To think the right wing tabloids have gone too far?

[Mistigri]

Reactions of the Mail, Express and Sun to yesterday's court decision on brexit:

The Mail's front page has a picture of the three high court judges with the headline "Enemies of the people". One judge is criticised for being "openly gay".

The Express says this is the UK's greatest crisis since the Second World War.

The Sun (proprietor: R Murdoch) takes to task the "foreign elites" who brought the case. Because their readers are less likely to approve of attacks on white pensioners (the other claimant), they focus their attack on the non-white woman claimant.

The Mail is the most problematic IMO; attacking the judiciary is another step on the road to facism.

How can we have any reasonable political debate in this environment?

Chaz. Indeed why didn't they make it binding? My bet is they didn't think in a million years people would vote to leave. hence no thinking any of it through.

Puzzled as to why no one can understand the concept of a negotiating hand . A few hints. Do we look at the Canadian deal and try for something similar? Do we trade the security of foreign nationals living here with that of British ex pats? Do we ask for a work permit system, minimal tariffs etc. I wonder if the Canadians and Americans had/have a negotiating hand that they print on the front of their local newspaper? Or maybe they just bloody negotiate?

only on MN would people say negotiations on sensitive trade deals should be made public and expect to be taken seriously

It's naïve to talk about keeping our cards close to our chest in trade deal negotations. It's much more like playing with all the cards face up on the table.

And I fear the US is about to play the Trump card.

Do we look at the Canadian deal and try for something similar? Do we trade the security of foreign nationals living here with that of British ex pats? Do we ask for a work permit system, minimal tariffs etc.

That is not a 'negotiating hand'. That is defining what on earth Brexit means. Nobody knows what Brexit means because it wasn't defined before the referendum. If foreign and economic policy can't be debated in parliament because it's all a secret, you might as well not have parliament.

However the EU know the options that are broadly available to Britain and the pros and cons. They don't know the opinion of the British people on any of these points, but then neither does Theresa May. Nobody has been asked.

At which point, the game is lost, Yakitori, and we all go to hell in a handbasket.
Has anybody come across the phrase "post-truth politics", or did the Now show on R4 coin it last night? Excellent description of current politics, I fear.

only on MN would people say negotiations on sensitive trade deals should be made public and expect to be taken seriously

Sensitive issues like 'what is our attitude to free trade?'.

Ah, have googled and find that I am just showing my ignorance, as the phrase "post-truth politics" has been in use since 2004 (also as "post-factual politics"). I genuinely thought it had been coined for Trump and Farage, last night was the first time I registered hearing it! Still think it's a great way of describing current politics.

Trade deals work quite differently though. Many specialist negotiators spend years working on them behind the scenes, they are agreed by the executive and then ratified/approved by Parliament. Article 50 inverses this as once it is invoked negotiations begin, but it can't be negated, so there is no later yes/no decision to be made as the UK will be out regardless of the details of any deal or the opinions of Parliament at the time.

are the "people" just the half of the population stupid enough to be fooled by all the brexit lies and right wing media horror show ? Why are the politicians so afraid of them? Surely they should be more afraid of the intelligent half?
These front pages are a warning to the intelligent half not to put their head above the parapet aren't they?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics Tuktuktaker

Sorry, I posted that before seeing you'd found the answer yourself.

Thanks, nauticant, now reading a bit about it, just added to my depression about the state of the world. I fear I may have to retreat to my bunker on Wednesday.

nauticant, that's an unusually good WP article.

"A defining trait of post-truth politics is that campaigners continue to repeat their talking points, even if these are found to be untrue by the media or independent experts."

^^ This!

Just jumping into say that good old Gary Lineker is tweeting lots of sense over on Twitter. I like to see a popular celebrity stick their neck out on issues like this, hopefully it makes a few people think about the issue before agreeing with frothing red top headlines.

It's a sad day though, when we have to rely on ex-footballers turned commentators to start tweeting sense, when our elected representatives seem unable to speak at all.

I agree Peregrina, but sadly I think a lot of people are more likely to listen to him than their elected representative.

no matter what, the newspapers were wrong to print what they did, and whether we agree with the decision or not, it's good we have checks and balances between the government and the judiciary.

More terrifying is the fact that Trump may actually become President of the USA.

I love linekar - and what a load of shit he's having to endure to.

I agree pergrina - it does say something about our society

I mean Too ;)

Interesting to see what Conservative former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve QC said on Newsnight last night: "The judges did exactly what was asked of them. They highlighted that our constitution does not allow you to overturn statute law by decree, which is so well established in our country".

Quite. This is not new law.

So why did his successor, current Attorney-General Jeremy Wright QC, argue the contrary before the High Court? And why is he apparently advising the Govt that they can be "confident" of success on an appeal to the Supreme Court?

Anyone know who Larry The No 10 Cat is? Some good (and entertaining) tweets explaining things to the hard of thinking.

babybarrister Not read his detailed CV, but I know the basics - he was a junior criminal barrister before entering Parliament, and was made a QC in order to become A-G. In contrast, of course to Dominic Grieve, who earned his QC as of right after a long and successful career.

That is not a 'negotiating hand'. That is defining what on earth Brexit means. Nobody knows what Brexit means because it wasn't defined before the referendum. If foreign and economic policy can't be debated in parliament because it's all a secret, you might as well not have parliament.

However the EU know the options that are broadly available to Britain and the pros and cons. They don't know the opinion of the British people on any of these points, but then neither does Theresa May. Nobody has been asked.

^^THIS

So the A-G is another duff appointment by one Theresa May, who we all thought would be a safe pair of hands and the best of a poor field? How wrong we were!

At the moment, a 'safe pair of hands' isn't what is needed - we need a healer and reconciler and one with some vision. Maybe the Tory party has those amongst its ranks, but I am not holding my breath.

It's such a mess that ideally I think we should have a genuine cross-party Coalition, but that won't happen with Corbyn in charge of Labour, and probably not with the SNP either, although I will reserve judgement on them.