News1 min ago
Do These People Understand Democracy At All?
32 Answers
Yet more from the Trough Dwelling liberal elite laywers. My, I wish I had invested in shares in sour grapes.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, it's obviously nothing other than sour grapes to attempt to clarify the status of certain articles of law and International Treaties.
I mean, sure, it's a little cynical (understatement) but it seems as if we have arrived at a position whereby legal rights are being regarded as either alternatives to, or even actively against, democracy, rather than running alongside it. And besides, it is hardly democratic to imply that the will of the people is somehow irreversible if the will of the people in the future changes. In practice, this is a BIG "if", and I don't expect that there will be any public will in the short-term to overturn the decision made in June. But for the option not to be there at all, if either the government, or Parliament, or the people wish it in theory, feels like an even greater subversion of democracy.
It's the same with the Supreme Court case, that people either don't understand or are determined not to, which is primarily about clarifying matters of law, and not an attempt to subvert democracy.
I mean, sure, it's a little cynical (understatement) but it seems as if we have arrived at a position whereby legal rights are being regarded as either alternatives to, or even actively against, democracy, rather than running alongside it. And besides, it is hardly democratic to imply that the will of the people is somehow irreversible if the will of the people in the future changes. In practice, this is a BIG "if", and I don't expect that there will be any public will in the short-term to overturn the decision made in June. But for the option not to be there at all, if either the government, or Parliament, or the people wish it in theory, feels like an even greater subversion of democracy.
It's the same with the Supreme Court case, that people either don't understand or are determined not to, which is primarily about clarifying matters of law, and not an attempt to subvert democracy.
// Trough Dwelling liberal elite laywers //
Do you do any research before you post your ludicrous drivel?
// Jolyon Maugham QC has a predominantly litigation based practice in the fields of direct and indirect tax. He has particular expertise in avoidance, structured finance, intangible property, tax and judicial review, and employment taxation. //
- Very liberal.
Do you do any research before you post your ludicrous drivel?
// Jolyon Maugham QC has a predominantly litigation based practice in the fields of direct and indirect tax. He has particular expertise in avoidance, structured finance, intangible property, tax and judicial review, and employment taxation. //
- Very liberal.
Tora,
They are seeking a clarification of EU law.
So they can ask for a ruling from anywhere in the EU, and it is likely to be referred to Luxemburg.
As the Courts in the UK are already grappling with the technicalities of leaving, on several fronts, the ruse of going through Ireland is likely to speed up a referral.
They are seeking a clarification of EU law.
So they can ask for a ruling from anywhere in the EU, and it is likely to be referred to Luxemburg.
As the Courts in the UK are already grappling with the technicalities of leaving, on several fronts, the ruse of going through Ireland is likely to speed up a referral.
You can try to clarify a legal point to the nth degree but in doing so lose the ability to make and enact laws. In taking leagal action on anything you want to stop just gives anyone with a grudge and a bit of money behind them the chance to get their own way. So Jim it is about subverting democracy. It is just being done in a way that people that are blind to it or agree with the real sentiment behind it can justify themselves. And they appear to be fooling a lot of people into believing it's "just a legal issue". Luckily there are still some sane people about that can't see through that. But I suppose it is the only way to do it when you have lost.
For remainers the legal issues are everything because they know that it will inevitably slow down or (hopefully for them) stop everything in its tracks.
These cases are not about legalities. These cases are not about clarification. Otherwise they would have been on these issues LONG before they LOST.
These cases are about remainers wanting their own way. These cases are, and has been admitted in this case in particular, about changing the result somewhere.
Perhaps the remain Europhiles want us to keep having referendums until we get the right answer, jut like Eire.
For remainers the legal issues are everything because they know that it will inevitably slow down or (hopefully for them) stop everything in its tracks.
These cases are not about legalities. These cases are not about clarification. Otherwise they would have been on these issues LONG before they LOST.
These cases are about remainers wanting their own way. These cases are, and has been admitted in this case in particular, about changing the result somewhere.
Perhaps the remain Europhiles want us to keep having referendums until we get the right answer, jut like Eire.
cassa, I'm well aware that the timing is not coincidental. But that doesn't mean that, in any sense, the legal issues aren't worth clarifying, especially now. In the case of Article 50 itself, it is at this point fairly well-known that the article was crafted with the intent that it would never be needed in practice. That did not turn out to be the case, in the end... but either way, it makes sense to understand whether or not the process is reversible.
You really need to stop being afraid of the answer. Brexit isn't going to be "sabotaged" -- at any rate, perhaps you had better get used to the concept that law is, you know, a part of how countries work.
You really need to stop being afraid of the answer. Brexit isn't going to be "sabotaged" -- at any rate, perhaps you had better get used to the concept that law is, you know, a part of how countries work.
Here is another thought, for over a hundred years the Irish have been demonstrating a yearning to be distanced from the UK by whatever means possible.(except the economic benefits) Now when that possibility is a distinct fact and the reality is that they are part of the EU pyramid scheme, and the British people are saying byee, they now insist that we are not supposed to provide that so longed for severance. Haha. The Scots want out .... then in, then out again. The Irish want out ....oops we want you in.... Talk about the hokey cokey . Remember the words of Mutabaruka, By the ballet or the bullet or the bible or the gun, any which way freedom must come.
LOL Jim. I am not afraid of the answer. I am not even surprised at all this legal fighting. It is inevitable when someone loses and they are arrogant enough and have money to spend on trying to get their own way. Perhaps leavers would be on some bandwagon had the vote gone remain. Probably.
But as I said these cases are less to do with legalities than getting their own way. And it looks like they have hoodwinked some people. Inevitable really.
Are you saying Jim that this case is about reversing A50 when it is enacted? (That's how your statement seems??) Because if it is, who cares? Trigger A50. Either get out or stop the process with a 'please can we stay' post it note on the fridge door. If they say no we get out and try to get back in (something I think won't happen).
The legal cases are about the remainers being so cocksure of themselves they didn't even consider legalities. It is only that they lost that this has come up. What does that make them? Arrogant? Not as intelligent as they believe or want us to believe? Bad losers?
There is no club in the world that you can't get out of. Especially a corrupt one that doesn't believe in real democracy and hasn't had its accounts verified for decades. Another post it note on the fridge 'Goodby and thanks for all the fish (the EU took away from our fishermen). If you want to talk to us we can be contacted on Whitehall 333'
But as I said these cases are less to do with legalities than getting their own way. And it looks like they have hoodwinked some people. Inevitable really.
Are you saying Jim that this case is about reversing A50 when it is enacted? (That's how your statement seems??) Because if it is, who cares? Trigger A50. Either get out or stop the process with a 'please can we stay' post it note on the fridge door. If they say no we get out and try to get back in (something I think won't happen).
The legal cases are about the remainers being so cocksure of themselves they didn't even consider legalities. It is only that they lost that this has come up. What does that make them? Arrogant? Not as intelligent as they believe or want us to believe? Bad losers?
There is no club in the world that you can't get out of. Especially a corrupt one that doesn't believe in real democracy and hasn't had its accounts verified for decades. Another post it note on the fridge 'Goodby and thanks for all the fish (the EU took away from our fishermen). If you want to talk to us we can be contacted on Whitehall 333'
I wonder if the main body of crowd funders are perhaps members of "the travelling community" , fearful that a UK Brexit will inhibit their ability to operate as they please. Before disappearing, only to pop up in a new location at some time in the future, when the legal obligations the rest of us face become imminent?
