Brexit Encore

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Nope. The point is that if an election were called it would allow a No Deal exit without anyone being able to stop it  If you want to comment on UK politics it's a good idea to read up a bit first.

Oh, shut up! How is that different from what I said?

[jeremyrh]

Oh, shut up! How is that different from what I said?

You said that a vote of NC and he is gone, but that's not the objective. The first objective is to stop No Deal.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You said that a vote of NC and he is gone, but that's not the objective. The first objective is to stop No Deal.

I said the vote would lead to a new election, which might give him a new majority, thus the ability to do a hard Brexit, if need be.

[Alan Klein]

The Supreme Court is merely the result of separating the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which had existed for centuries, from the upper chamber of the legislature and giving it its own building and rules. All the members of the Committee became members of the SC when it was formed.

You don't attribute your quotations and it's easy to see why the authors would wish to remain anonymous.

The formation of the SC had nothing whatever to do with the ECHR or the EU. It was an idea dreamed up by Tony Blair one dull evening, based on his half-baked understanding of Montesquieu and lack of any sense of history or tradition, just as was his meddling with the ancient role of Lord Chancellor and creation of Lord Speaker (he wasn't even aware, when naming it, that the Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales had existed since 1875). It's not clear what your third anonymous source means by "such institutions", but he's clearly as ignorant of the British constitution as, well, some Americans who enjoy pontificating here on topics of which they know little and understand less.

Jeremy

Here is the opinion piece in the New York Times that I quoted.  Sorry.  I usually include links for accuracy and completeness of my posts. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html

I understand your frustration about Americans giving opinions on British law, customs, etc.  We get it from Britishers and other foreigners and often feel just like you?   

[Rob C]

I said the vote would lead to a new election, which might give him a new majority, thus the ability to do a hard Brexit, if need be.

But the reasons for the conscious delaying to Brexit without a deal are obvious: it would be catastrophic for Britain. MPs may well be elected by idiots as well as by very intelligent people, but by and large, I think that they are far more aware of the realities than are many so-called men and women in the street. They have to be; it's their job to be plugged in.

I am reassured - to some extent - by the fact that not all of them are willing to opt for instant popularity in the eyes of a slim majority of voter by madly going along with a course of action that is suicidal. Someone said, and I'm sorry not to remember who it was, that having the no-deal exit as a kind of bargaining tool, thinking of it as such, was equivalent to standing on the edge of a canyon and yelling at the people on the opposite side of said canyon, that unless they give you what you want you are going to jump. In essence, that is not a particularly clever bargaining tool; its removal is, in fact, a signal that you are actually a reasonable, realistic person with whom to negotiate. Do you see?

Sadly, as shown by BoJo's theatrics of hatred yesterday, there are those who are so blinded by hubris and the lust for power and that curious desire to go down "in the history books" and leave a public "legacy" behind them that they are blinded to the harm they are causing.

As I have said already today, I really do feel BoJo is not a well man.

Much of my problem with Brexit is personal due to my situation as a resident abroad with much to lose; that in no way excludes my concern for the damage and chaos that will land upon the shoulders of my family members still living in Britain, should this disaster come to pass. I am old and sitting in the departure lounge; they are not. And neither are all of the almost 50% of Brits who voted to stay with the status quo. How easily they are rendered to cyphers with the constant quoting of the number that did vote to go, when there is practically no difference at all, a mere 2% both sides of 50% marking the difference.

[Rob C]

You said that a vote of NC and he is gone, but that's not the objective. The first objective is to stop No Deal.

Exactly; it's the most important existential crisis the country faces. A shame so many fail to understand that. I think of the stream of people saying the peope voted to leave; yes, they did, but they voted on a premise that was nothing but a pack of lies. When, as now, the truth is out, is it sane to continue along such a path that's based on deceit? That is not obeying the "will of the people", that is abandoning responsibility to the four winds.

An election that might return the same pack of liers or, worse, a combination government consisting of two such groups, one a single-issue party, makes for even more horrific a situation than the present one.

An election in this climate is the very last thing Britain can afford.

Frankly, only Libs have anything to offer the country, and that's the rescinding of the whole daft process. What they may offer beyond that is not necessarily wonderful.

[Alan Klein]

I'm still confused.   Can parliament reverse Brexit? If so,  why aren't they? If they disagree with the public referendum,  just vote to reverse.   The SC have them 3 extra weeks to find the courrage.

[Chairman Bill]

It is worth noting the comments of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's sister, that a number of financial backers are betting significant amounts of money on him delivering a No Deal Brexit. As always, follow the money.

[faberryman]

I'm still confused.

It happens when you don't educate yourself. But we all know you would rather blow your brains out that do even the bare minimum of background reading.

[Chris Kern]

I'm still confused.

It happens when you don't educate yourself.

It will be a sad, sad, day indeed, sir, when everybody participating in an Internet forum shall be expected to know something about a subject before inflicting his opinions with respect to it on the other participants.

[Alan Klein]

It happens when you don't educate yourself. But we all know you would rather blow your brains out that do even the bare minimum of background reading.

Bare minimum?  You wanted me to read a 10 page essay on the subject.   Reading my camera manual would be less tortuous. 😏

[faberryman]

Bare minimum?  You wanted me to read a 10 page essay on the subject.   Reading my camera manual would be less tortuous. 😏

I assume you haven't read it either.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It will be a sad, sad, day indeed, sir, when everybody participating in an Internet forum shall be expected to know something about a subject before inflicting his opinions with respect to it on the other participants.

Chris, you are a rare level-headed guy among us, so you are forgiven for occasional sniping like the above, but the question Alan asked has nothing to do with “knowing the subject.” When someone asks a question, they don’t need to know the answer already, that’s exactly what asking is for.

Therefore, the answer is that of course the parliament can reverse the Brexit. Except there isn’t enough votes for that.

[Robert Roaldi]

Here is the opinion piece in the New York Times that I quoted.  Sorry.  I usually include links for accuracy and completeness of my posts. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html

Hey wait, I thought the New York Times was Fake News. Is it only sometimes Fake then?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hey wait, I thought the New York Times was Fake News. Is it only sometimes Fake then?

If you guys learned anything from Goebbels, it is that the best propaganda is composed from truths, semi-truths, and outright lies. So, yes, the NYT can occasionally publish something truthful.

[Robert Roaldi]

If you guys learned anything from Goebbels, it is that the best propaganda is composed from truths, semi-truths, and outright lies. So, yes, the NYT can occasionally publish something truthful.

Your schtick just slays me. Don't ever change.

[Alan Klein]

Chris, you are a rare level-headed guy among us, so you are forgiven for occasional sniping like the above, but the question Alan asked has nothing to do with “knowing the subject.” When someone asks a question, they don’t need to know the answer already, that’s exactly what asking is for.

Therefore, the answer is that of course the parliament can reverse the Brexit. Except there isn’t enough votes for that.

Thanks for the the support.  Yes, Chris is an OK guy who I count on giving good knowledgeable analysis.  PS:  I often ask a question not to get an answer that I already know,  It's a rhetorical question just to stir debate.  But I'm also not afraid to ask a question that I don;t know the answer too.  There are a lot of smart people here who can provide the truth about things.  Well, sometimes.

So if Parliament wants Brexit and the people want Brexit, what's holding it up? All this stuff with the SC and wringing of hands is just show.  They got to get on with it.  Make the best deal they can with the EU and move on. 

[Alan Klein]

Hey wait, I thought the New York Times was Fake News. Is it only sometimes Fake then?

Robert, Click on the link again,  Notice at the top it says OPINION.  That's because it's OPINION, not news.  It's part of the Op-Ed page where opinion pieces are located.  The paper invites outside people to submit opinion pieces that they publish.  In full disclosure, the writer of the OPINION is Christopher Caldwell an American journalist and senior editor at The Weekly Standard, as well as a regular contributor to the Financial Times and Slate.  The Standard is a conservative, Republican leaning publication.

"Fake news" refers to the news section where you would ordinarily expect unbiased reporting.  It's there that the NY TImes slants the news in their liberal, pro-Democratic party, anti-Trump way.  It's a shame.  Although they always have been biased in their news, it's never been so obvious and one-sided as recently.  They've sold their soul for political power.   They've lost their way. 
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/boris-johnson-supreme-court.html

[jeremyrh]

I said the vote would lead to a new election, which might give him a new majority, thus the ability to do a hard Brexit, if need be.

So boring. You said:

That would mean a new election and a possibility that Leavers would prevail, again

But the point (as I said, and as you'd know if you learned a bit about what you comment on with such arrogance) is that the election ITSELF would lead to No Deal, REGARDLESS OF WHO WON.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the election ITSELF would lead to No Deal, REGARDLESS OF WHO WON.

Can you explain, please? Preferably without condescension. We are here to help each other understand. If I said something incorrectly, you could simply correct it, so that we can all learn.