Apparently today's march has a credible claim to be the largest protest in British history - up there with the march against the Iraq war in 2003 (which sadly didn't change a damn thing at the...
Apparently today's march has a credible claim to be the largest protest in British history - up there with the march against the Iraq war in 2003 (which sadly didn't change a damn thing at the time).
There's also a petition on the official government portal calling for Article 50 to be revoked which is currently closing towards 5M signatures. Whether any of it will make a difference remains to be seen, but it's chipping away at the "will of the people" argument that many politicians are still hiding behind.
it won't. they'll just claim it's all remainers anyways and therefore it's not the will of the people expressing itself in a way that can credibly establish that the people don't want brexit.
it won't. they'll just claim it's all remainers anyways and therefore it's not the will of the people expressing itself in a way that can credibly establish that the people don't want brexit.
A one off march won't change anything, unfortunately. What was needed was a sizeable number of people on the streets, somewhere in the region of 10k in my opinion, every weekend since the first...
A one off march won't change anything, unfortunately. What was needed was a sizeable number of people on the streets, somewhere in the region of 10k in my opinion, every weekend since the first hint of dodgy dealings within the Leave campaign.
A one off event is very easy to gloss over or dismiss.
As for the petition, that may get a passing mention in the chamber, but is also easily ignored and dismissed.
So while I'm glad millions of voices are making themselves I don't see anything other than a few platitudes from government coming from it, sadly.
It would be lovely if proof that an election was held on the basis of false or fraudulent premises could trigger a systematic process to hold a new election (American, so I'm not just addressing...
It would be lovely if proof that an election was held on the basis of false or fraudulent premises could trigger a systematic process to hold a new election (American, so I'm not just addressing Brexit...).
The breathtaking falsehoods uttered by the Leave campaign, the evidence of Russian influence, the dark money revelations... you'd think that this would be sufficient.
Very much so. I've heard it said a few times that one reason the Brexit vote specifically wasn't annulled is that it was technically an advisory referendum, and had it been a binding vote it would...
The breathtaking falsehoods uttered by the Leave campaign, the evidence of Russian influence, the dark money revelations... you'd think that this would be sufficient.
Very much so. I've heard it said a few times that one reason the Brexit vote specifically wasn't annulled is that it was technically an advisory referendum, and had it been a binding vote it would have been subject to greater legal requirements. Unfortunately I can't find any primary sources to back this up, though, so I can't say for certain that this was the reasoning - although the illegal actions of the leave campaign were exposed in court and are a matter of public record.
Interesting thought - I've considered the same thing before. There was an AMA with Al Gore where someone asked why he accepted GWB stealing the 2000 election. He said something along the lines of,...
Interesting thought - I've considered the same thing before. There was an AMA with Al Gore where someone asked why he accepted GWB stealing the 2000 election. He said something along the lines of, after the Supreme Court the next step is violent revolution. It seems like there should be some kind of body to police elections and call new ones if necessary, but wouldn't that be in itself kind of anti-democratic? The principal that we elect our most powerful leaders is a strong one. Having such a body be elected just runs into the same issues we have now. Having that body be appointed runs into the issues we have with the Supreme Court.
The UK technically has this in the (totally undemocratic) form of the monarchy, but I hate to think what would happen if they ever actually invoked the power to dissolve parliament in modern...
The UK technically has this in the (totally undemocratic) form of the monarchy, but I hate to think what would happen if they ever actually invoked the power to dissolve parliament in modern times. Perhaps in a clear "people vs government" situation it could help, but the issues we see now tend to carry large proportions of the population with propaganda, meaning that even if objective justice is done there will be a lot of people very angry about being on the losing side.
The Crown can't dissolve Parliament any more, even in theory (in practice it's been impossible for a long time). The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 took away that theoretical power. All her Maj...
The Crown can't dissolve Parliament any more, even in theory (in practice it's been impossible for a long time). The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 took away that theoretical power.
All her Maj can do any more is "act contrary to Ministerial advice" in the case of "grave constitutional crisis" but nobody seems to really know what that means. She can refuse to sign laws but I can't see her doing that unless things get really really bad. In which case having her around as a final sanity check is probably a good thing.
not strictly. i think it generally works as long as the body which has oversight is fairly nonpartisan. kenya, for example, has a much less partisan supreme court, and it basically has the ability...
It seems like there should be some kind of body to police elections and call new ones if necessary, but wouldn't that be in itself kind of anti-democratic?
not strictly. i think it generally works as long as the body which has oversight is fairly nonpartisan. kenya, for example, has a much less partisan supreme court, and it basically has the ability to annul elections--a power which it used to invalidate the 2017 presidential election and call a new one (although the opposition candidate to kenyatta all but dropped out and kenyatta therefore won the repeat election 98-2). you probably couldn't do this same thing in america, because it'd all end up party line votes.
I was listening to a speech May made to parliament and a point that constantly seems to come up is this idea that not following through would shake the very foundation of democracy, as it's what...
I was listening to a speech May made to parliament and a point that constantly seems to come up is this idea that not following through would shake the very foundation of democracy, as it's what the people voted for. But this just feels like a strawman, yes the people voted for Brexit but a perfect, imaginary Brexit that's not possible. A re-vote should not be dismissed so easily.
Apparently today's march has a credible claim to be the largest protest in British history - up there with the march against the Iraq war in 2003 (which sadly didn't change a damn thing at the time).
There's also a petition on the official government portal calling for Article 50 to be revoked which is currently closing towards 5M signatures. Whether any of it will make a difference remains to be seen, but it's chipping away at the "will of the people" argument that many politicians are still hiding behind.
it won't. they'll just claim it's all remainers anyways and therefore it's not the will of the people expressing itself in a way that can credibly establish that the people don't want brexit.
A one off march won't change anything, unfortunately. What was needed was a sizeable number of people on the streets, somewhere in the region of 10k in my opinion, every weekend since the first hint of dodgy dealings within the Leave campaign.
A one off event is very easy to gloss over or dismiss.
As for the petition, that may get a passing mention in the chamber, but is also easily ignored and dismissed.
So while I'm glad millions of voices are making themselves I don't see anything other than a few platitudes from government coming from it, sadly.
It would be lovely if proof that an election was held on the basis of false or fraudulent premises could trigger a systematic process to hold a new election (American, so I'm not just addressing Brexit...).
The breathtaking falsehoods uttered by the Leave campaign, the evidence of Russian influence, the dark money revelations... you'd think that this would be sufficient.
Very much so. I've heard it said a few times that one reason the Brexit vote specifically wasn't annulled is that it was technically an advisory referendum, and had it been a binding vote it would have been subject to greater legal requirements. Unfortunately I can't find any primary sources to back this up, though, so I can't say for certain that this was the reasoning - although the illegal actions of the leave campaign were exposed in court and are a matter of public record.
[Edit] A couple of long and in depth pieces on the legality, if anyone is interested. It's an openly biased/opinionated source, and not a primary one, but well written by an expert in the field:
http://www.brexitshambles.com/the-legal-loophole-that-defies-democracy-in-britain/
http://www.brexitshambles.com/dr-robert-c-palmer-explains-the-significance-of-the-wilson-case-and-the-intriguing-law-behind-it/
Interesting thought - I've considered the same thing before. There was an AMA with Al Gore where someone asked why he accepted GWB stealing the 2000 election. He said something along the lines of, after the Supreme Court the next step is violent revolution. It seems like there should be some kind of body to police elections and call new ones if necessary, but wouldn't that be in itself kind of anti-democratic? The principal that we elect our most powerful leaders is a strong one. Having such a body be elected just runs into the same issues we have now. Having that body be appointed runs into the issues we have with the Supreme Court.
The UK technically has this in the (totally undemocratic) form of the monarchy, but I hate to think what would happen if they ever actually invoked the power to dissolve parliament in modern times. Perhaps in a clear "people vs government" situation it could help, but the issues we see now tend to carry large proportions of the population with propaganda, meaning that even if objective justice is done there will be a lot of people very angry about being on the losing side.
The Crown can't dissolve Parliament any more, even in theory (in practice it's been impossible for a long time). The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 took away that theoretical power.
All her Maj can do any more is "act contrary to Ministerial advice" in the case of "grave constitutional crisis" but nobody seems to really know what that means. She can refuse to sign laws but I can't see her doing that unless things get really really bad. In which case having her around as a final sanity check is probably a good thing.
not strictly. i think it generally works as long as the body which has oversight is fairly nonpartisan. kenya, for example, has a much less partisan supreme court, and it basically has the ability to annul elections--a power which it used to invalidate the 2017 presidential election and call a new one (although the opposition candidate to kenyatta all but dropped out and kenyatta therefore won the repeat election 98-2). you probably couldn't do this same thing in america, because it'd all end up party line votes.
I was listening to a speech May made to parliament and a point that constantly seems to come up is this idea that not following through would shake the very foundation of democracy, as it's what the people voted for. But this just feels like a strawman, yes the people voted for Brexit but a perfect, imaginary Brexit that's not possible. A re-vote should not be dismissed so easily.
They shouldn't even bother with a re-vote, just cancel Brexit and be done with it. Why do something we know to be damaging?