Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[SpackleFrog]

 

[Steel Icarus]

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

I'm suggesting Chuka knows where to stand

 

[Steel Icarus]

Ah, Superinjunction Schneider. Big fan of the courts. Allegedly, allegedly

 

[SpackleFrog]

I'm suggesting Chuka knows where to stand

But not which party to stand for.

 

[Pickman's model]

So for starters


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?

It's very clear, the actions of both remain and brexit wings in parliament are undermining the legitimating myths - those things the state relies on us believing - which tell us we live in a democracy. Things like we live in a liberal democracy. That the judiciary are independent. That Parliament is sovereign. That the British constitution adapts over time making it the best in the world etc. Parts of the ruling class would set themselves up as the real legit ruling class in opposition to other parts. That it's a right fucking mess in the ruling class atm.

 

[8ball]

It's very clear, the actions of both remain and brexit wings in parliament are undermining the legitimating myths - those things the state relies on us believing - which tell us we live in a democracy. Things like we live in a liberal democracy. That the judiciary are independent. That Parliament is sovereign. That the British constitution adapts over time making it the best in the world etc. Parts of the ruling class would set themselves up as the real legit ruling class in opposition to other parts. That it's a right fucking mess in the ruling class atm.

It may be clear to you, and to many of us on here, but when I joined this forum (u75, not p&p specifically), it would have been incomprehensible to me.
The idea that all genuine questions are sincerely answered strikes me as spurious (mostly they are, sometimes not). It seems more like when someone is jumped on (often relating to prior content they have posted), the post hoc justification is to return to this claim in a question-begging manner (ie. "your question was clearly not genuine because we all jumped on you").

 

[Wilf]

That tweet says so much about what is wrong with this shitshow. About how far the left has been overtaken by liberals - and about how fucked up the liberals have become about even their own liberalism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's very clear, the actions of both remain and brexit wings in parliament are undermining the legitimating myths - those things the state relies on us believing - which tell us we live in a democracy. Things like we live in a liberal democracy. That the judiciary are independent. That Parliament is sovereign. That the British constitution adapts over time making it the best in the world etc. Parts of the ruling class would set themselves up as the real legit ruling class in opposition to other parts. That it's a right fucking mess in the ruling class atm.

If that is what was meant, it doesn't seem very convincing to me. The court has not only ruled against the government, it has ruled in a way that clarifies some limits to the royal prerogative. That places a tension on the monarchy and its role, leaving a situation where, if Johnson were to further attempt to abuse this power, it would force the Queen into making an actual constitutional decision, the very thing the monarchy relies on never having to do in order to survive unquestioned. But it doesn't undermine the idea of an independent judiciary. If anything it strengthens it - the judiciary has acted against the interests of both the government and the crown. And it has done so precisely in order to maintain the overarching principle that parliament is sovereign. It strengthens this principle rather than weakening it, reinforcing the concept that a government exists only because of parliament, not the other way round, which is a bedrock of the legitimating process of the British constitutional arrangement. By doing so, it stops Johnson from acting like a dictator, again reinforcing the idea that we have some kind of a democratic system.

 

[8ball]

If that is what was meant, it doesn't seem very convincing to me. The court has not only ruled against the government, it has ruled in a way that clarifies some limits to the royal prerogative. That places a tension on the monarchy and its role, leaving a situation where, if Johnson were to further attempt to abuse this power, it would force the Queen into making an actual constitutional decision, the very thing the monarchy relies on never having to do in order to survive unquestioned. But it doesn't undermine the idea of an independent judiciary. If anything it strengthens it - the judiciary has acted against the interests of both the government and the crown. And it has done so precisely in order to maintain the overarching principle that parliament is sovereign. It strengthens this principle rather than weakening it, reinforcing the concept that a government exists only because of parliament, not the other way round, which is a bedrock of the legitimating process of the British constitutional arrangement. By doing so, it stops Johnson from acting like a dictator, again reinforcing the idea that we have some kind of a democratic system.

I took BA's post to mean that getting into the state where we have the judiciary making a ruling in the direction that many* expected makes them appear a shill to those interests to some, and at the very least to more neutral observers seems like they are being dragged in as a partisan tool.

Also, it is clear from what Remainers were saying that they (the Remainers) were loving the idea of being able to commandeer the judiciary to slap down the Brexiteers.

* - the subset who see the judiciary as beholden to elite interests that are trying to scupper Brexit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And tbh, what any of this has to do with capital is quite beyond me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I took BA's post to mean that getting into the state where we have the judiciary making a ruling in the direction that many* expected makes them appear a shill to those interests to some, and at the very least to more neutral observers seems like they are being dragged in as a partisan tool.

But is that convincing? The Daily Express thinks it is. I don't.

 

[not-bono-ever]

It's very clear, the actions of both remain and brexit wings in parliament are undermining the legitimating myths - those things the state relies on us believing - which tell us we live in a democracy. Things like we live in a liberal democracy. That the judiciary are independent. That Parliament is sovereign. That the British constitution adapts over time making it the best in the world etc. Parts of the ruling class would set themselves up as the real legit ruling class in opposition to other parts. That it's a right fucking mess in the ruling class atm.

You are Adam Curtis AICM£5

 

[teuchter]

It's very clear, the actions of both remain and brexit wings in parliament are undermining the legitimating myths - those things the state relies on us believing - which tell us we live in a democracy. Things like we live in a liberal democracy. That the judiciary are independent. That Parliament is sovereign. That the British constitution adapts over time making it the best in the world etc. Parts of the ruling class would set themselves up as the real legit ruling class in opposition to other parts. That it's a right fucking mess in the ruling class atm.

That partially answers my question 1 but none of questions 2 to 4.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

I took BA's post to mean that getting into the state where we have the judiciary making a ruling in the direction that many* expected makes them appear a shill to those interests to some, and at the very least to more neutral observers seems like they are being dragged in as a partisan tool.

Also, it is clear from what Remainers were saying that they (the Remainers) were loving the idea of being able to commandeer the judiciary to slap down the Brexiteers.

* - the subset who see the judiciary as beholden to elite interests that are trying to scupper Brexit

Say the default was that we remain in the EU at the end of October rather than leave with no deal. If Chuka Umunna was PM (in his dreams) and had used prorogation to shut down parliament to stop MPs getting a deal through so that art.50 was repealed by default, then on the court’s reasoning, this would also have been unlawful - so don’t really understand this...

 

[8ball]

You are Adam Curtis AICM£5

... but it was a trap!

 

[belboid]

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?

absolutely that - the bolded bit. The staunch criticism refers to the wider role of the judges rather than their judgement here.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

If that is what was meant, it doesn't seem very convincing to me. The court has not only ruled against the government, it has ruled in a way that clarifies some limits to the royal prerogative. That places a tension on the monarchy and its role, leaving a situation where, if Johnson were to further attempt to abuse this power, it would force the Queen into making an actual constitutional decision, the very thing the monarchy relies on never having to do in order to survive unquestioned. But it doesn't undermine the idea of an independent judiciary. If anything it strengthens it - the judiciary has acted against the interests of both the government and the crown. And it has done so precisely in order to maintain the overarching principle that parliament is sovereign. It strengthens this principle rather than weakening it, reinforcing the concept that a government exists only because of parliament, not the other way round, which is a bedrock of the legitimating process of the British constitutional arrangement. By doing so, it stops Johnson from acting like a dictator, again reinforcing the idea that we have some kind of a democratic system.

This is an excellent post and puts much more eloquently why I don’t understand/was questioning some of the criticism on here re the judgment.

 

[kabbes]

So for starters


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?

1.The answer is directly given.

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.

Is parliament sovereign, in which case whence the legitimacy in restricting its sovereignty? Or is there a popular sovereignty, in which case how is this defined and what does it mean in practice?

2. “Actually existing capital” in this context I take to mean those who own capital and are exercising its power, whose interests are not necessarily aligned with those in political power (but in practice will tend to be). I don’t think there is any intent to draw a distinction with “existing capital”. The “actual” is just an emphasis.

3. The “actual state” are those who get to define what the state is and means, and control its direction. Again, “actual” is more emphasis than strict distinction.

4. This crisis has exposed the fault lines between each of the above, and they are all, in short, seeking a power grab.

Now, all that is just my interpretation. Butchers can correct my misunderstandings where they exist. But to say the passage is gobbledygook is nothing but aggressive and unwarranted insult. The points made can both be interpreted meaningfully and also are interesting to consider. Assuming that your incomprehension lies outside your own ability to make such interpretation and consideration, teuchter, says more about you than it does about butchers.

 

[8ball]

But is that convincing? The Daily Express thinks it is. I don't.

Not convincing to everyone, but to a large number, and is part of the background of our crisis of legitimacy.
Anyway, I'm going to stop speaking for BA now - I could be getting large bits of it wrong.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

absolutely that - the bolded bit. The staunch criticism refers to the wider role of the judges rather than their judgement here.

What wider role are you referring to though?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Say the default was that we remain in the EU at the end of October rather than leave with no deal. If Chuka Umunna was PM (in his dreams) and had used prorogation to shut down parliament to stop them getting a deal through so that art.50 was repealed by default, then on the court’s reasoning, this would also have been unlawful - so don’t really understand this...

Exactly. Johnson tried to pull a fast one, and got a slap for it. And let's not forget that one of the main reasons this ruling went as it did is because Johnson refused to repeat his lie under oath. Any ruling other than the one they gave would have been a really shitty day for democracy in the UK as it would have clarified the limits of the royal prerogative as meaning that it can be used to fuck parliament. Anyone who objects to this ruling because they want brexit has really lost it imo. There are more important things than fucking brexit.

 

[belboid]

That tweet says so much about what is wrong with this shitshow. About how far the left has been overtaken by liberals - and about how fucked up the liberals have become about even their own liberalism.

why does an ultra-liberal being ultra-liberal say anything about 'left' politics?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not convincing to everyone, but to a large number, and is part of the background of our crisis of legitimacy.
Anyway, I'm going to stop speaking for BA now - I could be getting large bits of it wrong.

Sorry but how large? the Express and Mail are squealing about it but that doesn't mean there are huge numbers of people around the country thinking this. Again, this is another example of the 'thickie proles' narrative in mirror image.

 

[Pickman's model]

If that is what was meant, it doesn't seem very convincing to me. The court has not only ruled against the government, it has ruled in a way that clarifies some limits to the royal prerogative. That places a tension on the monarchy and its role, leaving a situation where, if Johnson were to further attempt to abuse this power, it would force the Queen into making an actual constitutional decision, the very thing the monarchy relies on never having to do in order to survive unquestioned. But it doesn't undermine the idea of an independent judiciary. If anything it strengthens it - the judiciary has acted against the interests of both the government and the crown. And it has done so precisely in order to maintain the overarching principle that parliament is sovereign. It strengthens this principle rather than weakening it, reinforcing the concept that a government exists only because of parliament, not the other way round, which is a bedrock of the legitimating process of the British constitutional arrangement. By doing so, it stops Johnson from acting like a dictator, again reinforcing the idea that we have some kind of a democratic system.

oh do engage brain before posting.

you're doing what you so often do, which is to ignore perspectives other than your own

have you not seen people from the ruling class yesterday and today deriding the supreme court's judgment? have you not seen newspapers proclaiming that the supreme court has been political and is standing against brexit? do you honestly not recognise the way that the judiciary are and indeed have been denigrated for their judgments on matters of law, which have been made out to be political judgments?

 

[8ball]

Sorry but how large? the Express and Mail are squealing about it but that doesn't mean there are huge numbers of people around the country thinking this. Again, this is another example of the 'thickie proles' narrative in mirror image.

Your problem is that you can only see through a Remainer prism.

 

[belboid]

What wider role are you referring to though?

They still generally rule on laws created by and for bastards, to protect property rights.

 

[8ball]

Any ruling other than the one they gave would have been a really shitty day for democracy in the UK as it would have clarified the limits of the royal prerogative as meaning that it can be used to fuck parliament.

As indeed it can. Nice to have things out in the open.
If you don't want the Queen involved in politics, then the solution is to keep her separate from politics.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your problem is that you can only see through a Remainer prism.

Nah. That's Daily Express-level reasoning. Brexit has created some very strange bedfellows. In this instance, Butchersapron and the Express.

 

[Pickman's model]

Your problem is that you can only see through a Remainer prism.

exactly. through an old-fashioned remainer prism at that, which sees institutions as they are rather than how they're portrayed. while lbj may be formally correct as a matter of law, he is woefully ill-equipped to deal with the matters of perception which form such an important part of political discourse these days.

 

[Cid]

1.The answer is directly given.

Is parliament sovereign, in which case whence the legitimacy in restricting its sovereignty?

Where has its sovereignty been restricted?