@@seriousmaran9414 The parliament of the EU, elected by the EUs inhabitants are right now arguing with a government, only a government that is not elected by the people, with the people's voices, the parliament having been shut down by that goverment. I don't know about the undemocratic part, seems like a stretch
@@Timon-IrishFolk that is the undemocratic part, or at least the start of it. The referendum that started this off was uninformed, deceitful, fraudulent and, according to the courts illegal. It should have been voided and rerun but the UK government used the parliamentary vote instead.
Yeah I remember looking at how the EU functions in the run-up to the referendum, listening to a various arguments either way, then concluding that we have a far bigger democratic deficit than the EU and we should sort our own bloody house out before even considering leaving.
@@khary30 But still, errors like these can tend to undermine the legitimacy of the reporting. If errors like these are being made in something easily verifiable (like spell-check), then what other errors are being made. I like TLDR, but they do need to work on their editing.
Serious Maran But you do and so do the people who agree with you? Have you noticed only intelligent people seem to agree with what you say, I’d think about that for a while.
MrGonzonator Expert = convincing bullshitter. I’m not a fan of Peter Hitchens but he is right in one thing, “as soon as you understand that no one knows what they’re doing, it all starts to make sense. So sit back and enjoy the show, I know I am”.
How about a video about the international reaction from Brexit? Our press, from left to right, seem to agree that the situation can be described as a gigantic screaming tornado.
Intention is hard to assess, unless of course the person that you are talking about first suggested the action that you're discussing in a public forum like... I don't know... A political leadership debate. It would also be handy if the person in question directly stated that they intend to shut down parliament in order to push through Brexit policy. Oh well, it's a shame that footage like that doesn't exist.
...or whether the "intention" is to simply stymie Parlimentary bickering or to give the People what they voted for but Parliment disagrees with. It sounds totally political to me, just like "A political leadership debate".
The thing is the even then the supreme court could just decide that the physical act itself was within the rules, so the intention behind it was irrelevant.
Most of them were elected on a manifesto to honour the referendum, but have since changed their minds and / or parties. The parliament we have now doesn't reflect what we voted for in 2017.
@@iceniwargames6347 It is known, which outcome the different parties prefer. Tories - Brexit, No Deal if necessary. However, not all Tories where Brexiteers, many of them were Soft Brexiteers. Labour - Soft Brexit. Logic dictates that if a Soft Brexit is not possible, they would rather remain. Greens - Remain SNP - Remain Libdems - Remain DUP - Brexit no matter what. So the voters didn't vote for a Hard, No Deal Brexit Majority among the MP's reflected by their party choice and vote in their constituency. Then we got a large group of soft brexiteers split among Tories and Labour and a slightly smaller group of the other Opposition Parties, who favor remain. Basically, parliament reflects very well the british people, since in the last polls I know, they were roughly equally split-up between No Deal, Soft Brexit and Remain. Yes, some Members, especially Tory Members, switched sides in parliament, however, they didn't really change their conviction regarding Brexit. So this parliament is perfectly legitimized and it has the stronger legitimization than the original referendum, because the election process of parliament is not as long ago as the referendum. And back then, before the referendum, a majority was for Remain in polls, however, not everyone participated and thus we got the slight majority for the Brexit as a result in the first place. If anything, the whole Brexit affair is a lesson, how important it is to participate in a democratic process. And if you think about it: Anyone, who would be ok with a No Deal Brexit, would have voted for a No Deal Party, however the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers together have a majority in parliament, because the Soft Brexiteers wouldn't vote for a No Deal Brexit, which would be destructive for the UK as a whole. So we can assume, that the majority of the British People, if the only choices would be "No Deal Brexit" or "Remain" in the likely event, that Johnson fails to come up with a Deal, would rather remain and that also Parliament wouldn't vote for a No Deal Brexit and revoke Article 50, if the EU doesn't grant another extension. The EU wants to progress and not stagnate the Brexit Process. The EU doesn't want the British Parliament to debate endlessly and extend the Brexit Process every 3 months, they and also we, the European People, want it to end. Either leave with a realistic deal or without a deal or make up your minds and stay. Btw, my personal conviction from the beginning of this whole affair was and still is, that in the End, the UK will remain, because it is sheer madness to leave the EU, even with a Deal it is very destructive for the UK, possibly on a scale, where Scotland and Northern Ireland would break away. Jake in the past has called the "nuclear option" the least probable one, however, imho it is the only probable outcome in the end.
@@sitrilko Just you wait, TLDR are like the documentary show, Breaking Brexit, and hopefully it'll run to 8 seasons (probably with a disappointing conclusion).
As the referendum was not legally binding, then I'd imagine parliament has always had the power to overrule the result, just that nobody dared do it, for fear of civil unrest.
it's a plebiscite more than anything. You can go against it but it would be political suicide to do so. Labour are against Brexit but they dare not say so because the people have spoken- which is why the party looks as weak as water
The fact is they just don't like the fact Leave won. So there is no true reason to overturn the result ,, we Leave say its in the best interest of the country to Leave the EU. And there rule over us. Free to prosper. And we will.
I don't think it's clear in this video, but the referendum did not enumerate the options for Brexit, so we don't really know how many people would actually support a "No Deal" Brexit. Thus making the "Direct Democracy" part a bit misleading. Parliament's job should be to work out the details, unfortunately they can't agree on much.
And that is the crux of the matter. The other part of the matter is the amount of disinformation having been spread. Now, what need is King William in a Batman costume, with Princess Kate in a Robin costume, to come to the rescue, apprehend BJ and unmask him, revealing a clone of Vladimir Putin.
We don't know how many, but we DO know that it isn't all of Leave voters, and we also know that it's almost NONE of Remain voters. Therefore, it is a minority of the country.
noxxi knox yes, I agree with that in principle but we have a prime-minister who nobody, not even his own cabinet, trust to even TRY to negotiate a deal. It is all being used as an excuse to sell the UK to American private political party donors and to avoid EU tax avoidance and human rights laws, and everyone knows it.
noxxi knox it is the only power preventing that particular sector of our politics from using our citizens as a commodity: Farage the hedge fund manager and his privately funded party, Johnson et-all. Along with Rupert Murdoch of course.
@noxxi knox "I don't like that the person in charge has the potential to do bad things. So I am voting this other person in-charge who is RIGHT NOW doing those exact bad things"
BoJo's Bizzare Adventures Season 4: Backstop is Unbreakable Despite the defeat of OrDIO and the closing of Parliament, BoJo must overcome another challenge: Rorykage and the Gaukeward Squad vows to fight against BoJo and reopen Parliament. Who will gain victory? Will there be an extension? Stay on this channel to find out!
Legally true. Morally bankrupt. Do you recall the message "just advisory" beforehand? If on a specific issue in a very rare case they ask the public to vote, then ignoring the result is on a par with Russian or Chinese levels of democracy. They have votes. They aren't premier league democracies.
@@danielwebb8402 "Do you recall the message "just advisory" beforehand?" Yeah. In the dictionary next to the word 'referendum'. A _plebiscite_ is a binding vote determined by the electorate, a _referendum_ is not. The fact that many in the Leave campaign misled their supporters to believe otherwise doesn't change that.
@@BoojumFed I just remember being told "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide". In the government's leaflet which a) was the closest thing to a manifesto from any campaign b) we know every household received c) was arguing for remain. The PM repeated the morning after "We not only have a parliamentary democracy, but on questions about the arrangements for how we've governed there are times when it is right to ask the people themselves and that is what we have done. The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected." Paddy Ashdown, most passionate EU supporter there was, famously on night of referendum "“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent. When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t." So not leavers fooling people it was politically and morally (not legally I fully know that) binding.
I don't want to make any advertisements here and I'm not affiliated with anyone, but if you want to hear a summery of the content and the key points head over to "a different bias". There are 3 videos of day 1 and 2 summarizing it nicely.
The referendum did not say the people wanted a no-deal exit which is what Johnson is pushing for. The fundamental problem here is that people voted for something that wasn't clearly defined, and consequences poorly understood. The pro-Brexit side is trying to spin that vote as a mandate to support Johnson, but that is no more a mandate than saying you want to lose weight is a mandate to cut off your legs.
No deal is what was on the ballot paper. Polls taken at the time of the referendum stated 73% of leave voters strongly supported a no deal brexit. No deal is what everyone was voting for, if we could get a beneficial deal before leaving then great, if not however everyone knew it meant no deal.
@@johnroyal4520 The question on the ballot was NOT for no deal. The actual wording was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" There was nothing about the terms of leaving, and the consequences of a no-deal exit weren't known. In fact, it wasn't until this month that Operation Yellowhammer was officially released which detailed what a no-deal Brexit would mean, so it was impossible for people to make an informed choice back in 2016 about no-deal. Now that people are better informed, according to the latest poll I could find taken on Sept 13th, only 41% want to leave on Oct 31 even if it means with no deal. Contrast that with 47% that want to delay for a deal or cancel Brexit altogether. It is clear that only a minority want a no deal Brexit.
I dunno, I think Parliament is doing a fine job representing the people who voted in the referendum. They voted, with a small majority, to invoke article 50 and make the UK's withdrawal official. Then as soon as the situation got complicated, specific, and included real world consequences, suddenly there was no longer a majority.
@Jack A majority for what? No Deal wasn't on the ballot. Norway Style wasn't on the ballot. Canada Plus wasn't on the ballot. Enforce Borders But Stay In The Common Market wasn't on the ballot. But No Deal automatically wins because that's what Nigel Farage wants? If you want to respect the will of the voters you don't get to dictate what they voted for _after_ the vote.
@Jubsy Saddinger The Parliament is not ruling on anything right now, they've been prorogued. The High Court is ruling on whether that prorogation is lawful. But my post was about how parliament derives its sovereignty from the people and is doing a good job of representing the people by being as divided as the rest of us.
It's almost like Parliament doesn't do what people say just because they say it, especially if they know that in reality and the long run, the mob mentality, might just be wrong?
@@IreneShardaForever That's an interesting point. But I'll remind, at no stage was Parliament told to leave the EU in the most destructively stupid way possible, nor did the referendum sheet require that Brexit be delivered before Jack's attention span expires, or more to the point, the Tories start feeling electoral consequences. While there are those in Parliament still representing the 48% of the nation that voted against Brexit and wroking to stop the whole thing. The rest of Parliament are just trying to make Brexit happen in a way that doesn't lead to massive loss of life, cataclysmic economic upheaval or in the case of the DUP, Northern Ireland being in the same custom's union as the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom. That it takes more than 3 years and 2 Prime Minister's to come up with a workable solution to this humongous task doesn't mean the 'will of the people' is being ignored.
Issue is, in the court of law, that is actually not enough. You can prove that he made a threat to do so yes, but can your truly **prove** that his intention in doing something that is done every year except longer than usual was done for such a reason? Yes its enought for common sense, but for law? Thas why my lads in Britain need a goddamn codified constitution.
No he could of shut down till 1 st NoV. ,,,, corbry wanted a Queen speech. But Boris did not put up any good reason why. Howe silly is that. There bk on the 14 th anyway. Money to burn. I say. Come on. That court will be remainers. We have all seen the corruption our eye,s have been opened. What a shower of rat,s.
This is one of your best videos in a while. Good job! And you almost managed to keep all your ads at the end of the video! :) (No, seriously, please keep them at the end of the video.)
@@gawkthimm6030 Thanks for the suggestion, but I meant the plugs for his podcast and the invitation to subscribe to the channel. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Joshua Hillerup That we are talking about it, that the people in power are still arguing about it, that it has been discussed in court means that it wasn’t explicitly legally non-binding. It isn’t legally binding but it was far from clear.
Thank you for the video TLDR, but one can only hope that you go back to the good old days of prioritizing quality over quantity. And by that, I'm referring to both the rushed content and the continuous effort to make all videos 10 minutes for the additional ad revenue.
I watched a few hours live - the defence offered a two part argument: 1) Mind your own business - not a popular thing for judges to hear 2) Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson din do nuffink wrong.
"That disagreement might sound quite interesting, so to keep you from getting excited, lets dive back into the books..." Ahh, that British sense of humor - sorry, humour - at work.
7:20 The referendum was legally non binding. That’s why Cameron left after the result. Therefore the it is in the parliamentary power to represent the people still. And quite frankly, 52% is margin of error. In Canada, most referendums we have require a super majority for that reason. We elected the MPs and MLAs, so if they are throwing a question at us, 50% doesn’t make the cut to move the government. It makes them harder, but it also puts the pressure on the side that wants the change to go after everyone. And even then, legally non binding. But at least it’s an enthusiastic yes to go forward with something on items the government don’t want to do if it would ruin them politically.
The Quebec referendums were a 50/50 and they barley stayed in Canada both times. And those referendums destroyed the economy of Quebec. To this day the rest of Canada is dumping money into that province. They're still threatening to leave which is still not allowing grow.
The referendum didn't say that the people wanted Brexit without a deal and without the approval of parliament. The notion that the executive has the right to subvert the Sovereignty of Parliament because of the referendum is frankly absurd.
@@johnroyal4520 That's simply a lie. There was a whole lot of different scenarios being tossed around and a lot of hot air. Really the entire campaign was a farse to begin with. But sure, give the dark money what it wants and sell yourself to the united states.
@@frojoe2004 It was always very clear what voting leave meant. It meant leaving the EU with the best terms possible. Its a myth that leave voters didn't know what they were voting for.
Someone has explained that mistakes like this are intentional, as they invite comments, which in turn raise the videos' youtube points. I've since ceased to wonder about the frequent grammatical and stylistic errors in almost all TLDR videos. Glad, though, that they are getting good viewership, as befits their quality.
@@kasper7203 or maybe people who like to stir up some fake outrage put out the theory that someone might do something like that intentionally and now it's eternally propagated because people tend to assume the worst intentions and are more likely to accept an explanation with negative implications easier than just putting it off as a mistake by someone who might have difficulties spotting such mistakes.
If this is an advertising tactic, I will unsubscribe. I detest, _detest_ every form of outrage marketing! It is greatly detrimental to our culture and society. A baker does not smear dog shit on his chocolate cake to 'get the word of mouth going'...
So to simplify the TLDR: The London court decided it is constitutional and the Scottish court overruled that and decided that it is unconstitutional, based on a non existing constitution.
But if the court decides they can't/shouldn't rule on what the government does, they're essentially not taking their responsibility in the trias political/balance of powers/seperation of powers, thus turning it into a chain with the executive on top and the judicial at the bottom, rather than a triangle where the executive holds the legislative in check, the legislative holds the judicial in check, and the judicial holds the executive in check. I'd rather they decide they can judge it but that it is a valid move by the government than they decide they can't judge it, because then at least they're taking their responsibility and aren't endangering the fundament of a well functioning democracy.
I don't understand why they would want to give the Government near absolute power over the country, that is exactly how we in Germany got Hitler and the Third Reich. If the courts decide to break the deadlock by lowering their metaphorical pistol, then the whole system would easily and quickly collapse
@1:50 : "precidents" (wrong spelling for precedents, I guess) @2:18 : "proceedures" (possibly just a typo) @5:12 : "Government must exercise it's powers properly" (instead of its) I am not a native English speaker, but I would be happy to check your spelling and your grammar for free :D
Intention is pretty easy to determine. If the governments intentions was lawful they would be happy to give a testimony to the supreme court. Also, what was that bit about parliament going against "what the people directly voted for"? First of all, what was promised was not possible to implement. The leave campaign and Boris in particular, said Britain would remain in the single market, respect the GFA, get a deal (anything else is project fear), get trade deals let and right, completely control all laws and regulations etc. This is not a political stance but denial of reality and saying that this must mean we should accept "no deal" is absolutely insane AND undemocratic as it was the one thing EVERYONE wanted to avoid during the campaign. TL:DR - I don't watch you because you're "unbiased" (i.e. gives equal credence to bullshit as well as truth). I watch you because you're generally pretty objective and tell it like it is. I hope you stay on this path.
05:33 "Parliament is sovereign because it derives authority from the electorate". Correction needed: Parliament is sovereign because it derives its authority from the sovereign - i.e. the monarch. Various monarchs (usually kings) throughout history have agreed to transfer some of their authority to Parliament (e.g. following the 'Glorious Revolution') or to allow the government to exercise authority on their behalf. Acts of Parliament still need Royal Assent (not the assent of the electorate), MPs still swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch (not to the electorate), and the monarch - in case it wasn't obvious - retains the power to prorogue Parliament (the electorate does not). 07:25 "if Parliament is sovereign, and gains its power directly from the people" It is but it doesn't. Parliament is sovereign because it has (mostly) taken the place of the monarch, while still being subject to the monarch. You can make the case that _Members_ of Parliament gain their power from the people, as the electorate puts them there and can remove them again, but not Parliament as a whole. The electorate decides who sits in Parliament, but not whether Parliament sits.
Grimbeard, if I may raise what appear to be several counterpoints. 1. Parliament claimed that James II and VII abdicated and decided under what monarch England and Scotland were to be ruled. Without being uncharitable, the Glorious Revolution was a coup orchestrated by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament has, in theory, held the power to divest a person of the Crown, since 1688. 2. The MPs Oath is that they are faithful and bear allegiance to the Queen and her successors. You’re right that MPs don’t declare an oath to the electorate, but their oaths of allegiance don’t preclude their right to assume powers once held by the Crown (FTPA) or even to declare who the legitimate successors of Elizabeth II are (absolute primogeniture rather than male-preference primogeniture; permitting the monarch to be wed to a Catholic). 3. The Queen’s oath is to govern according to the law and custom: law which Parliament with her assent can change and custom which includes various constitutional conventions such as responsible government. So while yes, she must give assent to a bill for it to become an Act, the customs she agreed to uphold are that she would not deny assent to legislation unless her ministers advised against it. 4. The notion of Queen-in-Parliament shows the inextricable relationship between Crown and Parliament. The Bill of Rights establishes that the monarch is not above the law. So perhaps a more reciprocal model better describes the relationship between Crown and Parliament? Just some thoughts. Thanks for your insight.
@@briangronberg6507 As a university professor who teaches British history, I think that Brian is closer to being correct. The Glorious Revolution and the Revolutionary Settlement permanently altered the balance of power between Crown and Parliament in Parliament's favor based on Locke's theories of government. Governments derive their sovereignty from the "people." And remember that 1688 was not the only time in British/English history that Parliament actually took power (and life itself) away from a king.
Mens rea is a fairly common element in court casses, so not that difficult, when it exists, to be established. I often hear people make the claim "its hard to prove intent" when courts weigh this point every day.
"Now you might say that back and forth between courts, that disagreement, might have sounded quite interesting. So to prevent you from getting too excited, let's dive back into the books, and explain why this fight is actually happening." What's more exciting than diving into ancient judicial rulings and conventions? Not a lot, I can tell you.
Halfway through and that's already been a couple of mistakes. The case did not go from England to Scotland, the two cases are separate but related. Also, the UK parliament is not sovereign because it derives authority from the electorate, it is because it has royal assent. In SCOTLAND the people are sovereign but the UK usually pretends it is ruled by English convention, and in English law the sovereign is sovereign, and that power resides in Parliament.
Nowhere in the referendum did it say that Brexit must happen by a certain date or that it must come without a deal. Therefore Johnson trying to achieve a no deal Brexit on October 31 is not inherently following the will of the voters.
TLDR should be proud of their highly literate viewership, judging by the number of comments on their grammatical, spelling, and other mistakes. They should put more effort eliminating or minimising their errors, though, or their viewers may quit giving a flying flamingo what they post.
You missed out the fact that Parliament was going to close for most of the prorogation period before Johnson prorogued Parliament. Johnson only added around 5 days to the time Parliament would be closed for conference season.
TLDR News - any chance of uploading these videos in AUDIO only format as a Podcast in their own right? The beauty of your TH-cam content is that one can listen to your stuff without actually viewing the animation (good as they may be). I've no intention of forking out £9.99 for TH-cam Premium to currently facilitate being able to 'listen' to videos - screen off! Just an idea, which I'm sure would be popular with your subscribers. Great content.....
A no-deal Brexit was not a choice in the referendum. Therefore they have no mandate to enforce no-deal. In fact you could argue that the referendum explicitly does NOT give a mandate for a no-deal Brexit. No deal was not an option, apparently even to the Brexiteers campaigning, who were going to get a great deal really really easily... None of this now is about the public and what they want. It’s about some very rich and powerful people scrapping over what best serves their purpose - political, financial or personal. When we voted, none of this current madness was going on. We were told so many lies. The vote is almost irrelevant now as *it bears no relation to the way Brexit has turned out* - an utter self-destructive shambles.
Quit wining and repeating yourself. It’s gone past pathetic and into deranged now. All the banks and every multi national hates the idea of the U.K. leaving, the Lib Dem’s are a champagne socialist party. How in the seven fucks is remain not a rich persons vote choice. Even the US democrats, which is the mouthpiece of corporate America is against it. We voted leave, a large portion was about immigration. Very few had economics or a deal in mind.
The majority of the country voted to leave, which is the total opposite of what the majority of MPs want, so it's no surprise where the country is really. Most MPs are selfish, power hungry prats.
as someone from a different country i don't understand why they wouldn't just make a new referendum. one with actual options that everybody knows whats behind them 1. no deal brexit. 2. the deal that the EU is willing to make 3. no Brexit. as i said i am a foreigner so i don't know everything but for me it seems like the most democratic thing to do in this situation.
TL;DR: This is a politically driven court case. Some groups of people who want to stop Brexit, have spent a lot of money to attempt to do so. Fortunately, this aligns with Boris Johnson (current UK prime ministers plan) who has two mechanisms at his disposal both achieving what he wants: 1) The court case against the government overturns his choice to prorogue/suspend Parliament. He simply does so again for a shorter period of time, now. Unless, he faces a vote of no confidence in which case a General Election is the likely outcome, in which case his party once more attains a majority, making it far easier for them to push forward as they choose. OR 2) The ruling is upheld, the media switch back to an anti-EU rhetoric for a few days for clickbait, not much happens. The ultimate outcome here is to convince the EU that the UK is truly negotiating for its own best interest, rather than prioritising the interests of the EU bloc ahead of its own in the name of simply being nice. If the EU as a whole (bear in mind this is 27 different countries in theory but realistically only 4 aside from the UK) believes this, they may very well be forced to revise the current offer of "you can leave the club, but you must remain a member of the club indefinitely, pay the membership fees, and you may not look to join other clubs unless we say so". Worst case, UK leaves with no deal and we have a tough few months. Best case, UK leaves with a better deal and we have a tough few days. One way or the other, this is actually getting sorted and that is something that the disaffected masses will respect Mr Johnson for... the past 3 years of doomsday news headlines, business uncertainty and Twitter opinion wars have done far more damage to our society than any tangible Brexit outcome.
God this is so simple... 1) referendum was not legally binding to the parliament or government, but the government chose to go with this answer for it suited their plan of Brexit. 2) now that the argumentative ammunition has been used up (lies about the EU), and the electorate being hugely more aware of Brexit's consequences, and the motivation for Brexit of the "top 1%" being saving taxas, they are VERY unlikely to give their "go ahead" to do so. 3) hence now the stubborn fight to silence the electorate and in consequence also the parliament in order to drop out of the EU as desired. To me it all adds up to a huge treason on behalf of the current PM, and the forces behind him.... where is just 007 when you need him?
It’s just you and about 90% of the other insipid chodes that visit this channel that thinks it. The courts getting involved as much as they have is a really bad move, whatever the result we will have half the country thinking the court is biased now.
Hail Scotland and their common sense... and while we arrrrre at it...ay laddy, pour me one more of that liquid gold on the rocks... can't stand to see London's politics sober...
Well, the referendum defense definitely won't hold any water for a number of reasons. First off, it wasn't legally binding, it was an opinion poll. Sure, it wasn't marketed that way to the people, but hey, wouldn't be the first time politicians reneged on their promises. Second, the referendum wasn't actually very clear on anything. There was nothing about a timeline, nothing about a future relationship, nothing about who would be in control and how, and certainly nothing about giving the government a blank cheque to make sure that it happens, no matter what they have to do to make it so.
yup exactly. The people voted to leave, not specifically *leave without a deal*. Neither parliament nor the government wants to cancel brexit (other than jo swinson)... so they're kind of on the same page
And that is true BJ recently paid a fine for the lies told during the 2016 Referendum. In many countries, he would have to surrender his license to practice law and be barred from politics. And he is the PM . . . .
I have two important questions. 1) Why is this UK Supreme Court case being televised? In the United States this doesn't happen because due to fears of being biased towards one side or the other. And 2) In a case so polarized in nature, wouldn't the TV cameras affect the UK Supreme Court's ability to make a fair decision?
I'm no expert, but it was briefly mentioned at the start of proceedings on day 1 that it was usual to be recorded, for 'Open justice' and anyone should be allowed to see proceedings take place where possible. It's not always appropriate of course and is not standard practice across all our courts, or cases. Any criminal case, for example, takes place behind closed doors. This is a judicial review though, the arguments are about points of law, not about determining guilt. There isn't an issue of outside interference on a suspect or member of a jury. The mere presence of a camera should never have an impact on the ability for a judge(s) to be impartial or fair in it's judgements.
Did anyone else get two ads at the beginning, two ads in the middle, and another two ads in the middle? Is this something you have control over, Jack? It makes it a lot harder to enjoy your content.
The best way for the U.K. Supreme Court to resolve the crisis at hand is to call a Constitutional convention of say 100 people elected on open ticket proportional voting and 100 people from 100 districts with the same number of people in each that are programmatically as close to squares as possible with the Queen choosing who may speak and for how long each delegate may speak among those who stand up. Those delegates are then required to have a closed session where they shall write a proper Constitution which shall be voted on by the people. If it is rejected, then restart the process from the point of voting in the delegates as above. This shall continue until the people ratify the proper Constitution. If the U.K. Supreme Court doesn’t do this and instead tries to resolve the issue at hand, they will cause an indefinite crisis that could result in future authoritarian tendencies.
Yeah, and Tl;dr claiming that parliament is acting "against the wishes of the people" in trying to ensure that an insane government doesn't force the country in to something that *no-one* voted for, is, frankly, bullshit.
No deal is what was on the ballot paper. Polls taken at the time of the referendum stated 73% of leave voters strongly supported a no deal brexit. No deal is what everyone was voting for, if we could get a beneficial deal before leaving then great, if not however everyone knew it meant no deal.
@@johnroyal4520 No it wasn't. What would drive you to make such an obviously false statement? I doubt your claims of 73% support for no deal, also, given that brexit had nowhere near that support, in any poll, for any level of deal - care to provide sources? Or is that another bit of blatant nonsense? Is anything you said even remotely related to reality?
John royal It wasn’t on the ballot paper. It was in the leaflet and said hundreds of times though. The economic argument was very low on people’s reasons for voting, from the information I saw. The remain side just twisted it so that that’s all people focus on. They mock sovereignty etc... to make people feel like fools. Don’t fall for it. Fuck the economics, most people are just repeating forecasts and theories, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Brexit, the series (it should become a TV series though) Season 1: Direct Democracy: UKIP rises and Conservative party slowly adopts helding a referendum after wining two. Big finale: The referendum is lost and prime minister resigns. Season 2: Article 50: After resignation, the UK at last forms a new government and stalls the activation of article 50. Big finale: May at last sends a message to EU to activate the article 50. Season 3: The Deal: Negotiations proceed, but concluding to an agreement is difficult. Scotland and Northern Ireland rethink of independence. Big finale: The parliament rejects the final agreement. Season 4: The Brexit: This is actually a very enjoying season. Viewers are in agony as the political system of UK is unable to handle the situation. Big finale: to be written, but I believe 31st of October will be a great finale in any case. Season 5: The Dissolution: To be written. However, I predict either UK or EU will dissolve. Maybe both. Season 0 (prequel): A special relationship: This season follows UK from the day it joins EU. It gradually loses global influence. It demands more and more special relationship with EU, but this turns out to isolate UK even more in international affairs.
You've mentioned before, but not in this video about parliament was shutting down for a length of time anyway. This meant that Johnson was only technically taking a few days as per normal? I know the MPs could have decided not to break, but worth mentioning.
"What happens when the decisions that they want to make go directly against what the electorate chose?" I believe that would be called something like Treason.
No thanks. I don’t want the government of today to get to bind the hands of all future governments. I’d rather trust in the Supreme Court to uphold tradition but also show modern discretion where necessary.
You missed the 1st Scottish ruling saying its not in the courts interests to get involved and then the 2nd hearing ruled it was in 5mins little off if you ask me.
1:40 : "The UK doesn't have a codified constitution." 4:25 : "...the purpose of Johnson's prorogation was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution." I'm confused now, is there or isn't there a British constitution?
"...is there or isn't there a British constitution?" There is, but a lot of it isn't written down. Complete clusterfuck, but that's what you get when you have more than a couple hundred years of history, multiple legal and parliamentary traditions, and several wars worth of internal changes in a country.
Referendums suck. I've been saying so for a long time. The main issue is indeed how they risk putting different variations of democracy at odds with one another. When that happens, parliament can either ignore the outcome, angering a large amount of voters (because then why was the referendum held?) or they can listen to the public that dictates they act in a way that goes against their own judgement (so then why were they elected anyway?) In other words, if the outcome of a referendum is at odds with the judgement of elected representatives, everything breaks down. What's worse is that while politicians are well-versed in statecraft, the wider public is not. We elect politicians exactly because we need to be able to trust that experts are calling the shots, who know what it takes to rule a country and how to make decisions that don't go against the people's best interests and wishes. The layman is not a good politician. They may know what they want, but something that happens again and again is that people simply don't know how to get there or how to express what their wishes actually are. That's _exactly_ what politicians are for. They figure out what the people _really_ want so they can win votes, and how to best get there so those voters stay invested. The wider public is prone to falling for propaganda, misinformation and fads. Consequently, a referendum is like a painter handing over their brushes to their client and let them start painting. When the client is done, the painter then works with what the client has created and makes it into something worthwhile. But occasionally the client may draw something so bad that there's no way to make it work as part of a good painting. Do you make a bad painting? Prepare to get yelled at for being a bad painter. Do you paint over the client's creation to make their original vision look better? Prepare to get yelled at for not respecting your client's wishes. It's a stupid system with no winners. Don't bring direct democracy into parliamentary democracy. One of those will suffice. Having both will cause nothing but hurt. That's not to say that there's not value in having the public express their opinion outside of the voting booth, but you can already do that with approval ratings and the like. Asking the public to make your decisions for you is like saying "You don't like it? Here, you do it better" and then get into an argument when what they did isn't actually better. It's childish, inane and undemocratic. What could be less democratic than forcing democracy to fight itself?
I don't think the second question should be stated like that. It is not that Parliament is acting against the direct wishes of the electorate. That's what May and Johnson have been saying in order to force Brexit through. The question on the Referendum did not touch the way in which the UK should leave, which is what the Government is refusing to let Parliament scrutinize. If you were to ask the courts if Parliament is contradicting the will of the people, then that (to me) would actually be a political question which the judiciary cannot answer. The answer is, clearly, a general election, but that's a nuanced point. I'm of the view that Parliament did the right thing not to let Johnson call an election before the 31st. Firstly, because at this point few MPs trust Johnson to actually call it properly and not use the pretext to ignore Parliament until the 31st and then call it; regardless of what he promises. Secondly, and more importantly, because Johnson is campaigning on that he'll deliver Brexit whatever the circumstances and that needs to be proven wrong before an election. Either it's proven wrong or he breaks the law. That needs to happen before the election. This is my grain of salt.
@@Bustaperizm A majority in Parliament does not wish to revoke it. There's not a contradiction there. If they were to take away a few of the red lines imposed by May, there's a much higher chance there's a form of Brexit Parliament aproves of. Of course if you don't concede anything (not to Europe, but to remainers (the 49%)), your only way out is crashing out. That doesn't mean is the only way.
What about the monarch? If it was she who decreed proroguing parliament, isn’t that an irrevocable act flowing from the power that she alone holds in primacy?
I think you got this one wrong. The court is not ruling on anything to do with a disagreement between the electorate and parliament. Parliament is sovereign under the UK constitution. Representative democracies often (at their peril) ignore popular opinion - it is a feature, not a bug. The plaintiff's main argument is that the executive is using a normally routine procedure to avoid the expressed will, oversight and action of a sovereign parliament. In turn, the government's maximalist response is that the courts have no say... they pretty much tried to avoid any statement of intent at all by not filing sworn statements on their own intent. I think it will be an extremely tough climb for the govt to convince the courts that there are areas in which they do not have a role in protecting the supremacy of parliament.
I do not believe the parliament is intentionally opposing the "will" of the people who voted to leave EU (which was barely more than 50%). In fact, most MP's agree that the UK must and will leave the EU (in an orderly fashion), but that does not justify the government's move to shut parliament for such a long time. The argument in favor Johnson's move is weak in my opinion, and his actions thus far have shown how reckless and malicious he actually is.
It seems to me the key question is the nature of the Referendum. Was it an advisory referendum - where the people just expresses their opinions on an issue; or one where the results of the referendum becomes law automatically. If the former, then the MP's can do as they wish; if the results have the force of law, then the question is whether or not Brexit happens, but how.
No not really. The referendum was merely advisory as Parliament is supreme in law making. The problem is that the Parliament then started the process to leave the EU according to the EU law which supposedly means you leave in two years time maximum. And then they rejected the treaty on departure agreed by the Government and EU. And refused to back any other set of proposals. And the two years is over and they keep wanting to delay departure. The referendum did not specify what a brexit should be like and neither has Parliament. Leaving with no agreed terms invalidates all the treaty rules on trade and is a stupid idea likely to cause an economic crisis. It is a failure to assume responsibility by refusing to make a choice between practical options. It is only a constitutional crisis as the politicians have failed to discharge their duty to exercise power. Having an uncodified constitution is irrelevant.
Now, what need is King William in a Batman costume, with Princess Kate in a Robin costume, to come to the rescue, apprehend BJ and unmask him, revealing a clone of Vladimir Putin.
Justice should not be about intention and last time i've checked most laws completely disregard intention. If someone has taken money from someone else, it's theft even if they intended to return it. If someone beats someone to death, it's murder even if they did not intend them to die. As such, it SHOULD be that if the parliments power is limited it should be an unlawful proroguation.
@@DaMayan5 I can agree to that, but as such the system is flawed and open for explotation. As the current situation has proven. A flawed system can be improved upon or replaced. If the yearly proroguation was a set timeframe, such as the first 3 weeks of october or somesuch. Then it can not be used as a political tool, intentionally or not. Everyone are aware when and how it is prorogued. A flexible system is only good for people who wish to uproot the status quo. The current situation highlights many issues, I am interested in seeing how it unfolds.
Actually, intention is used in courts all the time, it even has a term known as mens rea. For example, at least in the US, intent and motive can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter, between 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degrees of murder. Intention can make all the difference when it actually comes to the specificities of law.
It’s not just a black and white issue, one person could think leave means ‘no deal’ and all ties to the EU are cut, while another may think some kind of deal is in place. The question needed to be a lot more specific on what the effects of either option would be. Plus both campaigns lied hugely and the entire initial vote should have been void, as well as being useless
ageofmining77 Leave means leave, full stop. Yes, a deal can be in place and still have it be a “leave”, but no deal can also be the case. What Brexit didn’t include was having those who disagree with leaving obstruct and ignore what the people voted for. What is happening in parliament has gone well beyond good faith disagreement and discussion and has devolved into outright obstruction.
I understand all this is fast-moving, breaking-news. But let me encourage you to avoid the misspellings that seem to routinely crop up in your otherwise informative and well-produced videos. Very distracting.
Well in my view another great video. Laying out simple facts is always dangerous. As with life, it is Seldom simple, This video may be laying out simple facts on what is happening with this court case. But that would only be my point of view, others would disagree. But I think on balance this and other court cases around Brexit is more about trying to bring the courts in to stop Brexit. The bottom line is the people voted to leave the EU. An overwhelming portion of the MPs are going against their constituency in an underhand way. Using deal or no deal. That was not on the referendum. The ballad paper stating “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union” Just a simple IN OUT question. At the time I voted Remain, but I understand I lost the vote, not happy but that’s democracy. A last-minute dash to the supreme high court of the UK by Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Gina Miller, John Major are now trying to use courts to stop Brexit. Not the prorogation of Parliament, but stop Brexit. I hope the courts can see through the fog of deception.
"What if parliament wishes to decide contrary to electorate?" This is the classic question, but being an adversary of referenda the answer lies in the latter bit of the question: a referendum does not represent the will of the people. It is exceptionally vulnerable to demagogy, manipulation and misinformation. Their place in a representative democracy is tricky and hardly ever are people satisfied by the manner by which results are taken into account. Outcomes are often not representative. Issues cannot be boiled down to a simple yes/no. People lack time, capacity or interest to inform themselves. And some questions are simply unfair to ask the people. EU yes or no is one of them: it rules out many different outcomes like reform and triggers them to vote based on gutfeelings
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Wait, Lord Panick!? Is the UK even real, or is it just one big Diskworld book?
Yes and the defendant on 1st day is called Lord Keen. Pannick and Keen.
@@AaronOkeanos And Pannick looked keener in his arguments than Keen, and Keen seemed at times more panicky than Pannick. Talk of British comedy!
Corbyn is Rincewind.
@@mrmagoo-i2l No, stop it
De chelonian mobile!
Also, could they please give Lord Keen a CBE, so he can be Commander Keen?
2:49 and brits complain to EU for being too bureaucratic!
Don't forget the undemocratic stuff.
@@seriousmaran9414
The parliament of the EU, elected by the EUs inhabitants are right now arguing with a government, only a government that is not elected by the people, with the people's voices, the parliament having been shut down by that goverment. I don't know about the undemocratic part, seems like a stretch
@@Timon-IrishFolk that is the undemocratic part, or at least the start of it. The referendum that started this off was uninformed, deceitful, fraudulent and, according to the courts illegal. It should have been voided and rerun but the UK government used the parliamentary vote instead.
Ironic
Yeah I remember looking at how the EU functions in the run-up to the referendum, listening to a various arguments either way, then concluding that we have a far bigger democratic deficit than the EU and we should sort our own bloody house out before even considering leaving.
Dear TLDR team, you're doing a great job, but watch out for spelling mistakes:
- 1.48: precedents not precidents
- 7.29: sovereign not soverign
These are a kind of hallmark of the channel at this point unfortunately
Also 2:16 - "proceedures"
Whether not wether too.
5:12 "its", not "it's".
Meh - I don’t know many channels that churn out content at this rate. Happy to take a few typos in exchange for this level of content output! :)
@@khary30 But still, errors like these can tend to undermine the legitimacy of the reporting. If errors like these are being made in something easily verifiable (like spell-check), then what other errors are being made. I like TLDR, but they do need to work on their editing.
"there is not going to be a satisfying answer to this debate"
- damn, you nailed Brexit right there. 😂
😂😂😂😂
Yes, but we can argue on it for the next thousand years, even though most people don't have any idea what the law, sovereignty, or democracy is.
Serious Maran But you do and so do the people who agree with you?
Have you noticed only intelligent people seem to agree with what you say, I’d think about that for a while.
@@mrmagoo-i2l haven't you heard? We've had enough of experts in this country!
MrGonzonator Expert = convincing bullshitter.
I’m not a fan of Peter Hitchens but he is right in one thing, “as soon as you understand that no one knows what they’re doing, it all starts to make sense. So sit back and enjoy the show, I know I am”.
How about a video about the international reaction from Brexit?
Our press, from left to right, seem to agree that the situation can be described as a gigantic screaming tornado.
It’s not the press, they are just a mouthpiece for companies who put commercials on their sites/programmes. Mostly multinationals.
Which country?
South Korea
spoopytime Left or right makes no sense then.
To be fair, our press in Britain feels the same.
Intention is hard to assess, unless of course the person that you are talking about first suggested the action that you're discussing in a public forum like... I don't know... A political leadership debate.
It would also be handy if the person in question directly stated that they intend to shut down parliament in order to push through Brexit policy.
Oh well, it's a shame that footage like that doesn't exist.
/S Never forget to add /S or someone will take it literally. Interesting times indeed.
Circumstancial.
@@Imman1s freak!
...or whether the "intention" is to simply stymie Parlimentary bickering or to give the People what they voted for but Parliment disagrees with. It sounds totally political to me, just like "A political leadership debate".
The thing is the even then the supreme court could just decide that the physical act itself was within the rules, so the intention behind it was irrelevant.
However, the nowadays parliament was elected AFTER the referendum, so it has the stronger, democratic legitimisation in comparison to the referendum.
Correct!
An underrated and excellent point!
And the referendum was advisory only. The illegalities committed during it would have required it to be rerun were it binding.
Most of them were elected on a manifesto to honour the referendum, but have since changed their minds and / or parties. The parliament we have now doesn't reflect what we voted for in 2017.
@@iceniwargames6347
It is known, which outcome the different parties prefer.
Tories - Brexit, No Deal if necessary. However, not all Tories where Brexiteers, many of them were Soft Brexiteers.
Labour - Soft Brexit. Logic dictates that if a Soft Brexit is not possible, they would rather remain.
Greens - Remain
SNP - Remain
Libdems - Remain
DUP - Brexit no matter what.
So the voters didn't vote for a Hard, No Deal Brexit Majority among the MP's reflected by their party choice and vote in their constituency.
Then we got a large group of soft brexiteers split among Tories and Labour and a slightly smaller group of the other Opposition Parties, who favor remain.
Basically, parliament reflects very well the british people, since in the last polls I know, they were roughly equally split-up between No Deal, Soft Brexit and Remain.
Yes, some Members, especially Tory Members, switched sides in parliament, however, they didn't really change their conviction regarding Brexit.
So this parliament is perfectly legitimized and it has the stronger legitimization than the original referendum, because the election process of parliament is not as long ago as the referendum.
And back then, before the referendum, a majority was for Remain in polls, however, not everyone participated and thus we got the slight majority for the Brexit as a result in the first place.
If anything, the whole Brexit affair is a lesson, how important it is to participate in a democratic process.
And if you think about it:
Anyone, who would be ok with a No Deal Brexit, would have voted for a No Deal Party, however the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers together have a majority in parliament, because the Soft Brexiteers wouldn't vote for a No Deal Brexit, which would be destructive for the UK as a whole.
So we can assume, that the majority of the British People, if the only choices would be "No Deal Brexit" or "Remain" in the likely event, that Johnson fails to come up with a Deal, would rather remain and that also Parliament wouldn't vote for a No Deal Brexit and revoke Article 50, if the EU doesn't grant another extension.
The EU wants to progress and not stagnate the Brexit Process.
The EU doesn't want the British Parliament to debate endlessly and extend the Brexit Process every 3 months, they and also we, the European People, want it to end.
Either leave with a realistic deal or without a deal or make up your minds and stay.
Btw, my personal conviction from the beginning of this whole affair was and still is, that in the End, the UK will remain, because it is sheer madness to leave the EU, even with a Deal it is very destructive for the UK, possibly on a scale, where Scotland and Northern Ireland would break away.
Jake in the past has called the "nuclear option" the least probable one, however, imho it is the only probable outcome in the end.
Just when I thought Brexit had reached it's apex, Season 4 opens with this explosive premiere.
Back in April I though things were getting spicy. I was wrong. The writers have truly outdone themselves!
@@sitrilko Just you wait, TLDR are like the documentary show, Breaking Brexit, and hopefully it'll run to 8 seasons (probably with a disappointing conclusion).
I don't know, they are adding too many characters too suddenly
And now a courtroom drama ... :-)
@@lewisdavidson571 lol Breaking Bad . . . .
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
mdr53229 you’re the king? Well I didn’t vote for you...
@@setlerking must be Irish
lmao
Darn right. Should be strip clubs not ponds.
If you didn’t know we had a queen and thought we were an autonomous collective. You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship!
As the referendum was not legally binding, then I'd imagine parliament has always had the power to overrule the result, just that nobody dared do it, for fear of civil unrest.
Correct, the referendum provides advice to parliament about the wishes of voters, nothing more.
it's a plebiscite more than anything. You can go against it but it would be political suicide to do so. Labour are against Brexit but they dare not say so because the people have spoken- which is why the party looks as weak as water
The fact is they just don't like the fact Leave won. So there is no true reason to overturn the result ,, we Leave say its in the best interest of the country to Leave the EU. And there rule over us. Free to prosper. And we will.
I don't think it's clear in this video, but the referendum did not enumerate the options for Brexit, so we don't really know how many people would actually support a "No Deal" Brexit. Thus making the "Direct Democracy" part a bit misleading. Parliament's job should be to work out the details, unfortunately they can't agree on much.
And that is the crux of the matter. The other part of the matter is the amount of disinformation having been spread. Now, what need is King William in a Batman costume, with Princess Kate in a Robin costume, to come to the rescue, apprehend BJ and unmask him, revealing a clone of Vladimir Putin.
We don't know how many, but we DO know that it isn't all of Leave voters, and we also know that it's almost NONE of Remain voters. Therefore, it is a minority of the country.
noxxi knox yes, I agree with that in principle but we have a prime-minister who nobody, not even his own cabinet, trust to even TRY to negotiate a deal. It is all being used as an excuse to sell the UK to American private political party donors and to avoid EU tax avoidance and human rights laws, and everyone knows it.
noxxi knox it is the only power preventing that particular sector of our politics from using our citizens as a commodity: Farage the hedge fund manager and his privately funded party, Johnson et-all. Along with Rupert Murdoch of course.
@noxxi knox "I don't like that the person in charge has the potential to do bad things. So I am voting this other person in-charge who is RIGHT NOW doing those exact bad things"
BoJo's Bizzare Adventures Season 4:
Backstop is Unbreakable
Despite the defeat of OrDIO and the closing of Parliament, BoJo must overcome another challenge: Rorykage and the Gaukeward Squad vows to fight against BoJo and reopen Parliament. Who will gain victory? Will there be an extension? Stay on this channel to find out!
Season 1 was the best season.
*to be continued*
There is no such thing as "Direct Democracy" in UK.
The referendum are not legally binding, parliament is always sovereign.
Legally true. Morally bankrupt.
Do you recall the message "just advisory" beforehand?
If on a specific issue in a very rare case they ask the public to vote, then ignoring the result is on a par with Russian or Chinese levels of democracy. They have votes. They aren't premier league democracies.
@@danielwebb8402 They ask the people for their opinion. As the Tories organized it they made sure it was not legally binding.
@@danielwebb8402 "Do you recall the message "just advisory" beforehand?"
Yeah. In the dictionary next to the word 'referendum'. A _plebiscite_ is a binding vote determined by the electorate, a _referendum_ is not. The fact that many in the Leave campaign misled their supporters to believe otherwise doesn't change that.
@@BoojumFed I just remember being told
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide".
In the government's leaflet which a) was the closest thing to a manifesto from any campaign b) we know every household received c) was arguing for remain.
The PM repeated the morning after
"We not only have a parliamentary democracy, but on questions about the arrangements for how we've governed there are times when it is right to ask the people themselves and that is what we have done. The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected."
Paddy Ashdown, most passionate EU supporter there was, famously on night of referendum
"“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent. When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t."
So not leavers fooling people it was politically and morally (not legally I fully know that) binding.
@@danielwebb8402 Great Post. Maybe if you "animated" it. Remainers would understand.
If Lord Panic isn't a super villain, I don't want to live on this planet anymore...
here is your space rocket ticket . . . . . but its a BREXIT built rocket, so good luck with the unicorn pilots.
@@rembrandtshadows I have a court order, I'm not allowed within 300 parsecs of a unicorn.
@@NotAnIlluminatiSpy lmao . . . .fair enough.
I don't want to make any advertisements here and I'm not affiliated with anyone, but if you want to hear a summery of the content and the key points head over to "a different bias". There are 3 videos of day 1 and 2 summarizing it nicely.
He does a marvelous job in sorting out that mess.
The referendum did not say the people wanted a no-deal exit which is what Johnson is pushing for. The fundamental problem here is that people voted for something that wasn't clearly defined, and consequences poorly understood. The pro-Brexit side is trying to spin that vote as a mandate to support Johnson, but that is no more a mandate than saying you want to lose weight is a mandate to cut off your legs.
No deal is what was on the ballot paper. Polls taken at the time of the referendum stated 73% of leave voters strongly supported a no deal brexit. No deal is what everyone was voting for, if we could get a beneficial deal before leaving then great, if not however everyone knew it meant no deal.
Soeth sayeth the bearded vulcan from the evil empire . . are you available for PM?
@@johnroyal4520 fiction.
@@keithcross2102 The poll was conducted by YouGov.
@@johnroyal4520 The question on the ballot was NOT for no deal. The actual wording was:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
There was nothing about the terms of leaving, and the consequences of a no-deal exit weren't known. In fact, it wasn't until this month that Operation Yellowhammer was officially released which detailed what a no-deal Brexit would mean, so it was impossible for people to make an informed choice back in 2016 about no-deal.
Now that people are better informed, according to the latest poll I could find taken on Sept 13th, only 41% want to leave on Oct 31 even if it means with no deal. Contrast that with 47% that want to delay for a deal or cancel Brexit altogether. It is clear that only a minority want a no deal Brexit.
I dunno, I think Parliament is doing a fine job representing the people who voted in the referendum. They voted, with a small majority, to invoke article 50 and make the UK's withdrawal official. Then as soon as the situation got complicated, specific, and included real world consequences, suddenly there was no longer a majority.
@Jack "There's still a majority, because the nation's attention span has been exceeded" is about the most cynical thing I've heard in awhile.
@Jack A majority for what? No Deal wasn't on the ballot. Norway Style wasn't on the ballot. Canada Plus wasn't on the ballot. Enforce Borders But Stay In The Common Market wasn't on the ballot. But No Deal automatically wins because that's what Nigel Farage wants?
If you want to respect the will of the voters you don't get to dictate what they voted for _after_ the vote.
@Jubsy Saddinger The Parliament is not ruling on anything right now, they've been prorogued. The High Court is ruling on whether that prorogation is lawful.
But my post was about how parliament derives its sovereignty from the people and is doing a good job of representing the people by being as divided as the rest of us.
It's almost like Parliament doesn't do what people say just because they say it, especially if they know that in reality and the long run, the mob mentality, might just be wrong?
@@IreneShardaForever That's an interesting point. But I'll remind, at no stage was Parliament told to leave the EU in the most destructively stupid way possible, nor did the referendum sheet require that Brexit be delivered before Jack's attention span expires, or more to the point, the Tories start feeling electoral consequences.
While there are those in Parliament still representing the 48% of the nation that voted against Brexit and wroking to stop the whole thing. The rest of Parliament are just trying to make Brexit happen in a way that doesn't lead to massive loss of life, cataclysmic economic upheaval or in the case of the DUP, Northern Ireland being in the same custom's union as the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom. That it takes more than 3 years and 2 Prime Minister's to come up with a workable solution to this humongous task doesn't mean the 'will of the people' is being ignored.
Surely the threat from BoJo prior to all of this that he may use prorogation to facilitate brexit is fairly evident right?
Issue is, in the court of law, that is actually not enough.
You can prove that he made a threat to do so yes, but can your truly **prove** that his intention in doing something that is done every year except longer than usual was done for such a reason?
Yes its enought for common sense, but for law?
Thas why my lads in Britain need a goddamn codified constitution.
No he could of shut down till 1 st NoV. ,,,, corbry wanted a Queen speech. But Boris did not put up any good reason why. Howe silly is that. There bk on the 14 th anyway. Money to burn. I say. Come on. That court will be remainers. We have all seen the corruption our eye,s have been opened. What a shower of rat,s.
@@sheilabutterworth1418I know it's pedantic to correct spelling and grammar, so I won't.
I really think there are alot of critical issues with the validity of the last referendum
This is one of your best videos in a while. Good job!
And you almost managed to keep all your ads at the end of the video! :)
(No, seriously, please keep them at the end of the video.)
just use uBlock
@@gawkthimm6030 Thanks for the suggestion, but I meant the plugs for his podcast and the invitation to subscribe to the channel. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
But the referendum was explicitly non-binding
Not according to Cameron and not according to the leaflet put through everyone’s door.
It’s easy to google.
@@mrmagoo-i2l according to how it was implemented
Joshua Hillerup As I said it’s easy to google, obviously you haven’t yet judging by that statement.
@@mrmagoo-i2l that people lied going in to the referendum by implying or even sometimes outright saying it was legally binding? I already know that.
Joshua Hillerup That we are talking about it, that the people in power are still arguing about it, that it has been discussed in court means that it wasn’t explicitly legally non-binding.
It isn’t legally binding but it was far from clear.
Thank you for the video TLDR, but one can only hope that you go back to the good old days of prioritizing quality over quantity.
And by that, I'm referring to both the rushed content and the continuous effort to make all videos 10 minutes for the additional ad revenue.
I watched a few hours live - the defence offered a two part argument:
1) Mind your own business - not a popular thing for judges to hear
2) Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson din do nuffink wrong.
Both are true though. Scottish judges shouldn't tell the UK what to do. Further, Proroguing is constitutional, for better or worse.
@@araara7429 I was going to waite for the Judges conclusion, they are more qualified than me.
You cannot judge BOJO without taking into account the rule bending and upending by speaker of Parliament.
@@araara7429 If Scottish judges shouldn't tell the UK what to do, why should English judges?
@@VictorCopeland Iwasn't, or are you suggesting the actual Judges should be hearing that as part of the review?
"That disagreement might sound quite interesting, so to keep you from getting excited, lets dive back into the books..."
Ahh, that British sense of humor - sorry, humour - at work.
7:20 The referendum was legally non binding. That’s why Cameron left after the result. Therefore the it is in the parliamentary power to represent the people still. And quite frankly, 52% is margin of error. In Canada, most referendums we have require a super majority for that reason. We elected the MPs and MLAs, so if they are throwing a question at us, 50% doesn’t make the cut to move the government. It makes them harder, but it also puts the pressure on the side that wants the change to go after everyone. And even then, legally non binding. But at least it’s an enthusiastic yes to go forward with something on items the government don’t want to do if it would ruin them politically.
The Quebec referendums were a 50/50 and they barley stayed in Canada both times. And those referendums destroyed the economy of Quebec. To this day the rest of Canada is dumping money into that province. They're still threatening to leave which is still not allowing grow.
The referendum didn't say that the people wanted Brexit without a deal and without the approval of parliament. The notion that the executive has the right to subvert the Sovereignty of Parliament because of the referendum is frankly absurd.
No deal is what was on the ballot paper, everyone crossing that box knew what it meant.
@@johnroyal4520 That's simply a lie. There was a whole lot of different scenarios being tossed around and a lot of hot air. Really the entire campaign was a farse to begin with. But sure, give the dark money what it wants and sell yourself to the united states.
@@frojoe2004 It was always very clear what voting leave meant. It meant leaving the EU with the best terms possible.
Its a myth that leave voters didn't know what they were voting for.
@@johnroyal4520 "it was always very clear that the terms of leaving was very vague"
-you
@@frojoe2004 False, everyone knew what they were voting for.
Im in Orlando FL. Thank you for helping me stay educated. Much more civil and interesting than our politics here.
SO MANY SPELLING MISTAKES
"What is.... is about?"
Look at your thumbnail!
Someone has explained that mistakes like this are intentional, as they invite comments, which in turn raise the videos' youtube points. I've since ceased to wonder about the frequent grammatical and stylistic errors in almost all TLDR videos. Glad, though, that they are getting good viewership, as befits their quality.
This typo was the reason i clickt.... so maybe it is a new Kindertagen of clickbait
They risk losing my viewership and subscription by using such click bait tactics.
@@kasper7203 or maybe people who like to stir up some fake outrage put out the theory that someone might do something like that intentionally and now it's eternally propagated because people tend to assume the worst intentions and are more likely to accept an explanation with negative implications easier than just putting it off as a mistake by someone who might have difficulties spotting such mistakes.
If this is an advertising tactic, I will unsubscribe.
I detest, _detest_ every form of outrage marketing! It is greatly detrimental to our culture and society.
A baker does not smear dog shit on his chocolate cake to 'get the word of mouth going'...
Very concise and informative video. Thanks for this, and enjoy the vacation.
10:01 long video... why tldr why... seeing the multiple ads
YourPalJake
A yung blood gotta hustle my nizzle
uBlock is your friend
So to simplify the TLDR: The London court decided it is constitutional and the Scottish court overruled that and decided that it is unconstitutional, based on a non existing constitution.
But if the court decides they can't/shouldn't rule on what the government does, they're essentially not taking their responsibility in the trias political/balance of powers/seperation of powers, thus turning it into a chain with the executive on top and the judicial at the bottom, rather than a triangle where the executive holds the legislative in check, the legislative holds the judicial in check, and the judicial holds the executive in check.
I'd rather they decide they can judge it but that it is a valid move by the government than they decide they can't judge it, because then at least they're taking their responsibility and aren't endangering the fundament of a well functioning democracy.
I don't understand why they would want to give the Government near absolute power over the country, that is exactly how we in Germany got Hitler and the Third Reich. If the courts decide to break the deadlock by lowering their metaphorical pistol, then the whole system would easily and quickly collapse
@1:50 : "precidents" (wrong spelling for precedents, I guess)
@2:18 : "proceedures" (possibly just a typo)
@5:12 : "Government must exercise it's powers properly" (instead of its)
I am not a native English speaker, but I would be happy to check your spelling and your grammar for free :D
you missed out on soverign...
@@Albimar17 you're right, I forgot to mention that one! 😆
Intention is pretty easy to determine. If the governments intentions was lawful they would be happy to give a testimony to the supreme court.
Also, what was that bit about parliament going against "what the people directly voted for"? First of all, what was promised was not possible to implement. The leave campaign and Boris in particular, said Britain would remain in the single market, respect the GFA, get a deal (anything else is project fear), get trade deals let and right, completely control all laws and regulations etc. This is not a political stance but denial of reality and saying that this must mean we should accept "no deal" is absolutely insane AND undemocratic as it was the one thing EVERYONE wanted to avoid during the campaign.
TL:DR - I don't watch you because you're "unbiased" (i.e. gives equal credence to bullshit as well as truth). I watch you because you're generally pretty objective and tell it like it is. I hope you stay on this path.
so many notable historical events happening at the same time.
05:33 "Parliament is sovereign because it derives authority from the electorate". Correction needed: Parliament is sovereign because it derives its authority from the sovereign - i.e. the monarch. Various monarchs (usually kings) throughout history have agreed to transfer some of their authority to Parliament (e.g. following the 'Glorious Revolution') or to allow the government to exercise authority on their behalf. Acts of Parliament still need Royal Assent (not the assent of the electorate), MPs still swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch (not to the electorate), and the monarch - in case it wasn't obvious - retains the power to prorogue Parliament (the electorate does not).
07:25 "if Parliament is sovereign, and gains its power directly from the people" It is but it doesn't. Parliament is sovereign because it has (mostly) taken the place of the monarch, while still being subject to the monarch. You can make the case that _Members_ of Parliament gain their power from the people, as the electorate puts them there and can remove them again, but not Parliament as a whole. The electorate decides who sits in Parliament, but not whether Parliament sits.
Grimbeard, if I may raise what appear to be several counterpoints.
1. Parliament claimed that James II and VII abdicated and decided under what monarch England and Scotland were to be ruled. Without being uncharitable, the Glorious Revolution was a coup orchestrated by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament has, in theory, held the power to divest a person of the Crown, since 1688.
2. The MPs Oath is that they are faithful and bear allegiance to the Queen and her successors. You’re right that MPs don’t declare an oath to the electorate, but their oaths of allegiance don’t preclude their right to assume powers once held by the Crown (FTPA) or even to declare who the legitimate successors of Elizabeth II are (absolute primogeniture rather than male-preference primogeniture; permitting the monarch to be wed to a Catholic).
3. The Queen’s oath is to govern according to the law and custom: law which Parliament with her assent can change and custom which includes various constitutional conventions such as responsible government. So while yes, she must give assent to a bill for it to become an Act, the customs she agreed to uphold are that she would not deny assent to legislation unless her ministers advised against it.
4. The notion of Queen-in-Parliament shows the inextricable relationship between Crown and Parliament. The Bill of Rights establishes that the monarch is not above the law. So perhaps a more reciprocal model better describes the relationship between Crown and Parliament?
Just some thoughts. Thanks for your insight.
@@briangronberg6507 As a university professor who teaches British history, I think that Brian is closer to being correct. The Glorious Revolution and the Revolutionary Settlement permanently altered the balance of power between Crown and Parliament in Parliament's favor based on Locke's theories of government. Governments derive their sovereignty from the "people." And remember that 1688 was not the only time in British/English history that Parliament actually took power (and life itself) away from a king.
This video is so stretched to reach the 10min line, that I could listen to it at 1.75x and don't miss anything.
Mens rea is a fairly common element in court casses, so not that difficult, when it exists, to be established.
I often hear people make the claim "its hard to prove intent" when courts weigh this point every day.
Fuzzy wuzzy was a woman?
Murky Waters - my favourite blues artist.
"Now you might say that back and forth between courts, that disagreement, might have sounded quite interesting. So to prevent you from getting too excited, let's dive back into the books, and explain why this fight is actually happening." What's more exciting than diving into ancient judicial rulings and conventions? Not a lot, I can tell you.
Gina's supreme court cases made Brexit possible. No one more than her made possible the Brexit that we have today. Quite an incredible journey.
Intention is hard to rule on..... that's why the SCottish high court took 5 minutes to decide the case... GTFOH.
4:17 : EdinBRUH, whereThe Inner House is located ^^
EDIT: TIL that Edinbruh is a normal british pronunciation of the name.
I can't wait for Dennis Skinner's commentary vis-a-vis the Queen's speech this year.
I genuinely don't understand why people would down vote this video.
Halfway through and that's already been a couple of mistakes. The case did not go from England to Scotland, the two cases are separate but related. Also, the UK parliament is not sovereign because it derives authority from the electorate, it is because it has royal assent. In SCOTLAND the people are sovereign but the UK usually pretends it is ruled by English convention, and in English law the sovereign is sovereign, and that power resides in Parliament.
my head hurts
Nowhere in the referendum did it say that Brexit must happen by a certain date or that it must come without a deal. Therefore Johnson trying to achieve a no deal Brexit on October 31 is not inherently following the will of the voters.
true he is doing neither, since it was too simplistic a thing to ask in the first place. Parliament can't agree on anything except no crashing out.
this is an issue that requires a ten year plan. not a ten week one
@@MsJubjubbird and supervision by a Jubjub Bird!
TLDR should be proud of their highly literate viewership, judging by the number of comments on their grammatical, spelling, and other mistakes. They should put more effort eliminating or minimising their errors, though, or their viewers may quit giving a flying flamingo what they post.
You missed out the fact that Parliament was going to close for most of the prorogation period before Johnson prorogued Parliament. Johnson only added around 5 days to the time Parliament would be closed for conference season.
The final episode of last season left us on a cliffhanger in March. Ooooooof
I could really do with a TLDR on the UK Supreme Court as I know more about the US Supreme Court then the UK’s.
TLDR News - any chance of uploading these videos in AUDIO only format as a Podcast in their own right? The beauty of your TH-cam content is that one can listen to your stuff without actually viewing the animation (good as they may be). I've no intention of forking out £9.99 for TH-cam Premium to currently facilitate being able to 'listen' to videos - screen off! Just an idea, which I'm sure would be popular with your subscribers. Great content.....
A no-deal Brexit was not a choice in the referendum. Therefore they have no mandate to enforce no-deal. In fact you could argue that the referendum explicitly does NOT give a mandate for a no-deal Brexit. No deal was not an option, apparently even to the Brexiteers campaigning, who were going to get a great deal really really easily...
None of this now is about the public and what they want. It’s about some very rich and powerful people scrapping over what best serves their purpose - political, financial or personal. When we voted, none of this current madness was going on. We were told so many lies. The vote is almost irrelevant now as *it bears no relation to the way Brexit has turned out* - an utter self-destructive shambles.
That's a great piece of remainer's cope.
You lost, just deal with it. Brexit means brexit. With or without a deal.
Quit wining and repeating yourself. It’s gone past pathetic and into deranged now.
All the banks and every multi national hates the idea of the U.K. leaving, the Lib Dem’s are a champagne socialist party. How in the seven fucks is remain not a rich persons vote choice.
Even the US democrats, which is the mouthpiece of corporate America is against it.
We voted leave, a large portion was about immigration. Very few had economics or a deal in mind.
The majority of the country voted to leave, which is the total opposite of what the majority of MPs want, so it's no surprise where the country is really. Most MPs are selfish, power hungry prats.
as someone from a different country i don't understand why they wouldn't just make a new referendum. one with actual options that everybody knows whats behind them 1. no deal brexit. 2. the deal that the EU is willing to make 3. no Brexit. as i said i am a foreigner so i don't know everything but for me it seems like the most democratic thing to do in this situation.
Chordeiles Major That is splitting the leave vote in 2.
Anyone with half a whiff of sense can see that.
TL;DR: This is a politically driven court case. Some groups of people who want to stop Brexit, have spent a lot of money to attempt to do so.
Fortunately, this aligns with Boris Johnson (current UK prime ministers plan) who has two mechanisms at his disposal both achieving what he wants:
1) The court case against the government overturns his choice to prorogue/suspend Parliament. He simply does so again for a shorter period of time, now. Unless, he faces a vote of no confidence in which case a General Election is the likely outcome, in which case his party once more attains a majority, making it far easier for them to push forward as they choose.
OR
2) The ruling is upheld, the media switch back to an anti-EU rhetoric for a few days for clickbait, not much happens.
The ultimate outcome here is to convince the EU that the UK is truly negotiating for its own best interest, rather than prioritising the interests of the EU bloc ahead of its own in the name of simply being nice. If the EU as a whole (bear in mind this is 27 different countries in theory but realistically only 4 aside from the UK) believes this, they may very well be forced to revise the current offer of "you can leave the club, but you must remain a member of the club indefinitely, pay the membership fees, and you may not look to join other clubs unless we say so". Worst case, UK leaves with no deal and we have a tough few months. Best case, UK leaves with a better deal and we have a tough few days.
One way or the other, this is actually getting sorted and that is something that the disaffected masses will respect Mr Johnson for... the past 3 years of doomsday news headlines, business uncertainty and Twitter opinion wars have done far more damage to our society than any tangible Brexit outcome.
Is it really so hard to run a simple spell check on your texts?
You can't get this quality of drama in modern cinema...
Alacorn The writers have really outdone themselves this season
The part where you said "Direct democracy isn't all that common in the UK" so casually...
God this is so simple...
1) referendum was not legally binding to the parliament or government, but the government chose to go with this answer for it suited their plan of Brexit.
2) now that the argumentative ammunition has been used up (lies about the EU), and the electorate being hugely more aware of Brexit's consequences, and the motivation for Brexit of the "top 1%" being saving taxas, they are VERY unlikely to give their "go ahead" to do so.
3) hence now the stubborn fight to silence the electorate and in consequence also the parliament in order to drop out of the EU as desired.
To me it all adds up to a huge treason on behalf of the current PM, and the forces behind him.... where is just 007 when you need him?
have been debating Brexit for 3 years now. ad nauseam. prorogue is the way
Is it just me or is Scotland the only one with a brain here
The EU is asking the same vs. UK government.
It’s just you and about 90% of the other insipid chodes that visit this channel that thinks it.
The courts getting involved as much as they have is a really bad move, whatever the result we will have half the country thinking the court is biased now.
@@mrmagoo-i2l so canceling the brexit vote isn't democratic but suspending parliament based on boris's needs is democratic wtf?
Hail Scotland and their common sense... and while we arrrrre at it...ay laddy, pour me one more of that liquid gold on the rocks... can't stand to see London's politics sober...
@@Acin75 I am moving to scotland
I can't take drunk england anymore plus If they leave the uk the will rejoin the eu so here we go
Well, the referendum defense definitely won't hold any water for a number of reasons. First off, it wasn't legally binding, it was an opinion poll. Sure, it wasn't marketed that way to the people, but hey, wouldn't be the first time politicians reneged on their promises. Second, the referendum wasn't actually very clear on anything. There was nothing about a timeline, nothing about a future relationship, nothing about who would be in control and how, and certainly nothing about giving the government a blank cheque to make sure that it happens, no matter what they have to do to make it so.
yup exactly. The people voted to leave, not specifically *leave without a deal*. Neither parliament nor the government wants to cancel brexit (other than jo swinson)... so they're kind of on the same page
Basically... To sum it up .... ALOT OF CONFUSION!!
QC Aiden O'Neil put it quite eloquently: The mother of parliaments closed down by the father of lies!!
And that is true BJ recently paid a fine for the lies told during the 2016 Referendum. In many countries, he would have to surrender his license to practice law and be barred from politics. And he is the PM . . . .
I have two important questions. 1) Why is this UK Supreme Court case being televised? In the United States this doesn't happen because due to fears of being biased towards one side or the other. And 2) In a case so polarized in nature, wouldn't the TV cameras affect the UK Supreme Court's ability to make a fair decision?
I'm no expert, but it was briefly mentioned at the start of proceedings on day 1 that it was usual to be recorded, for 'Open justice' and anyone should be allowed to see proceedings take place where possible.
It's not always appropriate of course and is not standard practice across all our courts, or cases. Any criminal case, for example, takes place behind closed doors. This is a judicial review though, the arguments are about points of law, not about determining guilt. There isn't an issue of outside interference on a suspect or member of a jury.
The mere presence of a camera should never have an impact on the ability for a judge(s) to be impartial or fair in it's judgements.
Did anyone else get two ads at the beginning, two ads in the middle, and another two ads in the middle? Is this something you have control over, Jack? It makes it a lot harder to enjoy your content.
I love your videos but please use a spellchecker lmao 'Proceedures'
Parliament should only be open on the 31st of February
The best way for the U.K. Supreme Court to resolve the crisis at hand is to call a Constitutional convention of say 100 people elected on open ticket proportional voting and 100 people from 100 districts with the same number of people in each that are programmatically as close to squares as possible with the Queen choosing who may speak and for how long each delegate may speak among those who stand up. Those delegates are then required to have a closed session where they shall write a proper Constitution which shall be voted on by the people. If it is rejected, then restart the process from the point of voting in the delegates as above. This shall continue until the people ratify the proper Constitution.
If the U.K. Supreme Court doesn’t do this and instead tries to resolve the issue at hand, they will cause an indefinite crisis that could result in future authoritarian tendencies.
But the people never voted for a no deal, though.
Yeah, and Tl;dr claiming that parliament is acting "against the wishes of the people" in trying to ensure that an insane government doesn't force the country in to something that *no-one* voted for, is, frankly, bullshit.
No deal is what was on the ballot paper. Polls taken at the time of the referendum stated 73% of leave voters strongly supported a no deal brexit. No deal is what everyone was voting for, if we could get a beneficial deal before leaving then great, if not however everyone knew it meant no deal.
@@johnroyal4520 No it wasn't. What would drive you to make such an obviously false statement? I doubt your claims of 73% support for no deal, also, given that brexit had nowhere near that support, in any poll, for any level of deal - care to provide sources? Or is that another bit of blatant nonsense? Is anything you said even remotely related to reality?
John royal It wasn’t on the ballot paper.
It was in the leaflet and said hundreds of times though.
The economic argument was very low on people’s reasons for voting, from the information I saw.
The remain side just twisted it so that that’s all people focus on.
They mock sovereignty etc... to make people feel like fools. Don’t fall for it.
Fuck the economics, most people are just repeating forecasts and theories, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
@@fudgeweasel ORRRDAH! The Honorable Weasel will withdraw the word beginning with b and ending in t. :P
this most go on for years to come i love it
Brexit, the series (it should become a TV series though)
Season 1: Direct Democracy: UKIP rises and Conservative party slowly adopts helding a referendum after wining two. Big finale: The referendum is lost and prime minister resigns.
Season 2: Article 50: After resignation, the UK at last forms a new government and stalls the activation of article 50. Big finale: May at last sends a message to EU to activate the article 50.
Season 3: The Deal: Negotiations proceed, but concluding to an agreement is difficult. Scotland and Northern Ireland rethink of independence. Big finale: The parliament rejects the final agreement.
Season 4: The Brexit: This is actually a very enjoying season. Viewers are in agony as the political system of UK is unable to handle the situation. Big finale: to be written, but I believe 31st of October will be a great finale in any case.
Season 5: The Dissolution: To be written. However, I predict either UK or EU will dissolve. Maybe both.
Season 0 (prequel): A special relationship: This season follows UK from the day it joins EU. It gradually loses global influence. It demands more and more special relationship with EU, but this turns out to isolate UK even more in international affairs.
Imo, The supreme court should shorten prorogation, Not completely scrap it.
You've mentioned before, but not in this video about parliament was shutting down for a length of time anyway. This meant that Johnson was only technically taking a few days as per normal?
I know the MPs could have decided not to break, but worth mentioning.
"What happens when the decisions that they want to make go directly against what the electorate chose?" I believe that would be called something like Treason.
TLDR, make a video answering the question: “isn’t it time for a codified constitution?”
With amendments 💪💪🏻💪🏼💪🏽💪🏾💪🏿
No thanks. I don’t want the government of today to get to bind the hands of all future governments. I’d rather trust in the Supreme Court to uphold tradition but also show modern discretion where necessary.
You missed the 1st Scottish ruling saying its not in the courts interests to get involved and then the 2nd hearing ruled it was in 5mins little off if you ask me.
Apparently there was a missing witness statement which wasn't the case in the first judgement.
Please, spellcheck your wordings, I think I noticed 3 atrocious mistakes in this video.
u kennut b cereals!
Great channel with superb information .. do the plug at the end, like most streamers/youtubers.
1:40 : "The UK doesn't have a codified constitution."
4:25 : "...the purpose of Johnson's prorogation was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution."
I'm confused now, is there or isn't there a British constitution?
"...is there or isn't there a British constitution?"
There is, but a lot of it isn't written down. Complete clusterfuck, but that's what you get when you have more than a couple hundred years of history, multiple legal and parliamentary traditions, and several wars worth of internal changes in a country.
it's got a Schrodinger's constitution!
This case is actually showing UK's democracy strengths and weaknesses. Damn.
Exposing to foreign powers?
Perfect video if you've just done Public Law in 1st year xD
Hmm, interesting, Jack is going abroad, just when Brexit comes around => He's the first refugee fleeing the UK. A smart move!
Referendums suck. I've been saying so for a long time. The main issue is indeed how they risk putting different variations of democracy at odds with one another. When that happens, parliament can either ignore the outcome, angering a large amount of voters (because then why was the referendum held?) or they can listen to the public that dictates they act in a way that goes against their own judgement (so then why were they elected anyway?)
In other words, if the outcome of a referendum is at odds with the judgement of elected representatives, everything breaks down.
What's worse is that while politicians are well-versed in statecraft, the wider public is not. We elect politicians exactly because we need to be able to trust that experts are calling the shots, who know what it takes to rule a country and how to make decisions that don't go against the people's best interests and wishes. The layman is not a good politician. They may know what they want, but something that happens again and again is that people simply don't know how to get there or how to express what their wishes actually are. That's _exactly_ what politicians are for. They figure out what the people _really_ want so they can win votes, and how to best get there so those voters stay invested. The wider public is prone to falling for propaganda, misinformation and fads.
Consequently, a referendum is like a painter handing over their brushes to their client and let them start painting. When the client is done, the painter then works with what the client has created and makes it into something worthwhile. But occasionally the client may draw something so bad that there's no way to make it work as part of a good painting. Do you make a bad painting? Prepare to get yelled at for being a bad painter. Do you paint over the client's creation to make their original vision look better? Prepare to get yelled at for not respecting your client's wishes. It's a stupid system with no winners. Don't bring direct democracy into parliamentary democracy. One of those will suffice. Having both will cause nothing but hurt.
That's not to say that there's not value in having the public express their opinion outside of the voting booth, but you can already do that with approval ratings and the like. Asking the public to make your decisions for you is like saying "You don't like it? Here, you do it better" and then get into an argument when what they did isn't actually better. It's childish, inane and undemocratic. What could be less democratic than forcing democracy to fight itself?
I don't think the second question should be stated like that. It is not that Parliament is acting against the direct wishes of the electorate. That's what May and Johnson have been saying in order to force Brexit through. The question on the Referendum did not touch the way in which the UK should leave, which is what the Government is refusing to let Parliament scrutinize. If you were to ask the courts if Parliament is contradicting the will of the people, then that (to me) would actually be a political question which the judiciary cannot answer.
The answer is, clearly, a general election, but that's a nuanced point. I'm of the view that Parliament did the right thing not to let Johnson call an election before the 31st. Firstly, because at this point few MPs trust Johnson to actually call it properly and not use the pretext to ignore Parliament until the 31st and then call it; regardless of what he promises. Secondly, and more importantly, because Johnson is campaigning on that he'll deliver Brexit whatever the circumstances and that needs to be proven wrong before an election. Either it's proven wrong or he breaks the law. That needs to happen before the election.
This is my grain of salt.
Article 50 was the way of leaving the EU. And voting leave invoked article 50.
@@Bustaperizm A majority in Parliament does not wish to revoke it. There's not a contradiction there. If they were to take away a few of the red lines imposed by May, there's a much higher chance there's a form of Brexit Parliament aproves of. Of course if you don't concede anything (not to Europe, but to remainers (the 49%)), your only way out is crashing out. That doesn't mean is the only way.
What about the monarch? If it was she who decreed proroguing parliament, isn’t that an irrevocable act flowing from the power that she alone holds in primacy?
wait a few more seasons, King William in a batman suit . . .oops! I wasn't supposed to say that!
One fundamental flaw in this. Direct Democracy simply does not exist under the British system. Only parliamentary elections count.
I think you got this one wrong. The court is not ruling on anything to do with a disagreement between the electorate and parliament. Parliament is sovereign under the UK constitution. Representative democracies often (at their peril) ignore popular opinion - it is a feature, not a bug.
The plaintiff's main argument is that the executive is using a normally routine procedure to avoid the expressed will, oversight and action of a sovereign parliament. In turn, the government's maximalist response is that the courts have no say... they pretty much tried to avoid any statement of intent at all by not filing sworn statements on their own intent.
I think it will be an extremely tough climb for the govt to convince the courts that there are areas in which they do not have a role in protecting the supremacy of parliament.
I do not believe the parliament is intentionally opposing the "will" of the people who voted to leave EU (which was barely more than 50%). In fact, most MP's agree that the UK must and will leave the EU (in an orderly fashion), but that does not justify the government's move to shut parliament for such a long time. The argument in favor Johnson's move is weak in my opinion, and his actions thus far have shown how reckless and malicious he actually is.
4:56 Whether*
As a
lawyer predict court will not intervene
It seems to me the key question is the nature of the Referendum. Was it an advisory referendum - where the people just expresses their opinions on an issue; or one where the results of the referendum becomes law automatically. If the former, then the MP's can do as they wish; if the results have the force of law, then the question is whether or not Brexit happens, but how.
No not really. The referendum was merely advisory as Parliament is supreme in law making. The problem is that the Parliament then started the process to leave the EU according to the EU law which supposedly means you leave in two years time maximum. And then they rejected the treaty on departure agreed by the Government and EU. And refused to back any other set of proposals. And the two years is over and they keep wanting to delay departure. The referendum did not specify what a brexit should be like and neither has Parliament. Leaving with no agreed terms invalidates all the treaty rules on trade and is a stupid idea likely to cause an economic crisis. It is a failure to assume responsibility by refusing to make a choice between practical options. It is only a constitutional crisis as the politicians have failed to discharge their duty to exercise power. Having an uncodified constitution is irrelevant.
Now, what need is King William in a Batman costume, with Princess Kate in a Robin costume, to come to the rescue, apprehend BJ and unmask him, revealing a clone of Vladimir Putin.
Justice should not be about intention and last time i've checked most laws completely disregard intention.
If someone has taken money from someone else, it's theft even if they intended to return it.
If someone beats someone to death, it's murder even if they did not intend them to die.
As such, it SHOULD be that if the parliments power is limited it should be an unlawful proroguation.
That argument can only make ALL proroguation unlwaful. Which has no constitutional precedent and should be easily defeated.
@@DaMayan5 I can agree to that, but as such the system is flawed and open for explotation. As the current situation has proven. A flawed system can be improved upon or replaced.
If the yearly proroguation was a set timeframe, such as the first 3 weeks of october or somesuch. Then it can not be used as a political tool, intentionally or not. Everyone are aware when and how it is prorogued.
A flexible system is only good for people who wish to uproot the status quo.
The current situation highlights many issues, I am interested in seeing how it unfolds.
is it though? In other countries you need the intention of killing or some kind of "brutality" to make murder murder. Otherwise it's "just" homicide.
Actually, intention is used in courts all the time, it even has a term known as mens rea. For example, at least in the US, intent and motive can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter, between 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degrees of murder. Intention can make all the difference when it actually comes to the specificities of law.
Thanks for informing me on this, did not know this was different in other countries. It does feel weird and unjust.
Maybe if the Brexit had been more specific in the question (2 questions if brexit yes, what brexit?)
The question couldn't be more specific than it already was. Stay or Leave.
It’s not just a black and white issue, one person could think leave means ‘no deal’ and all ties to the EU are cut, while another may think some kind of deal is in place. The question needed to be a lot more specific on what the effects of either option would be. Plus both campaigns lied hugely and the entire initial vote should have been void, as well as being useless
@@xNYCMarc Agree, but now "leave" opens up many possibilites which is why the Parliament is stil quarreling.
ageofmining77 Leave means leave, full stop. Yes, a deal can be in place and still have it be a “leave”, but no deal can also be the case. What Brexit didn’t include was having those who disagree with leaving obstruct and ignore what the people voted for. What is happening in parliament has gone well beyond good faith disagreement and discussion and has devolved into outright obstruction.
I understand all this is fast-moving, breaking-news. But let me encourage you to avoid the misspellings that seem to routinely crop up in your otherwise informative and well-produced videos. Very distracting.
leaf him allone! his a hyooman!!!
Well in my view another great video.
Laying out simple facts is always dangerous. As with life, it is Seldom simple,
This video may be laying out simple facts on what is happening with this court case. But that would only be my point of view, others would disagree.
But I think on balance this and other court cases around Brexit is more about trying to bring the courts in to stop Brexit.
The bottom line is the people voted to leave the EU. An overwhelming portion of the MPs are going against their
constituency in an underhand way. Using deal or no deal. That was not on the referendum. The ballad paper stating
“Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union”
Just a simple IN OUT question. At the time I voted Remain, but I understand I lost the vote, not happy but that’s democracy.
A last-minute dash to the supreme high court of the UK by Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Gina Miller, John Major are
now trying to use courts to stop Brexit. Not the prorogation of Parliament, but stop Brexit.
I hope the courts can see through the fog of deception.
The ballad paper? Whats that? :)
"What if parliament wishes to decide contrary to electorate?" This is the classic question, but being an adversary of referenda the answer lies in the latter bit of the question: a referendum does not represent the will of the people. It is exceptionally vulnerable to demagogy, manipulation and misinformation. Their place in a representative democracy is tricky and hardly ever are people satisfied by the manner by which results are taken into account. Outcomes are often not representative. Issues cannot be boiled down to a simple yes/no. People lack time, capacity or interest to inform themselves. And some questions are simply unfair to ask the people. EU yes or no is one of them: it rules out many different outcomes like reform and triggers them to vote based on gutfeelings
Informative video. I appreciate TLDR pointing out that arms of the government are being pitted against each other.
In light of the new ruling, and we have another video now ?