A
- Status
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Concern for peace in Ireland facilitating EU intransigence.
A
abucs
Guest
Treason is not something that is spoken about much these days and for good reason because it is a serious issue and technically it can be punished quite heavily.
If there is a democratically held referendum which gives a clear result with the subsequent bill voted through parliament to leave the EU and it is being thwarted and indeed looking to be bypassed by British people colluding with foreign governments then can this be described as treasonous action in the true sense of the term?
Secondly is the question of the psychological reasoning by those who lost the referendum. Surely in a democracy if people vote to leave the EU then government officials have a duty to do what they all agreed to.
If there are disagreements about the nature of the relations by Britain with the EU, including the possible re-entry back into the EU at a later date, then surely in a democracy you give the people what they want, what politicians said they accepted, and then you make your case again to the electorate in efforts to change people’s minds.
To cling to power and misuse courts and speakers roles and collude with foreign nationals and ignore election promises does point to a clear rejection of democracy and due process in the attempt to commandeer an elitist take over with EU bureaucrats.
This appears not only anti democratic, elitist and even treasonous but bizarre in willingly endangering the cohesion of society in favour of an undemocratic belief in ones own superiority.
I notice now that Parliament, with the unorthodox help of the (Remainer) Speaker is forcing the Government to ask European countries for yet another delay and yet the Prime Minister is also saying (reportedly) that any European government that in fact does what he is compelled to ask for will be considered by his government to be engaging in an hostile act towards Britain.
Remainers seem willing to endanger the peace of their country because of a refusal to accept a referendum that they lost and an unwillingness to start over and try to persuade people of their losing policies through the normal channels of elections. If they wish to bend and push and bully and ignore process and democracy to get what they want, why can they not see they are setting the new rules for politics which mean conflict, disrespect and intransigence that ALL OTHERS will follow?
In short it looks like a refusal not just to accept democracy but to commandeer it for an elitist bureaucratic clique as if the majority people who voted against them do not exist. There are obvious consequences in acting this way, and none of it is good.
If there is a democratically held referendum which gives a clear result with the subsequent bill voted through parliament to leave the EU and it is being thwarted and indeed looking to be bypassed by British people colluding with foreign governments then can this be described as treasonous action in the true sense of the term?
Secondly is the question of the psychological reasoning by those who lost the referendum. Surely in a democracy if people vote to leave the EU then government officials have a duty to do what they all agreed to.
If there are disagreements about the nature of the relations by Britain with the EU, including the possible re-entry back into the EU at a later date, then surely in a democracy you give the people what they want, what politicians said they accepted, and then you make your case again to the electorate in efforts to change people’s minds.
To cling to power and misuse courts and speakers roles and collude with foreign nationals and ignore election promises does point to a clear rejection of democracy and due process in the attempt to commandeer an elitist take over with EU bureaucrats.
This appears not only anti democratic, elitist and even treasonous but bizarre in willingly endangering the cohesion of society in favour of an undemocratic belief in ones own superiority.
I notice now that Parliament, with the unorthodox help of the (Remainer) Speaker is forcing the Government to ask European countries for yet another delay and yet the Prime Minister is also saying (reportedly) that any European government that in fact does what he is compelled to ask for will be considered by his government to be engaging in an hostile act towards Britain.
Remainers seem willing to endanger the peace of their country because of a refusal to accept a referendum that they lost and an unwillingness to start over and try to persuade people of their losing policies through the normal channels of elections. If they wish to bend and push and bully and ignore process and democracy to get what they want, why can they not see they are setting the new rules for politics which mean conflict, disrespect and intransigence that ALL OTHERS will follow?
In short it looks like a refusal not just to accept democracy but to commandeer it for an elitist bureaucratic clique as if the majority people who voted against them do not exist. There are obvious consequences in acting this way, and none of it is good.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
If you are worried that Mr Rees-Mogg and his fellow members of the ERG, or indeed the Prime Minister, might be arraigned for treason because they voted against Mrs May’s agreement with the EU for the UK’s withdrawal from membership, let me reassure you. It is not treason for an MP to carry out his or her constitutional duty by voting for what he or she conceives is the national interest.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
If foreign involvement is such an issue, I imagine you must be interested in who was funding Arron Banks and Nigel Farage, no?
A
abucs
Guest
Certainly if Nigel Farage was receiving money from a foreign source and was bound to declare it, and didn’t, then yes, I would want to know.
What on earth is a democratically elected referendum by the people ?
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
I’ve said before in different words that there is a good degree of intransigence on the part of Remainers. This is owing to the fact that the majority of MP constituencies still favor Leave, but the majority of MPs favor Remain. I keep pointing out this right here is the very epicenter of the political mess. MPs can’t simply vote to revoke just as they couldn’t vote for a permanent customs union as provided for in May’s Deal. In either instance, they would have to face their voters and likely lost their seats so they’re constantly looking for other ways to frustrate the intention of the people that won’t blow back on them.
This is why the Remainers don’t allow for early elections: because Johnson would run on Brexit and he would likely cement his majority on that basis. Which would set the Remainer cause further back so they can’t allow elections until the extension is in place. But there’s nothing to keep Johnson from winning then either. Heck it might even be following the extension that Johnson gets a greater majority borne out of voter frustration with the process.
This may represent why some Remainers have become willing to go back to a second referendum: they know they can’t win the next general elections as it stands, but just maybe they can get the referendum worded the way they want and then somehow steal that election.
In any case, Remainer intransigence appears to have led Varadkar to revoke whatever discussion he had with Johnson. That has led the EU to drop whatever deal was in discussion at Varadkar’s direction. And that in turn has led to the fruitless phone chat with Merkel. Who told Johnson the permanent customs union is back on the table which Johnson knows will not pass Parliament just as it didn’t under May’s leadership. So now No. 10 is letting the EU know what it will think of countries that accept the extension vs those that don’t. So despite the Benn Act, it would appear that No Deal is closer than a Johnson Deal or an extension.
This is why the Remainers don’t allow for early elections: because Johnson would run on Brexit and he would likely cement his majority on that basis. Which would set the Remainer cause further back so they can’t allow elections until the extension is in place. But there’s nothing to keep Johnson from winning then either. Heck it might even be following the extension that Johnson gets a greater majority borne out of voter frustration with the process.
This may represent why some Remainers have become willing to go back to a second referendum: they know they can’t win the next general elections as it stands, but just maybe they can get the referendum worded the way they want and then somehow steal that election.
In any case, Remainer intransigence appears to have led Varadkar to revoke whatever discussion he had with Johnson. That has led the EU to drop whatever deal was in discussion at Varadkar’s direction. And that in turn has led to the fruitless phone chat with Merkel. Who told Johnson the permanent customs union is back on the table which Johnson knows will not pass Parliament just as it didn’t under May’s leadership. So now No. 10 is letting the EU know what it will think of countries that accept the extension vs those that don’t. So despite the Benn Act, it would appear that No Deal is closer than a Johnson Deal or an extension.
A
abucs
Guest
Thanks, I’ve amended it to read democratically held referendum.What on earth is a democratically elected referendum by the people ?
A
abucs
Guest
Do you have any thoughts on why the Remainers don’t simply accept the referendum result that they lost, honour the electorate and then try again to win the hearts and minds over to their aspirations through the normal political process?
I agree that the deficiency in democracy is the split between what the people voted for and what the majority of Parliamentarians want. Apart from the obvious deceit of parliamentarians this seems to be bringing British democracy into dispute by highlighting that a political elite value their will above ‘the peasants’.
I agree that the deficiency in democracy is the split between what the people voted for and what the majority of Parliamentarians want. Apart from the obvious deceit of parliamentarians this seems to be bringing British democracy into dispute by highlighting that a political elite value their will above ‘the peasants’.
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
I don’t have any special insight to the mentality of the Remainers. Main thing I can think of is that it has to do with where their own perceived best financial interests lie. So it shouldn’t be surprising that London is very heavily pro-Remain as there are a lot of national and local government attached to working and cooperating with Brussels. Not to mention a substantial portion of the finance and banking sector. Throw manufacturers and importers into the equation. Whereas the people outside of the major cities only see the negative side of the EU: the immigration policies, regulations, etc. Along those lines, the Rotherham sex abuse exploding into public view in 2014 and the migration crisis at Calais in 2015 played crucial parts in pushing a fair number of voters into the Leave column.
A rather cogent case was made in a previous thread regarding the validity of Parliament going against voter sentiment for the perceived greater good of the country. I suggest reading those excellent posts, but I also suggest that legislative bodies cannot always take their ability to override the majority of the people for granted. If they keep doing it long enough on significant enough issues, that can eventually blow back on them.
By the way, that happens to be a problem with elections everywhere: that having had the elections, one now has to live with the results regardless of one’s dislike for those results. That is the price of living somewhere that allows voting for this or that. Or watching this other country with disapproval for their results.
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
Harwood is either misinformed or disingenuous. What we have seen in the UK is not judicial activism. We have had two cases in the Supreme Court in which the court has been asked to rule on specific procedural aspects of our constitution, namely, that the government could not initiate our withdrawal from the EU unless authorised to do so by an Act of Parliament and that the current government’s request to the Queen for a prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.
We are not, as alleged, moving towards a US-style Supreme Court. There are two basic reasons why this is not possible: first, the means by which Supreme Court justices are appointed and secondly, the role of the court in interpreting the law.
US Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There are therefore two levels of political involvement in the appointment process. US Supreme Court justices are considered to have conservative or liberal ideologies, which are associated with the positions of the presidents by whom they were appointed. UK Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are chosen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Little is known about the personal political opinions of members of the judiciary. We do not have conservative or liberal justices; our justices do not reflect the political positions of the different political parties.
In the British system, the will of Parliament as expressed in primary legislation is supreme. It is the remit of the courts to interpret the will of Parliament. If Parliament votes, as it has done, to legalise abortion, that is the law and there is nothing that the Supreme Court can do to change it. This was demonstrated in a recent case concerning the state pension eligibility age for women. Concluding that pension age equalisation was lawful, the court said, “In any event they were approved by Parliament.” The US system is different because of the supremacy of the Constitution. This gives the Supreme Court a much more important role in reviewing legislation and ruling on the constitutionality of actions. Abortion is legal in the US not because of primary legislation, as in the UK, but because of how the Supreme Court has interpreted privacy and due process clauses in the Constitution. It is therefore also open to the court to interpret the Constitution differently in the future.
Harwood is also wrong about abortion. The difference between the UK and the US is not that one country legalised abortion politically while the other legalised abortion through the courts. It is that in the US abortion is still a political issue. One party tends to be pro-life, the other tends to be pro-choice. In the UK, every major party supports legal abortion but at the same time makes it an issue of conscience for each individual politician. In this way, we have taken abortion out the field of party politics and electoral choices. Harwood also fails to acknowledge that another crucial difference is the simple fact that in the UK there is an overwhelming consensus among the public in favour of legal abortion, whereas in the US there is still a significant minority which opposes legal abortion.
We are not, as alleged, moving towards a US-style Supreme Court. There are two basic reasons why this is not possible: first, the means by which Supreme Court justices are appointed and secondly, the role of the court in interpreting the law.
US Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There are therefore two levels of political involvement in the appointment process. US Supreme Court justices are considered to have conservative or liberal ideologies, which are associated with the positions of the presidents by whom they were appointed. UK Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are chosen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Little is known about the personal political opinions of members of the judiciary. We do not have conservative or liberal justices; our justices do not reflect the political positions of the different political parties.
In the British system, the will of Parliament as expressed in primary legislation is supreme. It is the remit of the courts to interpret the will of Parliament. If Parliament votes, as it has done, to legalise abortion, that is the law and there is nothing that the Supreme Court can do to change it. This was demonstrated in a recent case concerning the state pension eligibility age for women. Concluding that pension age equalisation was lawful, the court said, “In any event they were approved by Parliament.” The US system is different because of the supremacy of the Constitution. This gives the Supreme Court a much more important role in reviewing legislation and ruling on the constitutionality of actions. Abortion is legal in the US not because of primary legislation, as in the UK, but because of how the Supreme Court has interpreted privacy and due process clauses in the Constitution. It is therefore also open to the court to interpret the Constitution differently in the future.
Harwood is also wrong about abortion. The difference between the UK and the US is not that one country legalised abortion politically while the other legalised abortion through the courts. It is that in the US abortion is still a political issue. One party tends to be pro-life, the other tends to be pro-choice. In the UK, every major party supports legal abortion but at the same time makes it an issue of conscience for each individual politician. In this way, we have taken abortion out the field of party politics and electoral choices. Harwood also fails to acknowledge that another crucial difference is the simple fact that in the UK there is an overwhelming consensus among the public in favour of legal abortion, whereas in the US there is still a significant minority which opposes legal abortion.
A
abucs
Guest
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, what lead Varadkar to stop discussion was the utter unworkability of Johnson’s plan. As I’ve said repeatedly, all the current plan does is create a porous border between Ireland and Northern Ireland that will make NI a smuggler state, unless UK and EU rules remain very closely aligned. Even worse, Ireland will not tolerate itself being made answerable to Stormont, in particular to a party like DUP, which is the other facet of the plan (and what appears to be a bargain struck with DUP).
The short version is Johnson has submitted a plan he knows Brussels cannot approve of, and that Ireland most certainly won’t. It was specifically designed to waste everyone’s time so he can run the clock down on October 31st. To call it bad faith bargaining is distort the very meaning of bargaining. This is all about setting up a GE where the EU is a villain who refuses to treat with the Tory government, and Remainers and Soft Brexiteers are some sort of enemy agents.
The short version is Johnson has submitted a plan he knows Brussels cannot approve of, and that Ireland most certainly won’t. It was specifically designed to waste everyone’s time so he can run the clock down on October 31st. To call it bad faith bargaining is distort the very meaning of bargaining. This is all about setting up a GE where the EU is a villain who refuses to treat with the Tory government, and Remainers and Soft Brexiteers are some sort of enemy agents.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Odd retort, that. Or did you forget that the EU’s original proposal to May was this very option that Johnson discussed? But which May rejected due to her then dependence on the DUP which opposed it and on whom her Parliamentary majority depended?
N
niceatheist
Guest
Um, the proposal that came out of May’s talks with the EU was the Backstop, which would maintain regulatory unity between NI and the EU. The Backstop is what the ERG so vociferously objected to, though apparently turning NI into a smuggler state is just fine.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
You are taking things out of sequence. I’m talking about the period before May’s talks with the EU began while you are talking about the result of those talks.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The EU proposal was that Northern Ireland should remain within both the customs union and the single market, and the trade barrier should be between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This is a proposal with some attractions, but unsurprisingly those attractions were not evident to Northern Ireland Unionists.
Mr Johnson’s proposal is that Northern Ireland remain within the regulatory framework of the single market, with a regulatory barrier down the Irish Sea, but a customs border run across the island of Ireland. That is quite a different plan and is obviously unacceptable, unless Mr Johnson"s proposal to make that border invisible (those unicorns?) is taken seriously.
Mr Johnson’s proposal is that Northern Ireland remain within the regulatory framework of the single market, with a regulatory barrier down the Irish Sea, but a customs border run across the island of Ireland. That is quite a different plan and is obviously unacceptable, unless Mr Johnson"s proposal to make that border invisible (those unicorns?) is taken seriously.
Last edited:
I voted to leave the EU .
It was a mistake .
Others I know voted to leave the EU but now want to remain .
Since the referendum we have had 1202 days of ruinous Conservative Government .
Remember that the whole foolhardy referendum was a creation of the Conservatives for selfish party political reasons ,
It is small wonder people are in a fog .
It was a mistake .
Others I know voted to leave the EU but now want to remain .
Since the referendum we have had 1202 days of ruinous Conservative Government .
Remember that the whole foolhardy referendum was a creation of the Conservatives for selfish party political reasons ,
It is small wonder people are in a fog .
Last edited:
- Status