 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.
Had they consulted their leader on that? Because, given the considerable amount of time Corbyn spent on the campaign trail expounding the virtues of the EU in safeguarding and promoting workers rights it's very strange that that hasn't made it into the policy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.
Funny that. Farmers want free movement of labour so they can continue paying poverty wages to strawberry pickers.
Utterly shameful. A plague on all their houses.
Worth remembering when strawberries are cheap.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
[...]
It's an interesting argument. If you would like to know more, I recommend reading the argument by Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King which started this debate - as well as the opposing arguments here and here by Mark Elliott.
Barber, Hickman and King seem to be saying that:-
1. Triggering the Article 50 process involves using prerogative powers.
2. Prerogative powers cannot be used to frustrate the will of Parliament, expressed in an Act.
3. The will of Parliament, expressed in the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), was that the UK should be an EU member and that EU law applies here. Triggering Article 50 without repealing the ECA 1972 would make that Act a dead letter.
4. Therefore, the Prime Minister cannot trigger the Article 50 process without authorisation from Parliament (e.g. by repealing the ECA 1972)
At the moment, I prefer Elliot's view that:-
(a) Triggering Art 50 does not make the ECA 1972 a dead letter. We do not know what the outcome of the Article 50 negotiation process will be. The UK might agree to still apply some EU laws, in exchange for free trade with the EU.
(b) Starting the Art 50 process does not frustrate the will of Parliament in the ECA 1972. The purpose of that Act was to enable EU law to apply in the UK, as required by EU treaties. This leaves open the possibility that EU treaties might not require EU law to apply here, because the UK would no longer be a party to EU treaties.
(c) Repealing the ECA 1972 at the start of the negotiation process would cause legal chaos. Some EU laws would stop applying in the UK and the UK would be in breach of our obligations under international treaties. The UK is bound by EU treaties until the end of the negotiation process, not the beginning.
[ 01. July 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The extraordinary thing is that there are different versions of Brexit. There is soft Brexit and hard Brexit, but there are degrees of softness and hardness. I suppose the Norway version is fairly soft.
So we bought a pig in a poke, but nobody has a clue what the pig looks like, or maybe it's a goat.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Farage wouldn't be pissed off if Parliament refused to implement Brexit. It would keep him in business, and he could continue to draw his salary as an MEP.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, John McDonald has set out the current labour leadership position on what they want out of brexit.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
By gum, he's been burning the midnight oil. Maybe he's mounting a leadership challenge!
John McDonnell, by the way. (Irish, not Scottish).
[ 01. July 2016, 17:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU trade commissioner's remarks make me think it isn't going to be easier for whoever conducts any exit talks.
In the interests if democracy, I don't see how any British Prime Minister or negotiator can go into talks in Europe, without maintaining our red line on control of our borders. From the unequivocal response of Merkel, Juncker and others, the four freedoms are their red line, so it's difficult to envisage any meaningful talks. But is EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom is to be believed, and I'm sure she knows her stuff, it may all be irrelevant for the time being.
She says that no trade negotiations can even begin until the Brexit process is complete, and after that they could take several years, during which time Britain could only trade as a third country under WTO rules. This is a disaster which could cost jobs, but it isn't a meltdown. WTO tariffs between friendly countries are no more than 2-3 per cent, less than a day's fluctuation in the currency markets. So while the economy could contract a few percentage points, the UK won't become a Third World country.
Yet I still hold out hope that people will see sense. One estimate says that 750,000 jobs in Germany depend on trade with the UK because Germany exports double to us what we do to them. At present, as the consequences of Brexit sink in, people are angry and feel rebuffed. They want to set out their toughest bargaining stance. They want to punish a people who have dared to question the European Federalist project and prevent contagion. But when the dust settles, trade barriers are in the interests of no country. The EU sells far more to the UK than vice versa and nobody wants to see their economy stifled by tariffs.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
WTO tariffs between friendly countries are no more than 2-3 per cent, less than a day's fluctuation in the currency markets. So while the economy could contract a few percentage points, the UK won't become a Third World country.
Yet I still hold out hope that people will see sense. One estimate says that 750,000 jobs in Germany depend on trade with the UK because Germany exports double to us what we do to them.
There's an obvious inconsistency in your argument (apart from the reliance on dubious figures from the express). If their costs are also in the the few percentage why would they care so much about doing a deal?
After all, if this issue of 'sovereignty' is so important that you are willing for the economy to take a hit, why wouldn't they be equally willing to take a hit for some principle that was dear to them?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PaulTH*
People work on smaller margins these days. A 2-3% tariff barrier would have a pretty significant effect. Also I wasn't quite sure what you meant by contagion.
The real risk of a WTO tariff also shows Andrea Leadsom to be extremely optimistic. Here's the quote, pre-vote, from her website.
quote:
Conservative minister Andrea Leadsom is adamant that there is absolutely no economic shock in store for Britain if it leaves the European Union. The energy minister, who worked in finance for over two decades before entering politics, is furious with "scaremongering" from her pro-Remain Tory colleagues, especially the chancellor, and wants to set the record straight.
Well, I suppose Real Life might set her straight. [BTW, she's now second favourite with the bookies for Conservative Leader. Makes me feel all warm and cosy - not]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain.
Nothing to feel ashamed about.
There are at least four groups of people who are against the EU in its current form:
- the xenophobic right who have a big issue about immigration
- the libertarian right who don't want a supra-national government
- the anti-austerity left who object to EU rules on fiscal prudence
- the people-power communitarians who believe that the only legitimate authority is the directly-elected sort
You may not agree with any of them, but the world would be a poorer place without diversity of opinion.
I think most people believe on the European ideal of peace, prosperity through trade, and international co-operation on international issues. The question is whether such an ideal requires something very like the current EU. For years, anyone suggesting that the EU is going down the wrong path has been told "this may not be ideal, but it's what there is, like it or lump it. And the vote was for lumping it...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
There are at least four groups of people who are against the EU in its current form:
I think you missed the protectionists who want to throw up trade and immigration barriers to "protect British jobs". This is, for example, the Bernie Sanders objection to free trade.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
So, question. What are we hearing from the pro-Brexit people themselves? Because, so far, we've had quite a few Remain supporters saying that the Leave voters are all regreting their votes, didn't understand the issues etc. And we've had at least one Leave titan, Boris, pretty much admit through his words and actions that he actually is a little taken aback by the results.
So, besides Farage, have their been any Leave people publically celebrating their victory, confirming that "Yes, yes, this is indeed what we really wanted"?
My curiousity was prompted partly by the case of Pat Condell, that UKIP You Tube warrior whose last video, pre-vote, was a rousing call for BREXIT. He hasn't posted anything since the referendum, and I'm wondering if he's cowering in fear the Franenstein's monster he helped create.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's the vagueness of Brexit that is becoming apparent. The ballot paper had a simple Remain or Leave question, and didn't mention immigration, trade deals, relations with the EU, including payments, and so on.
Boris seems to have quailed at what he had created, or possibly, the non-specific nature of it. Others are putting their interpretation on it, of course, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, and so on. All rather shambolic. It's a kind of Rorschach inkblot.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So, besides Farage, have their been any Leave people publically celebrating their victory, confirming that "Yes, yes, this is indeed what we really wanted"?
My curiousity was prompted partly by the case of Pat Condell, that UKIP You Tube warrior whose last video, pre-vote, was a rousing call for BREXIT. He hasn't posted anything since the referendum, and I'm wondering if he's cowering in fear the Franenstein's monster he helped create.
The time for euphoria was on the morning of 24 June.
Now we have to see what our political leaders, most of whom are anti-Brexit, are actually going to do about the whole thing. It's not clear that they're going to work hard to create the exact outcome that many Brexiters wanted.
As we speak, the main political parties are noisily trying to choose new leaders so they can knuckle down to work. Deals are being made behind closed doors, and being able to win a GE is probably even more of a priority than pursuing a Brexit agenda.
Farage himself is now concerned about 'backsliding', as well he might.
[ 03. July 2016, 16:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Although it was Farage who had said that a 52/48 result was not the end, of course, meaning for Remain.
It was a pig in a poke. Or maybe a goat?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's an inevitable result of the lack of a manifesto for leaving the EU produced months ahead of the referendum. No one knew if what they were voting for corresponded to the plan for an exit, because it didn't exist. And, thus when the plan comes through many will feel it isn't what they voted for.
The chaos in the Leave camp is a simple case of chickens coming home to roost. And, most of those chickens seem to have lost their heads.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
At the same time, I guess that many politicians dare not argue against Leave, as it might produce riots or whatever, and even an increase in racist and fascist violence.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's an inevitable result of the lack of a manifesto for leaving the EU produced months ahead of the referendum. No one knew if what they were voting for corresponded to the plan for an exit, because it didn't exist. And, thus when the plan comes through many will feel it isn't what they voted for.
The chaos in the Leave camp is a simple case of chickens coming home to roost. And, most of those chickens seem to have lost their heads.
I don't think there's chaos in Farage's camp so much. The chaos is in the Tory Party, where Brexit was mingled with individual ambitions for power. In Boris's case, such ambitions were visible for a long time, well before his Euro-skepticism appeared.
As for the country at large, we all need the politicians to sort themselves out and start taking some decisions. You could say that the current situation leaves us all in chaos, Brexiters or otherwise.
For most people, though, I imagine our lives are just continuing as normal.
[ 03. July 2016, 19:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's an inevitable result of the lack of a manifesto for leaving the EU produced months ahead of the referendum. No one knew if what they were voting for corresponded to the plan for an exit, because it didn't exist. And, thus when the plan comes through many will feel it isn't what they voted for.
The chaos in the Leave camp is a simple case of chickens coming home to roost. And, most of those chickens seem to have lost their heads.
Yep, as I suggested over here (to some criticism) no one will get what they voted for...
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I don't think a second referendum is a realistic possibility but the democratic problem is no one is going to get what they voted for.
48% of us voted to stay. They won't get that.
Of the 52% they voted for lots of reasons such as
- A reduction in immigration (unlikely to actually happen)
- More money for the NHS (Not going to happen)
- A stronger economy (No)
- More control (Not likely)
I could go on, but basically a campaign of lies has won. I see nothing to celebrate there.
I think this will lead to a massive sense of disillusionment.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yep, as I suggested over here (to some criticism) no one will get what they voted for...
As I've been saying the same, you'll get no criticism from me.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At the same time, I guess that many politicians dare not argue against Leave, as it might produce riots or whatever, and even an increase in racist and fascist violence.
That is a lousy pretext to not campaign against remaining in the EU especially when constitutional means exist to enable Britain to do so.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Unfortunately, I have missed out on pages of posts on discussions to do with the referendum because I was with friends in Australia. However, there was quite a bit of political discussion as they were interested in what was happening here and had their own elections on Saturday (2 July) for the Canberra Government.
I shall read as much as I can during the coming week, but have already sent an e-mail to my local MP, an 'out' voter, to ask what actions he is going to take to avoid the situation becoming a shambles ... if it isn't already.
(P.S. It was a bit chilly out there, but very pleasant to maintain a friendship that started 30 years ago when I did the exchange teaching.)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I honestly don't think Barber, Hickman and King put forward a strong argument. It just sounds like the best argument there is to force Parliament into acting, and by doing so create a more informed debate that might result in Parliament refusing to pass the necessary legislation. Possibly a judge might buy the argument but I don't think so.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on UK lawyers with an interest in constitutional law, but the prerogative isn't that mysterious, and the authors' description of prerogative as powers that "since medieval times, that exist unsupported by statute" is derogatory. It is a collection of powers inherent in the Crown by virtue of its position as Crown. The ability to pardon offences, dissolve parliament, grant charters of incorporation - and enter international treaties - are all prerogative powers. There is nothing illegitimate about them: they are useful tools that allow the government to function.
Because Parliament is the supreme source of legal authority (having been firmly established as such in the seventeenth century) the prerogative must give way to Acts of Parliament. So the Crown can't use prerogative to suspend or dispense with Acts of Parliament (something James II was very keen on). By extension, the Crown can't use prerogative to do something that an Act of Parliament already provides for (and by doing so get round certain restrictions in the Act). To argue, like the authors do, that the prerogative also can't be used if the effect is to make a statute a dead letter might seem like a logical extension of this principle, but the point remains that nothing in UK domestic law actually changes if Article 50 is invoked - the ECA 1972 remains in force. The authors gloss over this - but it is an important point - when Article 50 is invoked, no law is suspended, although it might be doomed. Its repeal is a matter for Parliament in due course.
I thought their point about European elections was an interesting one: in brief once article 50 is invoked there is no right to participate in EU elections, and this right exists in domestic law under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. But once again, the article has to assume that Parliament won't get around to doing anything about it before an election is called.
Governments govern. Parliament passes legislation. The law doesn't allow the prerogative to be used as back-door legislation, but equally it's against principle for Parliament to usurp the Gvt's ability to act in international matters (which is basically what the EU is).
An alternative argument is that the right to invoke article 50 is conferred by the treaty itself, so any discussion of prerogative is beside the point.
NB: I didn't understand the authors to argue that the ECA 1972 should be repealed up front, but that Parliament would have to legislate to allow the Gvt to invoke Article 50.
Perhaps we will see the argument tested in court.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.
I'm just looking at the argument itself, rather than who has made it.
I have heard a number of bum arguments in the last few days, made by people who I imagine are very keen to nullify the referendum result. I can't blame them for that. I have heard a QC argue that Scots can veto Brexit, and others argue that the EU can force the UK to invoke article 50, or that the article 50 process can be reversed. Some of these arguments seem designed to force a re-run of the debate, and some appear to be from desperation.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
(just stepping back a short way)
PaulTH wrote:
quote:
WTO tariffs between friendly countries are no more than 2-3 per cent, less than a day's fluctuation in the currency markets. So while the economy could contract a few percentage points, the UK won't become a Third World country.
Can we clarify this?
Tariffs between friendly countries may average 2-3%, but that's after a negotiated trade deal. For everyone else (i.e. us), the figures are given as locked maxima. There is a specific term for it which I have forgotten, without looking it up. Quite a bit of WTO negotiation goes into securing these figures. On that basis, the tariff for cars is 9.8% (we are a major car exporter as well as a major importer of German cars). The tariff for wine is 32%. Wheat products are 12.8%. etc.
One phrase I have heard used is that even if we leave without an agreement, we could make up the difference of these tariffs from what we save in EU contributions. But WTO deals are predicated on eliminating state subsidies that skew the market, so that's irrelevant.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.
I'm just looking at the argument itself, rather than who has made it.
I have heard a number of bum arguments in the last few days, made by people who I imagine are very keen to nullify the referendum result. I can't blame them for that. I have heard a QC argue that Scots can veto Brexit, and others argue that the EU can force the UK to invoke article 50, or that the article 50 process can be reversed. Some of these arguments seem designed to force a re-run of the debate, and some appear to be from desperation.
I thought that the whole point of the Leave campaign was that The Crown-In-Parliament was supposed to be sovereign and that the EU was some sort of unhallowed adulteration of this principle. It would be odd, to put it politely, if the move to Leave the EU were to bypass Parliament entirely. If nothing else repealing all that EU legislation and replacing it with Local Laws for Local People is going to require an Act of Parliament, or several.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.
I'm just looking at the argument itself, rather than who has made it.
No, you are looking at the premise. You cannot be looking at the argument until you have read it.
And who is making the claim matters. These are people who study the relevant processes, not Barry down at the pub.
They might still be incorrect, but dismissing the whole thing prior to reading it is farcical.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I thought that the whole point of the Leave campaign was that The Crown-In-Parliament was supposed to be sovereign and that the EU was some sort of unhallowed adulteration of this principle. It would be odd, to put it politely, if the move to Leave the EU were to bypass Parliament entirely. If nothing else repealing all that EU legislation and replacing it with Local Laws for Local People is going to require an Act of Parliament, or several.
I'm not a Leave cheerleader. But yes, a key plank of its campaign was that Parliament should make the laws. I don't think that it was that Parliament should usurp the role of government, whose role it is to apply the laws in place.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, you are looking at the premise. You cannot be looking at the argument until you have read it.
And who is making the claim matters. These are people who study the relevant processes, not Barry down at the pub.
They might still be incorrect, but dismissing the whole thing prior to reading it is farcical.
Actually I did read it through briefly, and it struck me, to put it politely, as a novel point. I read it more carefully later and it struck me as even more novel. But don't take the word of Barry down the pub for this.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If the government does invoke Article 50 without repealing the 1972 Act (or at least a nod in that direction) I expect they will end up in court. Home Secretaries, especially David Blunkett, have been there regularly.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually I did read it through briefly, and it struck me, to put it politely, as a novel point. I read it more carefully later and it struck me as even more novel. But don't take the word of Barry down the pub for this.
Lawyers will, as ever, disagree with each other. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know who is correct.
However, I think Sioni makes a safe bet that this will end up in court regardless.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually I did read it through briefly, and it struck me, to put it politely, as a novel point. I read it more carefully later and it struck me as even more novel. But don't take the word of Barry down the pub for this.
Lawyers will, as ever, disagree with each other. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know who is correct.
However, I think Sioni makes a safe bet that this will end up in court regardless.
FWIW IANAL nor a bookmaker. Nothing handicaps a horse like five pounds of my money.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
It's hardly "novel", Cod. Quite a good exposition, ehich you'd expect fom the likes of Tom Hickman et al.
I think they're right.
The PM can do certain things using the royal prerogative. So, unlike in the United States, he or she can agree treaties with other countries without needing parliamentary approval. If the treaties creating the European Union had been agreed at a government level only, then the Prime Minister could initiate article 50, no problem.
But, as you say, the job of government is to implement laws as they have been passed. The law says, do United Kingdom is not just bound to the European Union by treaty, but by the 1972 legislation which makes all those details of European legislation part of the UK legislation. That is the law. The Royal prerogative cannot be used to undo a piece of legislation passed by Parliament. A representative Parliamentary democracy – which the UK is – does not have directly effectivr referendums, and the only body that can undo the 1972 act is Parliament.
What is really strange is that nobody thought to check this until now…
Anyway, Counsell does say that the political and legal answers may be different. The legal answer is no. However the political answer is very likely yes.
I suppose there is a certain irony that lots of people have been banging on about sovereignty and are now going to see the very thing they thought they were in favour of being undermined by the thing they want to do.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A comment that made me laugh: everybody who has fucked up has fucked off. Well, not quite everybody.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
....and the one who didn't fuck up too badly is being commanded to fuck off by half his own party !
British politics has gone from boring shades of grey to stranger than fiction almost overnight .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It puzzles me that nobody has argued clearly something which I would have thought ought to be obvious.
Whatever the legal theory, the existence of devolution changed the constitution. It ought to be an abuse of the constitution, and the whole concept of what devolution ought to be, that the union Parliament takes it for granted that it can make a major change like this over the heads of the devolved bits, when two of them have clearly voted against it.
If there were an such things as a political ethic, devolution should impose on the whole limits on what it can do over the heads of the bits unless all four of those bits are lined up together.
Even if that is not the letter of the law, it is so contrary to the spirit of it, that I can't see why anyone isn't banging on about this.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whatever the legal theory, the existence of devolution changed the constitution. It ought to be an abuse of the constitution, and the whole concept of what devolution ought to be, that the union Parliament takes it for granted that it can make a major change like this over the heads of the devolved bits, when two of them have clearly voted against it.
I live in a federal country, and like the US constitution upon which it is modelled, ours reserves international affairs to the federal government. Like defence, I'd have thought that it is a classic example of a subject which needs to be dealt with on a national basis, rather than by its constituent parts. No State has an option to exclude itself from the national decision.
Think of this: in 1939, the UK govt wants to declare war on Germany. The (hypothetical) Scottish govt does not wish to. Can it opt out?
[ 08. July 2016, 22:48: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
I see Cammy is stepping down on Wednesday, 13 July. Breaking News.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
My reaction
Cameron out. Great
Corbyn on the way out. Great
Boris and Gove out of the picture. Great
Teresa May in. Hopeful.
"God works in all things for good." Romans 8 So may it be
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
He's ditched the scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts, putting down the mighty from their seats, exalting them of low degree, filling the hungry with good things; and sending the rich empty away?
Pity. I preferred Him when He was more left wing.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
It might stabilize some of the European jitters a bit. May has already been described as the "British Merkel" and her appointment should be well received. Her announcement that "Brexit means Brexit" should reassure them as well.
Of course there is that letter from the 1000 lawyers to be considered but tomorrow is another day.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I find the media being bullish about someone who doesn't like human rights, voted for the now-traduced Iraq war, and wants to read our private emails, somewhat disturbing.
Especially as the same media are going out of their way to trash the reputation of someone who stands full square behind universal human rights, was proved right about Iraq, and thinks privacy is important.
I'm not saying that Leadsom would have been better. Far from it. But May has a genuinely worrying voting record on a great many issues, and everyone seems to be drinking the Kool Aid.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I live in a federal country, and like the US constitution upon which it is modelled, ours reserves international affairs to the federal government. Like defence, I'd have thought that it is a classic example of a subject which needs to be dealt with on a national basis, rather than by its constituent parts. No State has an option to exclude itself from the national decision.
Think of this: in 1939, the UK govt wants to declare war on Germany. The (hypothetical) Scottish govt does not wish to. Can it opt out?
That's actually demonstrates part of the problem. You have a Constitution that sets out how the various bits relate to each other. We haven't. After the Scottish referendum last year, this should have been the next step, sorting how the UK works in stead of launching into the EU referendum which has tragically blown up in Cameron's and all the rest of our faces. He wimped out because it was all too difficult and he thought he could get away with not lifting the stones and revealing all the bugs and woodlice underneath. Oh, and he wasn't the sort of person able to think about these things.
Not only would he have had to juggle Scotland to keep it happy, but someone would have had to come up with a rational structural approach to the English question.
Because this has never been dealt with, because there is no formal basis of how the various bits of the UK are supposed to function, this is a legitimate question now. Besides, is the EU solely a matter of foreign policy?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ariel
That is an interesting link to the lawyers' letter. I'd never have found it - thank you. I think I'll follow up some of the other links on the page too.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Bear in mind that the lawyers's letter is a political one, not a legal one.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Enoch, largely accepting what you say - the exception being that the UK constitution does not say enough about a lot of matters. The powers and role of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments are spelt out pretty exactly. The powers of Westminster are not specified to the same degree, and it has the obligation to be the legislature for England alone in those matters let to the other governments. It's the gaps between these that needs clarification.
On the way, you need to sort out if the result is to be a federation, as in the US and here for example, or a confederation such as in Canada. It may not be a good time to go along he path of a division of England, as suggested above, too much and too hard when there's enough work to be done otherwise.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My reaction
Cameron out. Great
Corbyn on the way out. Great
Boris and Gove out of the picture. Great
Teresa May in. Hopeful.
"God works in all things for good." Romans 8 So may it be
While that would be an interesting development, I think the new Prime Minister is the Theresa May who spells her name with an 'H'.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I'd support Teresa with much more enthusiasm that Theresa, more's the pity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
It seems that with the appointment of Frenchman Michel Barnier as the EU Commission's Brexit negotiator, the Commission is going to play hardball with the UK over terms. So there is going to be an impasse between the fact that Britain can't accept free movement in its present form, and the EU's refusal to allow it access to the single market otherwise. Mutti Merkal has indicated that EU governments and not the commission should be in charge of the negotiations, but it's hard to imaging that President Hollande will think much differently from Monsieur Barnier, even though it's in the financial interests of the EU to keep trade tariff free.
Even one of the UK's other options, trading under WTO rules may not be as easy as some people think according to WTO's Roberto Azevedo. The UK could find itself pushed into the position of having no trade deals and simply trading unilaterally tariff free like Singapore or Hong Kong. This idea, loved by the right, could be the equivalent of a 4% tax cut, but the political fall out may dwarf Thatcher's monetarist refusal to help ailing industries in the 1980's, when farmers and others find they can't compete with cheap imports. Such a situation could be managed by a government that had the insight to do it, but I don't see any evidence of this kind of ability from our present leaders.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't see any evidence of this kind of ability from our present leaders.
Or, any other kind of ability (excluding the ability to totally balls things up).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
