Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali · 18-09-2019 12:09am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:09am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:14am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:14am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:17am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:17am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:19am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:23am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:25am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:26am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:40am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:48am

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 · 18-09-2019 12:56am

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 · 18-09-2019 1:04am

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 · 18-09-2019 1:07am

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 · 18-09-2019 1:45am

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 · 18-09-2019 5:40am

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 · 18-09-2019 7:14am

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 · 18-09-2019 7:40am

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 · 18-09-2019 7:51am

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 · 18-09-2019 7:56am

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 · 18-09-2019 8:01am

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 · 18-09-2019 8:02am

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 · 18-09-2019 8:09am

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.

Akrasia · 18-09-2019 8:14am

murphaph wrote: »

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

Anyone who watched the last night of the HOC before it got prorogued will know what this looks like
EEufOivXkAEswGz?format=png&name=small

Johnson has been praised for fostering this character of the affable eccentric toff as if it is some genius plan to endear himself to the public, but he actually is just a large child who cannot fathom how a grownup is supposed to behave in real life.

Being an immature manchild is one thing, but when you come from the kind of life long wealth and privilege that Johnson has emerged from, you get the adult juvenile of the spoilt brat variety who really really wants his super sweet 56th birthday party to feature a solid gold toilet and a giant cake in the shape of the incredible Hulk.

It was the same with Trump. People were saying he was pretending to be this 'man of the people' character by making deliberate mistakes on social media when in actuality he is really just a reckless, impulsive, poorly informed narcissist who couldn't be bothered to check his work for mistakes or accuracy before blathering his half arsed ideas directly to the public.

Call me Al · 18-09-2019 8:23am

murphaph wrote: »

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

Dont forget that he has chosen to surround himself with "believers" and finds himself in an echo chamber.
The UK has sacked experts for knowing and voicing difficult "facts" since this whole thing started.
And really they probably aren't the brightest of people if this is all news to them.

CelticRambler · 18-09-2019 8:28am

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?

What would be easier would be to allow time for EU citizens, agencies and infrastructure to be removed from the departing nation in the best possible conditions.

The European Medicines Agency, the European Banking Authority and the European Youth Orchestra were all based in the UK and had to be (have now been) relocated. That was done with time to properly assess the merits of each potential new site and to give the people employeed there time to consider whether or not they wanted to move with the agency.

What you're proposing would force the EU to make hasty decisions, some of which would undoubtedly turn out to be very costly and/or completely chaotic, all so that a disgruntled member could have a quick "clean break" exit.