Then the whole process is flawed.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brexiters-set-up-demented-peoples-courts-20161107116638 ]Brexiters set up people's courts[/url]
😀 Daily Mash nails it again.
Then the whole process is flawed.
No shit?
"How do you hold them responsible - a kangaroo court?"
by putting 3 of them in charge of defining and delivering Brexit.
"The Leave campaign must be held accountable for its promises before the referendum."
How?
How??
Well here is the problem they all seem to have developed serious amnesia since early summer.
[quote=torsoinalake ]For some sheer unbridled lunacy I can highly recommend listening to UKIP leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans on the R4 Today show (8:20), as she discusses Farage's call to arms and her view on the judiciary.
To be fair, I'm taking one big positive from her comments. She says UKIP will fight every by-election on a Brexit platform - that has to do a good job of splitting the Brexit vote in favour of what is likely to be a single significant anti-Brexit candidate.
THM - generally speaking GEs don't matter to the extent that whichever party gets into power what they can actually do is limited and that is the world we live in - see how the gov't was forced to respond to the banking crisis in 2008 and even now the threat of Nissan upping sticks - if the Brexopaths had had the courage of their convictions they would have said to Nissan up yours and cheerio but they didn't as their hands were tied. The rights and freedoms guaranteed by the EU are beyond the whims of parliament, and likewise those under the ECHR, being guaranteed by supranational bodies and tbh I look to those bodies to protect my freedoms and liberties from the 'great unwashed' and not whichever bunch of no hopers have managed to blag their way into parliament and government. The 'great unwashed', who hold their stupidity, ignorance and prejudices as some sort of badge of honour, being left in charge of anything should be cause for dread in the minds of any fair minded person (the man on the Clapham Omnibus to be lawyerly about it).
You can look and the pre-ambles and founding articles of the current EU treaties to get a grip on what the EU is about and its core values and tbh a vote to leave the EU is a rejection of those core values. The 'great unwashed' either don't agree and accept those values (the alternatives take us to a very dark place indeed) or they couldn't be arsed to look and indeed were happy to accept the Brexopaths bullsh** blindly - is blindly following bullsh** a proper expression of democracy - I don't think so.
As parliament is sovereign in this country (at law at least representative democracy)we have to hope (possibly forlornly) that the current incumbents will rise to the challenge. If they don't then my honestly held belief is that it is 1933 Germany all over again - how long until we have the first EDL MP.
[quote=StefMcDef ]Brexiters set up people's courts
Daily Mash nails it again.
You can look and the pre-ambles and founding articles of the current EU treatises to get a grip on what the EU is about and its core values and tbh a vote to leave the EU is a rejection of those core values.
While a look at what the EU has become, and where it wants to go, reveals just how far it has strayed, institutionally, from those core values, and why we want to leave.
As parliament is sovereign in this country (at law at least representative democracy)we have to hope (possibly forlornly) that the current incumbents will rise to the challenge.
So what do you want as an outcome. No Brexit? Is that what they should do and simply (and legally justifiably) ignore the result of the advisory referendum?
If so, then fine, lets be clear. But equally lets not waste time in foolish charades again in the future. We will be having other nutters demanding independence votes again soon!
While a look at what the EU has become, and where it wants to go, reveals just how far it has strayed, institutionally, from those core values and why we want to leave.
Read the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, it hasn't strayed.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TREATY (ROME)
TREATY
ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY(1
)
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE
GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among
the peoples of Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries
by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement
of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted
action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair
competition,
ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their
harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the
various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions.
DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the
progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas
countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in
accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace
and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to
join in their efforts,
HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community and to this end
have designated as their Plenipotentiaries:
Indeed THM - just imagine if the Scottish referendum had voted Yes and parliament, representative of the people, refused 😈
"So what do you want as an outcome. No Brexit? Is that what they should do and simply (and legally justifiably) ignore the result of the advisory referendum?"
Faffing around and quietly never doing anything will be effective and defuses any unrest.
Quietly ignoring/re running referendums is historically the EU way. We're no different.
The only issue I see is what we do about our national credit rating.
There nowt nutty about wanting Yorkshire Independence, well no more nutty that Scottish independence. One day soon the great Nation of York will be free. So if its nutty to ask for a vote, just give us our freeeeeeedommm.
We're no different.
Mistakenly, I thought we were - and better.
You can look and the pre-ambles and founding articles of the current EU treaties to get a grip on what the EU is about
The EU project was to prevent Europe going up in flames like it has done with a depressing, monotonous regularity, through history.
The great unwashed are the fuel that is consumed by that particular type of fire.
If they don't then my honestly held belief is that it is 1933 Germany all over again - how long until we have the first EDL MP.
We won't have too. They're already there. What until recently had been condsidered extreme and hard right is now mainstream. Seems to me that a lot of members of the party presently in power are now absolutely revelling in this petty nationalism and xenophobic populism. Look how happily and willingly they've coalesced with their mates in the right wing press to launch an assault on the judiciary.
Politics in this country is headed in a very, very scary direction
Globally binners?
Politics in this country is headed in a very very scary direction
With respect,it appears to me to be an absence of politics: Fascism.
"Mistakenly, I thought we were - and better."
We didn't even dare hold one on Maastricht!
wonder how long till someone goes for an asylum claim. The way the rhetoric is going someone is going to make a point by doing it.
THM it only takes one country to cause a chain reaction.
Stop **** moaning . You "won" .
Yes they did. But they do think they have won a final victory, and we are out of the EU forever. Fools.
This is merely the first skirmish.
Fascism! Not a chance, we'd never be able to design the sort of stylish uniform that goes with it.
Don't they look smart Mr Mainwaring ?
I've heard 3 Tory MP's (including the utterly detestable IDS) asked directly to condemn the press assault on the judiciary.
All have refused to do so
The last one was hardly difficult mol.
It was. Surely the fallout has indicated that.
There are questions which are simple to ask, and simple to answer, but difficult to interpret.
All have refused to do so
Easy to understand why though, they'll be under strict orders not to upset the press given how shaky the nail already is.
The real question is, if the Tories lose press support who gains it?
My guess is - nobody. Then you'll really see what incitement looks like.
My Worry is that this is rapidly leading to another Jo Cox moment, who's death seems to have been airbrushed from the national memory. Or worse. Possibly far, far worse.
Someone in power needs to grow a pair and put a stop to this before it gets completely out of hand, because as with the flirting with racism of the Leave campaign, its being taken as a tacit endorsement.
And thats never going to end well.`
Depressingly, a lot of people seem happy with the situation as it suits their needs. For now. Its a ****ing dangerous game to play though
My Worry is that this is rapidly leading to another Jo Cox moment, w
absolutely, some UKIP councillor was tweeting about finding the adressess of the 3 high Court Judges & harassing them there (Johnson also wanted us to protest for him outside russian embassy)
Jo Cox's killer Identified himself in court as
[b]Death to Traitors, freedom for Britain[/b]
The brexiters of Vote Leave have done nothing to put their genie back in the bottle, the Daily Heil and Farage infact stirring it up again
[quote="ninfan"]
Indeed THM - just imagine if the Scottish referendum had voted Yes and parliament, representative of the people, refused
Of course a glaring flaw in that -the scottish referendum was binding, the EU one was advisory
"Of course a glaring flaw in that -the scottish referendum was binding,"
Although binding or not there could surely have been an impasse. Scotland can't leave unless X happens, UK can't provide X. (Where X is underwriting the currency, say)
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/ignore-leavers-tantrums-build-brexit-britain-eu ]A Good article by Zoe Williams[/url] comparing the leavers to a child throwing a tantrum
[i]The trajectory of the spirit of Brexit has all the characteristics of a tantrum – they wanted to leave the EU, and the desire was indivisible from the rage that accompanied it. They prevailed, but the anger didn’t abate. Nigel Farage’s victory speech was as splenetic as his war cry. Next they wanted an end to the single market, and an end to that well-known liberal conspiracy: the customs union. They wanted an end to parliamentary sovereignty, and before long, an end to the rule of law. They wanted everybody who tried to reason with or moderate them, from Mark Carney to Sir Terence Etherton, to just shut up, for reasons that would shame a six-year-old: because they’re foreign, or they’re gay.[/i]
Them Scotlander will not need to have the currency underwritten by Englandshire. The great Nation of York and Scotland will form a northern alliance and support our own currency, the T'much. How much is T'much T pound, T'much I say.
I've heard 3 Tory MP's (including the utterly detestable IDS) asked directly to condemn the press assault on the judiciary.
Are you saying that as a matter of principle the press should not be allowed to condemn or criticise the judiciary?
If not, then [b]who[/b] decides what can be said about judges?
To many, at the time, Peter Cooks eviscaration of Mr Justice Canley over his summing up in the Jeremy Thorpe trial was utterley unacceptable and an attack on the Judiciary
Since then we have had myriad judges openly criticised for lenient sentencing (paedophiles) excessive sentencing (London riots) judges making comments, judges admitting sexual history as evidence (ched evans case)
Are you saying all of them were an attack on judicial independence too?
We have a free press, that includes the freedom to criticise judges, the alternative, the government telling the press what they can say about judicial decisions, is far more worrying
cchris2lou - MemberThe Leave campaign must be held accountable for its promises before the referendum.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/07/brexit-cps-considers-complaint-that-leave-campaigns-misled-voters ] EU referendum and Brexit Brexit: CPS considers complaint that leave campaigns misled voters [/url]
Are you saying that as a matter of principle the press should not be allowed to condemn or criticise the judiciary?
Well..... theres criticism, and then there's this......
[img] 
[/img]
Which had overtones of one of their previous finer moments
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, "overtones", how scary.
One of those words that Lefties like to throw around, like "implies" and "suggests"
Whoooooooooooo!
Since then we have had myriad judges openly criticised for lenient sentencing (paedophiles) excessive sentencing (London riots) judges making comments, judges admitting sexual history as evidence (ched evans case)Are you saying all of them were an attack on judicial independence too?
We have a free press, that includes the freedom to criticise judges, the alternative, the government telling the press what they can say about judicial decisions, is far more worrying
Im not sure that the press declared them Feind Unseres Volkes or tried to use their sexuality against them in any of those cases
Since then we have had myriad judges openly criticised for lenient sentencing (paedophiles) excessive sentencing (London riots) judges making comments, judges admitting sexual history as evidence (ched evans case)
is being a gay fencer relevant to deciding whether parliament should be involved in deciding brexit?
We have a free press, that includes the freedom to
Lie, spread hatred, etc.
The Peter Cook sketch has always been a favourite of mine though.
Facism does tend to get a bit scary, generally.
Unless you were 'only following orders' of course
I'd like to think that headline might be illegal under current laws. Surely it's libel.
http://newsthump.com/20 16/11/07/supreme-****-to-march-on-supreme-court/
edit- filter dodging link--> http://tinyurl.com/jjwtql9
Police are said to be expecting the largest single gathering of arseholes since Oswald Mosley and his ****s marched up Cable Street.
[quote=ninfan ]Are you saying that as a matter of principle the press should not be allowed to condemn or criticise the judiciary?
Are [b]you[/b] saying that as a matter of principle MPs should not be allowed to criticise or condemn the press? Furthermore, are you suggesting that the press are above criticism, and can print whatever they feel like?
Whilst I'd like to, I'm not going to elaborate further, but I'd like to ask you one final question, ninfan:
[b]Do you ninfan[/b] condemn the press or if that is a bit too much for you, think there is anything at all wrong with the headlines, sub-headlines and articles they printed about this?
Just to deflect your obvious and most likely response, I'll take a lack of answer as a no, and your answer to that will help to clarify things for most people on here.
