milo
Jack L. Jones
You are probably right. The interesting thing will be what amendments are tabled and how people vote on those.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
You are probably right. The interesting thing will be what amendments are tabled and how people vote on those.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
The invective coming from many quarters of brexiters since the court ruling is quite simply disgraceful in a so called civilised country. This was a judicial decision based on a point of UK law not an opinion on brexit. Whipped up by the press and an irresponsible government I have to say it breaks my heart with the direction and the type of people now running my country. It is all so false too. It's fascinating to see right wing politicians bleat on about the "will of people" they would ordinarily care nothing for. Elite politicians in a marriage of convenience with working class people with little in common I would suggest, when it came to voting for brexit other than a hatred for the EU. We are leaving the EU that is not in question but is it not right to try to influence the type of brexit we get? It seems though any talk of dealing constructively with the EU is met with derision and distrust. We are in an absolute bloody mess.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I completely agree. The two day silence from Liz Truss whilst the judiciary were being attacked and the inadequacy of her statement when she finally made one are a disgrace. An independent judiciary making decisions that are awkward for the government is the sign of our democracy working well, not the opposite.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Lord Bingham's son has written an excellent open letter to Truss on this
http://www.writersworkshop.co.uk/blog/the-rule-of-law-an-open-letter-to-liz-truss/
http://www.writersworkshop.co.uk/blog/the-rule-of-law-an-open-letter-to-liz-truss/
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
You won't hear me defending Truss on many things, but I'd much prefer our SoS's to be focusing on the issues in their departments and waiting to make statements.
I actually agree with the vagueness of the statement too - considering the context, its sensible not to push the link between the Government and the Judiciary too....they must remain independent of Parliament.
And we don't need a minister to tell us the Express and Mail are written by clams.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
I disagree. Truss is head of the judiary and is responsible for the proper functioning and independence of the Courts. The job of bosses and leaders amongst other things, is to defend their staff when they are under attack for doing their their job. As head of the Judiciary it is also to defend the independence of the Courts when the likes of the Mail and the Sun are trying to intimidate judges and stifle due process. Truss frankly has been a pathetic Lord Chancellor.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Having read this and the article I am having a think over my position.
I stand by her prioritisation of MoJ operations throughout Friday though thus delaying the statement.
I'll reserve judgement, but so far I'm not Impressed
milo
Jack L. Jones
It wouldn't take her any time. Her press office would write the statement for her. Her silence was because the government had taken a decision to hang the judges out to dry and that is contrary to her role.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
Even some in her own party are critical of her conduct:
Former Tory minister Anna Soubry condemned Truss for failing to say more. She said: “[The] lord chancellor has a duty to condemn the vilification, including a homophobic attack, of our judiciary. [She] has failed in her duty to defend our judiciary. As a former barrister I’m embarrassed and appalled.”
Former Tory minister Anna Soubry condemned Truss for failing to say more. She said: “[The] lord chancellor has a duty to condemn the vilification, including a homophobic attack, of our judiciary. [She] has failed in her duty to defend our judiciary. As a former barrister I’m embarrassed and appalled.”
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
I'm not disputing the last bit.
But I do know she was very busy on Fri and also likes to be in control. So although it is possible for it to take little time, there are factors that affect that.
Sorry for sounding so coy, might just have to trust me a little on this one.
But politically it is all a bit pathetic, the Gov are appealing so you can see why they are staying neutral - just shows the ego within I guess.
milo
Jack L. Jones
There is no reason why the MoJ could not have issued a statement in her name saying that it is important that the independence of the judiciary is respected whilst also saying that they hoped they won on appeal. When the statement finally came, they said the least that they could say and failed to support the judges. It is a poor show from a tinkle poor Lord Chancellor.
7percent
Pascal Chimbonda
I have a question about the act of parliament vote thing. So it comes to the vote bit, and I'm a labour MP (for example) In Scotland or in London or Northern Ireland.
I get that the public should be listened to and the vote to leave Europe should be listened to and you should all get over it blah blah blah.
But what happens when I decide to vote to stay in because most of the labour supporters voted to stay in, and more importantly the people in my constituency voted to stay in? Don't I report to the the people that voted me in? I get the 'we should respect' the vote thing, but you should also respect the opinions of the people that voted you in.
RIght?
(I had a quick google by the way and if it was done this way the majority of MPs would still be voting out)
I get that the public should be listened to and the vote to leave Europe should be listened to and you should all get over it blah blah blah.
But what happens when I decide to vote to stay in because most of the labour supporters voted to stay in, and more importantly the people in my constituency voted to stay in? Don't I report to the the people that voted me in? I get the 'we should respect' the vote thing, but you should also respect the opinions of the people that voted you in.
RIght?
(I had a quick google by the way and if it was done this way the majority of MPs would still be voting out)
milo
Jack L. Jones
The majority of John Redwood's constituents voted remain, I very much doubt that he will follow suit when the time comes to vote on A50. MPs should vote as their conscience tells them but I am sure that many who supported remain will vote to trigger A50 because they want to respect the result.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
The whole Brexit debate is a funny old turn of events really.
The suggestions now are that the leave campaign lead their voters up the garden path with lies and they might face a challenge. Well this point is well up for debate but as a leave voter I was always going to vote leave regardless, but I can only speak for myself. The danger here is, if there is a rulling to say leave mislead voters where do we draw the line? Every government elected has in some way renegaded on its pre-election promises, do we go back to this current Conservative government and bring them to task for offering the referendum as part of their policy which seems to now be a promise no stronger than a poppadum?
As for the rulling on the actual vote, as I mentioned, the government offered a vote on Brexit and the question was clear, it was do you wish to leave the EU, not do you wish your MPs to vote on Brexit.
The suggestions now are that the leave campaign lead their voters up the garden path with lies and they might face a challenge. Well this point is well up for debate but as a leave voter I was always going to vote leave regardless, but I can only speak for myself. The danger here is, if there is a rulling to say leave mislead voters where do we draw the line? Every government elected has in some way renegaded on its pre-election promises, do we go back to this current Conservative government and bring them to task for offering the referendum as part of their policy which seems to now be a promise no stronger than a poppadum?
As for the rulling on the actual vote, as I mentioned, the government offered a vote on Brexit and the question was clear, it was do you wish to leave the EU, not do you wish your MPs to vote on Brexit.
Point 1) wouldn't worry about it, wont make any difference even if guilty.
Point 2) we are going to have BREXIT that is what the vote is, there is a very small possibility that MP will stop BREXIT, the ruling decided that the type of BREXIT is up to parliament (the people). A lot of people would not have voted BREXIT if they thought it would be WTO and likewise a lot of others wouldn't if they thought Freedom of movement would still be necessary (i.e. Norwegian model).
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
So 5m Scots should be able to deprive 56m English and Welsh of their rights?
It leaves a little bit of a nasty taste in the mouth but
“The Scottish government is clear that triggering article 50 will directly affect devolved interests and rights in Scotland,”
If this is true and we devolved those rights to be decided in Scotland then surely its equally as distasteful to override them. Again if true and the rights are devolved you could argue that the 56M English and Welsh have already agreed that it is up to Scotland to have final say on these rights (no backseys). Again this is all due to lack of foresight and planning pre vote as no one thought it would be leave.