Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[MickiQ]

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

Nope got it in one

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As indeed it can.

Except that in this case it couldn't, cos the SC ruled against it and parliament is sitting as we type.

 

[8ball]

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

You can probably name which fallacy that is.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

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

well yeah - that’s because they don’t make the law..

I still don’t understand but I’m going to leave it because I’m just going to start feeling like I’m really thick

 

[Pickman's model]

I still don’t understand but I’m going to leave it because I’m just going to start feeling like I’m really thick

tell you what, stick about and have a read and keep asking questions. i think we're discussing important things, and where i can i'd like to shed some light on it for you - as, i expect, would other posters.

 

[8ball]

Except that in this case it couldn't, cos the SC ruled against it and parliament is sitting as we type.

Yes, that's where we started from.
But you're getting somewhere with this, in that there are lots of conceivable cases where it can.

If things had gone differently it would simply have been a case of highlighting the fact (which no one in the establishment wants, hence the panic and hair-tearing over Boris's antics).

 

[teuchter]

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.

I didn't say it was gobbledygook - I said that it would appear as much to most people - that is people who don't spend time reading politics forums, people whose interest in political theory doesn't go beyond a modest level. For example I think most people in the UK would not even understand the use of 'capital' as a noun to describe a group of people in a certain position.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You can probably name which fallacy that is.

I'm actually serious about this - the same reasoning and the same conclusion, with the same paranoia about a remainiac conspiracy in place of an actual consideration of the case as put to the Supreme Court and the consequences of it having ruled other than how it did.

 

[8ball]

I'm actually serious about this - the same reasoning and the same conclusion, with the same paranoia about a remainiac conspiracy in place of an actual consideration of the case as put to the Supreme Court and the consequences of it having ruled other than how it did.

We could quibble over whether it *technically* counts as a conspiracy, but all you're trying to do here is poison the well.

 

[kabbes]

Where has its sovereignty been restricted?

Well, that’s the question under consideration, isn’t it? The law lords assert they are not doing so, but others seem to see it differently. The one imposing their power can say they are not doing so but this doesn’t make it fact.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

I think Dominic Cummings might agree with some people here!

 

[Cid]

Well, that’s the question under consideration, isn’t it? The law lords assert they are not doing so, but others seem to see it differently. The one imposing their power can say they are not doing so but this doesn’t make it fact.

Which others? What’s their argument?

 

[Pickman's model]

We could quibble over whether it *technically* counts as a conspiracy, but all you're trying to do here is poison the well.

the problem is more a way of thinking like we were still in the pre-referendum days. what's happening now, and there's clear evidence for it, a range of examples present themselves from this and the other side of the atlantic. 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

 

[kabbes]

Which others? What’s their argument?

Have you not seen how different groups are interpreting this intervention? Why don’t you go and tell each one of them they’re wrong?

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't say it was gobbledygook - I said that it would appear as much to most people - that is people who don't spend time reading politics forums, people whose interest in political theory doesn't go beyond a modest level. For example I think most people in the UK would not even understand the use of 'capital' as a noun to describe a group of people in a certain position.

i don't think anyone here posts with 'most people in the uk' as their anticipated audience

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I didn't say it was gobbledygook - I said that it would appear as much to most people - that is people who don't spend time reading politics forums, people whose interest in political theory doesn't go beyond a modest level. For example I think most people in the UK would not even understand the use of 'capital' as a noun to describe a group of people in a certain position.

...capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social production relation, belonging to a definite historical formation of society...

No wonder you're having problems.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[teuchter]

i don't think anyone here posts with 'most people in the uk' as their anticipated audience

From my original post:

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.

 

[8ball]

For example I think most people in the UK would not even understand the use of 'capital' as a noun to describe a group of people in a certain position.

To be fair, i took that as the meaning (well, something similar), but I wasn't 100% sure that I hadn't gone wrong.

 

[Pickman's model]

From my original post:

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.

 

[Cid]

Have you not seen how different groups are interpreting this intervention? Why don’t you go and tell each one of them they’re wrong?

I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that the judgment restricts parliamentary sovereignty.

 

[teuchter]

...capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social production relation, belonging to a definite historical formation of society...

No wonder you're having problems.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Kabbes' definition:

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.

And there's the problem with using that kind of shorthand - even amongst those who say they understand it, there's not agreement.

 

[Pickman's model]

I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that the judgment restricts parliamentary sovereignty.

it doesn't. but that isn't the point, the point is that recourse to the courts is being treated as an attempt to stymie brexit. what's being portrayed isn't necessarily real, it's written for distinct audiences who will take it as real.

 

[treelover]

Has Brian Blessed become a M.P?

 

[Pickman's model]

Has Brian Blessed become a M.P?

no

next

 

[kabbes]

I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that the judgment restricts parliamentary sovereignty.

And others haven’t seen any convincing arguments that it doesn’t. Your perspective probably rather depends on your axioms of where democracy derives from. Which was rather butcher’s point.

 

[kabbes]

Kabbes' definition:



And there's the problem with using that kind of shorthand - even amongst those who say they understand it, there's not agreement.

There’s no contradiction in that.

 

[Cid]

it doesn't. but that isn't the point, the point is that recourse to the courts is being treated as an attempt to stymie brexit. what's being portrayed isn't necessarily real, it's written for distinct audiences who will take it as real.

Oh yeah, completely. But I think some people on this thread have been going further than that... butchers certainly seemed to be suggesting that this judgment sets limits on sovereignty, which is wrong.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Just watching them in Parliament - the tories are turning on the Supreme Court, furious by the judgment!

 

[treelover]

Geoffrey Cox is doing a very good job of impersonating him

 

[kabbes]

Oh yeah, completely. But I think some people on this thread have been going further than that... butchers certainly seemed to be suggesting that this judgment sets limits on sovereignty, which is wrong.

Not sets, demonstrates.