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?

The other part of the story, the 'elite' part concentrates on the fact that people who are fabulously wealthy are using that wealth to try and subvert the wishes of a mainly poorer majority by using their financial muscles to access a legal system. I agree and I voted Remain. I am beginning to change my mind. I don't give a shit about what the 'vile' press say.

I know one thing, this uncertainty is doing the economy and country no favours.
Every announcement or piece of speculation causes a drop at the stock market and threats of job losses - thats not helpful.
Get on with it, don't get on with it, Im almost past caring but we all need to know where we stand.

Derxa, a lot of ordinary people helped to fund the case through Crowd Justice. I have so far given £20 and I am far from being a member of the fabulously wealthy elite.

Derxa, a lot of ordinary people helped to fund the case through Crowd Justice. I have so far given £20 and I am far from being a member of the fabulously wealthy elite. Good for you. You've just helped to perpetuate years of uncertainty, instability and probably a General Election which will result in the end of the Labour party.

Summer Bill, we have already explained why it's homophobic...that's you told Bill, now be a good boy Bill and don't question it again!

Or girl...sorry Bill!

The referendum was not organised, no guidelines, no structure. Pile of total pants. Due process legally must be followed and bollocks to the racists and homophones that read the daily mail.

Brexit could be one of a million different things and TM deciding it all on her is totally illegal.

End of.

derxa that last post is just wildly inaccurate.

She's helped to make sure the rule of law is upheld. That's more important that any political party, even though I don't think a general election would mean the end of the labour party.

The number of people that don't understand how our legal system works is astounding. This is a totally legitimate (and eminiently sensible, in light of how are laws are written and have been formed through the courts).

And I am disgusted with those dirty tabloid rags that are playing on that, because the people that write for those "news"papers are clever people who understand exactly what they're doing: stirring up racial hatred and formenting dissent in some sort of weird attempt to drive us back to the 20s.

It's all part of some nasty little crab-bucket game where all the people without the privilege of money are being played off against each other with these fascist headlines so we can all keep each other down and funnel all our money into keeping people like Murdoch et al on top. There might have been good reasons to leave the EU - I doubt it, but there might have been - but I never heard a single good one, I just heard lies pedalled by conmerchants.

AAARRGGH.

Since Magna Carta, there has been a principle of English law that the king (now the government) should not have absolute power without oversight of parliament.

The limits started being tested throughout the 13th century and are not fixed.

It is therefore absolutely right for the limits to be periodically reviewed as it is Parliament which protects and implements the will of the people - all 600 plus if them. Not the government.

Actually if you google the name Terence Etherton the top results aside from Brexit all refer to him being openly gay and smashing 'the pink ceiling'. Including the Guardian no less. It seems to be the most notable fact about him. It seems to be a case of 'you can say what you like if you agree with me but I'll censor you if you don't.' I don't think it was particularly a criticism of him being gay either, but an (inaccurate IMO) implication that as openly gay he was a left wing Europhile. The criticism intended was more of perceived left wing/Europhile sympathies than being gay.

Anyway, I think the headline was a huge mistake, not least because it has distracted from the fact that, much more importantly, at least one of these judges appears to have a vested interest in keeping the UK in the EU.

Yes, too far.

Also too far allowing many of the comments which are incitements to violence and hate crimes.

Also exactly what Susan said.

BillSykesDog can of course repeat her wide-eyed "but I don't see anything homophobic" line as many times as she likes, Buster.

And the answers will still be the same as upthread.

It'll be a bit boring for the rest of us and make her look increasingly disingenuous, but never mind.

I am a girl Buster. But don't forget, we're all stupid if we don't support remain and just need it explaining to us properly and we'll understand!

The case was not about whether we should stay or leave - that door has closed.

It's whether we allow parliament to review and vote on the deal or not. I'd be astonished if a majority of MPs overturned the referendum result, so don't see why it should have the faintest impact on what actually happens other than that someone actually checks what is going on in accordance with what constitution we have painstakingly built up over the last 700 years.

Ha, x-post.

I am loving the way homophones[sic] has been added to the standard list of insults for Brexit voters - autocorrect has a lot to answer for. Curse those homophones!

Bill
This is not a decision on Brexit. It is a decision on what powers a government has to act without the scrutiny of parliament. This decision does not stop Brexit, it just means that Parliament has to vote on the issue. The fact that a judge is a Europhile is irrelevant because the result of the referendum was not before the court purely the mechanism by which the government intends to implement the result of the referendum.
I do think it is ridiculous that people are struggling to grasp that this was a matter of constitutional law that could have far reaching implications for how governments act in the future. If the royal perogative can be used to alter the rights of individuals (rights established by an Act of Parliament) without parliament being consulted then we are no longer a parliamentary democracy.

This decision does not stop Brexit

^^ This.

(Just repeating you, Chaz in case it's lost in the melée.)

Exactly. This debate is about different ideas of democracy (direct/representative), and different kinds of democratic structure, and how they interrelate constitutionally. It's absolutely not 'the will of the people' versus 'undemocratic elites'.

A lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp that there is an awful lot of incredibly complicated legal and parliamentary machinery that runs behind the day-to-day workings of power, and that is now in chaos. That has, in many ways, been the entire story of Brexit. Of course, the chaos is sortable - but not by denying that we need that machinery, or that it exists.

Of course, the chaos is sortable - but not by denying that we need that machinery, or that it exists.

^^ And this.

Bill
How does the fact that one of the judges is openly gay have any bearing on the analysis of the legal decision? Why is it relevant to report a judge's sexuality when considering a judgment on an area of Constitutional Law? Why is it relevant to make reference to a Jewish marriage ceremony? Is his religion relevant?

Why do you think the Daily Mail chose to include this irrelevant information in its "analysis" of a ruling on the powers of governments to act without parliamentary scrutiny?

A lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp that there is an awful lot of incredibly complicated legal and parliamentary machinery that runs behind the day-to-day workings of power, and that is now in chaos. That has, in many ways, been the entire story of Brexit. Of course, the chaos is sortable - but not by denying that we need that machinery, or that it exists. Good post

It's bad enough 48% of voters being dragged into the decision we don't like; at very least May & colleagues are being told how to go about it properly now, so that the whole thing doesn't turn into an extended fiasco.