Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[redsquirrel]

What like leaving rulings on the law to 11 Supreme Court judges? Whose combined legal experience runs into hundreds of years.
Still nice of you to add your opinion.

Whooosh!

 

[Pickman's model]

My bewilderment at all this is a bit like this thread:

You'd think that after God knows how many years of British democracy everybody would know what can and can't be done.

Or that after 3 years, 1143 pages and 34287 posts there'd be an answer to the frigging question 'Is Brexit actually going to happen?'

There is. It is no, it won't happen. Not because there is no desire to leave but because our crop of politicians are utterly worthless incompetent scum.

 

[Pickman's model]

The decision was made by unelected judges is the point of the comment. It’s somewhat ironic to therefore to celebrate today’s judgment as a victory for democracy/the sovereignty of parliament.

The overlooking of the sleights of hand in the judgment, most notably the attempt to present this as an entirely normal exercise of the judicial role, is dangerous.

Whatever your views on Brexit, it’s important to note that it’s not just Johnson who is diving into uncharted waters

I'm celebrating it as a defeat for the nefandous Johnson. I have no problem with unelected judges deciding this or other cases, not because I think that in a democratic society this should be the role of unelected judges but because I abhor all aspects of the constitutional monarchy within which we live. If this is the way that system goes, so be it. I see it as as democratic as anything else we have.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I'm celebrating it as a defeat for the nefandous Johnson. I have no problem with unelected judges deciding this or other cases, not because I think that in a democratic society this should be the role of unelected judges but because I abhor all aspects of the constitutional monarchy within which we live.

We are all enjoying the spectacle. At times it’s been thrilling and also hilarious to see the administration wing of capital flailing, fighting and bringing into sharp focus their unfitness and that of the system they administer.

The rest of your post outlines a coherent political position. I largely agree with it. But it’s a different position to others on here who have either welcomed the SC opinion as some sort of victory for democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

The situation is excellent - we have the centrist liberal slop having to rely on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty on essentially powellite grounds, whilst undermining it with legal actions and forcing the judgements in those actions to highlight - or establish - the limits to their claimed sovereignty. Whilst those on the slightly further right are forced back on to relying on the principle of popular sovereignty whilst undermining it through every measure possible because they are fully aware of the danger this represents to both them and the faction of the political class they are currently battling. Both sides are attacking the central legitimating myths of the democratic ideology and widening the gap between them and actually existing capital. Different sections of the actual state striking out and trying to claim autonomy etc Dangerous dangerous grounds.

 

[teuchter]

The situation is excellent - we have the centrist liberal slop having to rely on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty on essentially powellite grounds, whilst undermining it with legal actions and forcing the judgements in those actions to highlight - or establish - the limits to their claimed sovereignty. Whilst those on the slightly further right are forced back on to relying on the principle of popular sovereignty whilst undermining it through every measure possible because they are fully aware of the danger this represents to both them and the faction of the political class they are currently battling. Both sides are attacking the central legitimating myths of the democratic ideology and widening the gap between them and actually existing capital. Different sections of the actual state striking out and trying to claim autonomy etc Dangerous dangerous grounds.

Anyone able to translate this into plain English or is that not a reasonable ask because this is the politics forum?

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone able to translate this into plain English or is that not a reasonable ask because this is the politics forum?

If you cannot comprehend what butchersapron is saying, use a dictionary.

 

[andysays]

Anyone able to translate this into plain English or is that not a reasonable ask because this is the politics forum?

Boris has shit the bed

 

[butchersapron]

I reckon skipping teuchter's sub-ern faux-posts might be a good move today. Most days in fact.

 

[teuchter]

If you cannot comprehend what butchersapron is saying, use a dictionary.

Yes, because as long as a sequence of words consists only of words that are in the dictionary, it's easy to understand.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, because as long as a sequence of words consists only of words that are in the dictionary, it's easy to understand.

So you don't understand powellite

You could just have said so instead of throwing a temper tantrum

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

I haven't read the judgement, but I imagine it was that the prorogation was done for political reasons/was dishonest/otherwise invalid. It didn't strike against the principle that the government can prorogue or for that matter the ability of governments to shape the parliamentary timetable, agenda etc.

I have read the judgment and they didn’t say it was for political reasons or that it was dishonest. They avoided that altogether and focused on the *effect* of prorogation - namely that it prevented the constitutional role of parliament in holding the executive to account.

 

[8ball]

So you don't understand powellite

Best to start with basalt and work towards it in baby steps.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

There are two bits of the judgement that are key, and butchersapron and I were both - wrongly - relying on the wrong section, tho we can blame the Guardian for implying it was the key one.

That section - "It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of parliament which the Bill of Rights protects." - refers solely to what remedy is available, and means that judges can actually comment upon the case, because it isn't a 'parliamentary' decision.

The key bit, is:
"55.Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons -and indeed to the House of Lords -for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account.56.The answer is that of course it did..."

Thus, while the government can indeed prorogue, and can do so to their advantage, they can't do so to simply stop parliament doing it's job. It has to be reasonable.

Whilst there are obviously significant (lets be generous) issues with parliamentary democracy as being the genuine will of the people, it is more democratic than a semi-elected dictatorship. So you can welcome this judgement whilst maintaining a staunch criticism of it, and the judiciary and their role in the process.

Sorry I think I’m being a bit thick but I still don’t understand. The court held that the PM’s prorogation for five weeks prevented the constitutional role of parliament and was therefore unlawful. And as you say we live in a parliamentary democracy. So where does the staunch criticism come from? I thought it was a very elegant judgment which deftly used basic constitutional law principles to define the separation of powers.
V happy to be corrected in what I’ve missed though.

Edit - or are you saying the judgment didn’t go far enough in curbing executive power?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Anyone able to translate this into plain English or is that not a reasonable ask because this is the politics forum?

Both sides of political establishment are fucking each other and themselves and undermining their own legitimacy in the process, although I reckon you probably already understood it really

 

[8ball]

Both sides of political establishment are fucking each other and themselves and undermining their own legitimacy in the process, although I reckon you probably already understood it really

And also undermining the legitimacy of the grounds for any 'democratic legitimacy' at all (in our system's paradigm). Not just burning the house down, but jackhammering the foundations and leaving a minefield on the site.

 

[teuchter]

So you don't understand powellite

No, google can tell me what it means.

Knowing what each word means does not necessarily mean that the sentences they form are clear or easy to understand.

As you know.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, google can tell me what it means.

Knowing what each word means does not necessarily mean that the sentences they form are clear or easy to understand.

As you know.

None of the words butchersapron uses are difficult to understand, nor is the sense in which he uses them so I am forced to conclude your inability to understand his post is wilful rather than anything else

 

[kabbes]

No, google can tell me what it means.

Knowing what each word means does not necessarily mean that the sentences they form are clear or easy to understand.

As you know.

I am at a loss as to what it is you don’t understand about what I saw as a concise and cogent summary of the difficulties the generic “right” are getting themselves into at the fundamental structural level.

 

[brogdale]

None of the words butchersapron uses are difficult to understand, nor is the sense in which he uses them so I am forced to conclude your inability to understand his post is wilful rather than anything else

Yes, more a matter of troubling, 'inconvenient truths' for the centre/right than incomprehension.

 

[not-bono-ever]

I think it’s time to hit the “show ignored content ” feature to try and make sense of today’s posts so far. It’s like a captain beefheart lyric at the
Minute

 

[teuchter]

So for starters

Both sides are attacking the central legitimating myths of the democratic ideology and widening the gap between them and actually existing capital. Different sections of the actual state striking out and trying to claim autonomy etc

1. What specifically are the 'central legitimising myths of the democratic ideology" that are under attack?
2. What is "actually existing capital"? What's the meaning of "actually existing capital" vs "existing capital"?
3. What is the "actual state"? What's the meaning of 'actual state' vs 'state'?
4. Autonomy from what or compared to what, and what does the 'etc' encompass?

 

[Ax^]

so the plan for bojo today is to come back ask for another general election and then spend the rest of the week calling the other party leaders chicken's.


or am I missing something

 

[Pickman's model]

so the plan for bojo today is to come back ask for another general election and then spend the rest of the week calling the other party leaders chicken's.


or am I missing something

*shakes fist at Westminster*

 

[teuchter]

Yes, more a matter of troubling, 'inconvenient truths' for the centre/right than incomprehension.

To most people, what butchersapron wrote above would simply be gobbledegook. Go on and claim otherwise.

It's posted on a politics forum, so of course, the expectations are different, because you can assume some prior knowledge and shared understanding of what certain terms mean, or are intended to mean.

I'm not a well-read politics geek, but I can largely follow most of the discussion here. When I try and read that post, I understand some of it but am not clear about the intended meaning of all of it. I believe I am not alone in that. Having been here for some time now, I realise that butchersapron is not interested in communicating with anyone with significantly less prior understanding than himself, which is why I asked if anyone else can translate it for me (and others). And the response, as per usual, is that it's wilful incomprehension, or the "inconvenient truths" nonsense.

If it contains an important point and message then why the resistance to requests to put it in more understandable terms? Even if my request is insincere, wouldn't that be of benefit to others?

 

[Steel Icarus]

 

[Smokeandsteam]

so the plan for bojo today is to come back ask for another general election and then spend the rest of the week calling the other party leaders chicken's.

He's suggesting that the people get a say through a GE? Rather than let the politicians or judges - the experts - sort it out? What a fascist bastard. Defend the nation state!

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

To most people, what butchersapron wrote above would simply be gobbledegook. Go on and claim otherwise.

It's posted on a politics forum, so of course, the expectations are different, because you can assume some prior knowledge and shared understanding of what certain terms mean, or are intended to mean.

I'm not a well-read politics geek, but I can largely follow most of the discussion here. When I try and read that post, I understand some of it but am not clear about the intended meaning of all of it. I believe I am not alone in that. Having been here for some time now, I realise that butchersapron is not interested in communicating with anyone with significantly less prior understanding than himself, which is why I asked if anyone else can translate it for me (and others). And the response, as per usual, is that it's wilful incomprehension, or the "inconvenient truths" nonsense.

If it contains an important point and message then why the resistance to requests to put it in more understandable terms? Even if my request is insincere, wouldn't that be of benefit to others?

I don’t really understand all of it either & would be grateful if it was explained. I’m sure this is probably my ignorance - not a politics geek just following the discussion with interest...

 

[Wilf]

View attachment 185067

Are you suggesting we need a Lord Protector rather than a caretaker PM?

 

[Steel Icarus]

Genuinely looking forward to Johnson having to face the music and the heckles