Written by a charlatan for cunts to feel better about themselves. Just vile invective designed to cater to ignorance and feed prejudice.
I can't wait till AI takes away your jobs for good. Who are you going to blame then? CUDA libraries? TensorFlow?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK government expects to lose Brexit trigger case, making contingency plans
- Thread starter Beefy
- Start date
- Status
Written by a charlatan for cunts to feel better about themselves. Just vile invective designed to cater to ignorance and feed prejudice.
I can't wait till AI takes away your jobs for good. Who are you going to blame then? CUDA libraries? TensorFlow?
Nice assumptions you are making there. My point is valid to the extent that even the opposition party didn't trigger the court battle, because they accept we are leaving one way or another and it's a waste of money and resources. It's a pillar of democracy yada yada, trying to weasel out of doing something 50%+ voted for is far more undemocratic than fast tracking what has to be done.
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
I shopped in Lidl for the first time ever this week. Normally I frequent my local J Sainsbury emporium but because I am one with the people, I decided to mingle with the downtrodden riff raffle. My fellow man. Inferior man obviously, but fellow man none the less.
Needless to say it was an experience and will make for a fine anecdote at my next dinner party with the Count and his delightful wife next time they pop over from Switzerland.
Obviously I voted remain, but you could tell that already I'm sure.
Needless to say it was an experience and will make for a fine anecdote at my next dinner party with the Count and his delightful wife next time they pop over from Switzerland.
Obviously I voted remain, but you could tell that already I'm sure.
You joke but I knew a guy who did all his shopping at Harrods and considered Waitrose 'slumming it'
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
I would shop at Harrods but they don't even deliver the shopping themselves and they only deliver to the door.. Sainsburys provide servants that bring the food right into my kitchen.
I refuse to believe such a person exists.
Except no one was trying to block Brexit. They're going to win the court case and Brexit will still happen so there's your proof. I want a well planned and excuted Brexit, you can sod off with your fast tracking what has to be done rubbish.
curiouscharles
Member
i have a hard time believing they'll win the court case.
i also have a hard time believing parliament won't just vote to remain.
leaving the EU is just too dumb in too many ways politicians understand, and the general public doesn't.
[but, i suppose it would involve potential career suicide for many members, so it's not as clear as i'd like to think]
Article 50 will pass. But it needs to pass PROPERLY, the way our government works. Doing it the way May wanted to is incredibly undemocratic and runs contrary to how our entire system of government works. I don't want to be offensive, but if you disagree you really need to go do some damn reading and stop reading the fucking daily mail.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
I have a hard time seeing MPs not demand that the UK joins EFTA.
This is pretty much it. When a party wins an election on say, a key manifesto pledge, that doesn't mean that they get to unilaterally do whatever they like in the name of that
Additionally given that the Conservatives have a majority and there is no way Labour would vote against Article 50, the notion that this is an attempt to "stop Brexit" is laughable at best. There is some real crazy paranoia about this whole thing
Dang... I mean, it exists in the US to an extent, but at least publicly it doesn't seem to be quite so overt.
Frankly I wouldn't make any kind of assertion based on the conduct of Labour at the moment. Everyone is too busy burning the party to the ground to focus on anything in Parliament, plus they're all too scared to do anything that might push away the handful of voters they have left
You say "Its a pillar of democracy yada yada" like rule of law is just some technicality that can be waved away.
No one is stopping Brexit, just making sure it follows centuries of legal precedent
The reaction to the court decision (and posts like that) are genuinely astounding. You have to have 0 understanding of how politics works in the UK to think that way
Parliament has already indicated that it will consent to Brexit. It was a non-binding vote, but still significant.
In any case, MPs won't be given on a vote on "stay" or "go". There will be no official remain option for them to vote for. It'll be a short bill, maybe even a few sentences, explicitly giving May the legal authorisation to trigger Article 50. It'll be put to the tightest three-line-whip you've ever seen, so the Tory majority should hold for it, and May's very likely to pick up a solid number of reluctant votes from Labour MPs representing strongly pro-leave working class constituencies. The maths is there - an Article 50 bill should be able make it through the Commons.
It could get messy and a little bogged down if Labour manage to start attaching amendments that try to define precisely what kind of Brexit is permitted, but I'm not sure they will have much success. Corbyn's parliamentary operation doesn't seem united or sharp enough to seriously bog down the bill with concerted amendments and Labour MPs will be pondering the risks of being painted as a 'Brexit blocker' at the next GE. Maybe Labour will surprise me, but right now I wouldn't bet on that.
For me the big mystery is what the Lords will do - I wouldn't expect a serious threat to the bill but I think they will want a fairly drawn-out debate, which could cause some political trouble for May's end-of-March deadline. But again, I don't think they will seriously disable Brexit, and if necessary May will use the Parliament Act to circumvent the Lords and get the bill enacted.
A lot of this is from the same crowd that was so far removed from the political process they didn't realise that Polling Stations always provided pencils, instead insisting that was some sort of crazy conspiracy theory. #usepen
formasymphonic
Member
To clarify - its political suicide for any Conservative or Labour candidates, or anyone from House of Lords etc - to try and pursue a second referendum. So none of them will do it regardless of how much of a mistake Brexit is. The influence from Murdoch papers, Telegraph, Metro, Independent and fear of enabling a rising UKIP, etc, is too strong.
The Lib Dems are setting themselves up as the party to support for those who oppose Brexit, but I don't see them gaining enough people to have the power to make anything happen.
They already won the first, it's more likely they'll win the appeal than lose it. Even the gov think they're going to lose it.
As much as I wish MPs would block it, they won't. They don't want to lose their jobs and the public have forgotten that they are elected representatives and not delegates. In theory, they should do what they think is best for their constituents even if that means going against their wishes, but in this current climate anyone who did would be hanged, drawn and quartered.
Funnily enough, my experience of Waitrose is of seeing middle-aged women in cow-shit-green body warmers (because they've come in from the villages, obviously) carrying a basket containing 2 pints of milk, croissants, and the Daily Mail.
Waitrose food is fucking awesome, though.
RedSparrows
Member
Lol constitutional conventions yadda yadda after a vote predicated in part on 'sovereignty' and 'democracy'. Yadda yadda.
And there it is, that famous remainer sense of superiority. Law isn't a force of nature, it's a man-made construct that will change along with the society it protects. My point is simply that they need to put all the their resources into the negotiating with Brussels, not waste it on costly UK legal gymnastics. It's completely illogical that you want them spend money when both sides agree what the outcome will eventually be anyway, just for the sake of following the letter of the very law they have the power to rewrite anyway.
But don't let that knock you off that high horse.
"Expense to the taxpayer"?
The UK must be in really bad shape financially if some legal proceedings are even a drop in the bucket. Do we need to send some humanitarian relief?
And why would anyone falsifying votes go through the effort of erasing pencil, instead of just printing up some new fake cards.
Wow, didn't realize the situation was this dire! Making sure the government is following the law seems worth a minuscule amount of money, but hey. Some people may disagree!
Seeing as the the Red Cross are now providing front line NHS care, the UK is already receiving humanitarian aid just to operate basic services.
But hey, the English electorate voted for that as well, and they are infallible as we are repeatedly told.
Roberto Larcos
Member
High horse? This court case is literally the only thing between a democracy and a dictatorship. You don't understand the significance at all, and dismiss people who try to help you? May wants to circumvent Parliament. That is absolutely huge.
We follow the constitution because otherwise, what's even the point of voting at all?
Also, law isn't a man-made construct, you'll find it (demonstrated through the maintenance of order) throughout nature. Codifying the law is more of a construct, but that's not essential to having law. I'd recommend you do some damn reading.
You're quite right, it's very silly to waste time and money on costly UK legal gymnastics. Which is why May should have obeyed the UK's constitution and brought a Brexit bill to Parliament straight away.
Seriously? If you think this you really don't understand how sense of entitlement manifests in SOME people who are supposed to be smart. Just look at Trump and his words.
Jezbollah
Member
Link?
Honestly the EU isn't going to want to negotiate anything until the UK has sorted out the internal legal question, as well as a bunch of smaller corollories (soft or hard Brexit for example).
Don't blame the people pointing this all out. Blame the people who gave this process so little thought they all quit politics the moment it happened.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Red Cross steps in to help alleviate 'humanitarian crisis' at UK hospitals - The Independent
We're sending in volunteers and our Land Rover fleet to help get people home from hospital and free up beds during the current winter crisis - British Red Cross on Twitter
Our volunteers are in over 100 hospitals are helping relieve some of the strain on the NHS, says @MichaelAdamson5 on @SkyNews now - British Red Cross on Twitter
You know that there isn't some inherent nobility in acting like a moron. You clearly understand what people are saying. If you don't care about the constitution, tell politicians to demolish it first. As long as it exists it should be followed.
So if 50%+ of the country voted to bring back the death penalty, you'd be fine with people forming into lynch mobs on the grounds that it's better to 'fast track' it rather than trying to 'weasel out of it' by following proper legal procedure?
If you want to be angry at anyone here, be angry at the government for forcing people to take a legal challenge to confirm what's obvious to anybody with even a passing acquaitance with the way our country's government works. They're the ones wasting 'your money' with their insane claim that they can use the Royal Prerogative to withdraw from the EU.
Why do you people have a victim complex? "Both sides" don't agree on the outcome. Far from it.
The court case is a small step in a backdoor way out of this entire catastrophe and I will be damned if we should let that chance slip to appease the slim majority of utter fuckwits enough of whom who will be dead to turn it into a slim minority of fuckwits in a few years.
And as a reminder, because I've not yet seen any Leaver address the bare-faced hypocrisy of this point, you guys are the ones who insist that you voted Leave, not out of racism or bigotry or intolerance about immigrants, but chiefly because you want to 'take back control', and now you are unilaterally whining about the fact that you have to follow British laws.
Do not expect an answer to this. They are deplorable scum.
I am? Interesting. Anything else that you'd like to tell me that I'm saying?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They probably could have won the case if they'd been willing to argue that Article 50 can be withdrawn once issued. If so, then giving Article 50 notice wouldn't be unilaterally repealing the legal rights of British citizens, since Parliament would have been able to vote on the process later on, and so Royal Prerogative would have been applicable. The fact May's government chose not to do this and instead to run what I understand was a relatively strange case I think shows how worried some of the more staunch Leavers are about public sentiment changing as the details become clearer.
Jezbollah
Member
Woof. Cheers. I knew they were reporting on conditions but didnt see from what I saw them actually getting physically involved.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Makes you question the impartiality of the press just a little bit, eh?
Jezbollah
Member
Yep. Just another of many examples of that.
I'm surprised that hasn't been referred up to the ECJ, to be quite honest. One of the key premises of the case is that Article 50 notification can't be withdrawn, despite that not being certain.
I don't believe this for a second, and it wont help you to understand why people voted Brexit if this is what you think.
The sense of superiority is there because you have failed to grasp something extremely basic. As far as the rest of the stuff youve said here, so much is wrong with it, it's hard to know where to start...
- Yes, law is a man made construct. But that logic applies to literally any kind of legal process, including referendums. And you've said it yourself, law is there to protect society, which is why there is a need to follow convention and procedure, instead of just following the orders of an unelected prime minister on the basis of a referendum with an extremely broad question
- Just because they "have the power to rewrite" the law (which in this case, they would never do, but thats another issue), doesn't therefore mean it can be ignored. Its there to be followed regardless of how unanimous/contentious the issue is. Thats the entire point it is there in the first place
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Gina Miller, bringing the case, is pro-Leave - she wants it to happen, just under parliamentary oversight. The government, defending, are also (obviously) pro-Leave. So nobody in this particular case is going to challenge that particular assumption, so the supreme court's verdict is basically going to be tiptoeing around the elephant in the room. Since nobody is challenging the notion, they're not going to refer it just for shits and giggles.
I think Jo Maugham QC is getting to ready to challenge the government in the courts over it, though. So we'll be playing the Olympic gay fencing game a while longer.
QuicheFontaine
Member
??
I'm a Leaver, I think that it was right for the legal challenge to be brought and I hope the govt loses this particular case.
Where's the hypocrisy?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Royal prerogative is just the fancy name for reserved powers - stuff the executive can do without needing the assent of the legislature. The government has certain powers that don't require a vote in parliament, like negotiating treaties and so on. But this particular treaty has knock-on effects on the legal status of British citizens, which the government can't alter without the consent of parliament (unless the court rules otherwise, but that would be a surprise at this point). So this particular treaty might be outside the authority of the executive to do unilaterally.
It's called royal prerogative because in British history the executive was run by the monarchy - the prime minister was simply the monarch's representative in the legislature, something like the Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama - and the monarch had the prerogative to do certain things without parliament's consent. Because the UK's constitution is so old (I think it has the oldest piece of constitutional law still in effect of anywhere in the world), technically speaking it is still the monarch that does things like negotiate treaties. They just do it "on the advice of the prime minister of the day", which is a polite way of saying the prime minister does it - hence why we're talking about royal prerogative in the context of Theresa May.
Ease up a little, that's an exceedingly harsh brush to paint a large group of people with - and is exactly the attitude we should be seeking to avoid.
Yeah I feel bad about putting it in those terms now, with yourself and Uzzy posting to remind me that there's plenty of Leave voters who understand this point. I'm just beyond aggravated at the entire Brexit Merry-Go-Round now and it came across as an ill-thought-out rant. Apologies to you and the other Leavers with actual consistent positions about this stuff.
For what it's worth, I'm as fucked off about the 'literally everybody who voted Leave is a dimwit racist who shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion' mantra that you frequently hear from Remain voters too.
I had wondered if the government had done it like this, purely to avoid the embarrassment of having to appeal to the ECJ over the issue when they're trying to sell themselves as a British Government for British Laws.
Thanks for this. Is there precedence for PMs in this situation? I know there's precedent for the monarch using it but as you said the monarch now only has the power in writing and tradition
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, prime ministers have used royal prerogatives all the time. For example, until very recently calling an early election was a royal prerogative, and that was used quite frequently. Technically, what happens is that the prime minister goes to the monarch and says "I'd like an election", and the monarch, which these days is basically a politically neutral role by necessity, says "sure, go for it", and exercises the royal prerogative - there's absolutely no chance the monarch would ever refuse. In other words, now that the monarch is a total non-role, all of the powers of royal prerogative are de facto the prime minister's.
- Status