Enemies of the People

[GB9]

And what gave them the right to do that?

And how did they come to their conclusion?

Why when 17 million people have already spoken do we need to ask 3 more people who can effectively nullify their voice?

I would honestly save the wear of the keys on your keyboard.

I tried the really blunt approach and they didn't get that so the subtle, balanced approach will be futile.

The reasoning is that because they are judges they are in position to give their opinion. That overrides anyone else. The Remnants claim this is about process but know full well that the chosen process leads to delay. They hope that the delay gives the EU fairy enough time to drop magic dust on us and we change our minds.

They keep calling me ignorant because I have the audacity to point out the above and cut through their liberal elitist nonsense.

[Old Greg]

And what gave them the right to do that?

And how did they come to their conclusion?

Why when 17 million people have already spoken do we need to ask 3 more people who can effectively nullify their voice?

Could you post a few more of your wise musings on the topic of Brexit?

[WTFH]

And what gave them the right to do that?

The law

And how did they come to their conclusion?

By applying the law. They detailed how they came to their conclusion in their findings.

Why when 17 million people have already spoken do we need to ask 3 more people who can effectively nullify their voice?

They have not nullified the voices of 17 million people.
The 17 million people did not vote on "is it legal for the prime minister to carry out something which requires an act of parliament without having the act of parliament to do it?"
The 17 million voted to leave the EU. Let me repeat for the slow of learning:
The judges were not ruling on whether we can or cannot leave the EU, but whether we live in a dictatorship or a parliamentary democracy.

[original PM]

The law


By applying the law. They detailed how they came to their conclusion in their findings.



They have not nullified the voices of 17 million people.
The 17 million people did not vote on "is it legal for the prime minister to carry out something which requires an act of parliament without having the act of parliament to do it?"
The 17 million voted to leave the EU. Let me repeat for the slow of learning:
The judges were not ruling on whether we can or cannot leave the EU, but whether we live in a dictatorship or a parliamentary democracy.

I think if 17 million people say do something - and the PM does it then it is hardly a dictatorship is it?

That is almost like perfect democracy - e.g. the people vote, the government acts on the vote....

However if it is a legal requirements that there is an act of parliament then lets go for it - not sure why we needed judges to confirm the law but hey ho......

But even you can see how this has been spun as a way to 'stop/slow down brexit' and in general try and make the job harder and more costly without adding any value?

[SueEllen]

I would honestly save the wear of the keys on your keyboard.

I tried the really blunt approach and they didn't get that so the subtle, balanced approach will be futile.

The reasoning is that because they are judges they are in position to give their opinion. That overrides anyone else. The Remnants claim this is about process but know full well that the chosen process leads to delay. They hope that the delay gives the EU fairy enough time to drop magic dust on us and we change our minds.

They keep calling me ignorant because I have the audacity to point out the above and cut through their liberal elitist nonsense.

You are blatantly displaying your ignorance.

Some of us have studied subjects like History, Law and Politics above GCSE level while others, particularly those from Commonwealth countries, have studied constitutions from a younger age.

The reason for this is to ensure citizens of democracies know the difference between a democracy and dictatorship.

Judges only job is to interpret the law and how it is applied. They cannot make political points. While British governments don't like judges ruling against them e.g. Tony Blair's over asylum and David Cameron's with benefits, the government has to follow the process unless we want to end up like Zimbabwe.

[Old Greg]

I would honestly save the wear of the keys on your keyboard.

And spoil our entertainment?

[Old Greg]

I think if 17 million people say do something - and the PM does it then it is hardly a dictatorship is it?

That is almost like perfect democracy - e.g. the people vote, the government acts on the vote....

However if it is a legal requirements that there is an act of parliament then lets go for it - not sure why we needed judges to confirm the law but hey ho......

But even you can see how this has been spun as a way to 'stop/slow down brexit' and in general try and make the job harder and more costly without adding any value?

We needed to judges to confirm the law as the government was trying to trigger Article 50 illegally, and in opposition to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

[SueEllen]

But they did vote to leave to EU, so why do we need an act of parliament to activate the process? - No amount of dissembling bollocks will convince anyone what this judgement is really for.

The head of a hedge fund suddenly became politically aware after the 23rd of June and now wants to re-assert the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. No real self interest there.

Ultimately the people of the UK are Sovereign.

Not how our democracy works I'm afraid.

We don't have mob rule in the UK but a representative democracy.

[LondonManc]

Judges are upholding the law and doing their job. It's people like you who don't understand and refuse to understand how the British constitution works

It's up to MPs and the Lords to decide whether to follow the will of the people.

Now I understand why Cameron completely ran away. If he was an MP he would be getting death threats from all sides.

He's the worst PM we have had since WWII.

You're Cherie Blair and I claim my 17 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.

So do I.

However, like you I've been on this board for years, and I don't think I've seen such a vicious, humourless, ignorant, vitriolic bunch of idiots as those who purport to represent the Brexit point of view. If they truly reflect the views of a significant proportion of the population, then we (the British people) have fallen very far in the last few years.

Odd, because it's usually the lefties that go with the violence - poll tax riots, student riots, etc. Not to mention the mass of lentil-munching imbeciles protesting austerity by, not-so-unbelievably, costing tax payers even more by rioting. Yet as soon as those on the right call something out as wrong, the race card gets played.

Liberals are wonderfully idealistic people until they don't get their own way. Next step is that if they're losing the argument, they bring out the race card to try and silence people.

Not that I voted for Brexit, as I've said in the past. There are clearly merits to remaining and leaving and for me personally, I didn't see an argument strong enough from either side to convince me to vote for them. That was obviously, in part, down to the poor campaigns from the political protagonists on both sides.

Oh, have we got a date for Tony's war crimes trial yet?

[Old Greg]

You're Cherie Blair and I claim my 17 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.



Odd, because it's usually the lefties that go with the violence - poll tax riots, student riots, etc. Not to mention the mass of lentil-munching imbeciles protesting austerity by, not-so-unbelievably, costing tax payers even more by rioting. Yet as soon as those on the right call something out as wrong, the race card gets played.

Liberals are wonderfully idealistic people until they don't get their own way. Next step is that if they're losing the argument, they bring out the race card to try and silence people.

Not that I voted for Brexit, as I've said in the past. There are clearly merits to remaining and leaving and for me personally, I didn't see an argument strong enough from either side to convince me to vote for them. That was obviously, in part, down to the poor campaigns from the political protagonists on both sides.

Oh, have we got a date for Tony's war crimes trial yet?

Tony's war crimes are a good example of right-wing violence, aren't they? Aligning with the neocons to star a war of aggression.