The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[Peter Kelford]

It is very unwise to tell people you don't know what will or will not happen to their lives. Don't do it.

Also, 'not ruining lives' is a fantastically low bar to set.

What about making people poor. Is that not

Bit of a goal post move for Brexit that! From overwhelming positives to at least it won't ruin lives!

With emphasis on ruin. Ruin in the Cambridge dictionary emphasises 'complete'. So a very low bar to set if a young lawyer on £30 000 per annum and a bright future of promotion and a family to feed ends up on a minimum wage job for 50 hours a week. That is worrying.

 

[43066]

- a benign and stable democracy; - Johnson has already begun undermining the foundations of that. The Supreme Court, the independece of the Media, and Gerymandering the voting system have all been anounced. - Plus todays announcement that certain sections of the workforce are going to have their right to withhold labour removed. Combined with democratic illigitamcy of 43% of the vote winning 56% of the seats. I question that assumption. The UK certainly does not meet the full seperation of powers given the Legislator and the Executive are effectively one and the same once the Prime Minister has a big enough majority. Several times the UK has been described as an elected dictatorship because of the over-riding power held by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Monach.

Gerrymandering takes place by all victorious parties. Johnson is quite entitled to criticise the Supreme Court which has arguably begun to allow political motivations to cloud its judgement. Lady Hale’s obvious dig at Johnson by referring to herself as a “Girly Swot” was completely inappropriate for someone in her position.

As for an “elected dictatorship”, that’s arguably an advantage of FPTP as it enables a strong government to implement its agenda without interference. If you happen to disagree with that agenda that’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t make the system any less valid.

I would suggest an “elected dictatorship”, as you describe it, is infinitely preferable to what we have had for years: a weak government, hamstrung by its opponents in Parliament, completely unable to get anything done.

The % of voters electing a government is a valid criticism of FPTP, but what is your answer to the fact that the U.K. public itself is clearly happy with that system, as evidenced with the fact they voted to retain it?

- a well established legal system (that has been copied around the world); Copied and improved upon. Once again, as above you seem to be on the verge of loosing this. You might personally realise how lucky you are, but do enough people realise to do something about it as the pillars start getting eroded. - You also soon won't have the backup of the European Union to hold your government to account, as they have attempted to do with Hungary and Poland.

I’m not sure I’ve seen any evidence of erosion of the U.K. legal system - what specifically are you thinking of?

The last thing I would ever want is for the EU to start interfering in this area - the UK’s legal system should be determined by the Government elected by the U.K. electorate, and nobody else - certainly not a federalist political project comprised of foreign countries, which does not have the UK’s best interest’s at heart.

Once again, your argument seems to be that the UK system is imperfect, so we should rely on some other power to sort it out for us rather than changing it ourselves.

- freedom of speech, and respect for individual liberty, you won’t “disappear” if you criticise the government; - Once again for how long, The BBC and Channel 4 are already in the crosshairs. Experts, Liberals, remainers and socialists are all being targetted. And I am not sure everyone would agree that you won't 'disappear', It may not be as widespread as in some places, but there are certainly instances where suspision around deaths is very close to the establishment and security services.

I disagree that any of the groups you mention above are being “targeted” - rather they are being disagreed with and challenged through the democratic process.

The relevant comparison here is with places like North Korea, China, Russia, many states in the Middle East (and many others) where there is absolutely no freedom of speech, and indeed speaking out against the authorities risks life and limb.

It should go without saying that the U.K. is indisputably a “free country” in comparison.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Gerrymandering takes place by all victorious parties.

It takes place by some unethical victorious parties. And from memory, usually in the UK by the Conservative party. I don't recall the Blair Government engaging in any gerrymandering.

Johnson is quite entitled to criticise the Supreme Court which has arguably begun to allow political motivations to cloud its judgement.

I don't see any sign of that alleged political motivation. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether Boris Johnson had exceeded his powers. It considered what the law was and decided that he had. It would be a very sad day for democracy if the courts were unable to intervene when the Government (or individuals in the Government) do things that are unlawful.

Are you sure you're not falling into the trap of accusing the Supreme Court of getting into politics purely because you don't like which way their judgement went?

I would suggest an “elected dictatorship”, as you describe it, is infinitely preferable to what we have had for years: a weak government, hamstrung by its opponents in Parliament, completely unable to get anything done.

This is utter rubbish. Being a minority Government does not mean you can't get anything done. It simply means you have to pay more attention to what is achievable given the make-up of Parliament. Both Theresa May and Boris Johnson's Government could have done loads of things. Sorting out some investment, those increases in police numbers or those new hospitals that Boris keeps going on about - you can be pretty certain that those would've easily passed through the Commons. Either he or Theresa May could have even delivered Brexit without much trouble if they'd simply been prepared to compromise more about the Brexit deal, or about having a 2nd referendum to confirm their deal was what the public wanted. Instead, both Governments chose to box themselves in by refusing any compromise. And I rather suspect Boris was maliciously refusing to compromise because he thought (correctly) that it was in his interests to engineer an election.

 

[muz379]

I subsequently amended that to state I meant that threshold in inflation adjusted times. Those are modest property prices in London.



Totally disagree - as I say they are modest values in London.

Interesting , as I said , despite your impression less than 5% of deaths currently result inheritance tax being due .

Dispute being part of the top 5% as you wish . But you'll just end up looking like that fool on QT who claimed not to be

 

[Peter Kelford]

I don't see any sign of that alleged political motivation. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether Boris Johnson had exceeded his powers. It considered what the law was and decided that he had. It would be a very sad day for democracy if the courts were unable to intervene when the Government (or individuals in the Government) do things that are unlawful.

Are you sure you're not falling into the trap of accusing the Supreme Court of getting into politics purely because you don't like which way their judgement went?

Gerrymandering takes place by all victorious parties. Johnson is quite entitled to criticise the Supreme Court which has arguably begun to allow political motivations to cloud its judgement. Lady Hale’s obvious dig at Johnson by referring to herself as a “Girly Swot” was completely inappropriate for someone in her position.

Don't forget that other countries have entire courts dedicated to such purposes. There is nothing inherently wrong with the court intervening in the government upon the behest of a plaintiff whom they deem to have a prima facie case. That is, at the end of the day, what the separation of powers is about.

The % of voters electing a government is a valid criticism of FPTP, but what is your answer to the fact that the U.K. public itself is clearly happy with that system, as evidenced with the fact they voted to retain it?

And therefore the populace voted for Brexit out of intelligent, well-informed and rational thought? I think not. A few slogans are enough to sway the majority of non-political voters, who make up the bulk of the electorate but have little understanding and care to have little understanding of politics.

Once again, your argument seems to be that the UK system is imperfect, so we should rely on some other power to sort it out for us rather than changing it ourselves.

It is inherently in the interests of the British Haute bourgeoisie to not sort it out.

It should go without saying that the U.K. is indisputably a “free country” in comparison.

To compare with the countries you speak of would imply that you think we are on the same level as them. That belief itself shows a problem with our democracy. We should be comparing with EU countries. An example of this if someone continually compares their arithmetic skills with a toddler who has just grasped the fact that 1+1=2, then they can say that they are a prodigy, but are they?

This is utter rubbish. Being a minority Government does not mean you can't get anything done. It simply means you have to pay more attention to what is achievable given the make-up of Parliament. Both Theresa May and Boris Johnson's Government could have done loads of things. Sorting out some investment, those increases in police numbers or those new hospitals that Boris keeps going on about - you can be pretty certain that those would've easily passed through the Commons. Either he or Theresa May could have even delivered Brexit without much trouble if they'd simply been prepared to compromise more about the Brexit deal, or about having a 2nd referendum to confirm their deal was what the public wanted. Instead, both Governments chose to box themselves in by refusing any compromise. And I rather suspect Boris was maliciously refusing to compromise because he thought (correctly) that it was in his interests to engineer an election.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

a weak government, hamstrung by its opponents in Parliament, completely unable to get anything done.

Coalitions and alliances are a matter of daily life for many other countries. These countries still get things done, are you saying that Germany should get a dictator?

 

[DarloRich]

The evil Tory Blair has been in the media attacking the sainted Jeremy. He had the nerve to say:

The research, entitled Northern Discomfort, identifies Mr Corbyn's leadership and the "politics he represents" as the main cause of the "rupture with long-held loyalties" and the alienation felt by many traditional Labour voters.

Other factors it cites for the "unthinkable losses" suffered by Labour were concerns over a lack of economic credibility in its public spending and renationalisation proposals, the leadership's stance on security issues and a feeling the party had not done enough to root out "extremism".

Typical of the Zionist MSM to cover this kind of reactionary attack ( or something)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50829352

 

[underbank]

This is utter rubbish. Being a minority Government does not mean you can't get anything done. It simply means you have to pay more attention to what is achievable given the make-up of Parliament. Both Theresa May and Boris Johnson's Government could have done loads of things.

In the same way that the Tory/LibDem coalition govt "got things done"? But that was a fudge that didn't really work. We had conflicting tax changes with each party trading their policies against eachother. Ultimately, the compromises cost Clegg dearly because he had to sacrifice some principles/promises to "get things done". Giving in to the opposition as you suggest makes a leader look weak and the voters always punish weak leaders.

 

[underbank]

Coalitions and alliances are a matter of daily life for many other countries.

Because that's the norm in other countries and usually has been for long periods of time so their Parliaments are set up for it, politicians are used to working that way, etc. In the UK we have a history of single party rule. The Tory/Libdem coalition is now widely regarded as a failure. The DUP propping up May is now regarded as a failure. Our Parliament and politicians aren't accustomed to "working together". It would need a very big change throughout Westminster to get the politicians, civil servants, etc., in the mindset of co-operation rather than confrontation. The Houses of Parliament themselves are set up for confrontation, being face-to-face rather than the more modern approach of a circular/semi circular layout. I watch the Parliament BBC channel a lot and the committees are actually very co-operative and far less adversarial, incidentally, sitting in a semi circular configuration.

Sadly our politicians are "hard wired" to disagree with the opposing party - it's regarded as a sign of weakness if there is agreement. All aided and abbetted by the ridiculous whip system of instructing MPs how to vote. That has taken away their ability to think for themselves. If you look back 30 or 40 years, the calibre of MPs was generally far higher. They thought for themselves. Many would read every line of a report or a proposed law and bring up valid points/arguments in Parliament based on the fine detail, which often would get properly debated and corrected if necessary. Now the MPs are given bullet point summaries or just instructed to vote in a certain way for a new law. No wonder so many laws are passed which glaring loopholes and anomalies - they're not being properly considered by MPs. (My observations are based entirely on tax related laws as that's my profession - in recent times, so truly stupid laws have been passed which would never had been had people bothered to read and try to understand the wording of the legislation - that simply wouldn't have happened 30/40 years ago as there were several MPs who would read every line of the proposed legislation and highlight the problems before it even became law).

 

[nlogax]

Sadly our politicians are "hard wired" to disagree with the opposing party - it's regarded as a sign of weakness if there is agreement. All aided and abbetted by the ridiculous whip system of instructing MPs how to vote.

Agree. Partially due to the 2016 referendum, Consensus politics is a thing of the past in the UK. Unless it's to specifically demonstrate a national united reaction or position to a major event (terrorism or major loss of life for instance) the perception is that agreement and cooperation across the chamber are being increasingly eschewed.

 

[Senex]

Because that's the norm in other countries and usually has been for long periods of time so their Parliaments are set up for it, politicians are used to working that way, etc. In the UK we have a history of single party rule. The Tory/Libdem coalition is now widely regarded as a failure. The DUP propping up May is now regarded as a failure. Our Parliament and politicians aren't accustomed to "working together". It would need a very big change throughout Westminster to get the politicians, civil servants, etc., in the mindset of co-operation rather than confrontation. The Houses of Parliament themselves are set up for confrontation, being face-to-face rather than the more modern approach of a circular/semi circular layout. I watch the Parliament BBC channel a lot and the committees are actually very co-operative and far less adversarial, incidentally, sitting in a semi circular configuration.

Sadly our politicians are "hard wired" to disagree with the opposing party - it's regarded as a sign of weakness if there is agreement. All aided and abbetted by the ridiculous whip system of instructing MPs how to vote. That has taken away their ability to think for themselves. If you look back 30 or 40 years, the calibre of MPs was generally far higher. They thought for themselves. Many would read every line of a report or a proposed law and bring up valid points/arguments in Parliament based on the fine detail, which often would get properly debated and corrected if necessary. Now the MPs are given bullet point summaries or just instructed to vote in a certain way for a new law. No wonder so many laws are passed which glaring loopholes and anomalies - they're not being properly considered by MPs. (My observations are based entirely on tax related laws as that's my profession - in recent times, so truly stupid laws have been passed which would never had been had people bothered to read and try to understand the wording of the legislation - that simply wouldn't have happened 30/40 years ago as there were several MPs who would read every line of the proposed legislation and highlight the problems before it even became law).

And how many of Britain's, particularly England's, many problems—whether Brexit v. Remain, what to do about social care, injustices in the courts, or even the way the parents were treated in the latest NHS scandal reported this morning from Yarmouth—are down to our commitment to an adversarial system rather than an inquisitorial system in all possible areas? The British on the whole believe that truth emerges from binary confrontation—"I'm right and you're wrong" has to mean "you're entirely wrong and you've completely lost the argument". Our politicians and our lawyers are the most committed exponents of this adversarial system. In politics, couple it with first-past-the-post and you have a recipe for just two strong parties at opposite ends of the spectrum slogging it out with each other, winner taking it all, and the state rocking from one set of policies to another quite different one every so often with all the expense and disturbance that creates. Have we really nothing to learn from the inquisitorial tradition, where investigators seek together to establish truth? Less chance for the sort of grand-standing our politicians and lawyers so love, but perhaps much more chance of getting to solutions that can carry majority support and last through a number of parliaments.
I think the point about the layout of houses of parliament is a strong one: I believe it is said to derive from old ecclesiastical practice where the two sides answer to each other in antiphonal chanting. But when transferred to secular use it does indeed set things up for confrontation and encourage the notion that there can be just two sides. And the the very terms "government" and "(loyal) opposition" suggest that the function of one side is simply to try and say no to everything the other side suggests. The semi-circular chamber at least suggests some common interests. Maybe there's the strongest reason why the state should not spend billions on restoring the C19 Palace of Westminster with its antiquated layouts but should provide a modern and much more appropriate building somewhere else.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Every region voted to leave, except London, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In none of the regions whatsoever was the result "strongly Leave," and I say that as someone who is pro-Brexit.

Thinking especially of the South West which has traditionally been Lib Dem, mainly Devon, Cornwall and Somerset. In 2010, a quarter of Lib Dem seats were in the South West and West Country. They had some seats like Bath and Bristol West that were Remain areas and indeed, they lost, won and have retained the former.

However, look at their other seats...

In Cornwall, they had three seats but Cornwall voted Leave by 56.5%

• North Cornwall
• St Austell & Newquay
• St Ives

In Devon, they had two seats that both heavily voted Leave

• Torbay - voted Leave by 63.2%
• North Devon - voted Leave by 57%

In Somerset, it was more mixed with South Somerset (mainly Yeovil) being a heavy Leave by 57.9%. Somerton & Frome straddles both Mendip and South Somerset so hard to say whilst Taunton was Leave 52.9% whilst Wells (in Mendip) voted Remain by 51.1%.

So whilst I appreciate what you're saying and some of the seats like Thornbury or Bristol East or Cheltenham, they could have had a chance with a Remainer ticket, they had no chance in the areas where traditionally have been strong.

Also, might be one for the Lib Dem thread

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How would you feel if your country had done what it has done to me?

I think it does reflect badly on you.

The country hasn't done anything malevolent to you. We vote according to our personal views. I have friends who voted Leave, or voted (with a heavy heart) Conservative. They did DO anything to me. They voted according to their consciences. Should I break off contact with them.... of course not.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I took the oppurtunity to leave and am now happily settled in an EU country. It wasn't just a Brexit thing, I had it in my mind to leave anyway to live with my Girlfriend. But Brexit was the straw that snapped it and the decision for me to move here rather than her move to the UK was made. A redundancy package gave me the oppurtunity to wrap up my life and move. This country is far from perfect, but there was no way I was going to tie my prosperity and that of my Girlfriend to the sinking ship UK. I can honestly say it has been the best decisions of my life. I moved from one of those run down ex industrial towns in the North that nearly fell to the Tories last week, to a cosmopolitan city where the cost of living is a fraction of what it was in the UK. Yes the wages are a little lower, but my relative disposable income and quality of life have improved 10 fold. It is all about perspective, and this is what those who voted leave in these places don't understand. That oppurtunity is currently open to all of them, int he future it will only be open to the rich who can afford it. However they would rather throw it all away because a couple of Eastern European's have the same oppurtunity and their 4 o-level passes can no longer make them feel superior than the Romanian builder who speaks decent English. English is the most widely spoken language across the whole of Europe, it is the language of business and people are desperate to learn it and practice it. But instead of using this they would rather take it away from others.

It is looking like Johnson is going to push for his deal rather than no deal. That gives you a further 12 months. My advice, would be, irrespective of your age, if you want to get out - Do it. Leave, or at least make serious considerations about doing it. Take the oppurtunity whilst you can. 12 months is time to get everything in place, I managed to get everything sorted in about 3-6 months.

The UK, might have a bright and prosperous future ahead of it. If it does, good luck to it. But it is not a future I want to be a part of, and by the sounds of it neither do you.

And it's great you can do that. However, some of us have ties that bind us - elderly parents, children. I am a Europhile, and I voted Remain and it pains me to think that we voted to come out. I don't blame the electorate though. I blame our politicians - that they were very happy to blame Europe for all of the ills, that Cameron called the referendum, and Corbyn for his lukewarm approach to remaining.

Imagine if the major unions, the major political leaders, had come out and actively pushed for a Remain but no, Corbyn and McCluskey especially couldn't do that.

 

[radamfi]

I think it does reflect badly on you.

The country hasn't done anything malevolent to you. We vote according to our personal views. I have friends who voted Leave, or voted (with a heavy heart) Conservative. They did DO anything to me. They voted according to their consciences. Should I break off contact with them.... of course not.

You seriously condone their behaviour? I would have nothing to do with them. If they were decent people they would not ruin people's lives the way they have done. I don't have any Brexiteer friends.

 

[Cowley]

You seriously condone their behaviour? I would have nothing to do with them. If they were decent people they would not ruin people's lives the way they have done. I don't have any Brexiteer friends.

That is absolutely ridiculous. What if one of your children (I’ve no idea if you have any) voted leave? Would you cut them out of your life..?

 

[radamfi]

That is absolutely ridiculous. What if one of your children (I’ve no idea if you have any) voted leave? Would you cut them out of your life..?

I would never have children but I would disown them if they voted Leave.

 

[AlterEgo]

Meanwhile, back in the real world - Blair said that Labour was "marooned on fantasy island": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50834252 - Labour seem to be having difficulty processing the aftermath.

Long-Bailey, a complete idiot, seems to be the frontrunner for the leadership at the moment.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't see any sign of that alleged political motivation. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether Boris Johnson had exceeded his powers. It considered what the law was and decided that he had. It would be a very sad day for democracy if the courts were unable to intervene when the Government (or individuals in the Government) do things that are unlawful.

Are you sure you're not falling into the trap of accusing the Supreme Court of getting into politics purely because you don't like which way their judgement went?

I thought the Supreme Court judgment was sensible and prevented Johnson from overreaching his mandate, but even so, their willingness to contravene the principle in the Bill of Rights was an act of constitutional vandalism. Effectively, the Supreme Court sought to protect the monarch from poor advice and essentially give its own advice to the monarch. That isn't what a final court of appeal should be doing.

 

[notlob.divad]

Because that's the norm in other countries and usually has been for long periods of time so their Parliaments are set up for it, politicians are used to working that way, etc. In the UK we have a history of single party rule. The Tory/Libdem coalition is now widely regarded as a failure. The DUP propping up May is now regarded as a failure. Our Parliament and politicians aren't accustomed to "working together". It would need a very big change throughout Westminster to get the politicians, civil servants, etc., in the mindset of co-operation rather than confrontation. The Houses of Parliament themselves are set up for confrontation, being face-to-face rather than the more modern approach of a circular/semi circular layout. I watch the Parliament BBC channel a lot and the committees are actually very co-operative and far less adversarial, incidentally, sitting in a semi circular configuration.

Sadly our politicians are "hard wired" to disagree with the opposing party - it's regarded as a sign of weakness if there is agreement. All aided and abbetted by the ridiculous whip system of instructing MPs how to vote. That has taken away their ability to think for themselves. If you look back 30 or 40 years, the calibre of MPs was generally far higher. They thought for themselves. Many would read every line of a report or a proposed law and bring up valid points/arguments in Parliament based on the fine detail, which often would get properly debated and corrected if necessary. Now the MPs are given bullet point summaries or just instructed to vote in a certain way for a new law. No wonder so many laws are passed which glaring loopholes and anomalies - they're not being properly considered by MPs. (My observations are based entirely on tax related laws as that's my profession - in recent times, so truly stupid laws have been passed which would never had been had people bothered to read and try to understand the wording of the legislation - that simply wouldn't have happened 30/40 years ago as there were several MPs who would read every line of the proposed legislation and highlight the problems before it even became law).

I don't think it would take a big change. It just needs some form of proportional represetation to make Politicians sit up and realise that they need t work with each other rather than constantly aiming to crush the opposing party with a sledgehammer.

 

[nlogax]

You seriously condone their behaviour? I would have nothing to do with them. If they were decent people they would not ruin people's lives the way they have done. I don't have any Brexiteer friends.

Are we still doing this?

Brexit's happening. We all need to deal with it and move on. No-one will care that you personally don't accept it.

 

[radamfi]

Are we still doing this?

Brexit's happening. We all need to deal with it and move on. No-one will care that you personally don't accept it.

There is still plenty to play for. When the old Brexiteers die, the young can get us back in the EU.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it would take a big change. It just needs some form of proportional represetation to make Politicians sit up and realise that they need t work with each other rather than constantly aiming to crush the opposing party with a sledgehammer.

It would also mean that the different factions of Labour and Conservative parties could split into distinct parties. To do so under the current system amounts to electoral suicide. So we could for example see the people's true views on a hard left versus a moderate version of Labour. Government would usually be a coalition of several parties that had got a majority of public support between them and managed to establish enough common ground to agree a programme. That way parties would have to come up with a programme that appeals to as many people as possible, rather than appealing under FPTP to a narrow base which is enough to give them a majority, and ignoring everyone else.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You seriously condone their behaviour? I would have nothing to do with them. If they were decent people they would not ruin people's lives the way they have done. I don't have any Brexiteer friends.

I would never have children but I would disown them if they voted Leave.

You would disown people because they have the temerity to hold a different view? They haven't wilfully gone out to hurt you. If a friend did something like, for instance, sleep with your wife or embezzle you, that's worth disowning them.

My sister voted Leave. She had her reasons. I think she's wrong. I don't agree with some of her opinions. She is still my sister.... I still love her as such.

I know that you are personally hurt by what happened. However, if you have no Brexiteer friends, you have no insight into why people voted. On a wider basis, if you never entertain other people's views, you will be a lesser person.

Are we still doing this?

Brexit's happening. We all need to deal with it and move on. No-one will care that you personally don't accept it.

Sadly that's the truth. It will happen, happen quickly, and we will have to accept it.

 

[underbank]

There is still plenty to play for. When the old Brexiteers die, the young can get us back in the EU.

You're assuming that there are no young brexiteers and that remainers don't change their mind as they grow older.

You're also assuming the EU will even be in existence in a decade or two - it may have imploded and collapsed by then.

Rather than waiting for something that may never happen. Why not just learn to live with the reality of Brexit?

 

[radamfi]

You're assuming that there are no young brexiteers and that remainers don't change their mind as they grow older.

You're also assuming the EU will even be in existence in a decade or two - it may have imploded and collapsed by then.

Rather than waiting for something that may never happen. Why not just learn to live with the reality of Brexit?

The under 40s are overwhelmingly pro-Remain, especially the under 30s. There are also a lot of young people, some of them currently too young to vote, who will be unable to work or study in the EU and will be very angry as a result. So if anything they will feel even stronger about wanting to put things right.

 

[notlob.divad]

You're assuming that there are no young brexiteers and that remainers don't change their mind as they grow older.

You're also assuming the EU will even be in existence in a decade or two - it may have imploded and collapsed by then.

Rather than waiting for something that may never happen. Why not just learn to live with the reality of Brexit?

You are both making the assumption the UK will even be in existence in a decade or two. If I was betting man I know which I would put money on lasting the longest.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You're assuming that there are no young brexiteers and that remainers don't change their mind as they grow older.

You're also assuming the EU will even be in existence in a decade or two - it may have imploded and collapsed by then.

Rather than waiting for something that may never happen. Why not just learn to live with the reality of Brexit?

Exactly this. Waiting for the Leave generation to die off.... you could be waiting 10 or 20 years. Also, it pre-supposes (as you say) that people's views don't change over time. Well, that is patently wrong, as can be seen when you look at the age split of various elections over time and from one to another.

I don't want Brexit to happen but it will. The legislation will be passed and we will be out. There's no point in wishing it were different and spending the next 20 years lamenting it and waiting for the electorate to "see sense".

 

[DerekC]

I thought the Supreme Court judgment was sensible and prevented Johnson from overreaching his mandate, but even so, their willingness to contravene the principle in the Bill of Rights was an act of constitutional vandalism. Effectively, the Supreme Court sought to protect the monarch from poor advice and essentially give its own advice to the monarch. That isn't what a final court of appeal should be doing.

I wonder if you should think again about exactly what Johnson did. He used prerogative powers to suspend parliament because he didn't want it to consider and potentially oppose something the government wanted to do. The Supreme Court said that that was illegal. It seems to me that's exactly what a court of appeal should be doing. The monarch isn't really an actor in this - it's now clear that the monarchy has no power to regulate government.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder if you should think again about exactly what Johnson did. He used prerogative powers to suspend parliament because he didn't want it to consider and potentially oppose something the government wanted to do. The Supreme Court said that that was illegal. It seems to me that's exactly what a court of appeal should be doing. The monarch isn't really an actor in this - it's now clear that the monarchy has no power to regulate government.

The Supreme Court said it was unlawful, not illegal.

You may think that's what the Supreme Court's job is but in doing so they have effectively ridden over the constitution. It's not a constitutional court.

 

[Raul_Duke]

The under 40s are overwhelmingly pro-Remain, especially the under 30s. There are also a lot of young people, some of them currently too young to vote, who will be unable to work or study in the EU and will be very angry as a result. So if anything they will feel even stronger about wanting to put things right.

That’s an interesting point.

Given the fact that most WW2 veterans are now well into their 90’s and current OAP’s are starting to become mainly “baby boomers,” who certainly had a lot of the benefits from society in their lives and now seem rather intent on pulling up the ladder behind them, will we see a large cohort of younger people with axes to grind against the older generation? (Deserved or not.)

Currently elections are pretty much decided by 50+ voters, I wonder if that could change in the future with a rising anger?