Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Pickman's model]

Geoffrey Cox is doing a very good job of impersonating him

brian blessed

geoffrey cox

can you tell the difference?

 

[teuchter]

that's by no means your original post.

i have to question why you bring up 'most people', 'most people in the uk' in subsequent posts. it now seems like you have understood what butchersapron has been posting and your affected lack of understanding was but a ploy or jape.

In the first instance it was part of my acknowledgement that the writing takes into account its expected audience and in the second, in response to kabbes' implication that I had said the post was out and out gobbledegook, which is not what I said.

 

[Pickman's model]

In the first instance it was part of my acknowledgement that the writing takes into account its expected audience and in the second, in response to kabbes' implication that I had said the post was out and out gobbledegook, which is not what I said.

your original post surely the one where you asked for a translation of ba's post

 

[kabbes]

In the first instance it was part of my acknowledgement that the writing takes into account its expected audience and in the second, in response to kabbes' implication that I had said the post was out and out gobbledegook, which is not what I said.

Ah, sophistry. That’s alright then.

 

[belboid]

Not sets, demonstrates.

Yeah, but he was wrong.

 

[maomao]

Geoffrey Cox is doing a very good job of impersonating him

I spoke to Brian Blessed on the phone once. He nearly broke my eardrum. Geoffrey Cox couldn't hold a candle to him.

 

[Flavour]

Tbf Geoff cox does have a belting voice

 

[Cid]

Not sets, demonstrates.

tbh I’m on my phone and it’s a sod trying to find the right posts. The one I can find he says something along the lines of highlights and establishes the limits to sovereignty (which I don’t think it does). Could have sworn there was another one where he quoted the judgment, but maybe I’m confusing it with belboid’s reply.

I’ve just got distracted by work and forgotten the other point I was going to make, so leave that for this eve.

 

[Pickman's model]

I’ve just got distracted by work and forgotten the other point I was going to make

an occupational hazard

 

[teuchter]

1.The answer is directly given.

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?

ok. then I think it should say

instead of
"both sides are attacking the central legitimising myths of the democratic ideology"

something like
"each side is attacking the central legitimising myth of the democratic ideology favoured by the other; in one case popular sovereignty and in the other, parliamentary sovereignty"

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.

What's it emphasising though?

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.

But who are they? Whoever the reader believes are the people who get to define what the state is and control its direction? The Judiciary? MPs? 'Capital'? Who's included in this and who isn't? The word 'actual' implies that the common assumption of who it is, is different from the reality. But no explanation is given.

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

Again, who's seeking a power grab? Who exactly are each of the above - we have seemingly overlapping definitions of groups of people throughout the passage - the 'centrist liberal slop' vs 'those slightly further right' - we have a 'faction of the political class' which is not defined, other than something that both of the other groups are battling (?), we have 'actually existing capital' and we have 'different sections of the actual state'. There are fault lines between all these groups, some of which may contain portions of each other. I want to be convinced it's not just a wordy and pretentious way of saying 'everyone's arguing with each other'.

 

[teuchter]

Ah, sophistry. That’s alright then.

No, not sophistry. What I said.

 

[killer b]

shit derail lads.

 

[Wilf]

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

Dunno. I said the left has been overtaken by liberals on brexit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

r I want to be convinced it's not just a wordy and pretentious way of saying 'everyone's arguing with each other'.

I suspect it isn't much more than that, tbh. What Daniel Dennett calls a deepity - something that is either not true or, if true, is only trivially so and adds nothing to understanding. I don't see why the word 'capital' is in there otherwise when this case was to do with parliamentary sovereignty.

There is one group of people who aren't arguing with each other. That's the Supreme Court judges. All eleven of them agreed to every word of the judgement.

 

[MickiQ]

brian blessed

geoffrey cox

can you tell the difference?

Brian can act for a start

 

[kabbes]

ok. then I think it should say

instead of
"both sides are attacking the central legitimising myths of the democratic ideology"

something like
"each side is attacking the central legitimising myth of the democratic ideology favoured by the other; in one case popular sovereignty and in the other, parliamentary sovereignty"



What's it emphasising though?



But who are they? Whoever the reader believes are the people who get to define what the state is and control its direction? The Judiciary? MPs? 'Capital'? Who's included in this and who isn't? The word 'actual' implies that the common assumption of who it is, is different from the reality. But no explanation is given.



Again, who's seeking a power grab? Who exactly are each of the above - we have seemingly overlapping definitions of groups of people throughout the passage - the 'centrist liberal slop' vs 'those slightly further right' - we have a 'faction of the political class' which is not defined, other than something that both of the other groups are battling (?), we have 'actually existing capital' and we have 'different sections of the actual state'. There are fault lines between all these groups, some of which may contain portions of each other. I want to be convinced it's not just a wordy and pretentious way of saying 'everyone's arguing with each other'.

So we agree that the post is intelligible now, right? We’re into the point of discussing its ideas instead?

 

[YouSir]

I wonder how all of this is playing out behind the scenes. Both sides are firmly establishment, both sides are basically trying to fight their own power base and class - as has been said - but what end game does either side see? Whatever comes of Brexit they've got to know how badly they're undermining themselves in the long run and whoever wins they're going to rely on the exact same mechanisms they're attacking to maintain themselves. Unless someone's fantasising about some kind of grand authoritarian shift of course, which they might be I suppose. Bet the OxBridge reunions are going to be a blast this year.

 

[teuchter]

So we agree that the post is intelligible now, right? We’re into the point of discussing its ideas instead?

I would not say that it is entirely usefully intelligible to me yet.

However, we seem to be discussing some ideas resulting from other people's interpretations of it, which I'm happy to do.

 

[ferdinand]

I worry about the original vote. We were never given the consequences of leaving the EU. A large number of voters (including myself) were incapable of understanding the future outside Europe. Many voted for change hoping their situations would improve.
Here in the North East we have benefited enormously from nominated EU grants. I worry that the future under the Whitehall would see all funding concentrated in the South East.

 

[not-bono-ever]

We get access to all the papers at work to skim. Today sun is utterly furious at yesterday’s pantomime- incandescent rage

 

[SpackleFrog]

Corbyn demanding Johnson apologise to Brenda.

 

[MickiQ]

Corbyn demanding Johnson apologise to Brenda.

Be honest whatever your politics lying to old ladies is not on

 

[Chz]

Oh gods...

Tom Brake, the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman, asks how Britain will be safer than before when the police will not have access to EU crime and justice databases in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Because Border Force staff will have extra new powers, says Gove.

Now I don't give two fucks about the EU crime database. I'm sure we could count on our fingers the number of times it's made a measurable difference in a criminal case in the UK. What really bothers me is "extra new powers". As if the US border guards aren't shitty enough, we need to compete with them.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I spoke to Brian Blessed on the phone once. He nearly broke my eardrum. Geoffrey Cox couldn't hold a candle to him.

Good stuff. How disappointing would it be if you got to talk to Brian Blessed and he wasn't bellowing his lungs out?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Be honest whatever your politics lying to old ladies is not on

Oh give over, I couldn't give a fuck. In any case he hasn't lied, he has just issued an instruction.

 

[Gaia]

The Beeb’s interviewing Redwood. Fucking hell he’s actually said summat sensible!

 

[gosub]

Be honest whatever your politics lying to old ladies is not on

.

This 'righteous' indignation over what was said what to whom of a conversation and whether it was true or not whilst remaiing a secret is so Iimpossibly British . The people involved know what actually happened. The Supreme Court chaps , who demonstrated their independence based on submitted evidence are more likely to find themselves in a position to actually ask,.

Now that wannabe author fella that got somewhere through a nepotism ice relationship with Her Majesty's Lady in Waiting has spilled the beans on what to look for they might understand the answer.
I might actually watch the Queens Xmas broadcast this year.

If in the future there is another indy ref will the monarch have to wear shades for the duration?

 

[Dogsauce]

. in the present case there's the clear opposition being drawn between 'the people' and 'parliament/the judiciary' who, it is claimed, wish to frustrate the 17.4m's vote for brexit

A counter argument could be fairly presented that sees the ‘unelected’ executive & advisors trying to frustrate the will of however many people voted for parties that wanted to oppose or moderate Brexit in 2017, which is also a more recent measure of public mood. Should maybe work out the numbers for each side on that one then ram them down the throat of Faragists every time they imply 17 billion voted for no deal.

 

[Gaia]

Am I the only one watching Hezza on the BBC News channel and thinking …?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A counter argument could be fairly presented that sees the ‘unelected’ executive & advisors trying to frustrate the will of however many people voted for parties that wanted to oppose or moderate Brexit in 2017, which is also a more recent measure of public mood. Should maybe work out the numbers for each side on that one then ram them down the throat of Faragists every time they imply 17 billion voted for no deal.

Yep. As soon as any politician quotes 17.4 million, you know that the last thing on their minds is upholding democracy.