Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

1…6061636566…333

Comments

  • #1862
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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?

    "Take back control" indeed.

    Yes it is taking back control. The condescension on a country willing to determine its own future, economy, and relations with the rest of the world is breath taking.


  • #1863
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,066 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Yes it is taking back control. The condescension on a country willing to determine its own future, economy, and relations with the rest of the world is breath taking.

    Staying in a powerful economic block because it makes basic sense is 'determining your own future' too.

    We are just discussing the implications/effects of that decision.
    Maybe stop with the condescending lecturing and the subliminal hat doffing?
    'How dare we dirty Irish make a judgement call on the Empire!'


  • #1864
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Yes it is taking back control. The condescension on a country willing to determine its own future, economy, and relations with the rest of the world is breath taking.

    Quit a worrying number of people seem to be of the view that this does not include sticking to its own laws if the response to the High Court decision is anything to go by.

    Breakdown of the rule of law is indicative of a failed state. This is aside from the decision about joining a union or not.


  • #1865
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Calina wrote: »
    Quit a worrying number of people seem to be of the view that this does not include sticking to its own laws if the response to the High Court decision is anything to go by.

    Breakdown of the rule of law is indicative of a failed state. This is aside from the decision about joining a union or not.

    The rule of law in England will be followed.

    Dont pay any heed to the headlines from the gutter press. They will be back on track with footballers having affairs in a few days.


  • #1866
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    The rule of law in England will be followed.

    Dont pay any heed to the headlines from the gutter press. They will be back on track with footballers having affairs in a few days.

    More delusion. This is a long "few days". Almost 5 months now. It is only going to get much worse for Britain as that BBC article above makes very clear.


  • Advertisement
  • #1867
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    Cartouche wrote: »
    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

    Critiquing judges is perfectly fine in a democracy. Pretend they did something you didn't like.


  • #1868
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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...

    That's a massive misunderstanding of the attitude of British working classes. They have nothing to lose really.


  • #1869
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,066 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    Critiquing judges is perfectly fine in a democracy. Pretend they did something you didn't like.

    They didn't criticise, they capitalised on the ignorance and desperation of some Brexiters by screaming Enemy Of The People. When the fact is those judges were just defining what the law is.


  • #1870
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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...

    You don't seem to understand the white British working classes main concern is immigration. Corbyn has already spoken out in favour of more immigration.

    Labour are sunk at a GE under Corbyn.


  • #1871
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    MrPudding wrote: »
    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

    Well, maybe. I have to say the decision started off fairly simply (and agreed that in general the crown -- the government-- has the right to negotiate treaties) but then later got confusing. It didn't come out and say what you said in such simple terms. The later part of the judgement was rebutting previous case law. It did say that domestic law would be changed by article 50. It could well be that the time limit was the reason but I can't see it spelt out anywhere.

    I can see why the government expected to win it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1872
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    They didn't criticise, they capitalised on the ignorance and desperation of some Brexiters by screaming Enemy Of The People. When the fact is those judges were just defining what the law is.

    So what? And the interpretation of law is what is in question.


  • #1873
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,066 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    So what? And the interpretation of law is what is in question.

    So what?
    You think a newspaper should be rabble raising in a politically biased way?
    What kind of country do you want might be open to interpretation. :rolleyes:


  • #1874
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,462 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    Critiquing judges is perfectly fine in a democracy. Pretend they did something you didn't like.

    What has been happening is not a critique of judges, it was ignorance of the law coupled with personal attacks on judges that uphold that law. I suppose if you are ignorant of the law, it is fine to attack those who show up that ignorance


  • #1875
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    That's a massive misunderstanding of the attitude of British working classes. They have nothing to lose really.
    I don't know that, I see plenty of the working class here in Britain who don't realise that they have something to lose.


  • #1876
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So what?
    You think a newspaper should be rabble raising in a politically biased way?
    What kind of country do you want might be open to interpretation. :rolleyes:

    Yes I think that papers should be free to criticise the judiciary. No doubt if a ruling went the other way you would criticise them. What kind of country you want to live in, one where the judiciary (or presumably any opinion contrary to your own) is not allowed might be open to question.


  • #1877
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,066 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    Yes I think that papers should be free to criticise the judiciary. No doubt if a ruling went the other way you would criticise them. What kind of country you want to live in, one where the judiciary (or presumably any opinion contrary to your own) is not allowed might be open to question.

    It wasn't criticism. Criticism is 'the judges got it wrong' and then you go on and explain why.

    'Enemies of the People' is a dangerous rabble rousing politically loaded attack.


  • #1878
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    What has been happening is not a critique of judges, it was ignorance of the law coupled with personal attacks on judges that uphold that law. I suppose if you are ignorant of the law, it is fine to attack those who show up that ignorance

    The idea that remainers know, and have known, the law on article 50, parliamentary sovereignty etc is nonsense. None of this was mentioned by either side prior to June 23. Article 50 was mentioned on June 24, and parliamentary sovereignty has become known to the masses in the last few weeks.

    Now everybody is an expert. However the government and atorney general expected to win the case. The reason being that the government (or royal perogative) is generally assumed to have the rights to negotiate treaties.

    Therefore this decision is open to interpretation.

    It matters not a jot. The parliament will authorise article 50.


  • #1879
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It wasn't criticism. Criticism is 'the judges got it wrong' and then you go on and explain why.

    'Enemies of the People' is a dangerous rabble rousing politically loaded attack.

    You don't like the rabble huh? I think political debate should be robust.


  • #1880
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,066 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    You don't like the rabble huh? I think political debate should be robust.

    I'm not sure you understand the word 'criticism' or 'debate'.


  • #1881
    Steve456
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭Steve456


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It wasn't criticism. Criticism is 'the judges got it wrong' and then you go on and explain why.

    'Enemies of the People' is a dangerous rabble rousing politically loaded attack.

    In theory that's right. In practice, it's the second sort of attack that the judges are getting, and they need to be able to fight back. Which is why Liz Truss's feeble response matters - if that's the best she can do, then the judges themselves are more likely to break convention and present a strong case in favour of judicial independence.


  • Advertisement
  • #1882
    Nate--IRL--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,260 ✭✭✭Nate--IRL--


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    You don't like the rabble huh? I think political debate should be robust.

    A headline of "Enemies of the People" is robust political debate?

    Nate


  • #1883
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    Well, maybe. I have to say the decision started off fairly simply (and agreed that in general the crown -- the government-- has the right to negotiate treaties) but then later got confusing.
    Well, yes.
    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    It didn't come out and say what you said in such simple terms. The later part of the judgement was rebutting previous case law. It did say that domestic law would be changed by article 50. It could well be that the time limit was the reason but I can't see it spelt out anywhere.
    I think they did, see the quotes I out in an earlier post, for example. Aside from that, it is self evident. Domestic law won't be change by Article 50, as that is just going notice, but the consequence of triggering Article 50, the UK leaving the EU, will impact domestic law.

    I think this is the bit that people are missing, it is not the act of triggering Article 50, but the consequences that flow from that.
    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    I can see why the government expected to win it.
    Really? It is well settled law that Royal Prerogative cannot be used to remove rights from citizens, and this was well covered in this judgement. I really can't believe the government expected to win this case.

    MrP


  • #1884
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,896 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    The idea that remainers know, and have known, the law on article 50, parliamentary sovereignty etc is nonsense. None of this was mentioned by either side prior to June 23. Article 50 was mentioned on June 24, and parliamentary sovereignty has become known to the masses in the last few weeks.

    Now everybody is an expert. However the government and atorney general expected to win the case. The reason being that the government (or royal perogative) is generally assumed to have the rights to negotiate treaties.

    Therefore this decision is open to interpretation.

    It matters not a jot. The parliament will authorise article 50.

    Which what the case was all about and actually clarified. Not the hysterical rubbish being spouted by the Brexiteers since the judgement was given.


  • #1885
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,462 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    The idea that remainers know, and have known, the law on article 50, parliamentary sovereignty etc is nonsense. None of this was mentioned by either side prior to June 23. Article 50 was mentioned on June 24, and parliamentary sovereignty has become known to the masses in the last few weeks.

    Now everybody is an expert. However the government and atorney general expected to win the case. The reason being that the government (or royal perogative) is generally assumed to have the rights to negotiate treaties.

    Therefore this decision is open to interpretation.

    It matters not a jot. The parliament will authorise article 50.

    Can you outline why you think the Government were going to win it?


  • #1886
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Can you outline why you think the Government were going to win it?

    I said they thought they were going to win it. Otherwise why contest or appeal it. Despite the new found expertise of the remainers that belief was founded in previous rulings. There is no question that the parliament has to vote on removing the treaties from the law book, the question was about article 50 itself.


  • #1887
    Steve456
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭Steve456


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    I said they thought they were going to win it. Otherwise why contest or appeal it.

    They're appealing because they have a chance of winning, even if it's only a small chance. If they think they are definitely going to win, then they haven't been paying attention.


  • #1888
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Well, yes.

    I think they did, see the quotes I out in an earlier post, for example. Aside from that, it is self evident. Domestic law won't be change by Article 50, as that is just going notice, but the consequence of triggering Article 50, the UK leaving the EU, will impact domestic law.

    I think this is the bit that people are missing, it is not the act of triggering Article 50, but the consequences that flow from that.

    Really? It is well settled law that Royal Prerogative cannot be used to remove rights from citizens, and this was well covered in this judgement. I really can't believe the government expected to win this case.

    MrP

    The "removal of rights" from citizens happens not on the the negotiations but later, on the exit from the EU., something that depends on parliamentary actions.


    If the Europeans say there is a two year limit but the British parliament hasn't removed the treaties then they still apply in British law. I mean that seems obvious to me. A ECHR case could be taken and win after the 2 year period unless the treaties pertaining to the ECHR are removed by the British parliament.

    Maybe this explains why they are appealing. If the government was chancing its arm it would have just given up now and sent the vote to parliament.


  • #1889
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    Steve456 wrote: »
    They're appealing because they have a chance of winning, even if it's only a small chance. If they think they are definitely going to win, then they haven't been paying attention.

    Yet everybody is so certain about British law on here, how could they have a chance of winning? Maybe we should forward our feelings to the AG?


  • #1890
    Nate--IRL--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,260 ✭✭✭Nate--IRL--


    Harvey Normal wrote: »
    The "removal of rights" from citizens happens not on the the negotiations but later, on the exit from the EU., something that depends on parliamentary actions.


    If the Europeans say there is a two year limit but the British parliament hasn't removed the treaties then they still apply in British law. I mean that seems obvious to me. A ECHR case could be taken and win after the 2 year period unless the treaties pertaining to the ECHR are removed by the British parliament.

    Maybe this explains why they are appealing. If the government was chancing its arm it would have just given up now and sent the vote to parliament.

    ECHR =/= EU - Article 50 has no effect on ECHR membership.

    Nate


  • Advertisement
  • #1891
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    The International Business Times reports that the Indian trade federation says that Brexit will likely worsen trade relationships between the two countries. The head of the federation spoke of a "double hit" where the price of the pound and leaving the single market will make things harder. Another commentator said that "no investor invests in an uncertain future".

    Another MP called on Britain to apologise for it's colonial past in Britain while another commentator really held back "You steal from the subcontinent for 350 yr, you starve 3 million to death in ww2 because you think white men are more valuable, you cut immigration opportunities in half....
    I am confused as to why you should think they would come running"

    I think Britain's imperialistic tones are coming back to bite it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement