Wouldn't the Greek-derived equivalent of "populism" be "demagoguery"? Which, to me, has even more strongly negative connotations.

The UK is about much more than London - brexit happened, because some people forgot that...

These days, "populism" is a common misspelling for "xenophobic jingoism."

I assumed that Brexit (shouldn't it be Ukexit?) was about losing freedom and not so much as to do with the value of money but that was part of the issue. From what news I heard was that folks in jolly old England (is that on the map anymore?) felt that local laws that many felt fair for 500 years were being forced to be changed.

The Rust belt is where my mother lives. She and my father were very active Democrats. My father was a State Senator way back. Sadly some of the actions of the Democrats I suspect led my mother to vote for Trump. Clinton's NAFTA agreement did away with the remaining working class in the rust belt. I used to work at big computer company that sent their work to Mexico. Then no job for me. Thanks Bill.

Hillary didn't lose for any one reason. I suspect that the release of the emails may have been the biggest part. I mean really, when you get caught you kind of expect this sort of reaction.


My biggest complaint is why people are against Melania Trump. Sheeze. They march to say women have value and they they devalue and humiliate her. What did she do? She should get a better break from women. I've never heard of such petty childish actions. Won't dress a lady because you don't like her husband? I guess open minded is really closed minded.

What did she do? She plagiarised word for word a speech by Michelle Obama and it made her look totally ridiculous. But I agree that the reactive sulking from the Democratic camp is ott.

Until the Democrats realise their error with Clinton AND recognising that they unfairly margonlised Sanders (intentionally) they will continue the same path and not change. It doesn't help that they also have those who still cling to the whole Russia narrative - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARgTf8zPinM *sigh*, no Bill, it wasn't Russia - it was Clinton she-was-that-much-of-a-shit candidate even to Trump, although Olbermann's tirade was entertaining to watch(but sad and cringe-worthy.....*facepalm*)

This guy does seem to get it - Wasserman Schultz - and this - Democratic Party is done - The outright refusal to address the real issue, and still clinging to the fact that they 'need donors' outright dismissing the idea that they need votes from the people - and then you have characters like Corey Booker - if that party continues as is, I frankly wouldn't be surprised if Trump is a two-term president.

Really at this point, hopefully this should be enough cause for a VIABLE third party - because the democrats are so pussy-whipped by Trump - they cannot face the truth and do sulk, where you have violent protestors which in my opinion show their true colours - claiming to be for democracy but outright attacking anyone who voted for Trump, then what does that make them exactly?

Again this go back in my view to the whole absurdity that the PC movement has become - if you question or try to engage in any sort of debate - you are shut down as a racist or whatever - do it again, and you can face violence; hrmm, well outright Communists and Nationalists do the same thing so...

Thus again this is the beginning - I don't like Trump either - I don't like the situation in Europe either - but quite honestly they(far-left and PC culture) are causing this and outright refuse to recognise it. As I stated before I am watching The Netherlands and France - and I am sure if Le Pen wins France - I would not be surprised that we can then see a Frexit, though The Netherlands would be first actually since Wilders has made no secret he wants to take The Netherlands out of the EU too. This is a very real possibility.

Hillary Clinton didn't stand a chance from the very beginning, because everybody knew exactly what her Presidency would be: "Bill Clinton, the Sequel.™"

Who signed the NAFTA Implementation Act which sent all those jobs to Mexico? Bill Clinton.

Who signed the legislation repealing Glass-Steagall, creating pawn-shops at every street corner in America and making it impossible to get loans except at a loan shark's? Bill Clinton.

And the list just goes on and on and on. Bill's Presidency was near the apex of these mad social experiments, and Hillary's would have been nothing more than a continuation of it. She would have found some way to resurrect the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty (even though China's President recently shut it down, saying "Asia's future should be determined by Asians"), and she would have escalated the un-declared wars that are draining America's borrowed-money coffers dry. She would have continued the run off the edge of the cliff, seeing nothing whatsoever wrong with continuing along that path.

No: "Hillary Clinton was 'The Establishment.'"

There was absolutely nothing that she could do to shake the realization of exactly what her Presidency would be, because, in a very real sense, she had been President twice already. Hillary has always been the fire in the boiler of her husband's checkered political career.

She was doomed from the start.

But, none of the people with whom she surrounded herself believed that she could not win – or at least, dared tell her. She was a shrewish, ambitious lady – a "high-powered attorney" to the very core – who would stop at nothing to secure the Presidency for herself, in order to cash-in the political chips that she had so carefully accumulated since the earliest days of her husband's Presidency. She simply allowed herself to believe that she deserved to be President, and that Trump was un-electable and that surely everybody in America would see that . . . :jawa:

Bernie Sanders would have been electable except for one small thing: the man is "old, very old." His race, like it or not (and may he live long and prosper ...) is nearly run. Also, the political sentiments that win hearts in New England don't necessary play in Kansas. He's better living out his political career right where he is now; where he continues to be a respected and influential voice (and quite deservedly so). A run for the White House would have removed him from where he does best, and that would have been (IMHO) "wrong for Bernie, and for U.S."

Today, it is most obvious that the group which most fears (and therefore, hates) Donald Trump is: "the Washington Press." This man tweets! He speaks directly to his audience, 140 characters at a time, with no "Press Corps" to interpret. He doesn't attend press conferences that the press is accustomed to see as a "command performance," and his Press Secretary walks out of the room leaving them to stare at an empty podium for hours. The Press has been slinging arrows at every available target – how many people attended his inauguration, and his wife of course, and I haven't looked yet to see what is the fresh target today.

One thing is certain: "this President is going to turn over just about every apple-cart." He isn't going to play by the rules. He's going to make up new ones.

The Press is going to have to stop trying to be "king-maker" and "propaganda minister," and to rediscover the lost art of journalism.

So, even though I didn't vote for the man and never, ever(!), would have, I'm willing to sit back for a little while and see for myself what he does. Can he formulate a clear "mission statement" and sell it not only to the people but especially to the Congress? He will have to elicit – by persuasion – the cooperation of people who hate (and fear) everything he stands for, in order to get anything accomplished. Can he do that? He can't continue campaigning – does he know how?

He knows how to be the Chief Executive Officer of an international business. Does he know how to be the Chief Executive Officer of a very-troubled government? He knows how to deal with a Board of Directors consisting of eight or ten like-minded people. Does he know how to engage a Board of over 650 people, who have seen so many Presidents before him come and go? Does he know how to inspire? He can talk. But, can he lead?

I cannot put it as succinctly and elegant as you - though I feel I did say the same thing. Yes she was the establishment, Clinton The Sequel - and nobody really wanted that. To a certain extent Trump someways did inspire because he went against the establishment, even though I didn't or would have voted for him either, and yes I also will sit back and see what happens, I will at least give the man that, which again is more than what those stupid crybabies are doing protesting, and even some celebrities threatening to 'blow up the White House'(Madonna) - it amazes me, the left has always been going out of their way to make the right such loonies, but with the 8 years of Obama, I do not recall such sentiments to even go out of their way (the right) - to threaten violence and even terrorist threats. This to me also shows these idiots for what they are, they are only tolerant if your views falls in line with theirs, dissent is not to be tolerated and any questioning and you are silenced as racist, or worse - hence the PC culture and its obnoxious intrusion into everyone's life.

Brexit: Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead
 

Meanwhile in the UK:

I do not understand these hurdles, it seems to me that those who are fervent pro-EU are trying to stall or somehow 'overturn' what was voted. I already saw referendum after referendum in other EU states when the people 'do not vote as expected' - and try such tactics until the desired outcome. I am probably misinterpreting this since I do not know how exactly the UK government. That is my take on the UK right now, but I could obviously be wrong so I welcome any input on this.

I suspected that this would happen, and I actually think that it is a good thing.

The UK (I think, foolishly) swallowed the Kool-Aide® of EU by passing laws that placed EU law supreme to the UK's. But Parliament necessarily passed those laws. Thus, exit from the EU would change the laws that now apply to a common Brit, which, as their Supreme Court observed, "requires an(other) Act of Parliament."

This would also put the final decision to leave the EU where it properly belongs: in the Legislature. I consider it very unwise for a functionary to initiate the process "administratively," when it must be acknowledged that the popular sentiment for leaving the EU was already razor-thin. Let the measure be formally debated in the House of Commons, where any such debate is designed to occur. If Britain is to leave the EU – as I fully expect it to do – let it be by a formal Act.

I don't know the whys-and-wherefores of "Scotland and Wales and all that," but it even seems to me that there should be a clear consensus among all parties concerned, because, "they're all in this together." No party should be left out such that they might then decide to break up the United Kingdom, itself, as a consequence of their disagreement. Obtain a similar Act from all of them. Listen to their objections. Consider them very, very soberly and with an open(!) mind.

To me, "that's the only proper way to approach this."

I think that Britain will exit, followed by several other Members until the EU gets the message and (if it can be saved at all) drastically reduces its scope and influence: (and, to my British friends, "I intend that analogy both loosely and colloquially ...")

On the other hand, maybe the EU Treaty can be re-negotiated. If the leadership of the EU is facing the withdrawal of a very prominent and important member, citing flaws in the design of the concept of the EU, then perhaps a better move would be to "re-design the Union." You made it. You can change it. What's the best thing to do for the people of Europe, and of each and every member? If one nation is so unhappy with this "marriage of unequals" as to seek divorce, then your treaty is running on borrowed time and you'd better fix it.

It ought to be very clear that countries are not going to give up their sovereignty, their autonomy, or the supremacy of their system of law, just for a "trade union." Listen to what you hear in the United States, or in China. The sentiment is everywhere, it's growing, and (IMHO) it's correct. "To do what the present EU Treaty requires its members to do" is not "the right thing to do."

I do not remember if the Welsh wanted to stay or not - but I do remember the majority of Scots rejected the idea of leaving the EU - so at this point I think it is possible that the UK itself will face a breakup of sorts - if Scotland wants to stay in the EU, then I clearly think there will be another push first for Scottish independence since that is the only way they could ever hope to rejoin the EU. Again, I am not sure about Wales so that is the UK.

I think there is no chance of any re-negotiating of the EU treaty with the UK, and the rest of the EU has made it clear that the UK should not delay invoking Article 50 - the rest of the EU made it clear if the UK voted to leave, there cannot be any sort of intentional delay, nor can the UK cherry-pick advantages from the EU - 'you voted leave, out means out.'

Now going back a bit - it is very real that more will start breaking away from the EU - The Netherlands and France - because if Wilders and Le Pen do somehow win it will be logical and will be the next after the UK to leave, whether it will stop there who knows - more will decide to hold their own referendum - what I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned yet is Greece, considering the situation there, although it is a lot more simple I think - because it seems that the Greeks retired at such a young age, and preferred to get pensions and were promised by the government without any sort of plan and refusal to address the fact that their economic model is completely unsustainable, again that is further down the road but will eventually come up.

I think the Welsh voted leave. The Scots of course wanted to stay in, but if we followed Sundialsvc's advice and started negotiations with them, we'd still not have triggered Article 50 by 2050!

As far as the judges are concerned, I see their point but I still think they made the wrong decision. When May first unveiled her Brexit plans, they included a "Great Repeal Bill" which would be fully debated in Parliament as soon as Article 50 had been triggered but come into force only the day after Brexit itself. The bill would be quite short and would have two main clauses: one would repeal the European Communities Act, and the other would redefine all EU legislation imposed on us since then as British legislation. This would mean that Brexit itself would not change one jot or tittle of the laws under which we live. It would be for Parliament to gradually sift through the accumulated legislation and repeal whatever they didn't want to keep. For example, most people would probably want us to keep the labour laws and those on environmental protection.

How long would this process take? As long as it takes! It wouldn't actually matter how long it took because we would be out of the EU by that time, so there would be no deadline.

I believe that the judges did not take proper account of the effect of the Great Repeal Bill. Making and unmaking international treaties has always in every country been a job for the executive and not the legislature. Changing laws is a matter for the legislature, but the proposed bill would ensure that Brexit by itself wouldn't change them.

I can understand the judges' conundrum in that. You elect to exit, first, but then debate how to repeal the laws? The trouble is, those laws are now attached to a disconnected electrical cable. Anything that presupposes "EU" would still be in place until repealed, but it wouldn't be attached to "EU" anymore. Other nations, being royally pissed that you left the Union, won't be answering your phone anytime soon. The laws on the books still say "EU," but you've turned that switch off. So, what is the law in Britain now?

If the treaty in question wasn't knotted all through your present legal infrastructure, then the Executive could just do the Executive thing, and there would be no "ripple." But, you've got a legal mess on your hands right now.

No, I think that the judges are correct: you need to debate and decide how to repeal those laws, and what will now replace them (even if it's "what you had before"), for each and every law, before you hit the switch. You can't still have laws within the country that say, "EU supersedes them, etc." if you're no longer attached to EU: no lawmaker, judge, or citizen would know what-the-hell "the British law" now is. :eek: The Executive can "unmake the treaty," yes, but if the laws of the country have been attached to the existence of that treaty and the working relationship set forth in that treaty, you've got to resolve that ... first.

Within Parliament, confirm that indeed you're going to leave the EU, then enumerate the laws that will be affected and establish the new status of all of them. Then, on the agreed-upon date, serve notice to the EU that you're out. The changed British laws immediately take effect, and everyone understands clearly where they stand and how to decide legal cases.

And you'd really like to avoid breaking up your now-United Kingdom in the process, if you can . . .

Rather like engineering a successful "migration" of a computer system. :)

Hopefully this means the death of PC culture and social justice
 

I don't see how the UK at this point won't be broken up - again this will be another argument for the Scots for independence - not sure if the Welsh have the same fervor as the Scots - then there is also the ignored issue of Northern Ireland - quite honestly Brexit very possibly signed the death warrant of the UK itself.

On the other side of the pond - TPP is dead - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrHzR2sUUxc

Bringing up the who PC thing also - I actually hope this does spell the death of it because again at this point the left has proven themselves just as hateful and intolerant they make Trump supporters out to be - I think also Milo addresses and makes some good points too(Alt-Right meme)

-edit

Like I have also stated earlier, here in the US the democratic party is just beyond fscked and refuse any sort of self-reflection - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygr_u6ys9YQ more are seeing this too.

I think the judges in the UK noted the right point and then drew the wrong conclusion. Yes, the applicability of EU law is enabled by an act of parliament, so it will take another act to repeal it. But this case was just about about whether the government had the power to start withdrawal negotiations, which they surely do. Personally, I agree with the judge who said that it wasn't for them to tell parliament how to run its business. If you have a written constitution, then obviously you need judges to tell you if the government has broken it, but we don't. If enough MPs had wanted a vote on Article 50, then the opposition could have demanded one and, if it was refused, tabled a no-confidence motion.

Actually, the Remainers seem to have shot themselves in the foot. The government will introduce a one-clause bill just saying "we're leaving". The vote will be about 400 to 150 in favour, so no more argument.