The Brexit Arms goes forth! All welcome. Leavers, Remainers, Couldn't give a Tossers, & openly gay athletes.

[surferjet]

Welcome

It is, as I said before, a workable arrangement for governing ourselves.

I really don't understand what's difficult about the government will implement what you decide Kaija could you explain what you think this means?
Is it a; I don't believe in the government so I won't abide by it
b; you're all silly so yaboo I'm ignoring your decision as its not the one I want
c; I'm better than you so my self interest (judges I'm looking at you now) and my belief I know best overrides anything you say and we shouldn't have given you plebs a chance to vote on it anyway

If you don't like multiple choice feel free to make up your own answers.

Firstly the leaflet said nothing about how it was going to implement the decision, which is what we are discussing now, not whether to implement.

But in any case, when MPs voted to have a referendum in the first place, it was made explicit that the vote would be advisory and non-binding.

Entirely circular, you are wriggling, we are going round the houses for the sole reason you cannot bring yourself to admit it is a workable arrangement for representing the will of the people.

Being 'a workable arrangement for governing ourselves' is a description. It ascribes no legitimacy or moral authority: it implies we do it this way because it's the easiest .

So if there's an easier way - say if autocracy was more workable, or a nepotistic republic, that would, following your argument, have more legitimacy.

No. There is no more legitimacy in the notion of the "will of the people" than in the will of the majority. But the distinction is important.

So your legitimacy is simply 'it works'?

No. It's democracy.

Plenty of other forms of government work. But would be described as illegitimate.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. Your argument (if it can be called that) is riddled with flaws. But I genuinely don't think you're trying to fool me. I think you really believe your argument is sound.

Certainly not trying to fool you Winchester, you're quite capable of that without me.

Your last post confirms my assessment. Oh kaija. But talking to you has crystallised for me the case for the government having the right to trigger article 50 without parliamentary approval. It's obviously a gut feeling, but it also feels very satisfying to be able to fully explore and articulate what a forceful case it is. So, thankyou for that at least.

I'm still astounded you think you made a decent argument there my kids could do better

You have made an argument against parliamentary democracy and have convinced yourself of it?

do you have any idea what we've been talking about?

What's today's lunch special please?
Can't see the board through my rose tinted specs. Roastbrisket Brexit? That will do nicely

the government will implement what you decide

It didn't say the goverment will implement what you decide outwith its own constitutional process.

Firstly the leaflet said nothing about how it was going to implement the decision, which is what we are discussing now, not whether to implement.

I am a bit confused over this. There is a lot of talk about how the ruling means MPs can debate how to leave the EU, but surely there is no how about invoking A50. We either do or we don't.

The whether and how seem to be getting a bit mixed up, or have I misunderstood what invoking A50 entails?

Winchester, do you?

Yy gloria

You're right wrong. They want a vote on whether a50 should be triggered, ostensibly. In reality they want to turn it into a debate on what kind of brexit we should have eg do we want to leave the single market.

Oh god yes. But you ... It's odd. Either you're a wind up merchant or you genuinely can't follow a train of thought.

This letter from the Guardian might help WW:

When Nigel Farage threatens those parliamentarians who delay or block Brexit with public anger (which he will do his best to provoke), he is denying parliament the right to hold the executive to account. He has no understanding of the role of the MP as the representative of the people and not its delegate (as defined by Edmund Burke) which until now was regarded as the correct understanding of the role of the MP. Britain is a representative or parliamentary democracy, not one ruled by plebiscite which is more characteristic of authoritarian states, such as Hitler’s Third Reich.

When Ukip’s Suzanne Evans demands the sacking of the judges, she is undermining the independence of the judiciary, yet another of the bulwarks intended to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by governments. Politicians such as these when they speak of the will of the people are using it as a means of removing from the constitution all those elements that they don’t like, in particular those that protect the rights of minorities, in this case the 48% who voted remain. The Brexit debate is no longer just a debate on EU membership but a fight to retain those elements of the British constitution that make it a liberal democracy.

link

WW seems to have a bit of a blind spot over the concept of representative democracy.

By which, even if it was my train of thought you couldn't follow, fair enough, there are things you don't want to admit and paths you can't pursue. But you don't seem to follow your own train of thought either.

Still I'm sure you're a nice person.

Kaija what does it represent? You've avoided answering that for 12 hours

" The Brexit debate is no longer just a debate on EU membership but a fight to retain those elements of the British constitution that make it a liberal democracy."

Yes, this.