If Democracy is Dead, do Voters have a Legitimate Recourse to Violence?

Okay, so today the Courts overruled a democratically elected government on a point of law that was previously assumed not to be justiciable.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that they are above a democratically elected Government, they are above even the Monarch and  can rule that a government's motives have to be considered when proroguing Parliament. They have also ruled that the Monarch's decision to Prorogue Parliament is unlawful, because the motive for the advice she was given was in their eyes unlawful.

By extension this could also be applied to legislation. For instance if a government brought forth legislation that someone with enough money disagreed with, they could if they had enough money and time, run the Government's policy decision through the courts, to the Supreme Court and overrule the government.

So, democracy itself ceases if a Democratically elected Government can be overruled by the Supreme Court. We now have the law.

Democracy is the thing that allowed the UK to change in a peaceful manner for 1200 years. Maybe we've only had truly representative one-person-one-vote democracy for less than 100 years, but we still had accountability even way back at the beginning.

The Supreme court has no such accountability. If it now has, by dint of the law it has passed, primacy over the Government and the Monarch, then by extraction they should be voted in to office and also out of office by the people to keep them accountable.

So, given that democracy as we understood it to be, is actually not available and democracy is de-legitimised, does that mean the means by which we settled arguments before (violence) now re-legitimised?

I don't know. These are interesting constitutional questions. The one thing that does come out of this is that there is a lot of constitutional change that needs to happen so that this does not happen again.

Personally I think the Supreme court have overstepped their remit by overruling the Government and the Monarch.

In effect the Supreme Court have now given themselves the power to scrutinise and overrule any piece of legislation that goes before the Queen, irrespective of whether it is arrived at by a democratically elected Government. They have the power to rule on it's legitimacy, rather than the legitimacy being given to the rule of government by democratic mandate.

There is much do to repair the injustices of the past 3 years.

Firstly either the FTPA needs to be heavily modified or abolished. MPs moving from Government to opposition or vice versa should automatically trigger a by-election.

If a government loses a working majority in Parliament it should automatically trigger a general election. No zombie governments should ever be held in place by opposition MPs.

The Supreme Court should also be abolished and the Law Lords reinstated so they have the ability to scrutinise legislation as it is being made. No legislating after the fact.

There is so much more to be thrashed out...

Prorogation is deemed unlawful in Scotland

Not sure how it affects the British Parliament in Westminster, but a Scottish court has declared the prorogation of Parliament unlawful.

They say that are convinced the prorogation was for the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament".

Completely ignoring the fact that Prorogation happens every year at conference time anyway and the extension to allow the Queen's speech is a mere four days. I bet her Madg' isn't impressed one of her courts is playing fast and loose with the constitution, the government's intent and context.

But then again, Scottish courts have a habit of ignoring context and making up the intentions of defendants. Re: Count Dankula.

Interesting: does that mean all the Scottish MPs can return to Parliament to sit and twiddle their thumbs while the English MPs stay away as commanded by the Queen?

This really is the mother of all constitutional fuckups.

So really, what this all says is: you can vote for anyone you want, but if someone has the money to pay the court costs, they can stymy any government voted into power and even worse reverse the democratically voted intention of the population.

Okay:

I want the details of where I can find a bunch of guys that know how to operate challenger tanks and where the ammo is stored. They also need to know where the small arms are and their ammo. I want a people's army. No fucking about, I want heavy armour and I want a properly equipped Army.

We may need to go to war with these cunts. A proper, fighting war....

Indeed we need tanks on the Westminster lawn.

Democracy only works with the consent of the losers. They have refused to consent. It seems now is the time to enforce democracy.

Prorogation

Prorogation

Noun

meaning:

the action of discontinuing a session of a parliament or other legislative assembly without dissolving it.

The media has worked itself into a frenzy over the prorogation of Parliament. The fact is that prorogation is an entirely legitimate mechanism of Parliament.

The other salient fact is that Parliament hasn't had a Queen's speech (and with it any new legislation) for THEE YEARS.

For the past two years critics have been saying that Parliament has been paralysed by Brexit and they are right. No new legislative proposals have come out of government for three years. Current legislation harks back to a time when the Maybot scraped through the election. That's before article 50 was enacted, before any deals had been done, before chequers, before the Olly Robbins stitch-up, before the withdrawal agreement, before the backstop.

All we have had in the intervening time, is Parliament and private individuals like Gina Miller attempting to stop Brexit and thwart the role of the government enacting the very thing the people had told them to enact. .i.e. leaving the EU.

It's been Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. It's time to settle the matter and move on.

The media is calling it a government coup.
How can it be, when all the government are doing is suspending Parliament until the Queen's speech. There are no tanks on the lawns of Westminster, there are no soldiers barring MPs entry to the Houses of parliament. They will have plenty of time to debate whatever new agreement comes out of talks between Boris Johnson's government and the EU.

What they won't have time for is unnecessary shenanigans like votes of confidence and other delaying tactics put in place by MPs.
 The media are calling it undemocratic. How can it be undemocratic to move ahead and leave the EU when commanded by the people? The referendum was the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. The biggest ever vote. The people spoke. How can it be undemocratic to follow their instructions?

I suggest that the Johnson government needs to let dissenting anti-Brexit MPs in leave-voting constituencies understand in no uncertain terms that they will not get the PMs full support and they will be left to fight against the Brexit party on their own.

Where MPs have voted in accordance their leave-voting constituency, I believe that the Brexit party should leave well alone.

The rump of remain constituencies should feel the full force of a Brexit party PR campaign, blasting out the message that despite them voting to remain in the EU, the majority voted to leave. The majority decision, like all previous majority decisions in political history, should be carried by the government of the day and those that voted leave have no mandate to thwart the view of the majority.

The result of the referendum was clear, with no ambiguity: the people of the UK wish to leave the EU. The government has leeway in HOW they leave the EU, but leave it they must. And leave it in a way that satisfies the electorate, otherwise they will not be in government after the next election. Boris Johnson understands this and is trying his best to move forward with the will of the people.

Its something that Theresa May, the House of Lords, Gina Miller and all the anti-Brexit MPs in the commons fail to understand.