Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
More brown people in the UK then? The Leave voters are gonna love that
48 days out and the British are still as completely blindsided by the result of the referendum and as close to knowing what to do about it as they were over 3 years ago.
I guess this is what to expect when you allow national politics to be governed by secondary school rivalries.
I guess this is what to expect when you allow national politics to be governed by secondary school rivalries.
DMReporter said:
Old Firm battles.
Under normal circumstances I'd agree,
https://www.dublinchamber.ie/business-agenda/economic-profile-of-dublin Dublin is basically coming up to being over half of Irelands economy.
The full text of the opinion can be found here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2019csih49.pdf
The arguments as to the justiciability of prorogation in general are a lot more detailed and cogent than the ones regarding the candour and intentions of the government. I think what the Court of Session might ultimately be angling for is a new and explicit legal precedent that finds prorogation to be justiciable in principle. IE that while the current prorogation may or may not be legal that legality is properly and ultimately the courts to determine.
Last edited:
Agreed, this is the bit that future governments will find problematical if precedence continues to be the bedrock of our Constitution.
Will one of the 'fallouts' from Brexit be in the future in the UK it will become as it is the USA, that the background, the previous judgements and the political leanings of the Supreme Court members is known to the public?
If I understand correctly one court has ruled that prorogue of parliament is none of their business, the other rules that government mislead the queen with their intentions. Both seem reasonable, I guess the Supreme Court need to rule whether there’s jurisdiction to intervene and if so, whether the government lied about the reasons for wanting to prorogue parliament.
What is shocking is the attack on the partiality of the judges by certain politicians, this is more the kind of thing you would have expected in the latter days of the Weimar Republic, not in modern day Britain. It’s extremely ironic that one of the arguments used by the leave campaign was that the EU is undemocratic, yet these same politicians are now attacking the very core of the U.K.’s democratic values. Again, very similar to what the Nazi’s did in the latter days of the Weimar Republic. And it looks as if these politicians are heading for victory in the upcoming general election whenever it’s held. Worrying times indeed..
What is shocking is the attack on the partiality of the judges by certain politicians, this is more the kind of thing you would have expected in the latter days of the Weimar Republic, not in modern day Britain. It’s extremely ironic that one of the arguments used by the leave campaign was that the EU is undemocratic, yet these same politicians are now attacking the very core of the U.K.’s democratic values. Again, very similar to what the Nazi’s did in the latter days of the Weimar Republic. And it looks as if these politicians are heading for victory in the upcoming general election whenever it’s held. Worrying times indeed..
Adding on to that, I think this attack on the UK’s democracy is far more worrying than any no deal Brexit...
I would hope not, but we shall see. It's becoming very like that anyway given every time a decision goes against brexit we have the mail releasing stories about those judges, tory politicians et all lining up to attack them and question their impartiality.
How so? In a situation like this [when Prorogation is used as a political tool], it would always go to the courts. It's not going to suddenly start being the case that normal governments try this sort of BJ/Cummings tactics.
Because there's a vast difference between a court saying an action is legal and saying it is nonjusticiable. One speaks to the extent of the law, the other to the legality of an act as defined by that law.
Having read the full text, I'm quite convinced it's going to come down to one sentence on which way the SC swing.
"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."
IF the precedent stated is good, and it is indeed one of constitutionally enshrined, and is judicially actionable, they will win.
Ekins obviously disagrees with it and knows a whole load more about this than I do. But others are staying unfashionably silent.
"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."
IF the precedent stated is good, and it is indeed one of constitutionally enshrined, and is judicially actionable, they will win.
Ekins obviously disagrees with it and knows a whole load more about this than I do. But others are staying unfashionably silent.
Justiciability is the ABILITY of the court to throw its cock around, not the legality of it.
for example: The government have been quietly paying off [compensation to] afghan/iraqi refugees who were wronged by soldiers over the past several years. When it first came up, they tried to argue it was not justiciable by a civil uk court.
Last edited:
That's literally exactly what I said.
Look - the Lord Ordinary and the High Court seem to have said that their dicks aren't big enough. The Court of Session is saying that in actual fact it has a massive schlong and would like this to be recognised by the Supreme Court.
Then, in addition, it is saying that Johnson deserves to be beaten about the chops with it.
These are two separate things.
Last edited:
It cannot be proved that it is being used as a political tool, only a speculation that this is the intention, and BJ has refuted this by quoting his right as a new PM to begin a new session of Parliament after the longest period of sitting in four hundred years. Therefore in so much as prorogation (by precedent) is in the gift/command of the Government of the day, regardless of its lack of a majority, and the request has been agreed by the Queen on that basis, then its distinctly arguable that no actual law has been broken. If as a result of this judgement (for the future and via this precedent) that the courts have the right to interpret what is in the PM's mind when he/she makes a request for prorogation, then future Governments are likely to experience problems, not just with prorogation, but with the concept that judges can via law interpret what a PM decides to do on any given matter where they perceive s/he may not be telling the truth. If that is the case then Politics (as we know it Jim) is dead!
Politics, as we know it may already be dead, but we haven't really noticed yet!
Just different taxonomy. Iles de France is a wider, more populous area than Greater London. Greater London is 8.7m people, whereas Iles De France is 12.2m.
The next level up is the London Metropolitan Area (aka London Commuter Belt) with a population of 14.1m. And that is also ~30% of the GDP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London
Last edited:
Corbynista idiocy hitting new lows, this is indeed hilarious
Why does the MP being pro Remain matter if the leadership and party line isn't? And are Labour planning to not contest marginal metropolitan seats where Lib Dem candidates are fighting against Tories in return? Or should Swinson just do Labour, a party with a different Brexit and economic policies, unreciprocated favours just because?
It cannot be proved that it is being used as a political tool, only a speculation that this is the intention, and BJ has refuted this by quoting his right as a new PM to begin a new session of Parliament after the longest period of sitting in four hundred years. Therefore in so much as prorogation (by precedent) is in the gift/command of the Government of the day, regardless of its lack of a majority, and the request has been agreed by the Queen on that basis, then its distinctly arguable that no actual law has been broken. If as a result of this judgement (for the future and via this precedent) that the courts have the right to interpret what is in the PM's mind when he/she makes a request for prorogation, then future Governments are likely to experience problems, not just with prorogation, but with the concept that judges can via law interpret what a PM decides to do on any given matter where they perceive s/he may not be telling the truth. If that is the case then Politics (as we know it Jim) is dead!
Politics, as we know it may already be dead, but we haven't really noticed yet!
I'm somewhere in the middle. I think that the courts should absolutely have the remit to judge whether or not a prorogation is legitimate but I think it should require a higher standard of proof than supposition and inference. Like if it were to come out that Johnson sent an email saying "Yo dudes, lets shut these feckers in parliament up by shutting it down for a month, we'll say its for a queens speech, lol", then I think that sufficient proof for a court to annul the prorogation.
In this case it's far more borderline. It seems to primarily rest on the notion that 5 weeks is way to long for the stated reason of creating a new queens speech and that by inference there must be an ulterior motive. I agree that it does seem too long, I agree there's probably an ulterior motive but I can't consider it proven and don't think balance of probabilities is a sufficent standard.
Did you not read the tweet ?Corbynista idiocy hitting new lows, this is indeed hilarious
Why does the MP being pro Remain matter if the leadership and party line isn't? And are Labour planning to not contest marginal metropolitan seats where Lib Dem candidates are fighting against Tories in return? Or should Swinson just do Labour, a party with a different Brexit and economic policies, unreciprocated favours just because?
The Labour Party(Offering a second referendum)and the Tory Party(Pushing for No deal) are two different parties. Is this confusing for you ?
I did. Which point in my post are you arguing against?
That's nothing lads, the greater Dublin area contributes over half of Irish GDP, whilst managing to be a far uglier city than London or Paris. Not bad eh?
will labour be campaigning for remain or leave in that 2nd referendum... i think that would be a pretty significant factor for the libs to know when it comes to the remain alliance and decisions as to working together
Leave. No, remain. Actually, leave. Ok, maybe a bit of remain. Some leave though. Remain in parts, leave in others. Definitely remain but also 100% leave.
Labour - The Releave Party.
It may have some effect yes but highly qualified people from outside the EU should have little problem obtaining visa and jobs in the UK whether the UK is in the EU are not. The NHS were desperately short of doctors and nurses whilst the Uk are in the EU and the number of applicants has dropped off since the referendum.
Since the referendum, overall the number of non-EU immigrants has skyrocketed and the EU immigrants have plumetted but overall the numbers have still increased so those that voted leave to reduce immigration have imperiled their economy for nothing.
What will also happen is that younger people from EU countries who pay their way will be replaced by older British people who will no longer be able to afford to retire to sunnier EU countries, some will go back , some have gone back, if the pound gets worse many more will return and those who were thinking of making the decision to retire abroad will be thinking again. Double whammy.
But how does the nationality of some leave voter's doctor affect their lives. The problem is the gullible people who voted for this nonsense think the rest of us are equally gullible.
To be fair Greater Dublin Area is almost half the Irish population, isn't it? Just over 2m?
Wait you made a point ?
But really this
Considering the recent history of MP's and following the leadership, I'm not sure why Lib Dems wouldn't stand down for Remain MPs. More importantly if all does is spilt the left/liberal vote and helps a No Deal Tory get in. Who benefits.
Plus to be a ''Remain Party'' todays seem to be have straight up revoke as a policy which is bizarre.
I image it will be a free vote but importantly they get another shot at a referendum. People can't spend the last 3 years complaining the Brexit is stupid, that people were lied to etc etc and then when the chance for another go, say well actual the whole of the Labour Party doesn't agree with me.
Christ, that’s a lot of wrinkly gammon.
Sounds like the Tory party as well.
Maybe its just me but its seems like the most hardened supporters of both Remain and Leave are really really old. The last few years of ''brexit debate'' has felt like a argument between two grandparents, both racist/bigoted but in slightly different ways.
Guardian said:
There is no comparison between the British press and French press - When I left the Uk the tabloids were called the gutter press , now they've sunk into the sewers and below.
In France if they criticise politicians , everyone gets it and tend to be much less biased.
If I buy a newspaper in France or read it online its full of actual news, local, regional , national and international.
TV shows are fairly neutral as well even if they give all politicians a hard time and discussion programmes tend to have people who actually know what they are talking about.
It's so refreshing.
Of course the dregs of Facebook and such like sadly permeate society.
This is exactly what it's been.
I think they will end up having to go this way as well - but you currently have MP's saying labour will (not them as individuals) respect the will of the first referendum and others saying labour will campaign to remain in a 2nd referendum - they genuinley need to sort that out asap as the confusion will overshadow their other messages