The people after Brexit will not rule in any more sense than they ruled before. But the questions put to them may be less of a choice between various species of stinking fish.
(Conclusion of an interesting historical comparison from Sean Gabb on what the realignment might look like.)
I want a (much) less-rotted fish to vote for. I want an end to recent innovations (FTPA, supreme court) that are instruments of anti-populist control. (The old constitution has enough of these. The high court does not need a supreme court to reverse it. Parliament does need to fear surprise elections.)
Brexit didn’t have to expose this. It was always inevitable that those who loved the EU would love these things. I’m not sure it was inevitable they’d cheat so hard as to expose them for what they are to so many. In 2016, I thought they’d do what Sean says they’d have been wiser to: keep their promise (i.e. accept the result) and keep their preeminence. But our harder fight offers us a greater victory.
Not sure I would trust a white nationalist like Gabb’s judgement on anything but whatever.
I’m confused. I have vague memories of legal cases going to the “House of Lords” which was shorthand for judges who sat in the House of Lords and who constituted the “supreme” court.
“But our harder fight offers us a greater victory.” Indeed.
Bell Curve–most leftist idiots might agree with you–esp the extra stupid and self hating ones.
Phineas Phosgene (21st October 2019 at 6:18 pm), IIRC you are right that when the supreme court started (10 years ago as of October 1st) it took over certain functions previously done in the Lords.
Mr Ecks (21st October 2019 at 6:43 pm), it is amusing that ‘Bell Curve’ is itself a racist term to the PC. Charles Murray’s book “The Bell Curve ‘ was placed on the index expurgatorius of leftism long ago, and student activists literally break the bones of anyone inviting the author to speak on campus.