Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Oct 24, 2016 7:47:52 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 7:47:52 GMT
dalekbuster523finish there are many different types of defence to criminal prosecutions, pleading "not guilty" does not mean "I didn't do it", it means "I am not culpable", now often, the defence will be "I am not guilty because I didn't do it" but it could be almost anything that makes you not culpable, if you genuinely feel that mentally ill people should be excluded from this kind of defence, I would ask you to look at yourself, you sig notes that you are autistic, and then makes special pleading because of that fact. What entitles you do special pleading but not someone who is mentally ill? Are you sure that autism isn't a form of mental illness? Autism is a form of mental illness but the difference is if I murdered someone I wouldn't expect to get away with it. I wouldn't use it as an excuse for the murder. Murder is inexcusable and mental illness certainly does not equate to 'I am not culpable' if said person actually did murder the victim in my book. It's not a small crime. Law is a very interesting thing... If someone has a severe disability, they would probably be sent to an asylum or something... Besides, this is becoming a nasty little argument...
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Oct 24, 2016 8:57:22 GMT
It is very easy to see the world in Black and White, while in reality nothing ever is.
A few points to bear in mind: 1. Thomas Mair has not (not to my knowledge) stated why he did what he did. Therefore it is most definitely not certain it was because Mrs Cox wanted to remain part of the EU. 2. M.P.s have to deal with all sort of things in their constituency and the attack could be related to something completely different. Sadly we may never know. 3. Even if found to be related to the referendum, it does not make everyone who voted Leave "murderers", "racists" or "bigots" or condoning those actions. Like all fanatics, they do not speak for the majority - if you think they do, then you also condemn all Muslims to being bombers, all Irish as being terrorists and all American Christians as being "Trump Nut-Jobs" (apologies for the term nut job). Likewise, it does not make everyone who voted Remain "perfect law abiding citizens".
The result of the referendum is still very emotive, but tarring all who voted Leave with one man's (or any small group's) actions is unfair, disingenuous to the majority and is actually a very bigoted point of view. People need to work together to get the best out of the mess that Cameron created instead of back-biting, name-calling and the childish games that politicians are playing.
Cheers
Tony
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Oct 24, 2016 14:03:03 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 14:03:03 GMT
Well, I think we can at least agree we're happy Dalekbuster isn't the Attorney General, the Secretary of State For Justice or the Health Secretary.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 24, 2016 16:29:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by TinDogPodcast on Oct 24, 2016 16:29:58 GMT
I live 5 miles away from where jo was killed.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 3, 2016 15:46:32 GMT
Post by eldersensorite on Nov 3, 2016 15:46:32 GMT
So, it looks like Parliament will get a vote (assuming the Government's appeal doesn't change the verdict)... funny how leave voters who campaigned for parliamentary sovereignty are now against parliamentary sovereignty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Nov 3, 2016 19:35:07 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 19:35:07 GMT
So, it looks like Parliament will get a vote (assuming the Government's appeal doesn't change the verdict)... funny how leave voters who campaigned for parliamentary sovereignty are now against parliamentary sovereignty. That isn't what a lot of people voted for.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 3, 2016 20:34:56 GMT
Post by muckypup on Nov 3, 2016 20:34:56 GMT
the world of politics is just a big mess at the moment, it's fine to close hospitals, prisons, schools and starve local councils with out anyone really having a meaningful say on the matter.
but acting on something people actually voted on, is now down to a handful of judges. the same judges who thought it was ok to deny disabled people the right to have a room of their own.
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Brexit
Nov 3, 2016 21:19:31 GMT
Post by aztec on Nov 3, 2016 21:19:31 GMT
The problem is only 52% of those who could be bothered to vote voted to leave, and not all of them would have voted for the same reasons or a hard/soft Brexit, some MP's will be representing constituencies who voted largely remain or leave against their own persona convictions or their party policy, you can't just assume Brexit will work the same for someone in London, Scotland, Yorkshire etc and go plunging straight into Brexit without consulting the goverment or public on the plans first. For such a momentous decision I think it makes sense that MPs are consulted on and have a vote on exactly what our Brexit negotiations and plans look like before Article 50 is triggered.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 3, 2016 21:44:41 GMT
Post by eldersensorite on Nov 3, 2016 21:44:41 GMT
The problem is only 52% of those who could be bothered to vote voted to leave, and not all of them would have voted for the same reasons or a hard/soft Brexit, some MP's will be representing constituencies who voted largely remain or leave against their own persona convictions or their party policy, you can't just assume Brexit will work the same for someone in London, Scotland, Yorkshire etc and go plunging straight into Brexit without consulting the goverment or public on the plans first. For such a momentous decision I think it makes sense that MPs are consulted on and have a vote on exactly what our Brexit negotiations and plans look like before Article 50 is triggered. And that is the fundamental flaw of how the referendum was handled - the negotiating strategy for leave should have been agreed on before the vote so it was clear what both a remain and leave win would involve.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 3, 2016 23:54:41 GMT
Post by muckypup on Nov 3, 2016 23:54:41 GMT
The problem is only 52% of those who could be bothered to vote voted to leave, and not all of them would have voted for the same reasons or a hard/soft Brexit, some MP's will be representing constituencies who voted largely remain or leave against their own persona convictions or their party policy, you can't just assume Brexit will work the same for someone in London, Scotland, Yorkshire etc and go plunging straight into Brexit without consulting the goverment or public on the plans first. For such a momentous decision I think it makes sense that MPs are consulted on and have a vote on exactly what our Brexit negotiations and plans look like before Article 50 is triggered. The trouble now is there will be meddlers & concession grabbers, which will weaken the negotiations stance and will now end up with the worst of all deals. i did not vote for brexit but it's happened & the bunch of in fighting back stabbing, position jostling, rabble will do little to aid the situation. brexit will be crap for everyone for a while, but the current status quo will be worse. osterity policies were good for some bad for others but we bid not get a say on each and everyone of them, they have had a huge effect on the infrastructure, education & welfare of the country, they were done on a half baked coalition nowhere near the will of the people. i don't see how we can move forward from this.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 0:21:00 GMT
Post by jasonward on Nov 4, 2016 0:21:00 GMT
the world of politics is just a big mess at the moment, it's fine to close hospitals, prisons, schools and starve local councils with out anyone really having a meaningful say on the matter. but acting on something people actually voted on, is now down to a handful of judges. the same judges who thought it was ok to deny disabled people the right to have a room of their own. Firstly, judges don't make decisions based on morality they make decisions based on the law. It would be naive to say that a judges morals have no sway one way or the other, but a judges ruling is not their opinion on the morality of a situation, it is their opinion on the law. Secondly, judges (in the case won today at least) are not in anyway deciding or dictating Brexit or not, the judgement merely said that Royal Prerogative cannot be used to change the law, only parliament has that power. The ruling was mostly about Royal Prerogative, not about Brexit, the only bit that was about Brexit was the courts decision that there was no precedence in European matters that allowed the use of the Royal Prerogative when it came to Brexit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 3:51:22 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 3:51:22 GMT
Yes, I've heard this nonsense all day about the judges "overruling" Brexit when they've just said that parliament - the elected officials of the entire land - must be consulted on what Brexit means, what shape it takes and what is, and isn't acceptable. The impact on the nation will be huge and having a small band of London-based Tories alone deciding the entire Brexit strategy and scenario would be a travesty. Funny how people have an issue about 3 judges interpreting law but not with 1 Prime Minister doing what they like without having to answer to anyone.
As eldersensorite said above, too many people are willfully ignorant of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary democracy. The judges did NOT decide whether Brexit is or is not happening - they decided that Theresa May can't just do what she likes without consulting the representatives of the entire country regardless of how they voted or whether they voted at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 6:26:31 GMT
Yes, I've heard this nonsense all day about the judges "overruling" Brexit when they've just said that parliament - the elected officials of the entire land - must be consulted on what Brexit means, what shape it takes and what is, and isn't acceptable. The impact on the nation will be huge and having a small band of London-based Tories alone deciding the entire Brexit strategy and scenario would be a travesty. Funny how people have an issue about 3 judges interpreting law but not with 1 Prime Minister doing what they like without having to answer to anyone. As eldersensorite said above, too many people are willfully ignorant of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary democracy. The judges did NOT decide whether Brexit is or is not happening - they decided that Theresa May can't just do what she likes without consulting the representatives of the entire country regardless of how they voted or whether they voted at all. What baffles me is that parliament were always going to get a vote on this anyway, just not one about an administrative activity like invoking article 50. May has always said the way we would leave the EU would be via a Bill to revoke the original European Union act. Without that being passed we continue to be members of the EU. The author of article 50 has said that we could invoke the article and still withdraw that invocation if we failed to pass the required legislation to leave the EU.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 7:17:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by TinDogPodcast on Nov 4, 2016 7:17:07 GMT
OK.
May may call an election.
How about we... I mean someone... forms a "stay in Europe but secure our boarders because that's what people actually wanted anyway" party.
Get voted in and then we will be fine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 8:08:18 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 8:08:18 GMT
I don't think she's going to call an election. The Tories have a tiny majority - why risk losing that? Sure, they could increase it but with the political instability of the country and shock results in 2015's GE and this summer's referendum, that would be a hell of a risk.
With the fixed term parliaments act, it's not as simple as it used to be to call elections. May would need to lose a vote of no-confidence (killing her career stone dead), or 2/3rds of parliament would need to back it.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 12:54:49 GMT
Post by jasonward on Nov 4, 2016 12:54:49 GMT
Yes, I've heard this nonsense all day about the judges "overruling" Brexit when they've just said that parliament - the elected officials of the entire land - must be consulted on what Brexit means, what shape it takes and what is, and isn't acceptable. The impact on the nation will be huge and having a small band of London-based Tories alone deciding the entire Brexit strategy and scenario would be a travesty. Funny how people have an issue about 3 judges interpreting law but not with 1 Prime Minister doing what they like without having to answer to anyone. As eldersensorite said above, too many people are willfully ignorant of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary democracy. The judges did NOT decide whether Brexit is or is not happening - they decided that Theresa May can't just do what she likes without consulting the representatives of the entire country regardless of how they voted or whether they voted at all. Seriously, the judges didn't say parliament must be consulted, they said that: - Royal Prerogative can not be used to change the law, only parliament has that power
- Invoking article 50 amounted to a change in the law
- The Act that created the referendum was not worded in such a way to bind parliament, and reading Hansard it is clear that the government at the time never intended the Act to be binding.
And in the context of Brexit, all that means, ALL, is that Parliament not the Government needs either to invoke article 50, or Parliament needs to explicitly authorise the government to invoke Article 50. EDIT: Seeing some of the newspaper headlines today, it is clear several of them are so blinded by their own agenda that they've either opted to lie or lost the ability to comprehend. This ruling is a problem not because it in anyway stops or pauses Brexit, it is a problem because Theresa May's government has a very small majority (and getting smaller after today's resignation of one of their MP's) and that her own MP's are likely to cause her problems. If the Government had a good majority this situation would be not a big problem. It is the instability in our political system since the referendum that makes this a problem, all the court did was say those wielding Royal powers must do so within the confines of the law, something Parliament it self has been saying for a very long time, and a principle that became beyond doubt when Parliament won the civil war against The Royalists in the 1640's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 18:24:06 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 18:24:06 GMT
The problem is only 52% of those who could be bothered to vote voted to leave, and not all of them would have voted for the same reasons or a hard/soft Brexit, some MP's will be representing constituencies who voted largely remain or leave against their own persona convictions or their party policy, you can't just assume Brexit will work the same for someone in London, Scotland, Yorkshire etc and go plunging straight into Brexit without consulting the goverment or public on the plans first. For such a momentous decision I think it makes sense that MPs are consulted on and have a vote on exactly what our Brexit negotiations and plans look like before Article 50 is triggered. The trouble now is there will be meddlers & concession grabbers, which will weaken the negotiations stance and will now end up with the worst of all deals. i did not vote for brexit but it's happened & the bunch of in fighting back stabbing, position jostling, rabble will do little to aid the situation. brexit will be crap for everyone for a while, but the current status quo will be worse. osterity policies were good for some bad for others but we bid not get a say on each and everyone of them, they have had a huge effect on the infrastructure, education & welfare of the country, they were done on a half baked coalition nowhere near the will of the people. i don't see how we can move forward from this. You're right. The idea is the first ten years will be bad, but after it'll be positive. Just depends on perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 18:26:17 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 18:26:17 GMT
I don't think she's going to call an election. The Tories have a tiny majority - why risk losing that? Sure, they could increase it but with the political instability of the country and shock results in 2015's GE and this summer's referendum, that would be a hell of a risk. With the fixed term parliaments act, it's not as simple as it used to be to call elections. May would need to lose a vote of no-confidence (killing her career stone dead), or 2/3rds of parliament would need to back it. To be honest, all of the parties are awful in the UK and the US. If they called an election in the UK, we'd be screwed even more than we are either way. It's also very pointless.
|
|
|
Brexit
Nov 4, 2016 19:52:08 GMT
Post by eldersensorite on Nov 4, 2016 19:52:08 GMT
I doubt an election would be called before the Conservatives have finished gerrymandering the constituency boundaries, because I don't see a reason why they would need to call an election so they may as well wait until they are guaranteed a massive majority (or at least bigger than they would get with the current boundaries).
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 4, 2016 21:38:32 GMT
For our US friends tracking this thread, I thought I'd offer a quick reference guide to the parlance being used here.
Government = Executive Royal Prerogative = Executive Power Parliament = Legislature Hansard = Congressional Record MP/Member of Parliament = MC/Member of Congress Majority (in the context of the Government and Parliament) = Often used in the phrase "command a majority" basically means that someone (normally the Prime Minister) is able to count on/secure the support of enough MP's to be able to form a Government.
In the UK our government (executive) is not elected directly, it formed members of parliament (legislature) and can only remain as the government so long as it can command enough support in parliament. Things have in recent years become a little more complicated as we now fixed term parliaments, and these can only be shortened under a small set of circumstances, whilst this has not happened yet, it means in effect that we could end up without an executive and no one able to form one. I doubt this would happen as it perfectly legal for a minority government (a government that cannot command the support of the majority of parliament) to become the government, but it would be an almost powerless government, in reality probably acting more as caretaker than anything else.
|
|