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

Another Legal Challenge?

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:07 am

dls wrote:How on earth could a referendum solve any perceived problem with how parliament is organised?


I understand that it worked in New Zealand, though they did do two at once.

A fundamental difficulty with two of our four referenda - the last and the voting reform vote was that each necessarily presented a disastrous simplification of the issues. It is this that allows the contra-voters never to accept the result.

I suggest it does more than that: it obliges all reasonable people to not accept the result, except perhaps as advice.

They can always pretend that the wrong question was asked. Of course they voted for the question as asked (well MPs did) and would be quite unable to have predicted the particular difficulties which followed the result...

I beg to differ. Various difficulties were predicted over the last referendum, but were dismissed because it was only advisory, and almost every discussion I saw about AV covered the fact that it asked the wrong question.
would be incapable of framing the question to reflect the immense complexity of the underlying reality.

In one question, it would be impossible, but two or three could cover it reasonably well, presuming you have a parliament with reasonable intelligence and integrity, and recognise that a vote on a binary question does not give a binary answer.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby atticus » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:55 am

What was this thing that worked in NZ? How did it work? Why did it work? Please investigate and report back.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby atticus » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:58 am

Hairyloon wrote:
dls wrote:A fundamental difficulty with two of our four referenda - the last and the voting reform vote was that each necessarily presented a disastrous simplification of the issues. It is this that allows the contra-voters never to accept the result.

I suggest it does more than that: it obliges all reasonable people to not accept the result, except perhaps as advice.

that is as big a load of bollocks as you have ever written. Please find one person who does not think that he is "reasonable".
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:52 am

atticus wrote:Please find one person who does not think that he is "reasonable".


Reasonable is not a self-identified characteristic.

atticus wrote:What was this thing that worked in NZ? How did it work? Why did it work? Please investigate and report back.

They held two consecutive referenda at the same time: the first asked if electoral reform was wanted, the second on what type was wanted.
It worked* for reasons which ought to be obvious for a man of your calibre.

{*for a given value of "worked": they achieved reform; how effective that reform was is something for history to judge upon}
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby atticus » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:50 pm

Do not patronise.

Especially when you had to qualify your so-called explanation with some more bollocks.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:24 pm

atticus wrote:Especially when you had to qualify your so-called explanation with some more bollocks.

Please explain why you consider it to be bollocks".
If you know that the reforms cured all that nation's problems (or failed to), then why were you asking about what happened in the referendum?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby atticus » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:05 am

It worked except squiggly brackets you don't know that it worked because history will judge that. And yet you patronise.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:14 am

Are you familiar with the expression "the operation was successful, but the patient died"?
This is like that, the operation was successful, but we don't know if the patient will die or not.

Sorry, but I don't understand why you've got so upset about it.

And no patronage was intended either: I thought that given the information, the answer was obvious. It worked because NZ set out to address the problem that the electorate were complaining about, where the UK simply looked for a way to shut up the complaints.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby 3.14 » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:09 pm

patronage

noun
1.
the support given by a patron.
"the arts could no longer depend on private patronage"
synonyms: sponsorship, backing, funding, financing, philanthropy, promotion, furtherance, help, aid, assistance, support, guaranty, encouragement, championship, advocacy, defence, protection, guardianship, aegis, auspices
"art patronage does not come cheap"
2.
the power to control appointments to office or the right to privileges.
"recruits are selected on merit, not through political patronage"
synonyms: power of appointment, right of appointment, favouritism, nepotism, partisanship, partiality, preferential treatment; the old boy network
"the abuse of political patronage"


patronize

verb
gerund or present participle: patronising
1.
treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority.
"‘She's a good-hearted girl,’ he said in a patronizing voice"
synonyms: treat condescendingly, treat with condescension, condescend to, look down on, talk down to, put down, humiliate, treat like a child, treat as inferior, treat with disdain, treat scornfully/contemptuously, be snobbish to, look down one's nose at
"don't patronize me!"
condescending, supercilious, superior, imperious, haughty, lofty, lordly, magisterial, disdainful, scornful, contemptuous, cavalier, snobbish, pompous;
informaluppity, high and mighty, snooty, stuck-up, fancy-pants;
informaltoffee-nosed
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby atticus » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:37 pm

The English English word is patronise!
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron