Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[Waldo 96]

25 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The 2016 obliged nobody to do anything.

 

Thinking that leaving that the UK should leave the EU is a bad idea but should still  be pursued because of an out of date, largely discredited referendum which does not reflect the wishes of UK citizens in late 2019, is exactly the kind of confused thinking I am talking about.

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

 

5 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

You mean in that badly designed opinion poll that we had in 2016?  [Any first year Stats student would have failed their Survey Methods course if they'd come up with that as a method for determining the majority opinion.]

 

Even if 49/51 was a true reflection, it's hardly "the will of the people", is it?  More like the will of slightly more than half of the people.

 

Incidentally, all this "will of the people" talk is in fact channelling fascist ideology*, and should have gone out with Giovanni Gentile.

 

*Unwittingly for most people (I assume), which makes it worse.

It was just a question. I can't remember what the exact split was, but IIRC, it was closer to 49/51 than 50/50.

 

Also, I'm curious, what how big a % majority would you deem necessary for the outcome to be considered the "will of the people"? (oops, there I go again).

Edited September 24, 2019 by Waldo

[RJRB 688]

5 minutes ago, Waldo said:

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

I think it’s obvious that our elected representatives have largely gone for pragmatism.

Whether this is for the good of the country or for their own political futures is a reasonable question.

I suspect that most of us at some time have had to choose the pragmatic option.

[tinfoilhat 11]

13 minutes ago, Waldo said:

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

 

 

That's a good question. Principles are alright when you're messing about with other peoples lives from a place of safety.

 

It's also interesting you talk about principles where the prime minister and several cabinet members have been caught lying to the queen.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

14 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Also, I'm curious, what how big a % majority would you deem necessary for the outcome to be considered the "will of the people"? (oops, there I go again).

At a very minimum it would have to be at least 50% of the electorate.

 

I would go further and say 50% of all those over 16. If you can work, get married, pay tax and have sex you should certainly have a democratic say in the running of the country.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

 

It was just a question. I can't remember what the exact split was, but IIRC, it was closer to 49/51 than 50/50.

 

Also, I'm curious, what how big a % majority would you deem necessary for the outcome to be considered the "will of the people"? (oops, there I go again).

Here's an interesting factoid to frame your philosophical question: 38m voters out of 43m appointed Hitler as a dictator in a 1934 German referendum.

 

(Not a Godwinism of the thread, I hasten to add, just a moral spanner in your philosophical musings )

 

Evidence-based pragmatism, bounded by legality (reflecting moral principles of the society enacting them) for the win. 

[crazyhorse 37]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

I don't disagree that the majority opinion in the 2016 referendum introduced a moral quandary, doubling as a political quandary, for MPs. But never a legal quandary, nor a moral duty to enact. It is only if you misunderstand how British democracy works (and has worked for hundreds of years indeed), that you would hold MPs to be obligated to implement the Leave result. The earlier Miller judgement, and today's, simply reaffirm how British democracy works.

 

I would argue (again, but it's a long time since the last time), that the referendum result was as much of a call to thoroughly, objectively and carefully consider, and then rectify through relevant policies, the severe socio-economic problems across the length and breadth of the UK (what pushed a non-trivial portion -if not a majority- of the 17m, to favour Leaving as a protest vote), as a call for the UK to actually rescind its EU membership.

 

Acknowledging these problems and enacting those mitigating policies is as valid an approach to the referendum result, as Brexiting (any version of which will only exacerbate the problems further) and, I would also argue, a far more responsible and beneficial one.

The moral quandary you refer to is presumably whether to honour the following statement:

"“Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide..."

 

I can understand why the political class and those with a vested interest in the status quo, would lightly cast this aside...but I voted having read that statement and I am expecting my vote to be respected and to be honoured.

When I promise someone I will do something...I do it...and I expect the same in return.

 

You can twist it all you want, but that is what myself and I reckon most people in the street understood by that statement.

That is what British Democracy is commonly understood to mean.

When the election finally comes, there will be one hell of a backlash against those whose commitment to British Democracy  appears tenuous or even hostile.

Boris will win and British Democracy will be protected a little while longer.

 

As for "objectively considering the reasons for why I voted the way I did"...I find that totally patronising.

But keep using it if you think it will work.

I would forget Plato's  "Philosopher Kings" approach...where wise, benevolent "advisors" sit on the hill and tell the people how to live their lives properly.

I would trust in your fellow citizens, to have weighed up the issues based on their lived experience and to have made a wise choice.

You may believe they are all stupid or racist...but I have met enough of them to know they are not (with the odd exception).

 

 

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 minutes ago, crazyhorse said:

The moral quandary you refer to is presumably whether to honour the following statement:

"“Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide..."

 

I can understand why the political class and those with a vested interest in the status quo, would lightly cast this aside...but I voted having read that statement and I am expecting my vote to be respected and to be honoured.

When I promise someone I will do something...I do it...and I expect the same in return.

 

You can twist it all you want, but that is what myself and I reckon most people in the street understood by that statement.

That is what British Democracy is commonly understood to mean.

When the election finally comes, there will be one hell of a backlash against those whose commitment to British Democracy  appears tenuous or even hostile.

Boris will win and British Democracy will be protected a little while longer.

 

As for "objectively considering the reasons for why I voted the way I did"...I find that totally patronising.

But keep using it if you think it will work.

I would forget Plato's  "Philosopher Kings" approach...where wise, benevolent "advisors" sit on the hill and tell the people how to live their lives properly.

I would trust in your fellow citizens, to have weighed up the issues based on their lived experience and to have made a wise choice.

You may believe they are all stupid or racist...but I have met enough of them to know they are not (with the odd exception).

 

 

 

I've seen various people interviewed on tv who haven't got a clue who boris johnson or jetemy corbyn is, let alone the intricacies of the single market and the irish border.

 

I wouldnt trust the general public as far as I could throw them. 

2 minutes ago, crazyhorse said:

The moral quandary you refer to is presumably whether to honour the following statement:

"“Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide..."

 

I can understand why the political class and those with a vested interest in the status quo, would lightly cast this aside...but I voted having read that statement and I am expecting my vote to be respected and to be honoured.

When I promise someone I will do something...I do it...and I expect the same in return.

 

You can twist it all you want, but that is what myself and I reckon most people in the street understood by that statement.

That is what British Democracy is commonly understood to mean.

When the election finally comes, there will be one hell of a backlash against those whose commitment to British Democracy  appears tenuous or even hostile.

Boris will win and British Democracy will be protected a little while longer.

 

As for "objectively considering the reasons for why I voted the way I did"...I find that totally patronising.

But keep using it if you think it will work.

I would forget Plato's  "Philosopher Kings" approach...where wise, benevolent "advisors" sit on the hill and tell the people how to live their lives properly.

I would trust in your fellow citizens, to have weighed up the issues based on their lived experience and to have made a wise choice.

You may believe they are all stupid or racist...but I have met enough of them to know they are not (with the odd exception).

 

 

 

I've seen various people interviewed on tv who haven't got a clue who boris johnson or jetemy corbyn is, let alone the intricacies of the single market and the irish border.

 

I wouldnt trust the general public as far as I could throw them. 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

5 minutes ago, crazyhorse said:

"“Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide..."

Can you point out which provision of the European Union Referendum Act (2015) contains that statement.

 

I can’t seem to find it.

[Delayed 464]

2 hours ago, Waldo said:

I think you need more granularity though, it's not a simple affair.

 

For example, a person (a) can think leaving the EU is a very bad idea; but that we should follow the expressed will of the people (result of the referendum).

 

Such an individual is very different to someone (b) who thinks leaving the EU is a good idea.

 

I would not consider the former (a) to be a Brexiteer. The later (b) I would very much consider a Brexiteer.

 

Also, if someone is a Brexiteer; I would not lump them together with all other Brexiteers and label them all thick en' mass, or think they have no legitimate points etc. I would hope to listen to and consider the merit of each point on it's indivudual merit

Don't let it get to you. He has a history of labelling those that dare to have a different opinion to himself.

 

Yes

, but yours are different to hobinfoot’s which are different to Angelfire’s which are different to Lockdoctor’s which are different to Penny’s which are different to Robin-H’s which are different to Baron’s which are different to peter’s which are different to Delayed’s which are different to apelike’s which are different to Ecconoob’s which are different to CarBoot’s reasons for leaving the EU. *

 

At least Remainers all have the same reason for wanting to remain, rather than the 57 varieties of Leavers.

 

(*apologies to any right wing posters I have missed

[apelike 10]

45 minutes ago, L00b said:

Here's an interesting factoid to frame your philosophical question: 38m voters out of 43m appointed Hitler as a dictator in a 1934 German referendum.

 

(Not a Godwinism of the thread, I hasten to add, just a moral spanner in your philosophical musings )

 

Evidence-based pragmatism, bounded by legality (reflecting moral principles of the society enacting them) for the win. 

But... quoted from a House Of Lords Paper on Referendums:

 

"[Hitler] legitimated his illegal merger of the offices of Chancellor and President by a referendum held after the death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, and secured the supposed support of 88 percent of the voters. This result had been assisted by widespread intimidation including the stationing of Brownshirts at polling stations.
Groups of electors belonging to particular associations were marched to the polls and in some areas, the result was a victory by more than those on the electoral list. Subsequent referenda approved the military occupation of the Rhineland, the adoption of a single party list for the 1936 Reichstag and withdrawal from the League of Nations."

 

Not quite what is seems now!
 

Edited September 24, 2019 by apelike

[Michael_W 11]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

I've seen various people interviewed on tv who haven't got a clue who boris johnson or jetemy corbyn is, let alone the intricacies of the single market and the irish border.

 

I wouldnt trust the general public as far as I could throw them. 

I've seen various people interviewed on tv who haven't got a clue who boris johnson or jetemy corbyn is, let alone the intricacies of the single market and the irish border.

 

I wouldnt trust the general public as far as I could throw them. 

Can't trust the public can't trust the politicians, wait until some clown like Jezza the Red gives the vote to 16 year olds and the <removed> becomes complete with Thungbergesque drama queens getting in on the act !

Edited September 24, 2019 by nikki-red

[L00b 441]

15 minutes ago, apelike said:

But... quoted from a House Of Lords Paper on Referendums:

 

"[Hitler] legitimated his illegal merger of the offices of Chancellor and President by a referendum held after the death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, and secured the supposed support of
88 percent of the voters. This result had been assisted by widespread intimidation including the stationing of Brownshirts at polling stations.
Groups of electors belonging to particular associations were marched to the polls and in some areas, the result was a victory by more than those on the electoral list. Subsequent referenda approved the military occupation of the Rhineland, the adoption of a single party list for the 1936 Reichstag and withdrawal from the League of Nations."

 

Not quite what is seems now!
 

What do you call the widespread branding of Remainers as traitors, of late, if not intimidation?

 

Very topically, did you know that one of the main lawyers behind this constitutional case decided today, Jolyon Maugham, has received several death threats over his involvement in the case, and today been advised by the Met to beef up his home security, wear a stab vest and hire bodyguards?

 

There lies a crucial point, to the reference of that 1934 referendum when considering pragmatism versus principles: one is objective with reasoned outcomes, the other is subjective with unexpected consequences.

Edited September 24, 2019 by L00b