Parliament and the Judiciary versus the people

[ListeningQuietly]

can we learn from the Cambridge Analytica campaign in Trinidad and Tobago that reduced turnout in the opposition ....

could those who want no deal be persuaded not to vote
to allow MPs to act for the best of the country

cynical
but hey

Say what now? Deny some sections of the population the vote?

You aren't making a lot of sense. Care to elaborate?

Your thread title sounds really ignorant:
Parliament and the Judiciary are not by any measure "v" the people. They are both correctly doing their jobs under the constitution.

Parliament was elected by the people in 2017 and are empowered to represent those people. They are doing so. MPs who are blocking no deal are acting on the basis of their statements in the 2017 election campaign that they will work to secure the best brexit deal possible, so blocking no deal is good and proper. The judiciary are upholding the sovereignty of Parliament, which we have whether or not we are in the EU.

The thread title seems to then clash with the body of the OP which seems very undemocratic. You don't achieve an acceptable resolution by using sly means to sidestep the votes of some of the democratically elected representatives.

What we need to do is stop posturing, inflaming high emotion and pursuing crowd-pleasing soundbytes - and actually start talking properly, grappling with the issues and finding a way to muddle through with some kind of messy unsatisfactory compromise that doesn't quite please anyone but kills enough of both side's sacred cows to let each side's dissatisfaction be salved with a little schadenfreude.

It takes serious people talking to each other properly. Not silly tricks.

Have you watched the film about what Cambridge Analytica were up to before Cummings hired them ?

Have you seen the "parliament versus the people rhetoric"

insanity breeds insanity

I heard about this document on the radio;

"The unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court’s prorogation judgment".

"The Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller/Cherry [2019] UKSC 41 holds that Parliamentary sovereignty needs to be judicially protected against the power of the Government to prorogue Parliament. But the Judgment itself undercuts the genuine sovereignty of Parliament by evading a statutory prohibition–art. 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689–on judicial questioning of proceedings in Parliament.This paper shows that the Judgment was wholly unjustified by law. It wrongly transfers the conventions about prorogation into the domain of justiciable law . The Judgment is an inept foray into high politics and should be recognised as a historic mistake, not a victory for fundamental principle."

policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-unconstitutionality-of-the-supreme-courts-prorogation-judgment/

On the other hand the excellence of that ruling stops a Corbyn government using prorogation to turn the UK into Venezuela
whats not to like

if the Supreme Court and the House of Commons
are not
taking back control
what is ?

allow MPs to act for the best of the country
And what do we do if Parliament think whats best for the country is to actually ask the country what they want and to promise to implement what they say?

Then if they renege on that, isn't parliamentary democracy dead?

The post from the right wing think tank policy exchange upthread deliberately misrepresents the Supreme Court judgment. (No surprises there. - it’s a brief comment from a right wing think tank. ) A snippet from a politically biased think tank is not a very carefully detailed considered judgment from the most experienced and specialised legal brains in the country. To understand it fully anyone needs to set time aside to read the whole SC judgment- link below.

The Decision upholds the key principles of how any governing party is held accountable, this includes applying principles from the 1689 Bill of rights.

The Supreme Court applied two key principles:

1.	Parliamentary sovereignty: that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey. This would be undermined if the <span class="italic">executive</span> -  governing party can prevent <span class="italic">Parliament</span> from exercising its power to make laws. 
2.	Parliamentary accountability:  the  governing of us all by a Prime Minister and Cabinet must be accountable to Parliament. This  lies at the heart of Westminster democracy.

“The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”

supreme~court~judgment~in~full

@Walkingdeadfangirl
if Parliament think whats best for the country is to actually ask the country what they want and to promise to implement what they say?

Don't you even know the difference between Parliament and Government?

The Tory Party decided that it was in the best interests of the Tory Party to have a referendum.

Parliament was persuaded to vote to allow a specifically advisory non-binding referendum, not a binding one.

The Government (ie the Tory Party) later promised that the referendum would actually be binding after all but they had no power or authority to make that promise. Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound, not even by the Government.

And what do we do if Parliament think whats best for the country is to actually ask the country what they want and to promise to implement what they say? Then if they renege on that, isn't parliamentary democracy dead?
No, it isn't. MPs have a duty to act in the best interests of the nation. No deal Brexit wasn''t on the ballot paper - in fact, we were promised 'easiest deals in history' blah blah - and most certainly isn't in the country's interests, so MPs are doing their jobs in refusing to back this nonsense.

It's such a tricky choice to make isn't it?

Eleven Supreme Court judges, with (I imagine) totality of 100s of years of judicial experience at the very highest level..

Or...

A right wing hack.

Tricky.

But people will pick up on this stuff. One vox pop at the weekend on R4:

• The judges they all voted Remain
• How do you know?
• It was in the paper.

"Then if they renege on that, isn't parliamentary democracy dead?"
They haven't reneged on it. We aren't out yet because a bunch of Tories didn't support their PM.
The new PM tried to stop Parliament talking about anything and, if you read the judgment, the new PM didn't submit any explanation as to why it was ok in the circumstances. Sadly, in life and in court saying "because reasons " isn't good enough. Has he done so the ruling might have been different or at least not 11-0.
No Deal is not in the national interest. Full Stop. It isn't the only version of Leave but pretending it is won't make it ok.

What is frequently overlooked is that MPs also act on behalf of all their constituents. Not just those who voted. They need to take account of the young people who couldn’t vote and their well being, economically, for the future. If the burden on them is too great, we all suffer. Young people already have a greater struggle to make ends meet and are less well off than many retired people. They should be considered by our MPs even if they did not vote for Brexit. The future looks bleak for all parties if MPs ignore younger people.