Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 04 2016, @05:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-government-is-"appealing"? dept.

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".

Plebiscites only count when plebes vote the way they're told.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @12:39PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 04 2016, @12:39PM (#422456) Journal

    I think most people simply lack the intelligence to decide on the faith of a country

    I'm going to assume you meant fate there. I agree that direct democracy is a bad idea, but not for that reason. Direct democracy can far too easily descend into mob rule. The results from the Brexit referendum were a couple of percent apart. If 50%+1 of the population decide to disenfranchise 30%, that's fine in an unchecked direct democracy. You need some checks. If you require larger majorities, say 60%, then you can still be vulnerable to this but you're also vulnerable to whoever writes the question posing them in the way that the answer they want only needs 40%, the one that they don't needs 60%.

    More importantly though, it's not about intelligence it's about time. Governing a modern country is hard. Ensuring that you're well informed on the relevant issues is a full-time job. It's debatable that our current representatives do a particularly good job at this, but they stand a far better chance than someone who is also working a full-time job.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:25PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @02:25PM (#422479)

    From my reading "faith" would also work: e.g. if the country in question switches over to direct democracy and the people start immediately throwing out treaties because "the fuck is this? this doesn't help us at all! get rid of it!" as I'm sure would happen.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday November 04 2016, @05:27PM

    by moondrake (2658) on Friday November 04 2016, @05:27PM (#422538)

    heh yes, sorry, meant fate. Though faith works somehow as tango says:)

    I also guess that you formulated exactly what I meant much better. Perhaps it is frustration, or laziness on my part to equate intelligence with being informed of the situation.