Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

Ironically, a title first conferred on Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X.

He lost the title when he was excommunicated in 1538 by Pope Paul III. But Parliament reconferred it in 1544, since when he and all his successors have continued to use it.

zapitastas

theguzman wrote: »

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

In what way have the working class been destroyed by the freedom of movement under the single market. Would like to see a peer reviewed study on that

gimli2112

zapitastas wrote: »

In what way have the working class been destroyed by the freedom of movement under the single market. Would like to see a peer reviewed study on that

"them lousy foreigners taking our jobs" whether it's true or not that would be the sentiment.
Had it roared at me in the street years ago when I first came to Dublin but I was just a culchie not a non-national

Peregrinus

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.


Benefit Street..

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

Or they could repeal the anachronistic legislation that prohibits only Roman Catholics from taking on that role. Would be a small start in fixing their broken political system.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.

Benefit Street..

Nope. The people we're talking about here are not, for the most part, unemployed. They're working, or they're underemployed, and the reason they are suffering is becuse of static or falling real wages.

Real earnings in the UK rose steadily until the global financial crisis of 2008, at which point they took a dive which continued for several years. They then "bottomed out" for a number of years, and had just started to climb again when the Brexit referendum was held, and that put a stop to that.

What this means is, basically, is that that UK workers are frozen out of the economic recovery. They bore the brunt of the GFC, and austerity policies (and low investment, and poor training, resulting in low labour productivity) mean that they have not participated in the recovery since then. Real hourly wages in the UK are 10% below what they were 10 years ago. Of the EU countries, only Greece can match this dismal record.

An Claidheamh

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

That makes sectarianism OK?

Discrimination against Catholics only.

British high society have always confused their sectarianism with secularism.

Just like they confuse their unelected Monarch with democracy.

judeboy101

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is no constitutional barrier to a Catholic becoming PM. On the question of such advice, they can delegate or advise under advisement.

Pm can't delegate it or advise under advisement. Catholic relief act is still in force in uk and explicitly forbids anyone giving advise to monarch who is Catholic on matters religious. As the monarch does not appoint any other member of parlinent to office, delegating would to another member or non member would invalidate the position of pm as the advisor of the hoc. Imagine a catholic pm having to step out of a cabinet meeting while the rest discuss in private. The cabinet have zero legal power without the pm.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm can't delegate it or advise under advisement. Catholic relief act is still in force in uk and explicitly forbids anyone giving advise to monarch who is Catholic on matters religious. As the monarch does not appoint any other member of parlinent to office, delegating would to another member or non member would invalidate the position of pm as the advisor of the hoc. Imagine a catholic pm having to step out of a cabinet meeting while the rest discuss in private. The cabinet have zero legal power without the pm.

This isn't correct. Each minister advises the queen directly in relation to their respective functions. If advice on church matters was considered to come from the cabinet, then no Catholic could be a cabinet member, but that's nonsense; there have been many Catholic members of cabinet.

By law, a Catholic cannot advice the monarch on church appointments. (There may be a similar legal ban on Jews advising on church appointments; I'm not sure about this.) But this doesn't mean that Catholics (or Jews) cannot be Prime Minister; just that a PM who is a Catholic (or a Jew) cannot advise on church appointments. But it's convention, not law, which dictates that this advise comes from the Prime Minister; constitutionally, the Queen can take this advice from any minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament. So if the occason ever arises the business of "advising on church appointments" can be transferred from the Prime Minister's portfolio to that of another minister who is not a Catholic (or a Jew).

Tl;dr: A Catholic Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch on church appointments. But a Catholic PM can appoint a non-Catholic minister to do so.

McGiver

McGiver wrote:

The factions can be summarised as follows: SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve) Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I forgot to mention that some of the Tories who offered no solution (basically pointing at WTO/crash out) mentioned words such as 'believe' and 'faith' [in Britain today endure]. Very alarming for me.

McGiver

theguzman wrote:

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

Stagnating wages on the UK and poverty as well have nothing to do with immigration, at least not directly. They are caused by poor/lack of labour market regulation, oversight and enforcement of such regulations, austerity and ultra neoliberal policies with no balances. For example lack of social compromise between employers, employees/unions and the state.

UK voluntarily allowed rather large immigration EEA and non-EEA for many years without properly managing anything. But it depends on immigration too supply its labour market.

Why there are no stagnating wages and wide scale poverty in Germany or Sweden? Because of proper regulation, social compromise and enforcement of regulations.

Anthracite

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

You've made this argument a dozen times already on Brexit threads and it has been shot down by facts every time.

seamus

Laois_Man wrote: »

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

I'm no fan of May, but to claim that the merits of the Brexit deal depend on who is presenting it, is to ignore the fact that there are some for whom no deal will ever be good enough. Churchill himself could rise from the dead and declare it the best deal in history, and there would still be the same hold-outs.

Typically, and sadly, you're right that it is the case that politicians will vote against good legislation because they don't like the person presenting it. But I don't think that's the case here. Some are looking for a unicorn, and May keeps coming back with ponies.
Some say they want a pony, but every time May comes back, they say the wanted a different coloured pony, or a taller pony, or a different gender pony. Because actually, they don't want one at all.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't correct. Each minister advises the queen directly in relation to their respective functions. If advice on church matters was considered to come from the cabinet, then no Catholic could be a cabinet member, but that's nonsense; there have been many Catholic members of cabinet.

By law, a Catholic cannot advice the monarch on church appointments. (There may be a similar legal ban on Jews advising on church appointments; I'm not sure about this.) But this doesn't mean that Catholics (or Jews) cannot be Prime Minister; just that a PM who is a Catholic (or a Jew) cannot advise on church appointments. But it's convention, not law, which dictates that this advise comes from the Prime Minister; constitutionally, the Queen can take this advice from any minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament. So if the occason ever arises the business of "advising on church appointments" can be transferred from the Prime Minister's portfolio to that of another minister who is not a Catholic (or a Jew).

Tl;dr: A Catholic Prime Minister cannot advise the monarch on church appointments. But a Catholic PM can appoint a non-Catholic minister to do so.

It is law, the Catholic relief act. So that's your first incorrect statement. The monarch appoints one and only one member of the hoc, the pm. Ministers advise the monarch only on instruction of pm. Appointments to Anglican hierarchy have to be made by pm, cannot be delegated as pm has to sign off on ALL appointments. You really need to do some research on british law and the way their system works. The monarchs power is exercised through the pm, you can't have another person with decision making power of appointment as that would render the pm and ergo the monarch refundant

ancapailldorcha

judeboy101 wrote: »

It is law, the Catholic relief act. So that's your first incorrect statement. The monarch appoints one and only one member of the hoc, the pm. Ministers advise the monarch only on instruction of pm. Appointments to Anglican hierarchy have to be made by pm, cannot be delegated as pm has to sign off on ALL appointments. You really need to do some research on british law and the way their system works. The monarchs power is exercised through the pm, you can't have another person with decision making power of appointment as that would render the pm and ergo the monarch refundant

Can we move away from this please? Thanks.

kuro68k

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

ancapailldorcha

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

I think she's just trying to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Knowing that it'll fail, she can't just have the vote which leaves her in a sort of stalemate. Unless of course she opts for what her predecessor did and passes the buck to the electorate.

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

I think she's just trying to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Knowing that it'll fail, she can't just have the vote which leaves her in a sort of stalemate. Unless of course she opts for what her predecessor did and passes the buck to the electorate.

She is just time wasting now. But other than being scared of a few extreme Brexit heads who believe that voting on something is undemocratic I can't see what is to lose by having another referendum on the current deal.

Yes some politicians who have been rabbiting on about it not going back to the people will look a very tiny bit silly for 30 seconds, but these are the same people who were telling everyone that remaining was the only sensible choice before the first referendum so it's not like they don't have history of changing their minds.

Shelga

Slightly OT: Humphrys has taken a small break from Brexit to welcome Alison Spittle on to Today.

What is happening to the world??

intellectual dosser

robinph wrote: »

She is just time wasting now. But other than being scared of a few extreme Brexit heads who believe that voting on something is undemocratic I can't see what is to lose by having another referendum on the current deal.

Yes some politicians who have been rabbiting on about it not going back to the people will look a very tiny bit silly for 30 seconds, but these are the same people who were telling everyone that remaining was the only sensible choice before the first referendum so it's not like they don't have history of changing their minds.

I dont think Remain winning the second time round is a slam dunk. I'd expect the youth to come out in force and vote to stay, but a lot of the older population will double down just in spite.

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to stay, just don't think its as simple as a second referendum.

seamus

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I dont think Remain winning the second time round is a slam dunk. I'd expect the youth to come out in force and vote to stay, but a lot of the older population will double down just in spite.

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to stay, just don't think its as simple as a second referendum.

This is why I don't think a second referendum will happen, nor is it the best way to go about it. A surprising amount of people will be of the "just get on with it" variety and will vote against a second referendum out of protest.

If a general election were to happen, a party could campaign on, "We will cancel Brexit, but we will also go to Europe to try and resolve the issues with EU membership that caused Brexit in the first place*", and they might do well. A simple, "Cancel Brexit, pretend it never happened" plan, just won't fly IMO.

Of course, there is no party to run with that manifesto. Not one who can take a majority anyway.

*Issues which of course, don't actually exist, but the sentiment has to be there

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Soubry and Buckland tearing into each other on Sky. Thought Buckland was going to headbutt her at one stage.

I was on holidays for a week with Anna soubry just before she got elected. She's a decent lass, and a good laugh. She would go through you for a shortcut, but whilst she might stab you seven times in the front, she'd never stab you in the back. She is a courageous and honorable person.

Leroy42

kuro68k wrote: »

What the hell is May doing? Just wasting more time before the meaningful vote, running down the clock.

There was a good summary on the Guardian Podcast Brexit Means Brexit about the position of EU ion regards to the backstop.

In top of the whole peace thing, and the fact that EU unity is important for the future and thus throwing Ireland under the bus won't help, the person said the major problem that the UK have when trying to argue about the backstop is that this has been agreed since 2017.

Even in the Lanchaster House speech May ruled out a land border, thus the backstop is a way to ensure that. The UK then agreed to the backstop in Dec 17, TM wrote to the EU in March 18 reiterating the UK's commitment to the backstop, and only two weeks ago the WA was agreed including the backstop.

The EU are amazed that it appears that many in the UK, and particularly the HoC seem totally surprised that it is included in the WA. They fail to see why it is their problem that nobody in the UK seems to have been paying attention.

kunst nugget

Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, was interviewed on RTÉ Radio 1 this morning and came across quite well. He seems completely exasperated by the posturings of the Brexiteers in relation to threatening to not pay the 39 billion and acknowledged how disastrous that would be for the UK. He also felt the need to apologise to the Irish over the 'Ireland should know its place' comments that have been attributed to the senior Tory party members. He's very much pushing for a second referendum.

Leroy42

And on the €39bn, what do those that call for it to be withheld think is going to happen?

That the EU will simply write it off? They will forget about?

It will be very first thing on the table in any future FTA negotiations.

On a different point, I thought the real JRM was on display for all to see yesterday. He quite ludicrous claims about payroll members of the party voting for TM and her now having to go because of convention.

He has been shown to be completely out of his depth, a man great at talking and tbf he is very capable debater and performer, but he had his shot, he led the tories up this hill and totally failed to deliver.

Everything is a vast conspiracy to him. The very fact that he stated on live national TC that the members of the Tory party will always vote based on how much they are paid rather than what is best for their constituency or the country is quite remarkable.

Zubeneschamali

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Imagine Remain won by 52%? If that result was just accepted by the government there would be riots.

If they crash out with no deal, riots will be the least of their worries.


Anyhow, this is England we are talking about. Farage & co. aren't going to riot, they will write grumpy letters to the Times and pretend to stop buying Champagne in protest.

Professor Moriarty

flatty wrote: »

I was on holidays for a week with Anna soubry just before she got elected. She's a decent lass, and a good laugh. She would go through you for a shortcut, but whilst she might stab you seven times in the front, she'd never stab you in the back. She is a courageous and honorable person.

She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

Just to correct you on a bit. There are plenty of UK politicians that acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.

The fact is that there are a few, very vocal ones, that see that as a positive to getting the Brexit they desire rather than the negative we see it as.