"Currants Bw..."

[Ollie the Optimist]

Despite the BBC and press headlines, the Government did NOT lose in the courts today. The Executive lost. The Government in Britain is Parliament, not No 10. This was clarified in the 1980s by the high court.

The judgement clarified what we fought for in the civil war in the 1640s - that the royal perogative was subject to the will of the people expressed by their representatives in Parliament. The monarch does not have the power to rule without permission of Parliament and neither does the Prime Minister.

This issue is more important than Brexit or Bremain - it is about the leaders being reminded that they govern by consent of Parliament and are not to just make decisions without getting that consent first.

However, there is a problem with the government in this country and has been since the year dot. Although we have a form of democracy where we can choose our representatives in parliament, most people do not take an interest either through stupidity or downright ignorance so they have no chance of getting an MP to represent them. They just listen to the latest sound bites and believe in the crap they are fed. Along side this are parties run by marketing types. Once upon a time, MPs had to go out and speak to their voters. They got on stages, in towns, etc. and told people what they thought and what they would do, and the (in the main) meant it and believed in it - they actually stood for something and you could vote yeah or nay. Nowadays, they have marketing people who look at what might go down well, teach them to use weasel words and to look nice and as a result we have MPs who have no conviction in what they do - they just do what seems likely to keep things ticking over with no end target or purpose. Farage did not win because he won arguments - he won because he looked as if he believed in something and the opposition had no conviction politicians to stand up and argue back with the same passion. I still see no sign of that from Labour, Conservative or LibDem. (I can barely remember what the LibDem new leader looks like - they have become a joke since Clegg sold out in 2010 and sounded the death knell of his party.)

Be that as it may, while we might not have everything we want, we should defend the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive as the cost of not doing that is too high. We have had this system for 350+ years and it has kept the country fairly stable while broadly moving forwards (albeit with a way to go still) and relative stability is more valuable than some might realise.

You are spot on with the above. However, I just disagree slightly with the leaders having to get consent first before taking decisions in this case of triggering Article 50. Now, if the Prime Minister suddenly decided to trigger Article 50 under royal prerogative with no referendum then that is completely wrong and unlawful. However, in this case I believe consent was given when Parliament authorised the referendum and told the British electorate that they would enact whatever decision they took. To me, that is effectively Parliament giving consent to the Leader to enact the decision made by the voters which in this case happened to be to leave the EU.

However that is not to say that Parliament should not give its consent to the final deal. They of course should be consulted and vote for or against it. By allowing the referendum they in my opinion gave consent to triggering Article 50 as this was the only way to enact a leave vote but they have not given consent to the leader to accept any deal and enforce it on the electorate without their say.

[Coney]

You are spot on with the above. However, I just disagree slightly with the leaders having to get consent first before taking decisions in this case of triggering Article 50. Now, if the Prime Minister suddenly decided to trigger Article 50 under royal prerogative with no referendum then that is completely wrong and unlawful. However, in this case I believe consent was given when Parliament authorised the referendum and told the British electorate that they would enact whatever decision they took. To me, that is effectively Parliament giving consent to the Leader to enact the decision made by the voters which in this case happened to be to leave the EU.

However that is not to say that Parliament should not give its consent to the final deal. They of course should be consulted and vote for or against it. By allowing the referendum they in my opinion gave consent to triggering Article 50 as this was the only way to enact a leave vote but they have not given consent to the leader to accept any deal and enforce it on the electorate without their say.

What Cameron & Co should have done was to have the Article 50 trigger built into the referendum bill which parliament passed and then it would have not been an issue. However, Cameron and Co were smugly assuming they would win the vote so they did not do a full job on the referendum bill. Ironically, their right-wing mass media that normally supports the conservative party supported exit - in the case of the Daily Heil and the Daily Excess, using racism, xenophobia and various lies. After all, it is supposed to be a recession so you have to blame foreigners, minorities and other people so everyone is happy it was not their fault. The stupid brexiteers (more old than young) could not see that the reason for their problems was not the EU, it was the unfair excess that the rich have and the middle and lower income people being screwed by greedy Tories and their supporters who would rather have a tax cut they don't really need than have hospitals with enough beds to be able to handle patients. But in tough times, racism, xenophobia and excessive nationalism works a treat. Hitler, Stalin and now a number of European - and general Western - governments are all doing it.

[Niall_Quinn]

It is and it will make no difference really as parliament will vote to trigger Article 50 in the next few weeks so this whole case has been a complete waste of tax payers money and the government should never have taken it to the supreme court.

I have always believed that Parliament needs to be consulted on the final deal and have a vote on it, that is clearly the right thing to do. However, i am not sure why they need to vote to trigger Article 50 when they effectively had a vote to trigger it when they allowed the referendum to take place. I mean, what did they expect they would have to do if leave won? Indeed, both the Government and Parliament told us that they would implement our decision whichever way we voted which means a leave vote would trigger Article 50 as that is the only way to leave the EU.

That's the point isn't it? Parliament had its vote when it voted to send the decision to the British people. So all this rubbish about parliament needing to vote again, for what we already voted for, and then I guess vote on something else after that, and then something else, it's pretty obvious what it is. A delaying tactic while the Euro cronies try to change the landscape or frighten people into a reversal or watered down halfway house. Cunts like Blair openly admit as much. Arrogant fucking war criminal that he is. They have absolutely zero legitimacy in their request for any parliament intervention in the matter of whether we should withdraw or not. That has been decided and in the most democratic manner we have seen in many years. Not that that's a good or a bad thing, we could do a hell of a lot better than democracy, but if you make a set of rules and everyone agrees to play by them then stick to the fucking rules. It's interesting (and predictable) that the "progressives" have lost both landmark votes in 2016 and have been exposed as entirely anti-democratic after the event. The hypocrisy and arrogance drips from them, they simply can't conceive their fucked up political correctness, their mega state, their culture extinctions being brought about by their shitty, commie style lowest common denominator "equality" and forced multiculturalism, their environmental scams and general micro managed interference in the lives of private individuals are not all music to the ears of every last and, should they have their way, homogenised human being. I really think it has come as a massive shock to them to be told to fuck off.

[Letters]

By "all this rubbish" you mean British law?

[Niall_Quinn]

What Cameron & Co should have done was to have the Article 50 trigger built into the referendum bill which parliament passed and then it would have not been an issue. However, Cameron and Co were smugly assuming they would win the vote so they did not do a full job on the referendum bill. Ironically, their right-wing mass media that normally supports the conservative party supported exit - in the case of the Daily Heil and the Daily Excess, using racism, xenophobia and various lies. After all, it is supposed to be a recession so you have to blame foreigners, minorities and other people so everyone is happy it was not their fault. The stupid brexiteers (more old than young) could not see that the reason for their problems was not the EU, it was the unfair excess that the rich have and the middle and lower income people being screwed by greedy Tories and their supporters who would rather have a tax cut they don't really need than have hospitals with enough beds to be able to handle patients. But in tough times, racism, xenophobia and excessive nationalism works a treat. Hitler, Stalin and now a number of European - and general Western - governments are all doing it.

When will the cringeworthy stereotyping that pulls every trick to skirt and evade the main issue finally die, I wonder? Certainly neither the left nor the right here or in America seem to have learned the lesson of categorising everyone who doesn't agree with them (and their persistent string of failures) into one broad grouping. The Remain lot, who are easily recognised as a diverse coalition, need to get to grip with reality some time soon and realise there's a bit more to their protagonists than the stupid crayon drawings and paint daubing offered up to date.

[Niall_Quinn]

By "all this rubbish" you mean British law?

I mean in the context of the other 100 or so words.

[Letters]

Comic Sans!

http://newsthump.com/2017/01/25/brex...in-comic-sans/

[Power n Glory]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38753000

"When they're shooting, when they're chopping off the heads of our people and other people, when they're chopping off the heads of people because they happen to be a Christian in the Middle East, when Isis (IS) is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since Medieval times, would I feel strongly about waterboarding?" he asked.

"I have spoken with people at the highest level of intelligence and I asked them the question 'Does it work? Does torture work?' and the answer was 'Yes, absolutely'.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38753000

Because they are acting like atavistic savages it makes water boarding a successful way of eliciting true information

Whether he feels strongly about it is irrelevant, whether he feels using a pair of pliers to pull people's nails out or using jump leads on their nipples is fair game is irrelevant

The issue is a) whether it reveals accurate information or not b) does it put more American lives in danger in reprisal than it saves

[Power n Glory]

Because they are acting like atavistic savages it makes water boarding a successful way of eliciting true information

Whether he feels strongly about it is irrelevant, whether he feels using a pair of pliers to pull people's nails out or using jump leads on their nipples is fair game is irrelevant

The issue is a) whether it reveals accurate information or not b) does it put more American lives in danger in reprisal than it saves

Who are you responding to? Do hear voices in your own head when writing? I haven't attempted to form an argument on what Trump feels. Just left it up there blank with no comment.