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

[ProfessorDavey]

One the people trump parliament

Wrong as ~I keep pointing out - the people only Trump parliament is so far as they are responsible for sending MPs to parliament in the first place. Once there parliament is sovereign and does not need to align its decisions with 'the people' - albeit it would be advised so to do as otherwise the people will kick them out at the next election.

Your notion is so laughably wrong it hurt. If 'the people' trumped parliament then 'the people' could simply ignore any law enacted by parliament that they didn't like 'cos the people trumps parliament'. Try that and see how far it gets you.

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.

Would you like to point out which member of the Supreme Court isn't British please.

And the UK isn't working under EU rules/governance, for the simply reason that our membership (or otherwise) and anything that arises therefrom are dependent on UK legislation.

[Jack Knave]

Wrong as ~I keep pointing out - the people only Trump parliament is so far as they are responsible for sending MPs to parliament in the first place. Once there parliament is sovereign and does not need to align its decisions with 'the people' - albeit it would be advised so to do as otherwise the people will kick them out at the next election.

Your notion is so laughably wrong it hurt. If 'the people' trumped parliament then 'the people' could simply ignore any law enacted by parliament that they didn't like 'cos the people trumps parliament'. Try that and see how far it gets you.

You have made my argument for me. If the MPs go against the will of the people there would be protests; and in extreme times violence, on the streets. So all the fluff about parliament being sovereign and not trumped by the people is empty rhetoric, it is the action, the outcome as forced by reality, that counts. You could claim to be bullet proof but if your words are powerless, and do not reflect reality, then the bullet would enter your body against your will - it would trump you!

The term people here are all the subjects of the UK, as a group, not individuals.

Would you like to point out which member of the Supreme Court isn't British please.

You can only have one master and theirs is the EU. Therefore they are not truly British.

And the UK isn't working under EU rules/governance, for the simply reason that our membership (or otherwise) and anything that arises therefrom are dependent on UK legislation.

As if we have a choice!     What you think would happen if we rejected an EU Directive?
You silly boy!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

You have made my argument for me. If the MPs go against the will of the people there would be protests; and in extreme times violence, on the streets.

Oh mob rule then - that seems to be what you are supporting.

Actually I don't think there would be - there certainly wasn't in 1979 when a (slim) majority voted in favour of devolution but the government rejected it.

But you are rather missing the point - I don't think there is any likelihood that the government (and Parliament) wont take steps to trigger article 50, so the point about mob rule is moot. I think perhaps in 2-3 years time if the negotiations have turned into a dog's dinner then there might be a very different view both in Westminster and in the country as a whole.

No my point was that parliament is sovereign and that they have every right not to enact brexit regardless of the referendum, and were they to do so there would be no constitutional crisis - note my emphasis. Why not, because there wouldn't have been anything that would have occurred that was unconstitutional.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can only have one master and theirs is the EU. Therefore they are not truly British.

No it isn't - the Supreme Court:

'is the supreme court in all matters under English and Welsh law, Northern Ireland law and Scottish civil law.'

It was formed by and accountable to the UK Parliament - and actually because of the sovereignty of the UK parliament has rather less powers and more under the direction of the UK Parliament than might otherwise have been. In no way whatsoever are they servants of the EU - that is a ridiculous notion.

And I would suspect the 11 members of the Supreme Court would find you completely unsubstantiated notion that 'they are not truly British' rather offensive, except perhaps Lord Kerr, who might point out that he is from Northern Ireland, which isn't actually part of Britain.

[ProfessorDavey]

What you think would happen if we rejected an EU Directive?

Given that most EU directives require all member states to agree before they are enacted, if the UK government rejected a EU directive it wouldn't ever be enacted.

I think you might want to educate yourself on how the EU actually runs, rather than be blinded by your drooling prejudice.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the MPs go against the will of the people there would be protests; and in extreme times violence, on the streets.

I think you are also missing one further crucial point.

Prior to the referendum (which of course forced people to concern themselves with the EU) the EU was a non-issue for the vast majority of people in the UK. Sure there have been a tiny minority of anti-EU fanatics, but they are just that - a tiny minority. Most people, for most of the time, are concerned about the economy, the state of the NHS, schools, terrorism etc.

There is a very longstanding MORI poll on issues of importance to people - it is unprompted, meaning people can mention anything that concerns them. This has been run for decades and guess what, the EU hardly makes a blip on the list of issues.

I think you are projecting your view onto others - just because your are totally obsessed with the EU, it doesn't mean that most people are - they aren't, most people couldn't have given a hoot about the EU, but because of Cameron needing to pander to his frothing cabal of euronutters, he forced everyone to have to take a view. A stupid idea that we will regret for decades.

[jakswan]

because of Cameron needing to pander to his frothing cabal of euronutters, he forced everyone to have to take a view. A stupid idea that we will regret for decades.

Did he force labour as well, a party you were a member of at the time. Didn't cause you to leave Labour though did it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Did he force labour as well, a party you were a member of at the time. Didn't cause you to leave Labour though did it?

Sorry I don't understand your point.

As far as I am aware Labour never promised an in/out referendum, if that is what you are talking about.

I left Labour because they turned from being a competent and pragmatic left of centre party aiming at gaining power and therefore being able to enact change, to a narrow hard left 'campaigning' group, lead by someone woefully inadequate as a leader and have started to talk only to the 'echo chamber' of their increasingly narrow membership rather than to the country as a whole.

Corbyn's failure to show any leadership in the referendum was about the last straw. And seeing Corbyn trying to get the party to kowtow to May's brexit agenda is (to my mind) both morally bankrupt and also electorally dumb - given that most Labour MPs, members and voters do not think that brexit is the right thing to do.

[Udayana]

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.

Fine. But until such time as these replacement systems have been designed and adopted we will have to make do with the existing institutions. These must properly consider the issues and come to decisions that deal fairly with all affected. If this should result in certain deals being rejected or even a second referendum, what is the problem?

[jeremyp]

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.

You don't half talk shit sometimes. Nothing about the above is true.

[Jack Knave]

Fine. But until such time as these replacement systems have been designed and adopted we will have to make do with the existing institutions. These must properly consider the issues and come to decisions that deal fairly with all affected. If this should result in certain deals being rejected or even a second referendum, what is the problem?

How have you brought up the idea of a second referendum and what is this deal that could be rejected? This dialogue stems from your #70 which has non of this.

[Jack Knave]

You don't half talk shit sometimes. Nothing about the above is true.

There may be a slight chance that my stuff is half shit but yours is full blown mega splat shit, Jeremy.

The fact is you didn't understand my post.

[jeremyp]

There may be a slight chance that my stuff is half shit but yours is full blown mega splat shit, Jeremy.

The fact is you didn't understand my post.

I understood your post perfectly, there was nothing in it that was true.

[ProfessorDavey]

I understood your post perfectly, there was nothing in it that was true.

Well said.

[Jack Knave]

I understood your post perfectly, there was nothing in it that was true.

And what makes you think you have the brains and qualifications to make such a judgement? Assuming you can understand and think through that question.

[Jack Knave]

Well said.

Ah, the Neanderthals conference! 

[floo]

And what makes you think you have the brains and qualifications to make such a judgement? Assuming you can understand and think through that question.

The fact that you keep making unpleasant comments towards other posters shows a lack of mental acuity, imo.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, the Neanderthals conference! 

Not sure that neanderthals had conferences JK.

But Jeremy P is absolutely correct that your comment was factually wrong on every count.

[Jack Knave]

The fact that you keep making unpleasant comments towards other posters shows a lack of mental acuity, imo.

That a massive tu quoque!!!!!!!

[Jack Knave]

Not sure that neanderthals had conferences JK.

When Cro-Magnon arrived they upped their schedule.

But Jeremy P is absolutely correct that your comment was factually wrong on every count.

That's a massive assertion. You have no proof of that.

[Nearly Sane]

That a massive tu quoque!!!!!!!

Not sure about its size but it isn't a tu quoque which would be more something like because you insult people you can't point out that someone has just been insulting.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's a massive assertion. You have no proof of that.

Wrong.

You made 2 major assertions, both of which are demonstrably wrong.

First that 'the people' trump Parliament - that is constitutionally wrong.

Secondly that the Judges in our British courts (notably the Supreme Court) weren't British - that is also demonstrable wrong (with the exception of the one judge you is from Northern Ireland).

[Jack Knave]

Wrong.

You made 2 major assertions, both of which are demonstrably wrong.

First that 'the people' trump Parliament - that is constitutionally wrong.

Secondly that the Judges in our British courts (notably the Supreme Court) weren't British - that is also demonstrable wrong (with the exception of the one judge you is from Northern Ireland).

I explained my points and the logic behind my statements and see it as being pointless and superfluous in reiterating them again. If you can't follow them then that is not my fault.

[Jack Knave]

Not sure about its size but it isn't a tu quoque which would be more something like because you insult people you can't point out that someone has just been insulting.

You can't condemn someone for doing something you do and not be taking to account for it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I explained my points and the logic behind my statements ...

Clearly you use a different definition of logic than the standard one.