Supreme court is "self appointed". 
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
For some , Brexit has nothing to do with justice, laws, country prospering - for a large section it is only about one thing and we all know what that is.
I can't see the ruling making much of a difference. A useful safeguard to prevent May going to extremes but its not going to block Brexit. As it is its going to take a lot of MPs pissing off their own constituents to make any change, Owen Smith has said he'll vote against despite his own constituency voting out. Be interesting to see how many others there is.
I don't think anyone ever expected that, they just wanted to make sure parliament has a say in Brexit & it's terms rather than May being a dictator.
I find it fascinating now to see what deal it is they try to get.
Even more curious to me is the amount of Leave Conservatives who very aggressively rejected the idea of leaving the single market when discussed - are they just going to bend over to Theresa May?
Even more curious to me is the amount of Leave Conservatives who very aggressively rejected the idea of leaving the single market when discussed - are they just going to bend over to Theresa May?
Just seen Manchester's Lucy Powell say she will ignore her constituents and vote to trigger Brexit, despite Manchester voting to stay. Utterly unforgivable.
Owen Smith is doing exactly the same but voting to not trigger Brexit, even though his constituents voted to Leave. It's a really shit show at the moment.
Last edited:
May: "Everyone is unifying and it's a Brexit for everyone" - haha
You'd have thought the Labour party might try to come up with some semblance of general agreement on this. Embarrassing really. Even in spite of his unpopularity you'd have expected to see Corbyn trying to get to grips with this.
He's in the novel position of actually not caring much about an issue that his supporters see as fundamental.
I don't think there was any way for Labour to not mess this up. Lib Dems, by doing 2nd referndum, can get committed Europhiles, but Labour doing the same will kill half their seats, consolidate London, and make them effectively a 3rd party.
Labour doing what they are now will leave them uncertain in most of their seats and probably kill London. He chose the worst of 2 suicidal options.
I think I remember someone here suggesting Labour will revive after a Brexit referendum
Can't remember who or the context, but these issues were pretty foreseeable (and perhaps inevitable no matter the referendum result). Labour needs to learn something from the GOP and Dems on how to keep very diverse interests together.
Labour doing what they are now will leave them uncertain in most of their seats and probably kill London. He chose the worst of 2 suicidal options.
I think I remember someone here suggesting Labour will revive after a Brexit referendum
Can't remember who or the context, but these issues were pretty foreseeable (and perhaps inevitable no matter the referendum result). Labour needs to learn something from the GOP and Dems on how to keep very diverse interests together.
EU's ministry of truth has now added the German publication DWN to their list of "pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign". DWN is a independt online newspaper where 51% is owned by the Swedish Bonnier conglomeration (not pro Putin at all, rather the opposite).
Other publications that now are deemed inappropriate by the ministry of truth from the EU is: Bloomberg, The Nation and Zerohedge.
https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachri...breitet-faelschung-um-die-dwn-zu-denunzieren/
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/commentary-m...s-of-the-pro-kremlin-disinformation-campaign/
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I didn't find a general EU thread to post this. Thought it would be fitting in here though since the EU is painted in such a rosy picture here.
Other publications that now are deemed inappropriate by the ministry of truth from the EU is: Bloomberg, The Nation and Zerohedge.
https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachri...breitet-faelschung-um-die-dwn-zu-denunzieren/
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/commentary-m...s-of-the-pro-kremlin-disinformation-campaign/
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I didn't find a general EU thread to post this. Thought it would be fitting in here though since the EU is painted in such a rosy picture here.
@SwansonsTache Create the thread?
Zerohedge is (AFAIK) right-libertarian, not pro-Kremlin. Bloomberg and the Nation are too ridiculous to discuss.
Zerohedge is (AFAIK) right-libertarian, not pro-Kremlin. Bloomberg and the Nation are too ridiculous to discuss.
Do not know The Nation in detail, but I do know Bloomberg though and how they can be deemed pro-kremlin is beyond me.
Here is the Google translate of the DWN article:
https://translate.google.com/transl...breitet-faelschung-um-die-dwn-zu-denunzieren/
Michael Maier who is the creator of DWN has previously been the editor in chief for "Die presse" and the "Berliner Zeitung", and also the director for "Orkla press" in Germany. DWN is a totally independent and factual publication that now is being presented by the EU as some twisted propaganda tool for Kreml. They've even taken the steps to forge and rewrite some headings from DWN to prove their point, as you can read in the article.
But I won't digress the thread any further. Being contrarian on here is too much work anyways.
So do 3 judges not understand the law or was this just a vote?
Alternative interpretations, presumably. Like in the US how their Supreme Court will inevitably disagree on certain matters.
I thought it was a question of legality
Well yes, but obviously those judges have a different interpretation as to what is legal and what isn't.
It's about interpretation. When a referendum is proposed the parliament has the possibility to make it legally binding or advisory, the former is an act of law in which the parliamentarians give up their power to make the law, so they really should precise it when they want to make a referendum legally binding.
In the case of Brexit, if I'm not mistaken they didn't precise if it was advisory or legally binding which gave both sides the right to claim whatever they wanted.
Exactly that, however i'm sure this part will get lost in the headlines.
True, but even then you'd have expected him to make some effort to come up with a general, unified position from the party; as it stands he's alienating Remain voters while not doing much to win over Leave voters...while further confirming the disagreements within the party on just about everything.
I think the vote will simply confirm the invocation of article 50. At this stage there won't be much option and it won't make much difference. But the final deal will placed placed before parliament in about 2 years' time and that's when there might be more debate, depending on how things have gone up to that point and the agreement on offer. The mood of the country may be totally different, for one reason or another.
Its illegal to drink drive, not open to interpretation
Well yes...because that's a set law in place. Some legal disputes such as this are always going to be much more difficult to get universal agreement on, hence the 8-3 verdict.
The overwhelming majority of laws aren't black and white. Most of them involve a degree of judgement. When the law says I have to take "reasonable care" of my employees safety in the workplace, it can't then list every possible hypothetical health and safety situation. It relies on people using their judgement.
Good grief.
Honestly is there any point to Jeremy Corbyn?
Trouble is he has no authority in the party, not even among his allies. Even people like Abbott, McDonnell & Lewis are coming out with different views on what happens next, never mind the rebellious backbenchers. For Labour to come to a unified position would involve a great number of people shutting up and trusting Corbyn to get the job done. Everyone knows he can't, so everyone's doing their own thing.
How old are you? Did you used to follow the news in general before Brexit?
50 and you?
Thing is, the major parties (read: Tories and Labour) realise/think it would be political suicide to contest Brexit at this point, even though the margin of victory for "Leave" was so small etc.
Actually I think if Labour were to oppose Brexit they'd make massive gains. They could swell anti-Brexit/Conservative sentiment enough to force a General Election then get in with a joint government with the Lib Dems. I have a suspicion that's what the attempted coup last year was about.
So you should be familiar with the purpose of supreme courts.
That'd be the general aim but I do think they'd get a bit of backlash from going so strongly against public opinion. Still, though, they need to come up with some sort of stance, and they've not done that at all. Individual members have different thoughts, seemingly on both sides of the Labour spectrum, and Corbyn's not doing anything at all to unite them, either in opposition or favour. It's getting increasingly annoying because for someone who fought so hard to ensure he remained leader, he's not really doing any leading at all.
Think I'd concede to the likes of @Ubik and @Classical Mechanic they were correct last year in their opposition to Corbyn. I'd say in retrospect Burnham might have been the better choice. Not brilliant, but someone who could've come up with some sort of general stance on the issue.
Half your age, but I've seen dissenting judges before, it's not unheard of!
I agree, I think there is a huge untapped market simply for remainers, for whom the promise to stop Brexit would be enough to win their vote. Its almost appealing to the lowest common denominator (which is exactly what happened with the original referendum anyway so hard to feel guilty about it).
And lose what? Besides, most of their supporters voted remain (thanks to London).
True. I'm not sure it'd be an easy win, right enough. And there'd be the whole moral issue of denying the will of the people etc, and looking condescending to those who voted Leave. But it'd at least be a stance, which would be something.