est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Brexit Requires Parliamentary Approval, UK Court Rules

Alicia Nicholls In its judgement rendered this morning, the UK High Court has held that Parliament must vote before the UK can begin the process of leaving the European Union by giving notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. In summary, the court did not accept the argument by the Government that its…

,

BrexitAlicia Nicholls

In its judgement rendered this morning, the UK High Court has held that Parliament must vote before the UK can begin the process of leaving the European Union by giving notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

In summary, the court did not accept the argument by the Government that its prerogative powers included the ability to make such a notification without parliamentary approval. The question of whether the Article 50 notification should be made, therefore, must be submitted to Parliament for a vote.

Read more of this post

122 responses to “Brexit Requires Parliamentary Approval, UK Court Rules”

  1. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    The ruling is about process. This process may take a long time . Certainly beyond the time envisaged by PM May and the EU. But this is another example of where the Law can be abused and misused to achieve ends not in keeping with the will of the electorate.

    They might have well had save the taxpayers’ time and money when Parliament agreed to the referendum.

  2. ac Avatar
    ac

    Brexit going nowhere too fast. It is a new ball game

  3. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    This sounds like a logical ruling from the court.
    It was always folly to expect that major policy could be decided by referendum. Shiite man, people would vote for capital punishment too – if allowed in a vote…

    It is the ROLE, responsibility, duty and mandate of the damn parliament to make such laws /decisions….. not to hide behind popular votes.

    ANYTIME that a referendum goes against the intent of a serious government, it should trigger an automatic election ….because their asses should resign (like the PM did) when they are shown to be clearly OUT OF STEP with national sentiment…

    Steupsss
    Imagine implementing BREXIT because a bunch of brass bowl people voted to, and then have the process managed by a parliament that wanted to stay…. ?

    Is the world mad as shiite…?

  4. David Avatar
    David

    The court ruling sparks an interesting conversation about the robustness of the democracy. If this is what the people want as determined my a tenet of said democratic system who are we to second guess.

  5. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    So Brexit may become Nexit? I think Farage was quoted as complaining that non- elected judges were thwarting the will of the people and one of UKIP’s leadership hopefuls was speaking of “activist” judges.

    That would not be unusual if it came from politicians on the other side of the pond, but this is Great Britain the home of the Magna Carta where judicial independence is sacrosanct. Electing judges? Perish the thought, in this Election season I see television commercials for judicial hopefuls groveling for votes and long on promises of being tough on offenders but short of promises to be the fairest arbiter in the land.

  6. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    Yes it is a very interesting intellectual exercise.
    Parliament has responsibility to formulate policy.
    Abnegates this responsibility to the people in form of a referendum.
    Some influential persons have second thoughts. Use the Law Courts to attempt to frustrate the results of that referendum.
    Now the court interprets the law to say only Parliament has the power to decide whether to Brexit ; Not the people through a referendum.
    And everyday you BU bloggers pelting lashes in the GOB for similar maneuverings? Wuhloss.!!!! This disease of do nothing is really contagious.

  7. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ David
    Boss…
    Throughout history, people have been idiotic brass bowls – willing to be led by the most stupid emotional issues and feelings. The history books are replete with examples of development coming almost exclusively from ENLIGHTENED LEADERS….. even Barbados is a CLEAR example of this through Barrow, Adams etc….
    This idea of the ‘wisdom of the masses’ is TOTAL SHIITE hear? …it is.the path to destruction.

    In the absence of wise, enlightened leadership, such democratic idiocy even seems attractive, but national leadership is about wisely managing complex, strategic choices …. not playing emotional political games.

    The court is right.

  8. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Bernard
    People get the government they deserve and they deserve the government they get.
    We don’t get to empower a shiite government …and then seek to micromanage them.
    When they do a bad job…. we need to get rid of them….

    Froon’s ass should have been outed via a national strike right after that stupid speech he gave about CLICO….
    Waiting for a referendum on ‘if to lock up Parris or not’ ….is not on….

  9. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    @Bush Tea@10:14

    The thinking bloggers always knew in their hearts of heart that our form of Government is an elected dictatorship. Some more benevolent than others. But we like to play the game of lets pretend. So the way I always read it is that most of us are vex with Freundel because he does not behave like Grantley. Barrow nor Tom. Is that not so?

  10. David Avatar
    David

    Brexit High Court Ruling: What does it Mean?

    by caribbeantradelaw

    Alicia Nicholls In a landmark decision handed down today, the London-based UK High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, has held that the Theresa May-led UK Government cannot begin the formal process of leaving the European Union (EU)  without first seeking parliamentary approval. As a bit of context, on […]

    Read more of this post

  11. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    The official position of the UK Gov’t led by Cameron was that Britain should stay in the EU, Cameron was supported by the Gov. of the Bank of England (Mark Carney who predicted dire consequences if Britain departed) and various senior Ministers. Despite Gov’ts official position the majority of Brits decided to pull up their stumps and go home and Cameron became a casualty of that decision.

    Enter May who inherited the leadership of the Gov’t to claim she had a mandate to negotiate the terms of separation from Europe. The Gov’t accepted the results of the Referendum as binding and if a Gov’t suffers defeat on such an important issue it should have held an Election to determine who should lead the country in any future discussions with Europe. Ms. May’s claim to a mandate is bogus and the Court is right to decide that Parliament alone should set the terms of a separation with a Parliamentary vote.

    I hope Ms. May understands that one can’t acquire a mandate by proxy and trusts that she has a better understanding of constitutional process.

    Hurrah for the High court.

  12. David Avatar
    David

    The Court made a decision based on law and not sentiment.

    Interesting none of the luminaries in both places anticipated a YES vote would require a process to trigger Article 50.

  13. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    @ David@11;24 PM.

    More accurately based on Law and the Constitution ;not on any notion of democracy or even morality.
    I think PM May was quite conscious of the process to consult Parliament. I think she wanted to compile a list of negotiables first. Then present them to Parliament for approval. You may recall she was in the remain in group. She has respect for democracy and is trying to work out how best to proceed. That is to get the best and most concessions for GB.

    If you look at those who went to court their motive was to overturn the expressed wishes of the people. The Conservatives party was out of touch with the sentiments of their constituents .60% to70% of their constituents voted to leave.

  14. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    @ David

    The remain in Group expected to win . The result was a surprise to even some of those who voted to leave.

    Did you go into Bridgetown the day after the Elections in 1976 and 1986? It was almost empty and the look of uncertainty and virtual unbelief on some faces were disconcerting.

  15. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    @ Sargeant at 11:15 PM

    Carney Gov of B of E cannot predict anything . Economist deal in conditional probabilities. We all live in an uncertain world and his fears was not knowing how the Financial Market in London would respond to a Brexit. Yes there was some initial instability because financial markets react that way to new information. But then it settled back down.
    Yes the City of London will lose some banks and the Head offices of some banks, But the fundamentals of the London Capital market is so strong that it will still be the leading financial Centre in Europe,even after Brexit because of its reputation for probity. The latter is a probability based on historical data. I am only an economist . No prophet.

  16. chad99999 Avatar
    chad99999

    The North Atlantic states are not direct democracies. They are representative democracies.

    Political Science 101: In a representative democracy, voters hire a representative to speak and decide on their behalf. The representative is entirely free to disagree with and overrule the voters who elected him on any issue.

    In the US, it is not the people who elect the President. It is the members of the Electoral College. In the UK, the members of Parliament can ignore the results of a referendum and substitute their judgment for the “will of the people”.

    The decision of the High Court was a no-brainer.

  17. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    “Some influential persons have second thoughts. Use the Law Courts to attempt to frustrate the results of that referendum.”

    It was actually a black british businesswoman…….Miller I believe her name is….. who brought the court challenge of article 50 to initiate Brexit.

    The same leaders and politicians lied to and misled the poorly educated mostly elderly folks who were scared for their pensions in UK, Wales and Scotland…, that is what lead to the Brexit cockup…the lying, deceitfil leaders, had the people not been lied to and misled by the leaders, had they been told the truth by those beasts in the british parliament, just like the Swiss referendums, they would have made the right decisions.

    Cameron did not do his job properly in educating the people re Brexit, he was too busy being a prick down in Jamaica, so he lost his job…karma

    Bushman….lyou gotta be joking, you still believe in any politicians anywgere making the right decisions that are not self-serving…good luck to thsat

  18. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    Bernard Codrington stop talking uninformed nonsense. The high court decision, in a cas brought by Gina Miller, a multi-millionaire Guyanese, was about the sovereignty of parliament. I know Gina said it was about process, but it more complex than that. Stop taking your facts on British constitution from CNN.
    Britain is a parliamentary democracy, that means neither the courts nor executive can over-rule parliament properly constituted. Parliament must have the final say, not some referendum.
    I learned that nearly fifty years ago in O level British constitution. What will (may) happen is that elected politicians, fearing for their seats, will bow to the wishes of the people. That is called democracy.
    I hope the nonsense of Brexit is abandoned.

  19. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gina-miller-online-abuse-high-court-brexit-victory-article-50-a7396336.html

    This is the female who challenged article 50 and Brexit.

  20. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    Sargeant, the Tory party did not have an ‘official’ position on the referendum. MPs were given a free vote.

  21. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    The usual brit as@holes calling for Miller’s head are usually the ones who believe they have a right to dictate and determine the lives of all the black people in the Caribbean and South America, now they hate how the other shoe feels on their hoofed feet…lol

    52
    NewsUKHome News
    Gina Miller subjected to online abuse after High Court Brexit victory

    Businesswoman who brought Brexit case to High Court targted by Leave supporters

    Matt Payton 10 hours ago79 comments

    52

    POPULAR VIDEOS

    Wonder Woman trailer: Fresh look at Gal Gadot in action as DC heroine

    First look at Neil Patrick Harris’ Count Olaf in Lemony Snicket
    Businesswoman Gina Miller has been subjected to racist online abuse after her lawsuit forced the Government to put its plans to leave the European Union to a Parliamentary vote.

    Ms Miller, a philanthropist and investment banker, was targeted by Brexit supporters on social media after the High Court verdict was announced.

    Many of her detractors made overt reference to her Guyanese heritage, and several said she should leave the UK.

    One Twitter user addressed the referendum result: “If Gina Miller really doesn’t like what the majority voted for on 23rd June then why doesn’t she f*** off back where she came from.”

    Ms Miller also received a lot of support from Remain supporters.

    Ms Miller’s lawsuit challenged Theresa May’s plan to trigger Article 50 using Royal Prerogative which would have meant it would not require a Parliamentary vote.

    READ MORE
    MPs will back Theresa May and trigger Article 50, says campaign group
    Theresa May unnecessarily embarrassed herself over Article 50
    Brexit won’t be delayed at all by legal challenge, Theresa May to say
    Brexit High Court judge’s 7 damning attacks on government
    Lord Chief Justice Thomas and two other senior judges agreed with Ms Miller and said in a statement: “The court is not concerned with, and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.”

    Following the High Court ruling, the businesswoman said: “It’s about our United Kingdom and all our futures. It’s not about how anyone voted.

    “Every one of us voted for the best country and the best future.

    “The judgment, I hope – when it’s read by the Government and they contemplate the full judgment – that they will make the wise decision of not appealing but pressing forward and having a proper debate in our sovereign parliament, our mother of parliaments that we are so admired for all over the world.”

    More about: Gina MillerBrexitArticle 50Theresa MayRemain campaignHigh Court
    MOST POPULAR

    Man searching for toilet finds evidence of earliest human settlement

    Brexit legal challenge wins

    The 25 richest, healthiest, happiest, and most advanced countries

    Adele had the best response to be being asked about shaving her legs

    Saudi Arabia refuses to even consider allowing women to drive

    COMMENTS
    Log in or register to comment
    79 Comments
    SubscribeRSS

    Less than a minute ago
    NationstateDemocracy
    Dear Remainers
    You argue that you want parliamentary sovereignty in the Brexit process

    Yet in being anti Brexit you are anti Parliamentary sovereignty !

    Because our EU membership hugely undermines our parliamentary sovereignty !

    What a bizarre mix of contradictions you are.

    Listen to Tony Benn.
    The EU is a monster that gobbles up democracy & sovereignty & half of our beloved parliamentarians have been colluding with it for the last 45 years >


    ReplyShare+1

    Less than a minute ago
    Vladimir Ilyitch Puddleduck
    I would like to know what her “philanthropic” interests are. My guess is that they are heavily weighted towards her homeland.
    ReplyShare0

    Less than a minute ago
    Peter Franks
    Great we are now a South American colony with the Brazilian hairdresser and the Guyanese Hedge Fund Manager who happens to have a husband with very deep pockets. Of course they were aided and abetted by three eurotrash quisling judges.
    ReplyShare0

    Less than a minute ago
    loudra
    She wants to fook off back home !! i really hope she gets tortured , who the fook does she think she is not even from herer and over turned a ruling on brexit the silly fooking mong ….i am raging what an absolute farce we are in this country to allow this to happen what makes it worse is she is not even British
    ReplyShare+1

    3 minutes ago
    Pityi Palkó
    Dame Gina Miller – who has made a significant achievement for the United Kingdom !

    ReplyShare-1

    4 minutes ago
    Drogggggggba
    Stating facts does not make one a racist, and it is a fact this woman was not born in the UK.
    ReplyShare+1

    6 minutes ago
    Harrythebastard
    Her life up until now needs to be spotless. The Mail, Express etc will be on her case now digging to find any dirt on her they can.
    ReplyShare1 reply0

    Less than a minute ago
    Peter Franks
    Good I’m sure there’ll be plenty.
    ReplyShare0

    16 minutes ago
    herman
    I can not see any examples of racist abuse in the above article.
    ReplyShare0

    19 minutes ago
    John C
    She deserves what she gets, I would class her as enemy of the state.
    ReplyShare6 replies-2

    12 minutes ago
    bruno
    I am sick and tired to see her, proud as a peacock, on the news. She is nobody but a vain, spoilt and inconsequential rich woman who could afford to waste time and money to get her 15mn of fame but I can not and will not condone death threats or racism.
    ReplyShare0

    11 minutes ago
    Harrythebastard
    An enemy of the people.
    ReplyShare1 reply0

    8 minutes ago
    Eddie Hazel
    an enemy of the rapidly dwindling ‘majority’ of brexit zealots and far-right keyboard warriors
    ReplyShare-2

    10 minutes ago
    Eddie Hazel
    I would class you as a fascist
    ReplyShare2 replies0

    3 minutes ago
    Stillwalkingonmodmug­s
    I’d class you as a cűnt
    ReplyShare0

    Less than a minute ago
    Harrythebastard
    Go away and find some books on Fascism before you start making moronic statements.
    ReplyShare0

    20 minutes ago
    Pityi Palkó
    Brexit is largely the result of concentrated lies, deception and massive misrepresentation.
    By false manipulation, British politicians deceived and misled the gullible British public. Today, we are tasting the unpleasant, confused result of Brexit based on LIES – all confirmed by the once proud British £ rapidly diving towards the floor !

    ReplyShare2 replies+2

    Less than a minute ago
    JASON
    You talk of people being gullible? So, to add to racists and bigots we are now gullible? As for the pound diving towards the floor, I’m certain that it will now fall lower as you and your cronies are only going to delay the inevitable, the leaving of the EU. Dear oh dear, it really is embarrassing.
    ReplyShare0

    Less than a minute ago
    Peter Franks
    Smug and patronising rubbish. You assume all of the brexiteers are either racists or have been deceived and are angry with austerity but the remoaners are all forward thinking, highly and educated and can see through the deception. Coming from a tird like you being called a racist is meaningless

  22. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-faces-guerrilla-war-after-high-court-hands-parliament-a-say-over-brexit-a7396401.html

    Lol…I call it karma.

  23. exclaimer Avatar
    exclaimer

    Wow so much hot air over another country’s politics. You should be focusing on events in Barbados.

    We in the UK have a robust political system and a sophisticated electorate.

    The Brits voted for Brexit and this will be reflected by those parliamentarians who will have to cast their votes.

    The UK has the capacity and the confidence to reinvent itself. Brexit will weaken the UK in the short term only. I believe that it will be a price worth paying.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3903236/We-t-let-Brexit-derailed-City-slicker-Brazilian-crimper-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html

  24. David Avatar
    David

    @exclaimer

    Surely you do not mean that Barbadians should be forever navel gazers and remain stuck in a fish bowl when it comes to the politics of our #1 tourists market?

  25. lemuel Avatar
    lemuel

    This ruling shall certainly cause enormous consternation in the “mother country”.

  26. David Avatar
    David

    @exclaimer

    Further, Barbados is the fourth higest debt nation in the world after Japan, Lebanon and Greece. What is there to discuss?

  27. exclaimer Avatar
    exclaimer

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/nov/04/may-to-tell-juncker-brexit-is-still-on-after-article-50-ruling-politics-livev

  28. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    If Barbados is the fourth most indebted nation in the world, why are our media not reporting this? Why do we not report the under-performanc of the Barbadian economy compared with its peers in the region, and globally? Why do we prefer waffle to macroeconomic facts? This is not cyclical, but rather systemic.
    What is the official Opposition going to say about this revelation? We already know that if a nation has a debt to GDP ratio of over 90 then it will take generations to resolve. How does Sinckler plan to resolve this?
    Happy 50th birthday, Barbados.

  29. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    @ David

    Remember well that it was the all-seeing eye of Pachamama who clearly saw these events, chapter and verse.

    With that type of vision we wonder how it is now possible not to mention that Pachamama was the One, the only One! LOL

    And events are proceeding exactly as foreseen.

    If there is one distinctive characteristic about Pachamama, unlike most now willing to join a bandwagon, is a fierce determination to tell what will happening in the future.

  30. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    https://www.facebook.com/BBCPolitics/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

  31. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    This decision serves to reiterate the true nature of “a parliamentary democracy” -that once the parliament is properly constituted, not even the much vaunted “power of the people” as shown in the referendum nor the Executive may take its place in the constitutional structure.

    I suppose that any appeal will be based on the traditional nature of Parliament -that it should be merely reflective of the popular will.

    But, as the judgment illustrates, the representative character of a parliament does not brook any interference from an unconstitutional “popular will” or a constitutionally separate Executive.

    It is all about the separation of state powers.

  32. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    Bernard

    Please continue to offer your opinions, even if wrong

    Hal Austin, by virtue of living in the UK, has never had anything particularly insightful to say.

    He lack the brain to critique his own circumstances even when significant events were happening under his very nasal passage.

    He is certainly never positioned himself as a source for UK affairs.

    Therefore he is in no position to direct you or any of us as to what we are to be talking/thinking about.

    We look forward to reading your insights on all matters

    Indeed, a wrong insight from you is far better than a library of ignorance from Hal Austin.

  33. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Bush Tea November 3, 2016 at 9:05 PM re”This sounds like a logical ruling from the court.
    It was always folly to expect that major policy could be decided by referendum. Shiite man, people would vote for capital punishment too – if allowed in a vote…”

    It seems to me that you are conflating true democracy with an ‘educated elites’ view of being better than the people. This is not some minor societal concern about capital punishment.

    What has the court done other than clarify rather succinctly that the constituted Parliament is the body which has to establish the ‘process’ to effect the Brexit as @Austin said above.

    And what is the Parliament if not the representatives of the people?

    Why the false issue of a new election (as @Sarge is offering)… What would an election change?

    The plebiscite voted to Brexit and the court’s ruling does not change that. It changes the view – unless overturned, which seems unlikely – that the PM must get a final approval from her colleagues in both the Houses.

    Now, if they decide as you Mr Bushtea that the voice of the people can be violated then Britain will have a ‘minor’ constitutional crisis which one hopes will be resolved peacefully at the voting booths from the election that THEN becomes mandatory. …as a another Parliament would need to vote to quell the major unrest.

    How can we look on at this and the US election and even suggest that the ‘referenda’ of a people can be continually violated and not expect violence.

    We have elites brazenly suppressing votes of certain groups under the guise of law; we have a majority of people saying clearly they accept abortion in all practical ways but a powerful minority saying we will let outlaw that ‘heinous act’ and threatening to bring their entire judicial system into disrepute unless they get the judges they want to effect that agenda.

    Is that true ‘democracy’ Mr BushTea?

    How can you fight against the will of the people in merry ole England and give voice against the DLP’ suppression of Bajan peeps here daily?

    This ruling CANNOT deny Brexit. It merely advises that Parliament have to set the groundwork.

    That PM May is fixated on the power struggle of persons of her ilk to get her way rather than finding the glide path to work with her colleagues (admittedly a long and difficult process) is not surprising.

    That you dismiss the people’s will so cavalierly is a bit shocking. however.

  34. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    Confusion Elusion
    https://youtu.be/fMSqmqJfjI0

  35. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes/photos/a.212406988788591.78923.147384458624178/1436484223047522/?type=3

  36. David Avatar
    David

    > The issue here is that the government although not bound by the result of > the referendum is morally and ethically guided by the decision. Why resort > to a referendum then. >

    #democracy

    > >

  37. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    @ David

    Because democracy is and has always been a sham!

    We have no democracy, we’ve always had more regressive political formations – oligarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, feudalism

    Have you never noticed that the most wicked governments on earth are the best friends of the powers that be, unless they decide not to certain countries. Only then do they become pariahs.

    Have we not been telling you this for years.

    The problem is that we think we are playing with one set of cards whereas the people who control this world give not an ‘uck about democracy that foolish people think exist.

    Democracy is merely a belief system like religion.

    And the masters of the universe know well that any shiite like that will always fool the many. Especially if codified in shiite laws.

  38. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    MAy’s best decision is to call an election and get a mandate from the people on Brexit.

    …..we have to bear in mind the vote that was 37% leave,35% remain and 28% did not vote.

    …..their was never a two thirds or even a simple majority in favour of either position which is how decisions are normaly made.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/brexit-ruling-mps-seize-moment-theresa-may-eu-plans-parliament?CMP=fb_gu

  39. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Dribbler
    Perhaps this is a bit to complex for you…

    The POINT here is that – EVEN IN SIMPLE ORGANISATIONS – democratic control means the power to elect leaders…… FULL STOP.
    Once elected, it is those leaders who are empowered to make decisions on the organisation’s behalf…
    It would be WHOLLY idiotic to have an arrangement where the ‘people’ can willy nilly take referendum positions on operational strategies… ANYONE in management can see how untenable such an arrangement would be…

    If ‘the people’ vote to leave EU …and the whole shit collapses, who will take responsibility?
    How do you ask politicians who wanted to stay, …to administer leaving…?

    At best, democracy can mean a RECALL of leaders who stray from public confidence. The loss of a referendum vote should therefore mean RESIGNATIONS, ….not micromanagement…
    Shiite man Dribbles!!! …surely you get that….

    WRT Barbados…
    How many Bajans agree with the building of that monument to the Devil on the Garrison?
    …but we cannot stop his agents in our parliament from building it…

    How many feel that Lowe, Speaker and Parris should be locked up…?
    Can you imagine the chaos if we held national referenda and micromanaged these matters….?

    Try reading Bushie’s posts again AFTER you wake up…..

  40. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Pacha
    The SINGLE biggest flaw with ‘democracy’ is that we have allowed the politicians to define the vote as a percentage of “those who turn out to vote”.

    The vote SHOULD either be a percentage of those eligible to vote…..or, like the Australians, voting should be MANDATORY.

    The BREXIT vote should therefore have required 50% +1 vote OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS…. rather than of those who bothered to vote.
    …in which case it would have failed miserably…

    The benefit of considering the FULL electorate, is that politicians would be FORCED to be more forthcoming with explanations, transparency and justifications in order to solicit ACTIVE support.

    As it is, by turning off large segments of the population….while having their yard fowls programmed, they can win with very small percentages of the electorate’s support.

    Lotta shiite!!!

  41. David Avatar
    David

    The Brexit when you add the positions the counties in the Kingdom find themselves opens a serious debate. Why have referenda if the will of the people can be trumped by the process (government) who invoked referenda in the first place.

    ,

    >

  42. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Bushie with due respect I was wide awake on the first to third readings of your post. Your remarks and those of a few others simply turn things upside down to suit your purposes.

    It is patently understood that leadership demands hard decisions which may go against the perceived will of the many: Pres, Lincoln is the perfect example of your rather illogical remark above to wit: “How do you ask politicians who wanted to stay, …to administer leaving…?”

    He was to all intents and purposes a man who accepted the rule of slavery but he yet was able to administer its effective demolition. I am awake senor. Are you the one dreaming!

    In one REM moment you posit that leaders must lead and without an intake of a breath (not having any sleep apnea are we..smile) ask how can ‘leaders lead’ when they are not in agreement with a resolution.

    What exactly is your definition of a leader, old chap. Is it speaking as eloquently as a Bushman to make contradictory statements in one fell’ swoop!

    Anyhow I gone. Dun wid you on this. Enough Brit tom-follery for one morn!

    Incidentally @ David re : “The issue here is that the government although not bound by the result of…Why resort to a referendum then”.—–

    A strange statement. A referendum tells the servants of the people what those people think particularly on bigly issues; but one is held every election cycle as we know….regardless of the vote count. Don’t the leaders then often not do the people’s will or have to effect political compromise as best as possible to satisfy those needs.

    The same is needed here. Leaders have to save the populace from themselves often. The problem comes when the servant leaders believe they can enforce their will regardless of ‘popular’ desires.

    So if the Brits want to go into a circuitous orgasmic display of self-folly to have an election of a ‘plebiscite vote’ then so be it.

    If the Tory (naysayers) win what exactly does that mean? And if the UKIP coalition of Brexiters are successful does that mean that the country is still not badly divided?

    Democracy is alive and well…we simply need to make it really work and accept that practical compromise is an integral and mandatory element of any meaningful democratic society !

  43. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    @ Bushie

    Regardless of how we tinker with this model the original sin, and we are speaking in terms you understand best, will always bedevil us.

    The deepest truth is that the powers-that-be only use ‘democracy’ to mislead the population. For example, for much of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s the USA government supported fascist regimes in all of South and Central America.

    Have you considered how the one country seen by most as the paragon of ‘democracy’ would support brutal, military, dictatorships in all of the Western hemisphere, right in its own backyard.

    And we could find any number of examples all over the world. The Saudis have no better friend than the USA. They will even go to war to protect the most vile regime on earth. So too would the stinking British.

    You talk about the devil. Could there be any bigger devil than these wicked ‘democratic’ systems in which we are immersed?

    Centrally, and Bushie you know this, democracy is an economic system. It has very little to do with politics. If it is economic, then we have to look at wealth, incomes distribution. And we find that the longer this ‘democracy’ fiction exist the greater the mal-distribution of incomes and wealth.

    So democracy is like Christmas, a big stinking lie which can never genuinely serve mankind.

    You cannot so pollute a social systems and then expect to find good in it. This is tantamount of trying to extract GMOs out of nature. Social systems cannot work that way.

  44. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    David November 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM #

    It cannot be called the will of the people with out at least a simple majority of those eligible to vote and preferably a two thirds.

  45. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    @David at 9:26 AM

    In my earlier interventions I made two fundamental points.

    The first was that in practice the Democracy which we operate under is an elected Dictatorship .

    The second point was that the Cameron administration passed the buck back to the electorate . Being out of touch with their constituents they underestimated the fact that the constituents were unhappy with decisions being made on their behalf in Brussels that were affecting them negatively.

    My position is the same as Exclaimer at 4: 25 AM.

    There is no moral ground for Parliament to shelve the decision to Brexit without undermining the democratic process.

    The high court judges were at pains to point out that was not their remit. Their job was to express an opinion and that they did. In other words everybody playing ping pong.

  46. David Avatar
    David

    Thanks Bernard there is agreement. Not sure why Dee Word is happy to drown in the coolaid.

  47. Bernard Codrington. Avatar
    Bernard Codrington.

    @ David

    Please do a background check on the three judges and the person who piloted this high court action and tell me if you do not see a high dose of self interest there.

  48. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Pacha
    We are agreed in principle.

    Having said that, surely we can step down to the level of the REALITY of what we have in practice, and critique its plusses and minuses…. Cuhdear, we can even do this with Bushie’s pal Dompey.

    Mankind is intrinsically evil and selfish (albino-centric) in nature. Any system will be exploited to meet such selfish ends, except in those VERY rare cased where a special ‘community-minded’ individual manages to get themselves placed in positions of power.

    The limited systems that we employ can be assessed, based on their abilities to accommodate these extremes.
    With ‘democracy’, we elect persons to perform the role of ‘leaders’ and to take management responsibility for the society. This is just like shareholders electing a board of Directors.

    A referendum can be used by the Directors to gauge the will of the shareholders – and to act accordingly on that ‘advice’. However where the referendum is seen as a DIRECTIVE to the Board, we are looking at a mutiny, and the Board should give way…. RESIGN.

    How can you have a manager who has structured his whole approach to operating WITHIN the EU being directed to ‘BREXIT’, while maintaining responsibility for successful performance? Obviously when the shit hit the fan … or the whacker hits the shit – he will claim that he was FORCED to make a foolish decision… by his bosses the people…

    Leaders who no longer enjoy the confidence of their shareholders should either RESIGN( like Cameron), or, if they lack the integrity to do so, (like Froon), be FORCED out…… ‘vi et armies’ if needed.

  49. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    Talk about democracy.

    Next election Barbados will clean out the DLP, in toto. LOL

    Two years in, the same criticisms of this government will be made of that regime.

    So what democracy what? We say elected dictatorship taking turns fooling the people!

  50. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/88605/imf-predicts-growth-2017

    So who is lying…is it the IMF who said one thing about Barbados or is it Worrell who said another…lol

1 2 3
Newer Comments

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading