Brexit discussion thread III

LuckyLloyd

Water John wrote: »

The strategy was always the old British one of divide and conquer. Maybe the, sick bucket, was for the rest of us.

See if we break with the EU and start trying to sing our own tune on NI
See if individual industries / nations start pressuring the EU for free trade exceptions and this allows Britian a bespoke deal

So far it ain't working.

wes

Christopher Wylie talking to MPs:

Vote Leave 'cheating' may well have swayed EU referendum result, Wylie tells MPs - Politics live


Still amazing to me, that the cheating is not a big deal. I have seen the very idea of being asked to vote again, seeing as undemocratic by Brexiters, which is of course a complete absurdity, but not a peep about the cheating, which clearly swayed the result (according to vote leave's Dominic Cummings who said the Internet campaign is what won it for them).

There is definitely a case for a 2nd referendum, which won't happen, as Brexiters don't care how they get Brexit. Lieing and cheating is how they do things, and democracy be damned.

ambro25

swampgas wrote: »

Another impact of Brexit: UK no longer eligible to participate in the Galileo project.

From The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/26/uk_struck_off_galileo_project/

Rather regrettable, as ‘commercial space’ is starting to boom on t’Continent, nowhere more so than here in Luxembourg.

The amounts of private funding I’m seeing channelled into space tech start-ups over here are bordering on staggering, given the timescales on potential returns.

Looks like the U.K. decided to get itself off the EU space train, just as it was finally starting to move. Perhaps it will be let back on...for the right price of course.

Going by the local business news, we’re getting 2 new ‘Brexit refugee’ offices opening a day, on average. All of them fin services and fin tech, body count usually between 5 and 20. The local fin market specialist headhunters I’ve spoken to, joke about shifting entire offices’worth of applicants over, rather than individuals :pac:

J Mysterio

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

A laughable comment really.

Nate

I laughed

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

Going by the local business news, we’re getting 2 new ‘Brexit refugee’ offices opening a day, on average. All of them fin services and fin tech, body count usually between 5 and 20. The local fin market specialist headhunters I’ve spoken to, joke about shifting entire offices’worth of applicants over, rather than individuals :pac:

And this is the real worry about Brexit in terms of FS and CoL. I don't expect there to be a mass exodus in the short term. There is certain kudos to be located in London, and certainly the high performers in the companies won't be in any rush to move.

But what it does is it increases the attractiveness of other locations. Up till now, London was the 1st port of call. you might opt to go somewhere else but London would have been top of the list.

Once that is lost, it is very hard to get it back. It akin to the thinking around winning football teams. Everyone wants to join RM, Barcelona etc. A team like Man City 10 years ago need to invest vast sums of money simply to try to attract the stars to them, the same is true of China.

Brexiteers seem to think that CoL is a given, that no matter what happens it will remain as it is

Ellian

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this is the problem, really.

The accusation against Corbyn, as far as I can see, is not that he's an antisemite. It's that he's culpably blind to antisemitism, and therefore an enabler of antisemitism.

And that accusation is reinforced, not rebutted, by explaining Corbyn's support for this artist by saying that Corbyn failed to see the (fairly blatant, it has to be said) antisemitic nature of the artwork concerned, a picture of which was included in the tweet to which Corbyn replied. Corbyn's failure to see such things is precisely the problem.

Can I just clarify (and this is a genuine question) why exactly you think the mural is anti-Semitic. I've heard James O'Brien state that it is clearly Jewish tropes, but my understanding was that the figures at the board game were meant to represent specific real people. Warbugs, Rockefellers, Cabots, Rothschilds and Morgans. Granted two of those are Jewish, but the common thread is that they are bankers and plutocrats. I'm not saying you are wrong, and it may well be that my antenna is not so finely tuned to these things, but I am genuinely perplexed that it just seems to be pretty much a given that the mural was intended to be anti-Semitic and frankly a little bit suspicious of it. (Note I said intended - I think in terms of art, a lot depends on what people bring to it, so in this case, I think the intent of the artist has some bearing)

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it is interesting that other EU nations are helping May by siding with her against the Russians with active expulsions rather than just talk.

It suggests to me that the EU sees a way to bolster May's position in Govt without adversely affecting the EUs position in the brexit talks, possibly giving May a better chance to face down Boris, Gove and Rees-Mogg and agree a deal as dictated by the adults in the negotiating room.

This and also to underline the fact that - despite Brexit - there will be ongoing security cooperation etc.

The Russians also use the divide and conquer strategy.

Peregrinus

Ellian wrote: »

Can I just clarify (and this is a genuine question) why exactly you think the mural is anti-Semitic. I've heard James O'Brien state that it is clearly Jewish tropes, but my understanding was that the figures at the board game were meant to represent specific real people. Warbugs, Rockefellers, Cabots, Rothschilds and Morgans. Granted two of those are Jewish, but the common thread is that they are bankers and plutocrats. I'm not saying you are wrong, and it may well be that my antenna is not so finely tuned to these things, but I am genuinely perplexed that it just seems to be pretty much a given that the mural was intended to be anti-Semitic and frankly a little bit suspicious of it. (Note I said intended - I think in terms of art, a lot depends on what people bring to it, so in this case, I think the intent of the artist has some bearing)

I don't think the artist's intention has as much bearing as the viewer's interpretation, to be honest. The meaning of the painting, like the meaning of any artwork, is constructed in the mind of the person engaging with it.

Even if the artist did intend to depict Warburg, Cabot, etc, I do not think he can have expected viewers to know this; their images are not exactly famous. But they will have noticed the hook noses, the hooded eyes, the hands being rubbed together and the other stock features of antisemitic caricatures. The images of the oppressed, by contrast, lack these features. For the slow-witted, there's the prominent Masonic symbolism in the background, evoking the standard antisemitic trope of bracketing international Jewry with Masonic conspiracy. The location of the mural in Brick Lane, at one time the heart of London's Jewish quarter and the location of the Great London Synagogue (now a mosque) is not irrelevant.

I'm willing to grant that this may be subjectively innocent on the part of the artist, since I cannot look into men's souls. But objectively this painting was always likely to be understood as an antisemitic work by most observers. Even Jeremy Corbyn, said to be cloth-eared when it comes to picking up on antisemitic overtones, agrees now that he has looked at the work that, yes, it is "deeply disturbing and antisemitic" and says that he wholeheartedly supports its removal.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

This and also to underline the fact that - despite Brexit - there will be ongoing security cooperation etc.

The Russians also use the divide and conquer strategy.

Maybe the Russians were testing as to how well their Brexit campaign had gone in dividing the UK from the EU - now they have their answer.

flutered

whatever_ wrote: »

I disagree with both your points. From a British perspective, we have finally won the argument vis a vis the necessity to have trade discussions before a border agreement can be put in place (despite misleading statements from the Irish Government concerning the legal status of the "backstop"). Our assertions that the Irish border will be no different from the French border and that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" remain unchallenged. We will soon be in the phase where our massive trade deficit with the EU and our future contributions to the EU come in to play. Tusk's assertion that Britain will not be able to negotiate Trade Agreements in the Transition phase has been thrown out.

Theresa May's hand and international reputation has been strengthened by a bunch of Russians who lack the guile and intellect of previous generations and a hapless Labour leader who hasn't got a clue. As was, she achieved 42% in the last election (against Merkel's 33% and FG's 25%). There is little doubt that the Conservatives will win the next election - it now looks like she will be allowed to lead them into that election.

Right now, she looks like one of the most influential and statesmanlike politicians in the world and the EU simply cannot afford to ignore her. A full and comprehensive trade agreement seems increasingly likely. Good for Britain and good for Ireland.

may won 49% in a two horse race, however merkel and fg had a harder race to run, one really cannot compare the first past the post election with a propotional rep one

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it is interesting that other EU nations are helping May by siding with her against the Russians with active expulsions rather than just talk.

It suggests to me that the EU sees a way to bolster May's position in Govt without adversely affecting the EUs position in the brexit talks, possibly giving May a better chance to face down Boris, Gove and Rees-Mogg and agree a deal as dictated by the adults in the negotiating room.

This whole Russian thing seems to me like the Brits throwing a very distracting dead cat into the middle of the table to create a distraction at home.

(Im hoping I dont sound like too much of a conspiracy theorist)

The EU may side with May for now but its spring. In six months the weather will cool again and large amounts of Russian gas will be needed to heat European homes.

Water John

So MI6 went out onto the streets of Salsbury with Nocachov, WTF.
Wrong Forum

Water John

Water John wrote: »

So MI6 went out onto the streets of Salsbury with Nocachov, WTF.
Wrong Forum

I wouldn't trust the Russians and I wouldn't trust the Brits and their dodgy dossiers etc.

Peregrinus

Teresa May begins the long march towards admitting that her magical customs solutions are not deliverable with the timeframe of the transitional period:

We are looking at different potential customs arrangements for the future in order to deliver on the commitments that we have made. We are now the point at being able to look in more detail with the European commission at some of those proposals. And I think it is fair to say that, as we get into the detail and as we look at these arrangements, then what becomes clear is that sometimes the timetables that have originally been set are not the timetables that are necessary when you actually start to look at the detail and when you delve into what it really is that you want to be able to achieve.

The question is whether this is a softening-up for a UK request to extend the transitional period, or a softening-up for a UK request to extend the Art. 50 notice period, or a softening-up for something else.

Peregrinus

And I cannot improve on this take on May's statement:

https://twitter.com/HeatherKatzUK/status/978740096378683392

murphaph

It really is a Sir Humphrey statement. Amazing they have got themselves into this mess.

Enzokk

Brexit should really have been easy for the UK. No-one set out what it would look like. The architect and leader of Brexit didn't put his name in the hat to lead the country during the process so Theresa May can still do anything she like. She should have triggered article 50 to leave the EU, joined the EEA (if they were open to that option of course) and taken the hit that would have entailed.

The following years could have been spent finding out what people wanted and if it was possible. They could have tightened immigration controls as per the rules, could have taken control of their blue passports and we would be in a similar situation than now I think.

But somehow here we are. The UK has no idea what it wants, how to get what it wants and lurches forward unsteadily like they have had a massive night out and need to walk home. They could get their safely, they could just stumble a little or there is a real possibility they will walk in the road into traffic.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is whether this is a softening-up for a UK request to extend the transitional period, or a softening-up for a UK request to extend the Art. 50 notice period, or a softening-up for something else.

Customs union?

Professor Moriarty

Headline from The Telegraph op-ed section:

Jacob Rees-Mogg: scourge of the Establishment and champion of the poor

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Headline from The Telegraph op-ed section: Jacob Rees-Mogg: scourge of the Establishment and champion of the poor

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Headline from The Telegraph op-ed section:

Jacob Rees-Mogg: scourge of the Establishment and champion of the poor

We are through the looking glass. I despair. I lost for words. Strange thing is that few of the ordinary folk that this PR puff piece is aimed at read the telegraph.

demfad

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/978571073003409408.htmlhttps://twitter.com/DArcyTiP/status/978599720976371712

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/978585897573732352

Here is a threadreader with the main points from Wylie's testimony.


If anyone watches this or the relavent segments they will be left in no doubt that Wylie has given proof to the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave engaged in a criminal conspiracy to launder money to AggregateIQ via other campaigns. The illegal act of campaign coordination is also exposed beyond doubt.
A few teasers:

• AggregateIQ (like Cambridge Analytica) is SCL company (SCL Canada)
• ASI Data (also used by Vote Leave) also SCL company
• Nix, Bannon, Mercer pulling the strings behind all these companies
• Vote Leave paid beLeave £625,000 which was paid on to AIQ via Vote Leave lawyers
• DUP and Veterans for Britain also paid AIQ a company with no internet presence at the time.
• Vote Leave/BeLeave/AIQ had shared drive for coordination
• One of Vote Leave directors deleted 140 files off this drive to try and hide coordination after the EC investitaion started.
• AggregateIQ had access to stolen Facebook data
• Palantir employess worked with AIQ on Facebook data. (Palaantir Thiel is on Facebook board:ergo Facebook knew stolen data was errr still stolen))
• Israeli Black ops firm 'Black Cube' used extensively by SCL/CA/AIQ for hacking, kompromat, blackmail
• CA/AIQ raison d'etre is the stolen FB dataset
• Kogan who wrote the ASI for dataset subsequently did similar work for Russian State
• Nix engaged with Russian Oil firm linked to FSB (KGB). Gave them papers on work re influencing US elections and code etc.

Much more. He has evidence backing all his statements which he has handed to authorities.
There may be a shortened version out there. It's pretty incredible stuff. But all backed by evidence now more or less in the public domain.

This is not going to go away. People at the highest level in cabinet must have been aware of this conspiracy.


As Wylie himself said: If an athlete who wins a medal is caught cheating the medal is taken away from them.
What should happen if a campaign cheats to subvert an election?

trellheim

If anyone watches this or the relavent segments they will be left in no doubt that Wylie has given proof to the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave engaged in a criminal conspiracy to launder money to AggregateIQ via other campaigns. The illegal act of campaign coordination is also exposed beyond doubt.

Provide link to the law(s) alleged to be broken please.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

We are through the looking glass. I despair. I lost for words. Strange thing is that few of the ordinary folk that this PR puff piece is aimed at read the telegraph.

Its a sketch piece!

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Provide link to the law(s) alleged to be broken please.

Here is a good starting off point

https://www.politico.eu/article/activist-suggests-vote-leave-broke-spending-rules-in-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-boris-johnson-cambridge-analytica-facebook/

Here is more details of the law itself

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/candidate-spending-and-donations-at-elections

Basically, if true, it appears that the leave campaign broke rules in regard to campaign spending.

trellheim

thats elections not advisory referenda; can you provide an actual link to the law on the books please

they held a supreme court case that ruled Parliament had to take a vote anyway .

Really Interested

trellheim wrote: »

thats elections not advisory referenda; can you provide an actual link to the law on the books please

they held a supreme court case that ruled Parliament had to take a vote anyway .

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

Link to the Act which contains the rules on finance and participants. Funny it is easy to find as it’s called “European Union Referendum Act 2015”

seamus

trellheim wrote: »

thats elections not advisory referenda;

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

Really Interested

seamus wrote: »

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

The Referendum rule on spending, loans and expenses all set out in the 2015 Act.

demfad

seamus wrote: »

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

Yep. Difference here is that every MP will look at the Wylie recording.
They won't be able to pretend anymore. 3 QCs have looked at the evidence already and stated there is a Prime Facie case to answer base on it.

If they don't do something this will come out possibly after Brexit: and they can't say 'we didn't know'

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

thats elections not advisory referenda; can you provide an actual link to the law on the books please

they held a supreme court case that ruled Parliament had to take a vote anyway .

I did say it was a starting point. Are you making the assertion that no rules were broken? or are you looking for information?

Skedaddle

In Ireland, this would probably lead to a Supreme Court case to overturn the results of a poll. In the UK, the status of this referendum as consultative and the lack of clarity around matters of constitutional law tend to make these kinds of things a whole lot fuzzier.

If the rules were broken and ignored the only logical conclusion is that you need to re-run the referendum on the basis of a clear, fair campaign.
It's that or just don't enforce the law because it's inconvenient.

I mean what's the point in having spending limits if they're not enforced.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

I did say it was a starting point. Are you making the assertion that no rules were broken? or are you looking for information?

Just for everyone a interesting bit in the 2015 Act

“2)In section 148 of the 2000 Act (general offences), the references in each of subsections (1) to (3) to any of the provisions of that Act include any of the provisions of this Schedule.”

This schedule relates to the finance rules, any breach that schedule is an offence as per the 2000 Act.

Havockk

seamus wrote: »

Either way it's kind of irrelevant.

The UK parliament has been thrown a rope here. "Our referendum was compromised! Foreign belligerents want to destroy our economy and european unity! They've already assassinated British citizens on our soil!"

Hold a new Brexit referendum. Pray your anti-Russian propaganda works.

They'd be stupid not to look at it.

But then, the number of times over the last 18 months I've said, "They'd be stupid to..." and then they went and did it anyway...

I doubt this is going to change anything, principally for the reason that the powers that be have no interest in this changing anything.

This story illustrates just how badly the entire system has been corrupted. And if you doubt that just go right now and check for yourself how this story is being managed by the media. Bar the Guardian, and on the politics section of the Mirror hardly anyone is running with it. An attack on the very essence of democracy and it's not even newsworthy??

The DUP bit should be massive news in the North, but the story doesn't even appear on the Belfast Telegraph, which is just insane.

There is no fixing this, best anyone can do is strap in and enjoy the ride.

demfad

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

BBC is hardly covering this AT ALL.

Something smells very bad here.
It's significant that the board of SCL include former heads of MI5/MI6, huge establishment Tory donors etc. In other words the old grey deep establishment of the UK. At the report of the Commons committee on Wylie there was one Tory MP present.

Wylie's testimony was before the Commons committee, it's not a fleeting media story and it won't go away. The powers that be include the DUP who employed AIQ/CA/SCL during the referendum and the subsequent assembly election.

Silence from the Labour leadership...

GalwayMark

demfad wrote: »

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

BBC is hardly covering this AT ALL.

Something smells very bad here.
It's significant that the board of SCL include former heads of MI5/MI6, huge establishment Tory donors etc. In other words the old grey deep establishment of the UK. At the report of the Commons committee on Wylie there was one Tory MP present.

Wylie's testimony was before the Commons committee, it's not a fleeting media story and it won't go away. The powers that be include the DUP who employed AIQ/CA/SCL during the referendum and the subsequent assembly election.

Silence from the Labour leadership...

Yeah the collusion with one of Putin’s goons may been a precursor to some post brexit anti-eu alliance while passing on secrets of nato eu members notably the Baltic states.

Havockk

demfad wrote: »

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

BBC is hardly covering this AT ALL.

Something smells very bad here.

I thought you were taking the piss for I saw the story on BBC earlier. I just rechecked and it's been scrubbed. No mention AT all.

catrionanic

Not a mention of it in the headlines on BBC news at six. Headlines included the black cab rapist, plastic bottle charges, the funeral of that French policeman, the North Korean visit to China, and the Australian cricket cheating... but not a mention of the cheating in the Brexit referendum.

This is very very strange.

Zubeneschamali

catrionanic wrote: »

This is very very strange.

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Capt'n Midnight

Havockk wrote: »

The DUP bit should be massive news in the North, but the story doesn't even appear on the Belfast Telegraph, which is just insane.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden

Political donations have traditionally remained secret in Northern Ireland because of the potential risks to the security of donors whose names might be made public.

Nice loophole, and it was abused.

Capt'n Midnight

It really doesn't matter if the referendum was rigged. It was only advisory anyway.

And parliament can do what it wants regardless.

Really Interested

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It really doesn't matter if the referendum was rigged. It was only advisory anyway.

And parliament can do what it wants regardless.

What the 2015 Act said.

“1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”

From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.

Lawyers in 50 years may talk about this time as the point when parliament was no longer supreme.

Gerry T

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

It really doesn't matter if the referendum was rigged. It was only advisory anyway.

It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.

Really Interested

Gerry T wrote: »

It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.

Where in the 2015 Act was the word advisory used?

embraer170

demfad wrote: »

Re: The media

It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

What Channel 4 expose was stopped?

Lemming

Really Interested wrote: »

What the 2015 Act said.

“1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”

From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.

I cited, and linked to, the 'advisory' bit in one of the earlier incarnations of this thread. The 'advisory' wording was from the then cabinet's own official statements regards holding a referendum, all freely viewable online.

In any case, unless otherwise explicitly stated & agreed upon, all referenda held in the UK are 'advisory' due to that old adage "Parliament is God".

gooch2k9

The DUP are actually aware of what is going on. I thought they were too busy being more British than everyone else in the UK. Although this is up there with Mrs. Dodds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43576457

From a personal point of view, I hope this transition is essentially a done deal as it's very likely I'll need to go to the UK to further the old career for a year or two.

ambro25

Really Interested wrote: »

Gerry T wrote: »

It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.

Where in the 2015 Act was the word advisory used?

Good enough summary of the issue here.

Legally speaking, in the UK the 'test' is reversed: unless the outcome of a referendum is made binding in relevant provisions of the corresponding Act (and in that respect, see the earlier AV vote referendum Act, the outcome of which was made binding), it is non-binding and, as such, merely advisory.

Parliament should consider, but is entirely free in law to disregard, the referendum result, and that is what 'advisory' means in context.

The moral and political dimensions of the issue are different, of course.

Really Interested

Lemming wrote: »

I cited, and linked to, the 'advisory' bit in one of the earlier incarnations of this thread. The 'advisory' wording was from the then cabinet's own official statements regards holding a referendum, all freely viewable online.

In any case, unless otherwise explicitly stated & agreed upon, all referenda held in the UK are 'advisory' due to that old adage "Parliament is God".

An adage under attack. According to you principle Parliament is supreme which then is higher an Act of Parliament or a official statement of the government?

I do not see either major party following the advisory idea!

Really Interested

ambro25 wrote: »

Good enough summary of the issue here.

Legally speaking, in the UK the 'test' is reversed: unless the outcome of a referendum is made binding in relevant provisions of the corresponding Act (and in that respect, see the earlier AV vote referendum Act, the outcome of which was made binding), it is non-binding and, as such, merely advisory.

Parliament should consider, but is entirely free in law to disregard, the referendum result, and that is what 'advisory' means in context.

The moral and political dimensions of the issue are different, of course.

While the link says it is advisory it ignores a very important point 1 it is not been treated as advisory and 2 not having a codified constitution the constitution is what it becomes. Remember that same constitution once said the king was supreme there was a civil war about that.