Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Her Majesty the Queen...

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:21 pm

atticus wrote:Can I suggest that you stop suggesting that I have suggested something when I have not suggested what you suggest I suggest.

The trouble with suggestions is that they can be read where they were not said.
But should we for a change attempt to address the point?
Without having looked at the publication, Mr Locke's point seems sound despite its age and there is clear merit in the Dicey principle, subject to the difficulties we have discussed.

However, although it is somewhat tangential to the thread, can we perhaps return to the point you raised about the event last year?

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:I had in mind an event the previous year.

So what is your interpretation of that event?
Do you concur with parliament that the Prime Minister said it would be binding and because the electorate have absolute trust in the Prime Minster they will have voted on that basis?
I hold that the *only* thing we can tell with certainty from that vote is that parliament is badly out of touch. Anything else is absolutely and fundamentally ambiguous.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:40 pm

The point I made about the event last year was that it was not the event I was referring to.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:44 pm

atticus wrote:The point I made about the event last year was that it was not the event I was referring to.

A slip of the keyboard (or possibly a diary malfunction): I meant the previous year.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:49 pm

this is the point: I referred you to ...
atticus wrote:... the recent event from which the will of the people is apparently to be discerned.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:54 pm

atticus wrote:this is the point: I referred you to ...
atticus wrote:... the recent event from which the will of the people is apparently to be discerned.

And this was my response to the referral:
Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:I had in mind an event the previous year.

So what is your interpretation of that event?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:57 pm

Given the numbers, Prof Grayling's point really doesn't work. Perhaps I can move you to put that point to him.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:34 pm

atticus wrote:Given the numbers, Prof Grayling's point really doesn't work. Perhaps I can move you to put that point to him.

From which I infer that you accept parliament's interpretation of the event under discussion.
Hairyloon wrote:The Prime Minister said it would be binding and because the electorate have absolute trust in the Prime Minster they will have voted on that basis.

But even supposing that that is correct, the professor refers to the interests of the people. The government's approach to acting on the opinion expressed by the people is not in the interests of the people: it is simply insane.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:13 pm

whatever.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20652
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:45 pm

atticus wrote:whatever.

No, not "Whatever". If you find fault in my analysis, then please argue the case.

Hairyloon wrote:I hold that the *only* thing we can tell with certainty from that vote is that parliament is badly out of touch. Anything else is absolutely and fundamentally ambiguous.


OK, I'll concede the "Only": there may be something I have missed, but I think the other point is irrefutable.
If that point is true, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed first, and it is a point to which the Dicey principle properly applies: if parliament is so far out of touch that they cannot see that they are out of touch, then how is that problem to be resolved?
We cannot simply vote them out when we are so well entrenched in a two party state: we dare not risk giving ground to either party.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Her Majesty the Queen...

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:45 am

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:whatever.

No, not "Whatever". If you find fault in my analysis, then please argue the case.

Hairyloon wrote:I hold that the *only* thing we can tell with certainty from that vote is that parliament is badly out of touch. Anything else is absolutely and fundamentally ambiguous.


Interesting how so many people will bluff, bluster, distract and evade in a discussion, but when a point is focussed down to one that cannot be obfuscated, they simply hide from it or run away.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest