belgium and his last 'tour' was at RAF Waddington.

The father of four adult children has also served 10 years as a Justice of the Peace, 10 years as a parish councillor in Skellingthorpe and spent 11 years working in schools with children who have special needs.

Jim says he was previously an Independent councillor and joining the Brexit Party is his first foray into party politics.

"It's because of what I feel about Brexit, that the people have been let down," he said.

"We are being badly ignored and it looks as if Boris Johnson will do the same again."

Despite not living in the constituency, Jim says he knows it well by living in Lincolnshire for 18 years. If elected, Jim pledged he would move into the constituency.

He added: "What’s more, I will campaign tirelessly for a clean break Brexit as this will give us the greatest chance of world-class free trading success. Let’s not forget, in the first Elizabethan era, we discovered new lands, vanquished malevolent enemies and brought untold wealth back to our fantastic island.

"And with a clean break Brexit, we can do exactly the same again, bringing huge prosperity into our midst, amongst many other things, helping our cash strapped public services achieve unparalleled proficiency."

Grantham Journal

There are people who actually think like this. 

 

[Dodgyknees]

Maybe we should invade Poland first, take all their wealth and gold. I reckon they'd like that, I'm not sure why it hasn't been done before.

[snowychap]

When is prorogation ‘improper’?

Quote

What would make Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament ‘improper’? Anne Twomey (University of Sydney) argues that the Supreme Court should focus on the fact that the PM has lost the confidence of the Commons – which is a breach of constitutional principle – rather than on the political advantages he might secure by shutting down Parliament.

Prorogation is primarily a procedural exercise which ends a session of parliament and terminates any unfinished business, such as bills or resolutions, before the Houses. Under the system of responsible government, the government holds the confidence of the lower House of Parliament, and hence any act of prorogation is ordinarily one that is supported by a majority of the lower House. Prorogation, therefore, usually entails the cooperation and support of both the government and the House from which the government is formed.

The reason why the recent prorogation of the UK Parliament has been so controversial is that the government appears no longer to hold the confidence of the House. The Johnson government has never received a vote of confidence, either implicit (such as the passage of a budgetary measure or a vote supporting the Queen’s Speech) or explicit, and has been defeated upon a major bill as well as two resolutions for a dissolution.

...

Where prorogation is undertaken at the behest of a government which has, or appears likely to have, lost the confidence of the lower House, and is done for the purpose of avoiding a vote of no confidence or other action by Parliament against the government’s will (which may amount to an implied vote of no confidence), then such action may be regarded as ‘unconstitutional’ and may legitimately be rejected by the Queen or her vice-regal representative in the other Realms. Hence, in Canada a number of eminent constitutional scholars took the view that the Governor-General would have been entitled to refuse the request of Prime Minister Harper to prorogue Parliament in 2008, when he appeared to have lost the confidence of the lower House, but not in 2009 when confidence was not in issue, but the alleged motive for the prorogation of Parliament was to prevent scrutiny by a parliamentary inquiry.

In the current Supreme Court proceedings, if the Court were minded to limit the scope of the power to prorogue by reference to whether or not it was exercised for an improper purpose, it should be cautious about assessing ‘improper purpose’ by reference to political advantage. Instead, an alternative would be to limit improper purposes to only those purposes that involve a breach of constitutional principle, such as the exercise of prorogation when the government has lost the confidence of the House, or is seeking to avoid a vote of no confidence against it. This would be consistent with the propositions that it is the common law that determines the existence and scope of prerogative powers, and that the common law must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the constitution.

Full blog on link

[snowychap]

The NI chap in the Supreme Court didn't fare very well..

The QC on behalf of the Welsh government is doing a much, much better job it seems.

This may have something to do with that:

 

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Maybe he reads VT

Well there is a proud record of Prime Ministers that support West Ham, so yeah maybe.

[Dodgyknees]

When do we get an answer from the Supreme Court?

[bickster]

Just now, avfcDJ said:

When do we get an answer from the Supreme Court?

Next Tuesday at the earliest was my understanding

[snowychap]

 

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

8 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

When do we get an answer from the Supreme Court?

Next Tuesday at the earliest was my understanding

I've seen comments about any time from tomorrow until after the weekend.

[snowychap]

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

 

F*** You! You're only judges, why do you think I care?

Anyone criminal saying that in court would get the maximum sentence possible

I'm absolutely not sorry and I'd do it again

Book thrown from bench

[Dodgyknees]

28 minutes ago, bickster said:

Next Tuesday at the earliest was my understanding

Cheers