,
15 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
#brexit
#BrexitVote
#fbpe
#NoDeal4TerroristRegime
Let's be clear
1. Magna Carta breaks if 2016 includes No Deal
2. The tories need a General Election because No Deal is unlawful.
No Deal is "Bullocks"
You should all understand this. Only 7 tweets are needed
#BrexitVote
#fbpe
#NoDeal4TerroristRegime
Let's be clear
1. Magna Carta breaks if 2016 includes No Deal
2. The tories need a General Election because No Deal is unlawful.
No Deal is "Bullocks"
You should all understand this. Only 7 tweets are needed
Magna Carta clause 12.
The limitation of the divine right of kings, or these days dictators & prevention of tyranny
The barons basically said to the king that, "you rule us because we say you do".
This in turn became the Consent of the Governed, the basis of our Democracy
The limitation of the divine right of kings, or these days dictators & prevention of tyranny
The barons basically said to the king that, "you rule us because we say you do".
This in turn became the Consent of the Governed, the basis of our Democracy
Consent is not open-ended, it cannot be given through omission, not can it be invented after the event, not can it be extrapolated from decisions which were not an option at the time.
Any of these factors would undermine the point of the clause, to limit divine arbitrary rule
Any of these factors would undermine the point of the clause, to limit divine arbitrary rule
The self serving argument; "the ballot paper didn't say deal or no deal it said leave"
BullshOt, if that's the game Magna Carta is broken since ANYTHING would stand.
Legally you'd have to show that No Deal was a legitimate and considered option on which consent was sought.
BullshOt, if that's the game Magna Carta is broken since ANYTHING would stand.
Legally you'd have to show that No Deal was a legitimate and considered option on which consent was sought.
That's going to be challenging. Remember.
Easiest deal?
Farage and Norway etc.
Heck there's probably already a case that leaving SM/CU breaks consent, but I'll leave that to the lawyers.
No deal will fail. And they know it
So we're all being distracted again...
Easiest deal?
Farage and Norway etc.
Heck there's probably already a case that leaving SM/CU breaks consent, but I'll leave that to the lawyers.
No deal will fail. And they know it
So we're all being distracted again...
I've argued previously the Coup was a deliberate attempt to force a vote of no confidence to get a General Election. A stalking horse to Martyr Boris. Thread👇
But back then i was naive enough to think progressive parties might come together
The irony.
But back then i was naive enough to think progressive parties might come together
The irony.
So can we stop bashing on about No Deal. It has no consent and no legitimacy until we give it one.
And instead can we spend the time asking
WHAT THE FOOK ARE PROGRESSIVE PARTIES DOING FIGHTING INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY. UNITE YOU UTTER MUPPETS OR RISK👇
And instead can we spend the time asking
WHAT THE FOOK ARE PROGRESSIVE PARTIES DOING FIGHTING INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY. UNITE YOU UTTER MUPPETS OR RISK👇
PS.
Some idiot will argue Magna Carta isn't part of English (note not British Law). So this is for you.
You'll make a technical argument that has nothing to do with this thread. Magna Carta is simply a metaphor, all the relevant principles discussed here are established in law.
Some idiot will argue Magna Carta isn't part of English (note not British Law). So this is for you.
You'll make a technical argument that has nothing to do with this thread. Magna Carta is simply a metaphor, all the relevant principles discussed here are established in law.
OK, this is Caveats and Problems section for The Brexit Geeks.
Despite idiot's warning, this is English law in our unwritten constitution. Vague
In any other constitutional democracy Consent of the Governed would prevent after event vote misappropriation ->Divine Rule/ Tyranny
Despite idiot's warning, this is English law in our unwritten constitution. Vague
In any other constitutional democracy Consent of the Governed would prevent after event vote misappropriation ->Divine Rule/ Tyranny
Consent of the Governed should also a founding principle of sovereignty if it lies with the people.
Unfortunately, despite ERG mendacity* it lies with Parliament (see Miller).
This all creates the sort of circular legal logic that is the Barrister's retirement fund...
Unfortunately, despite ERG mendacity* it lies with Parliament (see Miller).
This all creates the sort of circular legal logic that is the Barrister's retirement fund...
Let's dismiss the anarchist doesn't consent argument. This is about consent given on mass, not whether individuals choose to comply.
There is however no statute on Government by Consent in law, which theoretically means we don't know or haven't tested if we're a Democracy.
There is however no statute on Government by Consent in law, which theoretically means we don't know or haven't tested if we're a Democracy.
At best we can say we're Governed by Consent as a point of principle or even convention but UKSC shows us that conventions are not necessarily judiciable.
So we're testing our Democracy, and until we have precedent or statute Consent is...persuasive?
So we're testing our Democracy, and until we have precedent or statute Consent is...persuasive?
Then two further problems. If the UKSC finds the prorogation illegal but the Queen grants a second anyway, then we're done. The UK is not a democracy and we're Governed by edict (IMHO). The can if worms is large for all sides of Brexit.
The second problem is whose consent?
The second problem is whose consent?
Sticky territory, but my loose interpretation of Miller is Parliament not the People. (That in and of itself creates problems for people sovereignty arguments the ERG have relied on).
BUT IF Parliament consents then Boris Queen's speech has traps galore. You see them right? 🤔
BUT IF Parliament consents then Boris Queen's speech has traps galore. You see them right? 🤔
Thank you @broosterM for your sagely help on the last section. #fbbe are marvellous.
The next is mine
*Argument is mendacious not political when you change advice aboht who is sovereign, people or parliament, as a tactic to defeat opposition. Outside politics we call that Fraud
The next is mine
*Argument is mendacious not political when you change advice aboht who is sovereign, people or parliament, as a tactic to defeat opposition. Outside politics we call that Fraud
