Disaster for Labour, and what now is the point of UKIP?

[Nearly Sane]

Try writing English and making sense some time?

Yes, you should

[ProfessorDavey]

They can say what they like but what they can't do is try to reverse it. Which is what their version of right is.

Of course people can try to reverse it - they have every right to do that.

For ordinary members of the public the only way to do that is to persuade sufficient people to use democratic means to reverse it - either through persuasion that a second referendum is a good idea or through a general election which returns a government with a mandate to reverse it.

For the current parliament they have every right to reverse the decision - as parliament is sovereign (remember that's what you brexiteers were fighting for) and can chose to ignore a advisory referendum.

In reality the most likely route is if the deal eventually struck turns out to be a dogs dinner (as is likely) and clearly not in the best interests of the UK, resulting in a clamour to revoke article 50, with or without a further referendum.

However the major point remains - we have every right to try to reverse the referendum decision. Otherwise we'd never be able to change our minds in a democratic system, i.e. we could never kick out a government that we'd previously voted in.

[Anchorman]

I think we should turn back the clock on Brexit so as to avert the on coming disaster: that said, if Brexit is unavoidable it should secure the independence of Scotland.

-
No argument from me!


Labour in Scotland is in a similar disasterous state, with a lamentable leader (even her dad tweets against her) and few policies of any note.
The latest offering is a new 'Act of Union' which would create a completely federal britain.....and it's about as daft as most of the other 'vow' related stuff SLAB have scrambled togeether since 2014.
Coupled with a glaring lack of policies, many dissillusioned Labour members will not forgive them for getting into bed with the Tories in 2014, and supporting Tory policies in both Westminster and Holyrood.
They have lost their way.


Still, on the bright side, the only numpty from UKIP who represents Scotland is David Coburn, who redefines imbecility every time he speaks.

[jakswan]

Unsure. Unsure?

I'm quite sure that they haven't got a clue as they sit protected by their wealth pretending concern for ordinary people all the while selling them down the river of expediency.

No good will come of this situation.

There is a legitimate school of thought that less government that focuses on creating the right environment for people to get on is better than mostly virtue signalling left. We get the politicians we deserve and if this is the standard of debate no surprise that May is coasting along almost unopposed.

Brexit the biggest issue facing the nation and only two parties have a credible coherent position on it, LibDems and Tories, suggest people end tribal loyalties (which give politicians a free pass) and vote accordingly.

[Aruntraveller]

There is a legitimate school of thought that less government that focuses on creating the right environment for people to get on is better than mostly virtue signalling left. We get the politicians we deserve and if this is the standard of debate no surprise that May is coasting along almost unopposed.

Brexit the biggest issue facing the nation and only two parties have a credible coherent position on it, LibDems and Tories, suggest people end tribal loyalties (which give politicians a free pass) and vote accordingly.

Oh don't worry, my tribal loyalties have gone. How about you?

[Quizzimodo]

two parties have a credible coherent position on it, LibDems and Tories, suggest people end tribal loyalties (which give politicians a free pass) and vote accordingly.

I'd say UKIP also have a coherent albeit simplistic position on it.
What they don't have is a position on any other policy

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd say UKIP also have a coherent albeit simplistic position on it.
What they don't have is a position on any other policy

I'd agree - actually the parties with coherent position on Brexit are The LibDems, UKIP, the SNP and the Greens. Those without a coherent position are Labour and the Tories.

[Jack Knave]

For the current parliament they have every right to reverse the decision - as parliament is sovereign (remember that's what you brexiteers were fighting for) and can chose to ignore a advisory referendum.

No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.

Of course people can try to reverse it - they have every right to do that.

So therefore no one has that right.

However the major point remains - we have every right to try to reverse the referendum decision. Otherwise we'd never be able to change our minds in a democratic system, i.e. we could never kick out a government that we'd previously voted in.

But people tried to get it reversed before article 50 had been triggered let alone that the negotiations haven't even started and so that the format of the future offer and outcome is known. When have people cried out to rerun the general election days afterwards just because their party didn't win. No, they have to wait until the term of office has run its course and the Remoaners and other sore losers should shut up and wait for how things pan out.

[Jack Knave]

I'd say UKIP also have a coherent albeit simplistic position on it.
What they don't have is a position on any other policy

Oh they do, it's in their 2015 manifesto. They just aren't asked about them by the media who only rant on about their EU position.

[Stranger]

No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.

Your mate Nigel doesn't agree...

Nigel Farage forced to admit that the EU referendum was only 'advisory' (The Independent)

[jeremyp]

No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.

Not in this case. The referendum was not legally binding. Our constitution gives our parliament the ultimate authority in this case.

Parliament has decided to go with the will of 25% of the People for political reasons. As soon as politics dictates, they will change their minds, especially given that most of them are against Brexit. What is needed is a convincing demonstration that most British people do not want Brexit. Another referendum that gores the other way or a General Election in which Remainers do very well or even overwhelming opinion polls would do that. Unfortunately, I do not think any of those are likely to happen before it is too late.

[jeremyp]

The by elections last night gave showed a couple of things. 1 Labour will lose the next election, even without the boundary rejig. With it they will be decimated many times over.

2. There isn't really a point to UKIP any more. If they couldn't win Stoke, where will they win, but more importantly why will they win? Their raison d'etre has gone, subsumed by May and events. They have little other than a ragbag of constantly changing policies with no coherence.


I, for one, am unsure of our new Tory leaders.

Your analysis of point 2 is flawed. An important factor in UKIP's Stoke result was that their candidate was shown to be a liar, in fact, not just a liar, but a liar about Hillsborough. Perhaps a better candidate might have won.

[ProfessorDavey]

No they don't. They are there because of the people but the people have directly votes on this issue and so trump parliament.
So therefore no one has that right.

Wrong - the referendum was advisory and therefore parliament trumps the referendum result with parliament completely free to ignore the result.

Parliament could have enacted a binding referendum (as was the case for the FPTP v AV referendum) but it chose not to - instead it enacted an advisory referendum instead.

And this point has been settled in the Supreme Court - who ruled that only parliament can trigger article 50 and that parliament is sovereign in that decision and is not beholden to the referendum result.

[Jack Knave]

Your mate Nigel doesn't agree...

Nigel Farage forced to admit that the EU referendum was only 'advisory' (The Independent)

You're answering a different question.

[Jack Knave]

Wrong - the referendum was advisory and therefore parliament trumps the referendum result with parliament completely free to ignore the result.

Parliament could have enacted a binding referendum (as was the case for the FPTP v AV referendum) but it chose not to - instead it enacted an advisory referendum instead.

And this point has been settled in the Supreme Court - who ruled that only parliament can trigger article 50 and that parliament is sovereign in that decision and is not beholden to the referendum result.

The advisory part was beside the point. It is like advising a mad, crazed pit bull dog to be good. It has teeth and so you better not tease it. And this is basically what has happened, most of the MPs have acted as if the referendum was binding. To have a real sovereign parliament we need a general election soon.

The supreme court was wrong for the reasons I have stated that the people votes count more than parliaments.

[ProfessorDavey]

The advisory part was beside the point. It is like advising a mad, crazed pit bull dog to be good. It has teeth and so you better not tease it. And this is basically what has happened, most of the MPs have acted as if the referendum was binding. To have a real sovereign parliament we need a general election soon.

Nope the advisory part was absolutely crucial - parliament voted for an advisory referendum and that is what we had. Therefore they are entirely within their rights to accept or reject or amend  the referendum result. There wold be no constitutional crisis either way. However there would be a constitutional crisis if there were an attempt to turn an advisory referendum, after the event, into a binding one. And by 'the event' I don't just mean the referendum itself but crucially the act that allowed it to happen (as an advisory referendum).

The supreme court was wrong for the reasons ...

So little Jack Knave knows more about points of law that the highest court in the land.

I have stated that the people votes count more than parliaments.

State away, but you are wrong. The people's voice only trumps parliament (and never trumps the law) in 2 circumstances. In a general election where they determine the make up of parliament (well actually the commons) and in a binding referendum - but the latter is only because parliament has specifically allowed itself to be trumped in a very tightly defined situation. And in a general election the people only determine the make up of the MPs they may not dictate how those MPs act during that term in parliament, albeit they can kick them out if they don't like how they acted at the next general election.

[Jack Knave]

Nope the advisory part was absolutely crucial - parliament voted for an advisory referendum and that is what we had. Therefore they are entirely within their rights to accept or reject or amend  the referendum result. There wold be no constitutional crisis either way. However there would be a constitutional crisis if there were an attempt to turn an advisory referendum, after the event, into a binding one. And by 'the event' I don't just mean the referendum itself but crucially the act that allowed it to happen (as an advisory referendum).

But get real here Davey, what do you think would happen if parliament went against the will of the people? They can say that it was advisory all they like but the fact is reality trumps everything.

So little Jack Knave knows more about points of law that the highest court in the land.

They were wrong because they are sycophantic EU turds, as is many politicians and civil servants - i.e. bias. None of this was required to start the negotiations for Maastricht etc.

 

State away, but you are wrong. The people's voice only trumps parliament (and never trumps the law) in 2 circumstances. In a general election where they determine the make up of parliament (well actually the commons) and in a binding referendum - but the latter is only because parliament has specifically allowed itself to be trumped in a very tightly defined situation. And in a general election the people only determine the make up of the MPs they may not dictate how those MPs act during that term in parliament, albeit they can kick them out if they don't like how they acted at the next general election.

Oh get real, you think every five years is fair and is proportionate. I know, on that basis, you lot can have a referendum - advisory only of course - on whether we should join the EU. OK?

But no, you whinging fucks what to change things back to the status quo yesterday!!!!

[Aruntraveller]

But no, you whinging fucks what to change things back to the status quo yesterday!!!!

You see when the mask slips it falls to the ground and smashes.

I love you to cutie chops.

[ProfessorDavey]

But get real here Davey, what do you think would happen if parliament went against the will of the people?

It has happened before and I don't remember the world falling apart, nor a constitutional crisis. Indeed with almost identical proportions voting as in the EU referendum.

Remember this one JK:

Yes - 51.62%
No - 48.38%

Parliament decided for 'No' against (as you would chose to put it) the 'will of the people'.

Why? Because they gave themselves that option in the Act that allowed the referendum, just as they have done here.

Now I'm not saying there wouldn't be one hell of a row if Parliament decided not to enact Brexit (there undoubtedly would be), but there would be no constitutional crisis, because Parliament is allowed to chose to ignore the result of an advisory referendum.

And although there was a row in 1979 (that's the referendum above) there was no constitutional crisis as Parliament had enacted to allow them to ignore 'the will of the people' - in other words not to be required to enact devolution in the circumstances of a slim majority in favour.

[ProfessorDavey]

But get real here Davey, what do you think would happen if parliament went against the will of the people?

...

They were wrong because they are sycophantic EU turds, as is many politicians and civil servants - i.e. bias.

Astonishing and total hypocrisy.

Two of the most commonly cited arguments for Brexit were to ensure that the UK Parliament was sovereign, and that decisions should be taken in British courts. Yet when the UK Parliaments wishes to demonstrate its sovereignty and decisions are made in British courts you can't accept it.

You can't have it both ways JK - if you want Brexit then you have to accept sovereignty of the UK Parliament and respect decisions of the British courts.

[Udayana]

I think JK wants to pull down everything - not only the EU but parliament, the financial system, business ... No idea what he expects to emerge from such a state or how.
 

[Jack Knave]

You see when the mask slips it falls to the ground and smashes.

I love you to cutie chops.

You're seeing things, you deluded idiot. There is no mask!

[Jack Knave]

It has happened before and I don't remember the world falling apart, nor a constitutional crisis. Indeed with almost identical proportions voting as in the EU referendum.

Remember this one JK:

Yes - 51.62%
No - 48.38%

Parliament decided for 'No' against (as you would chose to put it) the 'will of the people'.

Why? Because they gave themselves that option in the Act that allowed the referendum, just as they have done here.

Now I'm not saying there wouldn't be one hell of a row if Parliament decided not to enact Brexit (there undoubtedly would be), but there would be no constitutional crisis, because Parliament is allowed to chose to ignore the result of an advisory referendum.

And although there was a row in 1979 (that's the referendum above) there was no constitutional crisis as Parliament had enacted to allow them to ignore 'the will of the people' - in other words not to be required to enact devolution in the circumstances of a slim majority in favour.

What are you wittering on about?

[Jack Knave]

Astonishing and total hypocrisy.

Two of the most commonly cited arguments for Brexit were to ensure that the UK Parliament was sovereign, and that decisions should be taken in British courts. Yet when the UK Parliaments wishes to demonstrate its sovereignty and decisions are made in British courts you can't accept it.

You can't have it both ways JK - if you want Brexit then you have to accept sovereignty of the UK Parliament and respect decisions of the British courts.

One the people trump parliament and two only when we get British people in our courts, not EU citizens; and that goes for parliament as well. At the moment the UK is working under EU rules/governess and so your points don't apply yet.

[Jack Knave]

I think JK wants to pull down everything - not only the EU but parliament, the financial system, business ... No idea what he expects to emerge from such a state or how.

You seem to imply that by you rhetoric that I want to destroy them as existences or items in themselves. No, what I want is to replace them by a fairer systems that honours the nomenclatures you have used.