Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Harvey Normal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Truth doesn't always have to be polite.



The term that the tweeter used was 'openly racist arseholes'. Most people would view open racists with contempt.



The campaign had no problem appealing to those with less than desirable views.

Your class analysis was wrong of course. Brexit was more popular amongst the working classes. Particularly the north.

Harvey Normal

Cartouche wrote: »

Its a bit worrying when members of parlament are criticising the decision of the courts. I mean the fundamentals of their democracy is based on respecting an independent judiciary. Not accepting decisions you happen not to like is not part of the bargain.

This is bull. Judges can be criticised by politicians. And vice versa. It's fairly unusual for judges to dictate to politicians in the uk anyway - in this case the high court is effectively telling the government that it can't ignore parliament, which means that parliament is supreme to government and most high court decisions (with the exception of where parliament ignores its own supremacy).

A Dub in Glasgo

Harvey Normal wrote: »

This is bull. Judges can be criticised by politicians. And vice versa. It's fairly unusual for judges to dictate to politicians in the uk anyway - in this case the high court is effectively telling the government that it can't ignore parliament, which means that parliament is supreme to government and most high court decisions (with the exception of where parliament ignores its own supremacy).

High Court telling the Government to apply the law and folk are criticising the High Court in this :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Neither India, China or Iran have a blue water navy. China are developing one but it'll be a while.

It'll be a while before the UK carriers are operational too.

Also it all depends on how you define Blue Water.

Both India and China bought a replenishment tanker from Russia so it's not a question of if they have blue water navies but when.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komandarm_Fedko-class_oiler


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indian_Navy_flotilla_of_Western_Fleet_escort_INS_Vikramaditya_(R33)_and_INS_Viraat_(R22)_in_the_Arabian_Sea.jpg

Harvey Normal

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

High Court telling the Government to apply the law and folk are criticising the High Court in this :eek:

What's dubious offhand about the decision (offhand, I haven't read it) is that article 50 is just a notice to the eu that Britain intends to leave. This is a negotiating tactic, generally a perogative of government not the parliament.

Capt'n Midnight

A Little Pony wrote: »

It isn't EU money, it is OUR money. If you fail to realize that, the conversations is fruitless.

Just pointing out that you are taking things out of proportion.

And besides all the indications are that you won't see a farthing because any savings from not "funding the EU" will be eaten up.


intaxication
Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

The irony here is painful: a few unelected white males in 17th century wigs and gowns decided the other day that the declared wishes of a majority of the English electorate in 2016 are inferior to the wishes of the members of parliament (including one unelected parliament where blood and religion are still qualifications for membership in 2016).

You could not make the delusions and jingoistic mentality of the Brexiters up.

Just wow. I have seen many examples of points being missed over the years, but this is well up there. Have you actually read the judgement? Oh sorry, what was I thinking, of course you haven't. If you had you wouldn't have posted something so fcuking stupid. Please allow me to provide you with a couple of relevant quotes:

Paragraph 4 of the judgement wrote:

The sole question in this case is whether, as a matter of constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Crown - acting through the executive government of the day - is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 for the United Kingdom to cease to be a member of the European Union.

Paragraph 5 of the judgement wrote:

It deserves emphasis at the outset that the court in these proceeding is only dealing with a pure question of law.

Paragraph 5 of the judgement wrote:

Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union; nor does it have any bearing on government policy, because government policy is not law.

Paragraph 5 of the judgement wrote:

The policy to be applied by the executive government and the merits or demerits of withdrawal are matters of political judgement to be resolved through the political process

Paragraph 5 of the judgement wrote:

The legal question is whether the executive government can use the Crown's prerogative powers to give notice of withdrawal.

Paragraph 5 of the judgement wrote:

We are not in any way concerned with the use that may be made of the Crown's prerogative power, if such a power can as a matter of law be used in respect of article 50, or what will follow if the Crown's prerogative powers cannot be so used.

These unelected judges, the best kind of judge IMHO, have not said anything about the wishes of those that voted leave I the referendum. I will not use your phrase of "majority of the English electorate" as it was not a majority of the English electorate, it was a majority of those who voted in the referendum, which was a subset of the electorate. They certainly have not declared their wishes inferior to the politicians, as they went to great pains to explain. The result of the referendum is not a matter of law, which you would know if you actually read the referendum, legislation, and the result is not the subject of this case.

In the UK laws are made by parliament, that is parliament as distinct from the executive, or the government. Prerogative power is a mechanism by which the government can bypass parliament and pass laws without its approval. This is a pretty dig deal and it is used very sparingly.

The sole purpose of this case was to answer the question "can the government trigger Article 50 using the prerogative power without going to parliament." It wasn't should Article 50 be triggered, or can it be stopped? It was simply to answer the constitutional question of what must the mechanism be that is used to trigger it.

I appreciate that this isn't what you want to hear, and I have perhaps used more words than a Daily Mail headline, but please make an effort to educate yourself on the things you are ranting on so perhaps you might not look quite so ignorant.

MrP

Steve456

Harvey Normal wrote: »

What's dubious offhand about the decision (offhand, I haven't read it) is that article 50 is just a notice to the eu that Britain intends to leave. This is a negotiating tactic, generally a perogative of government not the parliament.

No, it's more than that - invoking article 50 starts a clock ticking, and 2 years later (no more, no less) the UK exits the EU, unless all sides agree something different.

Actually, it's not clear whether the UK could retract an article 50 declaration - if it could, I agree it would be more like a negotiating tactic. The UK government conceded for the purposes of the court case that an art 50 declaration can't be retracted once made - partly because that's its official political position, but mostly because that made it less likely that the European Court will get involved.

MrPudding

Harvey Normal wrote: »

What's dubious offhand about the decision (offhand, I haven't read it) is that article 50 is just a notice to the eu that Britain intends to leave. This is a negotiating tactic, generally a perogative of government not the parliament.

But the basis of the case, as agreed by both sides (paragraph 11) is that once notice is given it will inevitably result in the complete withdrawal of the UK from membership of the EU.

The circumstances under which prerogative power can be used is highly restricted. This used to be the power the monarch had, back when the monarch actually had some power. Through various acts of parliament, this power was restricted more and more and eventually it was effectively removed from the monarch and vested in the "Crown" which is basically the cabinet.

A phrase we are hearing very often right now (the meaning of which I am beginning to feel is misunderstood by many) is that parliament is sovereign. That is parliament, not the government. The government (or the Crown) sits in parliament, but it is not parliament nor is parliament the government. Parliament is sovereign, not the government or the Crown. And that is basically what the case on Thursday was about.

MrP

Harvey Normal

MrPudding wrote: »

Just wow. I have seen many examples of points being missed over the years, but this is well up there. Have you actually read the judgement? Oh sorry, what was I thinking, of course you haven't. If you had you wouldn't have posted something so fcuking stupid. Please allow me to provide you with a couple of relevant quotes:













These unelected judges, the best kind of judge IMHO, have not said anything about the wishes of those that voted leave I the referendum. I will not use your phrase of "majority of the English electorate" as it was not a majority of the English electorate, it was a majority of those who voted in the referendum, which was a subset of the electorate. They certainly have not declared their wishes inferior to the politicians, as they went to great pains to explain. The result of the referendum is not a matter of law, which you would know if you actually read the referendum, legislation, and the result is not the subject of this case.

In the UK laws are made by parliament, that is parliament as distinct from the executive, or the government. Prerogative power is a mechanism by which the government can bypass parliament and pass laws without its approval. This is a pretty dig deal and it is used very sparingly.

The sole purpose of this case was to answer the question "can the government trigger Article 50 using the prerogative power without going to parliament." It wasn't should Article 50 be triggered, or can it be stopped? It was simply to answer the constitutional question of what must the mechanism be that is used to trigger it.

I appreciate that this isn't what you want to hear, and I have perhaps used more words than a Daily Mail headline, but please make an effort to educate yourself on the things you are ranting on so perhaps you might not look quite so ignorant.

MrP

I still say the decision is odd as invoking article 50 is merely informing the EU of a decision to leave, the mechanics of which would be voted on by parliament. It's like saying the government would need permission to engage in a trade negotiation.

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder of how the UK might fare outside the EU.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37872792

India consistently refused to lift restrictions on professional services including accounting, insurance, banking and legal services, he points out. These are some of Britain's strongest sectors and exactly the kind of businesses to which Britain wants India to open up.

"For the life of me, I cannot see why the Indians would be prepared to offer concessions on services in bilateral talks with the UK which they were not prepared to offer in return for access to the EU as a whole," he says.

And then there is the even more vexed question of immigration.

Steve456

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I still say the decision is odd as invoking article 50 is merely informing the EU of a decision to leave, the mechanics of which would be voted on by parliament. It's like saying the government would need permission to engage in a trade negotiation.

If the result of the trade negotiation is supposed to affect people's rights, then yes, legislation is required. As contrasted with the more ordinary sort of trade negotiations, which is only an inter-governmental agreement, and doesn't need legislation.

kingchess

I suppose that the PM took the case because once the parliament gets to have an input any MP can table an amendment and if passed can water down Brexit???

Harvey Normal

Steve456 wrote: »

If the result of the trade negotiation is supposed to affect people's rights, then yes, legislation is required. As contrasted with the more ordinary sort of trade negotiations, which is only an inter-governmental agreement, and doesn't need legislation.

I don't doubt that legislation is required to agree on what is negotiated. But not to start negotiations.

Harvey Normal

kingchess wrote: »

I suppose that the PM took the case because once the parliament gets to have an input any MP can table an amendment and if passed can water down Brexit???

Parliament was always going to vote on any agreement. She didn't take the case but she is appealing this ruling.

catbear

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just a reminder of how the UK might fare outside the EU.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37872792

According to a recent survey, the number of licensed curry restaurants has declined by 13 per cent in the last 18 months, with over 1,000 restaurants closing their doors for good.

The current regime requires curry house owners to pay nearly £30,000 a year to secure a visa for a chef from the subcontinent. Visa applications are often refused and the staff shortages are the main reason why restaurants are closing.

Oli Khan, chef and owner of three curry houses, said the industry is suffering a lot and feels betrayed.

He told The Independent: “It is very disappointing that Brexit campaigners such as Priti Patel and Boris Johnson, who said the curry industry would be better off the EU, have not kept their promises.”

Priti Patel, International Development Secretary, who was a leading Leave campaigner, said a Brexit vote would allow the curry industry to relax non-EU immigration rules and “save” British curry houses.

The indian and pakistani curry trade will be wanting their own free movement concessions for any post brexit deal.

Harvey Normal

catbear wrote: »

The indian and pakistani curry trade will be wanting their own free movement concessions for any post brexit deal.

I mean curry houses have nothing to do with the EU. And why not train people in the UK.

the evasion_kid

All this talk of curry is making me hungry....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/05/24/what-the-olive-oil-disaster-tells-us-about-the-european-union/#2eaf37906958

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201/EU-drops-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html

A Little Pony

I think the supreme court will go in favour of the government. It is just this limbo stage waiting for December 7th, when you would think a vote could potentially happen in the commons between then on triggering Article 50.

Steve456

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the supreme court will go in favour of the government.

Any particular reason for thinking that? The High Court judgment was pretty orthodox, starting from basic principles of parliamentary supremacy (which is chapter 1 of any constitutional law book) and reaching a logical conclusion without saying anything outrageous along the way. Nearly all the commentary from practitioners says that it will be a very difficult judgment to attack on appeal. Of course, anything could happen, including a reference to the European Court (just because none of the parties want this couldn’t stop the court from doing it). And since the government argument failed so thoroughly in the High Court, maybe they’ll try arguing it a completely different way. But can you think of any reason why a government victory on appeal is likely?

Harvey Normal

Anybody got a link?

Steve456

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Anybody got a link?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2768.html

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the supreme court will go in favour of the government. It is just this limbo stage waiting for December 7th, when you would think a vote could potentially happen in the commons between then on triggering Article 50.

Very unlikely. I was very surprised that the Government expected to win the High Court case as its clear that the Royal Perogative is very limited, basically covering unimportant things that Parliament never took from the King many years ago.

Given the horrible stick that the Judges have taken for doing their job, I think its unlikely that the Supreme court will reverse the decision on appeal.

What might work, if it could be obtained, would be confirmation from the EU that Article 50 was unilaterally reversible by the UK and a committment from the UK Government that there would be a yes/no vote on whatever gets negotiated, if anything, before the two years period expired.

In reality, the most likely situation is that nothing will get negotiated; its just too complex and unanimity is required for any deal. So the outcome will be hard brexit with myriad problems. And once article 50 is triggered, this will happen in two years if nothing is agreed, which is the most likely scenario.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the supreme court will go in favour of the government

You must be reading the UKIP guide to democracy in the UK

Cartouche

Harvey Normal wrote: »

This is bull. Judges can be criticised by politicians. And vice versa. It's fairly unusual for judges to dictate to politicians in the uk anyway - in this case the high court is effectively telling the government that it can't ignore parliament, which means that parliament is supreme to government and most high court decisions (with the exception of where parliament ignores its own supremacy).

Utter nonsense
When there is such savage media vitriol being egged on by the right wing press and tory backbenchers, who dont happen to like what the judge said ?
The whole thing is sounding like some African dictatorship

MrPudding

Harvey Normal wrote: »

I don't doubt that legislation is required to agree on what is negotiated. But not to start negotiations.

But the negotiations are irrelevant for the purposes of this case, remember. Articles 50 sets off a clock. When that clock runs down the uk is gone. That is the case whether or not negotiation have completed. And that was the point, triggering Article 50 is, technically, just giving notice , but the inevitable consequence, for the purposes of this case, of this notice is the UK's exit from the EU.

MrP

Dyr

Il Corbo says Labour will block Article 50 is single market access isn't guaranteed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-block-article-50-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access-brexit-a7400266.html


Bold move but if he triggers an election on article 50 a lot of working class voters will turn away from labour for blocking brexit.

Basically keeping his MPs onside at the cost of votes

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Bold move but if he triggers an election on article 50 a lot of working class voters will turn away from labour for blocking brexit.

People have short memories. It might be very different in two years time when the UK is facing a very Hard Brexit, when companies are moving HQs abroad, when the pound is crashing even more and when taxes/borrowing is rising.

Labour can present itself, in this scenario, as defenders of the workers against the loonies in the Conservative party. By then voters will have forgotten that they themselves voted for brexit or will have decided that they voted only for a brexit that retained all the advantages of the EU and none of the disadvantages...

Calina

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think the supreme court will go in favour of the government. It is just this limbo stage waiting for December 7th, when you would think a vote could potentially happen in the commons between then on triggering Article 50.

The decision will not be available on 7 December. That is the day the appeal may be heard. You will wait until January some time for the decision.

You might want to give an indication of the grounds on which you think the Supreme Court will grant any appeal. The High Court eviscerated the Government's case in its judgement. The general view by a few barristers is that winning an appeal against it will be extremely difficult. Nothing you've posted suggests you're more qualified to assess the likelihood.

A very sobering read for the Brexiters over on the BBC website yesterday. What's the betting that they'll persist in their addiction to delusion and jingoistic rhetoric and refuse to face up to reality?

Will India dash UK trade deal hopes?

On Sunday Theresa May will land in smoggy Delhi with a large entourage of diplomats, advisers, business people and press in tow....
Each brought more evidence that India's Diwali generosity does not extend to trade deals with the UK or anyone else.
There was the top Indian diplomat who dismissed Mrs May's visit as "an afterthought"....
The British asked for Mrs May's visit to be brought forward from December and he told me: "This is about politics in the UK, not about what we want."
Informal trade talks have already started, again at Britain's behest.
Under EU rules,the UK cannot do any actual deals until it leaves Europe, but with a "hard Brexit" - where it leaves the single market - looking a real possibility, it wants to get the ball rolling as soon as possible.
"Good luck with that," laughed the ambassador of a major economic power as he sipped from a flute of champagne at another Diwali do. "We've been trying to get a deal for years now, but there's not much in it for India."....
The European Union had the same problem.
Peter Mandelson began free trade talks between the EU and India when he was European trade commissioner back in 2007. There have been 16 separate formal rounds of negotiations in the nine years since then, but very little progress.
You only need to look at the sticking points to see why the UK is unlikely to fare any better, says Sir Thomas Harris, a former ambassador to Korea who ran the UK India Business Council for many years.
India consistently refused to lift restrictions on professional services including accounting, insurance, banking and legal services, he points out. These are some of Britain's strongest sectors and exactly the kind of businesses to which Britain wants India to open up.
"For the life of me, I cannot see why the Indians would be prepared to offer concessions on services in bilateral talks with the UK which they were not prepared to offer in return for access to the EU as a whole," he says.
And then there is the even more vexed question of immigration.
During the trade talks, Europe refused India's requests for more temporary visas for professional workers.
On the face of it, Mrs May's government is unlikely to be any more forthcoming. Its policy is that the number of immigrants needs to be cut dramatically.
At the Conservative Party conference last month, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, talked about the possibility of new curbs on foreign workers and students.
But it is hard to overstate how badly the government's rhetoric on immigration goes down in India.
"The impression Britain is giving to countries such as India is 'we want your business but we don't want your people'," is how a former advisor to the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, put it in an Indian newspaper.
When I quoted that to a top British diplomat he squirmed in discomfort.
"The government is going to have to find a way to articulate its policy more clearly," was his "diplomatic" suggestion.
Mrs May's visit to India is the first big test of whether it can do that.
If Britain is to prosper, Mrs May needs to be able to show that forging strong non-EU alliances can be reconciled with her hard-line stance on immigration.

"Take back control" indeed.