nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

L1011

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

So certain are you ?

I'd bet a tenner on it...

I suspect the SNP will be 58 or 59/59 - that last Lib Dem islands seat could be impossible to shift - at the next election. Rennie appears to be useless from a non-Scottish viewpoint, Dugdale's replacement is anonymous and the Tories are dead up there.

Imreoir2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well we arent at the moment and I dont see things changing.

Indeed not, evidence if evidence were needed that the integrated European approch has served its purpose and allowed the small nations of Europe to challenge the other global powers instead of being pushed around by them.

If any other country threatened an EU State, the others are obliged to come to assistance and there is also thr NATO committment. I dont think there is a compelling case for the EU to do any more than that, and Id be actively opposed to them trying to e.g. impose their views on the Middle East or South China Sea as the US is doing.

The military aspect is a seperate issue and one that I don't really want to get bogged down in. Personally I would favour military integration at a European level only in a very limited and gradual sence.

That said there is a lot that could and probably should be done. NATO is only as useful as US commitment to defending Europe, I think it is clear that it would be short sighted to be complacent on that front. Its unlikely that the US will put European interests ahead of its own and US and EU interests will not always be aligned. While there is a commitment to mutual assistance in the face of agression within the EU, I think there is a very strong argument to be made that European defence beyond NATO is far from what it could be and that there is a lot that could be gained from closer cooperation. Simply in the areas of supply chains, inter-army training and more integrated defence R&D much greater bang could be got for our existing at a European level through more cooperation. There is chronic duplication and waste as things stand. Issues like that could be addressed and would be of benefit to members, long and ever before the prospect of an EU Army became a realistic proposal.

As for the EU trying to impose its will on other regions of the world through military means, I agree, totally opposed.

Im concerned that the reaction to Brexiteers claiming that the EU is trying to become an empire results in senior EU politicians talking about a European Empire

They were talking about a federal Europe long before Brexit became a credible issue, and yes those that favour a more federalised EU may seek to use Brexit to push for further integration but I say let them. Lets hear the case and make our minds up if we agree or not, ultimatly they wont get what they want unless they can convince the member states, and in our case the electorate, as to the merit of their arguments.

Personally, I think that there is merit to the argument that many of the valid issued people bring up as criticisms of the EU do not stem from too much EU, but rather too little. Lack of progress on issues like fiscal integration or immigration are not due to an EU that has become too powerful but member states who have been holding those issues back for their own individual interests (we ourselves could be accused of the same on the issue of tax harmonisation). The criticism is valid in many cases, but the fault often lies not with the EU but rather with the member states, and less EU would make it worse not better.

Kermit.de.frog

You are saying this country should consider giving up it's national independence.

Ok.

What was it all for then? We may as well have remained in the United Kingdom.

I think it would cause very serious trouble and not only in Ireland.

Cookie_Monster

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am proposing to make it less restrictive and hence easier. No 2 years, no 2 minutes - just ask and you are out on the spot. What could be easier than that?

The current "quite difficult actually" regime has encouraged the UK to vote Leave because campaigners could pretend a magical deal with Unicorns was possible.

So change that so that everyone knows nope - f*ck off out and join the back of the queue for a trade deal.

NI is the only thing making it difficult. Other countries without such problematic regions would have little issues withdrawing quickly should they want to. it would still be a total mess for them but it would be quick.

J Mysterio

Speaking of the Lib Dems embarassing themselves, has anyone seen that video of them singing 'Tony Blair fuçk off and die".

Absolutely bizarre and shocking to be honest. How adults - politicians no less - could think it ok to gather together and sing that is beyond me. Disgraceful.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You are saying this country should consider giving up it's national independence..

Yes. Who cares about Idaho or Rhode Island? They are only dots on a map like Luxembourg or Ireland.

But the EU and the USA are world players, and if we are not a world player we will be a casualty.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

Speaking of the Lib Dems embarassing themselves, has anyone seen that video of them singing 'Tony Blair fuçk off and die".

Absolutely bizarre and shocking to be honest. How adults - politicians no less - could think it ok to gather together and sing that is beyond me. Disgraceful.

The Tony Blair who took a Tory crushing majority and destroyed it by playing poodle to Dubya, the worst American president until the current one?

I think they have the right idea.

Kermit.de.frog

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes. Who cares about Idaho or Rhode Island? They are only dots on a map like Luxembourg or Ireland.

But the EU and the USA are world players, and if we are not a world player we will be a casualty.

Really, are Iceland - or Switzerland - or Norway - or New Zealand etc casualties?

Don't pull this absolute rubbish that we need to be in the EU.

We don't.

As things stand it's fine but notions of superstate then we need to leave. (and we would leave in my opinion)

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Tony Blair who took a Tory crushing majority and destroyed it by playing poodle to Dubya, the worst American president until the current one?

I think they have the right idea.

Seriously? We here have been bemoaning the degenerate nature of UK politics for so long, but you think its ok for a throng at party conference to sing a a former PM should 'fucķ off and die'? Ok... Seems wildly innapropriate to me.

https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1173906570696110086

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Really, are Iceland - or Switzerland - or Norway - or New Zealand etc casualties?

Don't pull this absolute rubbish that we need to be in the EU.

We don't.

As things stand it's fine but notions of superstate then we need to leave.

We very definatly need to be in the EU, it is an issue of vital national importance.

Kermit.de.frog

Imreoir2 wrote: »

We very definatly need to be in the EU, it is an issue of vital national importance.

We wouldn't be a nation any more in a federal country.

I can't believe that some are so blind to not see the serious trouble that would cause.

Anyhow best keep the thread on topic.

There is another thread for this discussion.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Really, are Iceland - or Switzerland - or Norway - or New Zealand etc casualties?

Don't pull this absolute rubbish that we need to be in the EU.

We don't.

As things stand it's fine but notions of superstate then we need to leave.

All of the above have strong natural resources. Switzerland and Norway are two of the richest countries in the world, with Iceland not far behind.

Kermit.de.frog

Iceland and New Zealand don't have strong national resources actually. Neither does Switzerland.

So you are saying we can't have our national independence and sovereignty and should be governed by Brussels because we lack natural resources?

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Iceland and New Zealand don't have strong national resources actually. Neither does Switzerland.

So you are saying we can't have our national independence and sovereignty and should be governed by Brussels because we lack natural resources?

We are not governed from Brussels, it is the member states that rule the EU not the other way around.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Iceland and New Zealand don't have strong national resources actually. Neither does Switzerland.

So you are saying we can't have our national independence and sovereignty and should be governed by Brussels because we lack natural resources?

It's very easy to put a premium on independence and sovereignty if you're a very rich country and everyone is loaded.

Ireland is also a rich country but many would argue that EU membership is one of the key things that makes it rich.

Kermit.de.frog

Imreoir2 wrote: »

We are not governed from Brussels, it is the member states that rule the EU not the other way around.

Not what i'm talking about. Some are advocating a federal structure. That means being governed by Brussels like Austin is ultimately governed from Washington or Edinburgh is ultimately governed from London.

I don't see Irish people accepting that. I think you'd have serious trouble.

I'm no hard core republican or anything like it but I know I would never accept that.

Cookie_Monster

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Iceland and New Zealand don't have strong national resources actually. Neither does Switzerland.

NZ has plenty; oil & gas, coal, gold, gigantic iron sand reserves, forestry, dairy, hydro power...

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not what i'm talking about. Some are advocating a federal structure. That means being governed by Brussels like Austin is ultimately governed from Washington or Edinburgh is ultimately governed from London.

I don't see Irish people accepting that. I think you'd have serious trouble.

I'm no hard core republican or anything like it but I know I would never accept that.

The sooner that happens the better IMO.

Kermit.de.frog

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

NZ has plenty; oil & gas, coal, gold, gigantic iron sand reserves, forestry, dairy, hydro power...

The sooner that happens the better IMO.

If you want to accept the trouble (and probable violence) that would go with such surrender of national independence then go for it.

I'm 100% certain any such proposal would see Ireland leaving the EU.

Or we will have to take an outer orbit with the bloc as an alternative. Like Norway.

This could come A LOT sooner than any such treaty though if as I suspect our taxation policies come under attack by the EU.

I have given my opinion. Can we return to topic now?

GM228

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

Don't know why but I feel like the only likely outcome is one that falls on the side of government..

The facts and arguments are clearly against the Government, I would be very surprised if the court rules in their favour.

This is actually a very complicated matter and there is more case law to support the Governments position than the opposing sides arguments.

In fact the general principle is that most prerogative powers are not justiciable and both sides have recognised this, decisions of the executive are not immune from judicial review merely because their source is the prerogative, the long established controlling factor in determining whether the exercise of prerogative power is subject to review by the courts is not its source but its subject matter, but, only where it is justiciable, that is to say where matters are not of high policy or political in nature.

There is also statutory authority to support this, namely Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1688:-

Bill of Rights 1688 wrote:

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament

It is actually rather interesting to note one authority supporting the Governments position stems from a Scottish Court of Session decision in the Gibson vs Lord Advocate [1975] ScotCS CSOH_3 case, as opposed to an English case:-

Gibson vs Lord Advocate wrote:

The making of decisions upon what must essentially be a political matter is no part of the function of the Court, and it is highly undesirable that it should be

Another authority supporting the Government is the fact that proroguing is considered a political issue, the essential characteristic of a political issue is the absence of judicial or legal standards by which to assess the legality of the Executive's decision or action (and no such judicial or legal standards exist for proroguing) and interestingly the UK Supreme Court has already previously held that political issues are non justiciable, see the Shergill vs Khaira [2015] AC 359 case for example:-

Shergill vs Khaira wrote:

The issue was non-justiciable because it was political. It was political for two reasons. One was that it trespassed on the proper province of the executive, as the organ of the state charged with the conduct of foreign relations. The lack of judicial or manageable standards was the other reason why it was political

It is worth noting that the UK Supreme Court are free to amend this position, but, being a UK Supreme Court decision it will carry more weight than the Scottish decision.

The UK Supreme Court is not bound by a previous decision from the same court, however they do tend to follow them unless there is a substantial reason not to. The Scottish court actually agreed with all of the above, but decided the issue became justiciable because the decision to prorogue was motivated by a desire to restrict parliamentary sitting time and an abuse of power and contrary to the good governance principle.

One potential problem with this is abuse of power in and of itself does not determine what is lawful or unlawful, see for example the Abdi vs the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 English & Welsh Court of Appeal case:-

Abdi vs SOSHD wrote:

Principle is not in my judgment supplied by the call to arms of abuse of power. Abuse of power is a name for any act of a public authority that is not legally justified. It is a useful name, for it catches the moral impetus of the rule of law. It may be, as I ventured to put it in Begbie, ‘the root concept which governs and conditions our general principles of public law’. But it goes no distance to tell you, case by case, what is lawful and what is not

This area of law is still in development so perhaps the UK Supreme Court decision will give some clarity on abuse of power.

Akrasia wrote: »

It is not uncommon for lower courts to rule in favour of the status quo when there is any doubt about precedent, while the Supreme court (relatively new and all that it is) is in the business of creating legal precedent where there wasn't one before.

The English court actually cited plenty of precedent including that from both the Scottish Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court as to why it was not for the courts to decide.

The UK Supreme Court is only realistically new in name, whilst it was newly established in 2009 it simply carried on the function of the Law Lords from the House of Lords, 9 of the 10 Law Lords became 9 of the 12 judges of the Supreme Court when the judicial section of the HoL was abolished.

Inquitus wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

re they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?

Different legal basis.

Actually, the decision was not strictly based on a different legal basis.

As Lord Carloway (the Lord President) in the Scottish case stated:-

Cherry & Ors vs The Advocate General wrote:

The real reason, it is said, is to stymie Parliamentary scrutiny of Government action. Since such scrutiny is a central pillar of the good governance principle which is enshrined in the constitution, the decision cannot be seen as a matter of high policy or politics. It is one which attempts to undermine that pillar. As such, if demonstrated to be true, it would be unlawful. This is not because of the terms of the Claim of Right 1689 or of any speciality of Scots constitutional law, it follows from the application of the common law, informed by applying “the principles of democracy and the rule of law” (Moohan v Lord Advocate 2015 SC (UKSC) 1, Lord Hodge at para [35]).

The decision was based on the good governance principle/the principles of democracy and the rule of law, something developed primarily by case law of the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The decision was also arrived at purely by inferences.

That aside, however, the decision of the UK Supreme Court will have to take account of the differences between the English and Scottish constitutional law, and in particular the rights afforded by the Claim of Right Act 1689:-

Claim of Right Act 1689 wrote:

That it is the right and priviledge of the subjects to protest for remeed of law to the King and Parliament against Sentences pronounced by the lords of Sessione Provydeing the samen Do not stop Execution of these sentences

That said, the House of Lords and later the UK Supreme Court (in Scottish cases) has often sought to ensure that Scots law is aligned with English law in constitutional and public law issues generally, see for example the Davidson vs Scottish Ministers, 2006 SC (HL) 42 House of Lords and the Eba vs Advocate General [2011] UKSC 29 UK Supreme Court cases.

JD Flood, in Protestations to Parliament for Remeid of Law, The Scottish Historical Review, Apr 2009 notes:-

Protestations to Parliament for Remeid of Law wrote:

By failing to clarify in the years following 1689 how protestations for remeid of law were intended to operate, and by failing to resolve in 1707 the issue left to its consideration by the union commissioners, the Scottish parliament had facilitated the emergence of a ‘strange jurisdiction’ through which in time its attempt to preserve the integrity of a separate legal system would be undermined. The House of Lords had been enabled to replace the decisions of the session with decisions of its own which would eventually be recognised as binding precedents of the highest authority

lawred2 wrote: »

I understand that. So inferred in what you've just said is that prorogation was deemed illegal in Scotland on a point of law? Is that the case.

Not based on a point of law, but a principle of good governance.

---

The UK Supreme Court cases are very complex and what I outlined in this post is only the tip of the iceberg of legal argument, both sides have presented very good well reasoned arguments, but the reality is the Government side has produced more authority to back up it's argument, it really could go in either sides favour, though some believe it's not gone to well for the Government on day 1:-

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1173946650387259393?s=19

https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1173976359154135040?s=19

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1173983021730541569?s=19

The reality is you can't make such predictions with any degree of accuracy, they are often wrong.

Bannasidhe

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not what i'm talking about. Some are advocating a federal structure. That means being governed by Brussels like Austin is ultimately governed from Washington or Edinburgh is ultimately governed from London.

I don't see Irish people accepting that. I think you'd have serious trouble.

I'm no hard core republican or anything like it but I know I would never accept that.

But Austin isn't really governed from Washington. The day to day, nitty gritty stuff in Texas is governed from..well...Austin...
Like all US states it has it's own 'government', sets it's own budgets, makes it's own laws etc. Additionally, the state is broken up into 254 'counties' which run their local communities.
It's quite a devolved system.

While here in our Nation State we have a ridiculously centralised country with Dublin very much in control of everything. Rural Ireland is being allowed to wither while Dublin soaks up the resources in a chicken/egg scenario. But even beyond that all the major decisions concerning the regions are made in Dublin.
Rather than a 'nation' we are becoming Dublin and it's hinterland.

The argument could be made that that we should devolve power away from Dublin and back to the regions. And I think that is a good idea tbh. I think the idea of Federal Ireland with 3 (Connacht + Ulster forming 1 )/4 provinces (if a united island) has merit.

On a Europe wide level the argument could be made that we would be better off to do away with Nation states completely and create a Federal Europe made up of the old regions. Burgundy, Catalonia, Munster, Bavaria, etc etc have locally elected regional governments and take care of the day to day nitty gritty for themselves. Still elect MEPs to take care of the big ticket EU items.

Podge_irl

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not what i'm talking about. Some are advocating a federal structure. That means being governed by Brussels like Austin is ultimately governed from Washington or Edinburgh is ultimately governed from London.

I don't see Irish people accepting that. I think you'd have serious trouble.

Well then it won't happen, so no bother. It would need our explicit approval.

I don't see any moves towards it happening any time soon anyway. The EU is still a million miles away from a federal state and it is not moving in that direction with any great speed no matter what people claim.

Tell me how

Latest episode of Brexitcast very much went with the 'How dare Luxembourg look to embarrass our PM'

There was a few snide comments such as 'well he does love an audience', 'they had just done up the embassy courtyard, maybe they wanted to show it off' and the most telling 'a country the size of Dorset'

Maybe the cast's national pride took a bit of a hit with the events at the press conference but it sounded like a staunch support for Johnson.

KildareP

Tell me how wrote: »

Latest episode of Brexitcast very much went with the 'How dare Luxembourg look to embarrass our PM'

There was a few snide comments such as 'well he does love an audience', 'they had just done up the embassy courtyard, maybe they wanted to show it off' and the most telling 'a country the size of Dorset'

Maybe the cast's national pride took a bit of a hit with the events at the press conference but it sounded like a staunch support for Johnson.

I love the irony in their logic.

How dare they insult our PM, they're just a tiny unimportant country with no power.

It's ok for them to insult but not be insulted.

Farage on his phone-in Monday evening laughing about how Juncker probably had a liquid lunch. But don't dare say Johnson ran away from the press conference.

Lots of Twitter exchanges I read implying Lux and us are insignificant dots (in terms of population), better not let the folks in NI, Scotland or Wales hear you lads.

fash

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A big problem for the UK is the money they pay, a lot of which is paid over to Poland etc for development. A laudible aim, no doubt, but one which the UK voters were unhappy with. Germany likewise is uneasy with its contribution to the EU budget to be paid over to Eastern European countries.

It isn't/wasn't that big of a problem for the UK though in reality.
The leave campaign inflated numbers, failed to contextualize (e.g. how much does NI cost, what is the financial benefit of EU membership which dwarfs the membership fee, how much directly and indirectly (a joint satellite program) is returned, what is saved by centralising administration etc) and then pretended it would be put in the NHS - which was immediately dropped after the referendum in a "nobody could have been so foolish as to believe that".

What is true is that Poland and Eastern Europe are growing at a significant rate helped by EU funds and are becoming better markets for the services of wealthy country - it is not merely a "laudable aim", it is enlightened self-interest.

ilovesmybrick

Kevin O'Rourke tweeted this interesting titbit from todays FT

https://twitter.com/kevinhorourke/status/1174207198140030977?s=20

It could somewhat explain why Johnson was so quick to run away from the press briefing if the penney finally began to drop during the trip to Luxembourg.

murphaph

fash wrote: »

What is true is that Poland and Eastern Europe are growing at a significant rate helped by EU funds and are becoming better markets for the services of wealthy country - it is not merely a "laudable aim", it is enlightened self-interest.

Very true. In fact Poland is now seeing inward migration from India and Vietnam to fill lower paying jobs formerly taken by Ukrainians, who can now more easily find better paid work in Germany. We are exporting 5% more to PL y/y too as evidenced by the CSO figures for July. We are truly stronger together in the EU. It is not a zero sum game of x jobs to divide up across the union.

I feel Ireland has only barely begun to tap the potential of the SM.

murphaph

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Kevin O'Rourke tweeted this interesting titbit from todays FT

https://twitter.com/kevinhorourke/status/1174207198140030977?s=20

It could somewhat explain why Johnson was so quick to run away from the press briefing if the penney finally began to drop during the trip to Luxembourg.

Wow. If true then quite shocking really. It would mean Johnson simply does not understand what the SM and CU are.

volchitsa

murphaph wrote: »

Wow. If true then quite shocking really. It would mean Johnson simply does not understand what the SM and CU are.

Shocking would have been to learn that he had studied it all thoroughly before going there.

His entire past record shows that he's lazy and unprofessional - he's not going to start being on top of his brief at this stage of his life.

Frightening that's he's in such a position of power, alright, but sadly not shocking that he could be that incompetent TBF.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Wow. If true then quite shocking really. It would mean Johnson simply does not understand what the SM and CU are.

And yet, as O'Rourke points out, the alternative explanation for Johnson't stance is that he has been aiming for a crash-out Brexit all along, but systematically lying about it.

Fool or knave? Neither explanation flatters Johnson, or offers much in the way of hope to the UK.

ilovesmybrick

Peregrinus wrote: »

And yet, as O'Rourke points out, the alternative explanation for Johnson't stance is that he has been aiming for a crash-out Brexit all along, but systematically lying about it.

Fool or knave? Neither explanation flatters Johnson, or offers much in the way of hope to the UK.

I think the issue is that Johnson is a populist, he has spent years as the class clown as he realised that buffonery made him a popular fellow with the UK voter. Unfortunately that has brought him beyond the limits of his ability, and we have seen how poorly he's equipped to deal with voters on the UK streets confronting him with genuine concerns as he's not able to deal with people not liking him or having a contrary viewpoint that can't be dissuaged with bluster.

Now he's coming face to face with serious politicians that he spent years disparaging, insulting, and dismissing for the sake of popularity back in the UK. And they have neither the time nor the patience to put up with his BoJo act.