homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Shake it all about: Brexit thread II (Page 24)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  46  47  48 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:
quote:
*If* over the next 2 years Project Fear is proved to have been right about the EU
Am I the only person in the world who has noted the irony of the Remain campaign being dubbed 'Project Fear', when the Brexiteers campaigned mainly by playing on fears of immigration and nostalgia for a mythical Golden Age when Britain's destiny was entirely within our control?
It's ironic, but I don't think it's deliberate. It got dubbed Project Fear because that's what the Yes campaign in Scotland had coined for the No side in 2014.

Raise any negatives in pretty well any UK political argument when you're on the side of the status quo these days and you get "Project Fear" thrown at you.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1323 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
UK to EU: How dare you say you'll ruin us if we leave you!

UK to Scotland: We'll ruin you if you leave us.

[Roll Eyes]

UK to EU: if you don't give us all the sweeties we want, we'll ruin you. (Fantasy stuff).

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9474 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The Tories only care about England, I can see them selling out the other nations to ensure England "makes a success" of Brexit.

Hardly surprising, as the Tories only represent England. Scotland is an oiltank and a base for the nuclear boats, Wales a handy source for soldiers.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 23878 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Tories care about the Tories. The referendum was meant to address divisions in the Tory party, and now May is trying to do the same. I don't believe all the stuff about the poor. She wants to win the next election, which I don't blame her for, but of course, she can't just say that, it has to be dressed up in highfalutin language.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9474 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
UK to EU: How dare you say you'll ruin us if we leave you!

UK to Scotland: We'll ruin you if you leave us.

[Roll Eyes]

UK to EU: if you don't give us all the sweeties we want, we'll ruin you. (Fantasy stuff).
I felt embarrassed, as a Briton (or an Irish-Briton or whatever the hell I am these days) listening to Teresa May addressing the EU yesterday. I just knew that all the other member states were sitting there mentally shrugging their shoulders, thinking: '.... and?'

It's like that time when John Bull, the stroppy tenor, announces he's leaving the choir because he doesn't like the uniform, or choice of music, can't trust the choir committee, thinks the subscription is too high, and wants to pick his own performance dates and venues. But somehow you know that he's still expecting full orchestral accompaniment, packed halls and glowing reviews. You also know he's only going to succeed if he's Pavarotti.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 9925 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's almost as if you've never heard of the free rider problem. The UK is essentially asking for all of the benefits of EU membership (free movement of capital and goods) with none of what it regards as the associated drawbacks (free movement of labor, product safety regulations, etc.).

The problem with this line of argument is that it only really works if free movement really is a drawback, which seems to me to concede too much ground to the nationalists and nativists.

If free movement is seen by the EU as a benefit, then opting out of it is rather like ordering off the prix fixe menu but foregoing the starter because you read in the Daily Mail that foccaccia causes cancer - it's irrational but it's not actually a free rider situation. If free movement is a cost then the nativists aren't necessarily unreasonable in banging on about immigration.

Anyway I think this misrepresents the European position. I don't think they see free movement as the cost of the single market, rather that the two are so intertwined that the British demand is like saying you want your steak tartare well done.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7081 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Incidentally, I wonder what Mr Juncker thinks of Mr Hammond's threat to undermine our European neighbours' tax systems by turning our country into a tax haven?

I hope he is suitably shocked. [Eek!] [Eek!]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7081 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the Channel Islands might be more than a little cross.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16979 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My workplace periodically invites speakers in to give talks on interesting subjects. Last night was a Scottish economist talking about Brexit.

A couple of his conclusions: in economic terms the UK* is likely to lose out far more than mainland Europe. Brexit in its current form is more about immigration than anything else so Theresa May is going to accept a reduction in trade as the price of a reduction in the movement of people. Also if the UK wants to turn into a tax haven it probably won’t be very good at it on account of having much too large an economy.

*The City in particular, because there is a high likelihood of financial institutions in the city of London losing their passporting rights. Financial services are the UK’s n° 1 export. This is a financial company so this is the question that people were especially interested in.

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3546 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's almost as if you've never heard of the free rider problem. The UK is essentially asking for all of the benefits of EU membership (free movement of capital and goods) with none of what it regards as the associated drawbacks (free movement of labor, product safety regulations, etc.).

The problem with this line of argument is that it only really works if free movement really is a drawback,

...

I think this misrepresents the European position. I don't think they see free movement as the cost of the single market, rather that the two are so intertwined that the British demand is like saying you want your steak tartare well done.

Both points that I have repeatedly made in recent months. At some point before the referendum I started a thread advocating the benefits of relaxing immigration because of the benefits to both the UK and migrants (I could look it up in Oblivion, but ...). Also it's been clear to me that if you have a free market for goods and services that has to include free movement, since labour is the ultimate service. You can't have a pick and mix single market - if you take everything except movement of labour you no longer have a single market.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 

Anselmina ,
John Bull never accepted that he was a member of the choir.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6576 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Anselmina ,
John Bull never accepted that he was a member of the choir.

That's not actually true. In 1975 two thirds of the population voted to stay in. Mrs Thatcher won a thumping election victory on, among other things, staying in the EU, in 1983 and pioneered the Single European Market, Mr Major won his election on, among other things, ratifying the Maastricht treaty and Mr Blair won two landslides whilst keeping an open mind on the Single Currency, the second of which was won against an opposition campaigning on a platform of 'Save the Pound'. There were, and are, legitimate arguments to be had as to how Europe works, how viable the Single Currency is and whether the sort of federal Europe favoured by some people was a good idea. To that extent I have always considered myself to be a Euro-sceptic, in the sense that the term was used during the Maastricht debates in the early 1990s. But back in those halcyon days of comparative sanity it was only the Bennite left and the Powellite right who thought that torching the British economy in the name of parliamentary sovereignty and the free market or a kinder and gentler form of Juche Socialism was a good idea.

It took decades of misinformation by the hard right, and the worst economic crash since 1929, to get the sort of stupidity and ignorance we now take for granted into the political mainstream. The heirs of Tony and Enoch have triumphed. We're about the learn the hard way why a more sensible and better informed generation consigned them to the political wilderness.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9671 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An argument could be made that John Bull thought himself as the most important member of the choir, and they should be flattered he was a member and grant him special privilages because he's such a good singer. But, many of the other members of the choir thought the same as well.

And, quite possibly that John Bull was reluctant to join the rest of the choir for some drinks after rehearsal.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If Brexit had an overwhelming advantage it was that it could and did put its points simply. That doesn't mean that only simple or stupid people voted to leave but the Remain campaign's messages, especially those refuting the Brexit campaign's soundbites, were lost in a fog of words, which many people found very boring indeed.

I'm still not sure how close Brexit and Trump are politically (TBH I'm not sure where Trump stands, except to do everything in the interest of Donald Trump), but when it comes to election tactics they are peas from the same pod.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 23878 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If Brexit had an overwhelming advantage it was that it could and did put its points simply.

I think the word you want is simplistically.

Which was what was very frustrating about the Leave campaign, they'd take a complex issue and distil it into a soundbite and then refuse to engage in discussion of the detail. But, then again, the whole question was framed like that - there was no scope to ask "Leave? Leave to where?".

I suppose a classic example was "£350m per week". It's true the total contribution the UK makes to the EU is about £350m per week. But, when you look at the figures things become more complex - there's a rebate that comes straight back, at about £100m per week, a large proportion of the rest comes back to the UK through farm subsidies, support for research and development etc. If all things were equal (ie: the UK continues to fund everything in the UK that the EU funds, and that bringing functions such as international trade negotiations back to Whitehall doesn't cost more than our share of the EU costs*) then about the only saving to be made would be MEP pay and expenses, which is nowhere near £350m per week.

But, as you say, too many people didn't want to hear the details that refuted the Leave claims. Which is a point where I start to despair about democracy - the number of people who participate who actually choose to be ignorant. Democracy, especially through a referendum, requires an informed electorate, otherwise it's just mob rule and our rulers simply need to provide bread and circuses.

 

* which, of course, would never be the case. And, various leaks have suggested that the Whitehall department for trade negotiations will employ the same number of people as the entire European Commission. Probably in expensive London offices, paying London wages.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An argument could be made that John Bull thought himself as the most important member of the choir, and they should be flattered he was a member and grant him special privilages because he's such a good singer. But, many of the other members of the choir thought the same as well.

And, quite possibly that John Bull was reluctant to join the rest of the choir for some drinks after rehearsal.

He made all those demands because he thought he was special and above it all. Never accepted that he really was a member though and kept making demands for more. The votes you refer to were more along the lines of yes, I like what the benefits are, now give me some more.

BTW, I'm far from sure that the opposition was limited to the far right of UK politics. The far left , and not so far left, was also against it, and many who really were apolitical

[ 20. January 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6576 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

BTW, I'm far from sure that the opposition was limited to the far right of UK politics. The far left , and not so far left, was also against it, and many who really were apolitical

The left opposition was structured differently though, mainly people who didn't like neo-liberalism, or who felt that being in the EU stopped a more internationalist - in the sense of reducing solidary between workers. So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
Posts: 3699 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm looking back to the 60s - when de Gaulle with great clarity saw that the UK would not be European-minded - and 70s as well, the days before neo-liberalism. The left opposition then and continuing had very little of the flavours you're now mentioning.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6576 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alex Cockell

Ship’s penguin
# 7487

 - Posted      Profile for Alex Cockell     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there any way to stop this shit? I don't want to be stuck in a xenophobic culture!
Posts: 2129 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An argument could be made that John Bull thought himself as the most important member of the choir, and they should be flattered he was a member and grant him special privilages because he's such a good singer. But, many of the other members of the choir thought the same as well.

And, quite possibly that John Bull was reluctant to join the rest of the choir for some drinks after rehearsal.

He made all those demands because he thought he was special and above it all. Never accepted that he really was a member though and kept making demands for more. The votes you refer to were more along the lines of yes, I like what the benefits are, now give me some more.

BTW, I'm far from sure that the opposition was limited to the far right of UK politics. The far left , and not so far left, was also against it, and many who really were apolitical

I think that it was me and not Alan who was listing the occasions in which the electorate indicated that they were broadly in favour of the EU.

As to the exceptions the main ones were the Rebate, the Social Chapter, membership of the Euro and the Schengen agreement. Of those the first took place during a climate of cuts in public spending and a period in which first Denis Healey and then Sir Geoffrey Howe had taken drastic measures to push down inflation. I can't really see a case for saying that every government department should face cuts across the board except for the UK's contribution to the EU. The ERM debacle demonstrated that membership of the Euro was a bad idea, and the experience of the Eurozone has subsequently confirmed it, Tony Blair reversed our opt out from the Social Charter. Schengen makes perfect sense for the continent but not so much for the UK, as an island, which is why we opted out. Unless you think that the UK has a moral obligation to sign up to everything the EU puts forward the various opt outs were generally accepted by all parties as a reasonable compromise.

Originally posted by Chris Stiles:

quote:
The left opposition was structured differently though, mainly people who didn't like neo-liberalism, or who felt that being in the EU stopped a more internationalist - in the sense of reducing solidary between workers. So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
The best analogy I can think of is the German Communists who were happy to see the fall of the Weimar Republic on the grounds that a proletarian uprising would happen imminently afterwards. ISTR, that did not work out quite as they expected. If you work for an outcome and it does not go quite in the trajectory you expected you are as responsible as those those who worked for it but were happier with said trajectory. People who supported Lexit or who went AWOL during the campaign are every bit as complicit as Farage, May, Johnson, Gove and the rest of the usual suspects.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9671 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ Alex Cockell

We may not be able to stop this shit, but that doesn't mean we have to wade in up to our necks and eat it. Call out Xenophobic talk, challenge anyone who tries to blame our self-inflicted social problems on immigrants. Point out all the fantasy and wishful thinking that currently passes for policy. It may lose you some friends, but maybe they aren't the sort of friends you want anyway.

I suspect that, like the 1930's or the buildup to the Iraq invasion, this is a time that people will look back on and decide that they were actually on the other side.

[ 21. January 2017, 14:18: Message edited by: Rocinante ]

Posts: 331 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
People who supported Lexit or who went AWOL during the campaign are every bit as complicit as Farage, May, Johnson, Gove and the rest of the usual suspects.
I think it was fairly clear who would be emboldened and able to set the agenda after a 'Leave' vote, and in such circumstances a 'Lexit' vote was absolutely foolish, and the idea that 'Leave' would lead to the flourishing of social democracy (and less neoliberalism) in the UK was plainly idiotic.

[In the abstract sense I don't necessarily think that every unintended consequence has to be laid at the feet of the people whose decisions lead to it, partly because this tends to be very much driven by how far up the casual chain you want to go].

Posts: 3699 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I think that it was me and not Alan who was listing the occasions in which the electorate indicated that they were broadly in favour of the EU.

Broadly in favour of bits of the EU as they see them. It's instructive to look at the poll published in the FT today:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2dy_PPXgAERall.jpg:large

There's the obvious contradiction there between the desire for migration limits, but against passport checks. I imagine you could generate similar contradictions by posing questions that imply different directions to trade, and so forth.

Posts: 3699 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Is there any way to stop this shit? I don't want to be stuck in a xenophobic culture!

It seems to be expected that the supreme court will rule this week in favour of Parliamentary democracy, and hence the government will need to get it's plans, such as they are, through Parliament. I think that too many MPs are under the misapprehension that the vote in June represents the "settled will of the people", and as such are unlikely to actually prevent some form of Brexshit. We can hope that they might manage to moderate the stupidity of the government plans into something less fascist.

As for the culture. I don't believe Britain is characterised by xenophobia, but I do believe that many people fell for the lies of a small minority of racists and xenophobes in positions of power - both politicians and the media. Which means we have our work cut out to remind the majority of British values: respect, tolerance, compassion, etc.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems that Mrs May is to be the first foreign head of Government to be granted an audience by The Donald. One hopes that she will not so bedazzled by the experience that she forgets the fate of Tony Blair, who (need I remind anyone?) unwisely hitched his wagon to a star.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 394 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I hope she remembers to keep her hands in front of her when she meets him.

Or, then again, maybe I don't.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8522 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If she wears those leopard-skin shoes, she'll probably remember how to use them...

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 394 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
As mentioned by someone upthread, Scotland's economy is far more dependent on the rUK than the UK's is on the EU. Two thirds of Scotland's trade is cross "border" to rUK.

That is certainly a worry (quite beside the point that Scottish exports leaving English ports are normally recorded as English exports, which may exaggerate the figure). On the other hand, trade can be rebalanced over time, and given Scotland's overdependence on one trading partner, that would maybe be a good project.

Meanwhile, how does the ROI fare? Would you, on the basis of economic argument, suggest that it should quit the EU and rejoint Brexit-UK?

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's ironic, but I don't think it's deliberate. It got dubbed Project Fear because that's what the Yes campaign in Scotland had coined for the No side in 2014.

Um no, it got dubbed Project Fear, because that's what some Better Together insiders were allegedly calling their organisation (according to leaks), and that was in 2013, think - certainly "Project Fear" was well established before the referendum.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1713 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's ironic, but I don't think it's deliberate. It got dubbed Project Fear because that's what the Yes campaign in Scotland had coined for the No side in 2014.

Um no, it got dubbed Project Fear, because that's what some Better Together insiders were allegedly calling their organisation (according to leaks), and that was in 2013, think - certainly "Project Fear" was well established before the referendum.
The first reference to "Project Fear" in the media, to my knowledge was in The Herald in June 2013, as you say a phrase being used within Better Together.

As an aside, note that that article is on the first anniversary of the start of the immediate pre-referendum discussion on independence, and still 18 months before the referendum itself. Which puts the few months we had before the EU referendum in perspective.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16979 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interestingly, the devolved administrations don't even need to be consulted (in an unanimous decision from the SC, although I've not yet read the full decision). Which goes to show how much I know - I thought the presentations before the SC by the lawyers for the devolved authorities (esp NI) were the strongest part of the whole thing.

Some are already saying this marks the death of devolution.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9708 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
On the other hand, trade can be rebalanced over time, and given Scotland's overdependence on one trading partner, that would maybe be a good project.

Yet another argument to add to the list of ones that are apparently OK to use of Scotland leaving the UK, but that magically become ridiculous when used of the UK leaving the EU.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29795 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.

Not really. There's very little likelihood of Parliament blocking it.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29795 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which does rather make one wonder why the Govt didn't have the good sense to play safe and do this by Act of Parliament in the first place, thereby saving face, time, and a great deal of taxpayers' money. They'd have had Art 50 by now and a lot of lawyers wouldn't have lined their pockets with your money and mine.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6421 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have found a very interesting section of the judgement, the conclusion in para 152 (discussed in previous paras) appears to suggest that as the Sewel Convention isn't law, the courts can disregard it - meh, it's just a convention.

Again, of course, IANAL. But this seems to me to be a bit of a problem for the Scottish, Welsh and NI devolved authorities.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9708 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
On the other hand, trade can be rebalanced over time, and given Scotland's overdependence on one trading partner, that would maybe be a good project.

Yet another argument to add to the list of ones that are apparently OK to use of Scotland leaving the UK, but that magically become ridiculous when used of the UK leaving the EU.
It was, of course, a different scenario in 2014. If the Scottish government could achieve what they wanted (independent Scotland within the EU) then Scotland would be trading with the rest of the UK, both as EU members. Clearly if/when there is another Scottish independence campaign then the rest of the UK having left the EU will result in a different equation - regardless of whether Scotland can regain EU membership.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.

But from that summary, I'm still inclined to agree with Lord Reed.

Having said that, the patches of the full judgement I've seen do already strike me as better than the decision of the lower court, as they do a better job of addressing the fact that the current situation depends not just on Parliament's Act but on treaties.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the devolved governments have no real power it seems. It seems very odd to me that you would devolve power until it comes to something like this and then say, 'Oh no, you don't get to vote on this'. It's a golden egg to Nicola. I see an independent Scotland looming large on the horizon.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5159 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.

Not really. There's very little likelihood of Parliament blocking it.
If Parliament actually blocks triggering Article 50 then it would be an incredible surprise. Labour have decided to roll over and not be the Opposition. I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.

But, there may be the chance for Parliament to force May to change her bottom line. Parliament could (for example) insist on free trade even if that means no additional controls on immigration rather than the governments apparent position of controls on immigration even if that means trade tarrifs. The SNP & LibDems would certainly push for that sort of amendment, and would have the support of many from both Conservative and Labour benches ... enough to force it through? Probably not.

But, debates in the House where the consequences of a hard Brexit, the economic double whammy of trade tariffs and restricted immigration, are clearly spelt out might make enough people to sit up and take notice of the fact that this government seems to be determined to push through an immigration policy based entirely on simple racism at any cost, which I can't believe would sit comfortably with the vast majority of the UK electorate. Hopefully mobilising mass support from the UK electorate might push enough MPs to act decently and give fascism a good kicking.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31928 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.

I haven't read it yet but I believe it is here (pdf) or here (html).

--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray

Posts: 1887 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Demas.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, well, having read most of the decisions (I left out the parts about devolution)...

The majority judgement is indeed far more persuasive than in the lower court. There is one bit, though, that still disturbs me a lot. And it's this from paragraph 82:

quote:
It is nothing to the point that there was, for UK purposes, no content in the specified category until the 1972 Accession Treaty was ratified (on the day after the 1972 Act received the royal assent).
I think it's very much to the point.

I've only quoted that particular sentence, but surrounding it is an apt analogy about Parliament having created a "pipe" and saying that whatever EU rules flow through the pipe become part of the UK law.

All well and good. I've no problem with that.

The problem I have is the unexamined assumption that building a pipe causes water to flow through it.

Because the point of the thing they say is not to the point is that when the pipe was first built, there WASN'T any water flowing through it. The tap, to continue the analogy, was turned on months later.

A rule that says "we control the pipe" just isn't sufficient. It doesn't ensure water at the bottom end of the pipe. Water appearing at the bottom of the pipe is contingent upon water entering the top of the pipe.

Lord Reed goes into this largely in paragraphs 192 to 197. He doesn't use the pipe analogy that the majority uses, but effectively he says that the tap wasn't turned on when the pipe was built, and there was no actual guarantee that the tap was going to be turned on. Nor is there a guarantee that the tap won't be turned off.

To quote from paragraph 197 (emphasis of one sentence mine):

quote:
The contingency is that the rights, powers and so forth are “such ... as in accordance with the Treaties are without further legal enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom”. It follows from that contingency that the effect given to EU law in our domestic law is conditional on the Treaties’ application to the UK. That condition was not satisfied when the Act came into force, because the Treaties did not then apply to the UK. The content of the specified category was therefore zero. The satisfaction of the condition, some months later, depended on the decision of a UK entity: it depended on the Crown’s exercise of prerogative powers. The content would return to zero if the condition ceased to be satisfied as the result of the UK’s invoking article 50. That would be so whether the decision to invoke article 50 had, or had not, been authorised by an Act of Parliament.
Lord Hughes (paragraphs 275-283) makes the same point in somewhat simpler language, as he's basically just showing that he agrees with Lord Reed. One crucial sentence dealing with the notion that only Parliament can change the 1972 Act:

quote:
The Act is not changed; it does, however, cease to operate because there are no longer any treaty rules for it to bite upon.
For my part, I'm very familiar with situations where a law exists but in practice has no work to do. I'm actually drafting such a law right now. It will in practice do precisely nothing when it commences. It will do something meaningful once other events happen, but if those actions are undone, it will go back to being practically useless again. All without Parliament touching it.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I might also add one other thing...

The case does a good job of illustrating the significant problems that are caused by any system that says "laws made in one jurisdiction automatically become laws in a different jurisdiction".

I have to deal with such a system, and sometimes it's horrendous to figure out the outcomes. There's a superficial attraction to setting up something like this and thinking that it saves work - the UK Parliament doesn't have to sign off on anything coming from Europe, it just gets automatically converted from being an EU thing into being a UK thing.

But problems arise because those EU things weren't written specifically for, and tailored to, the UK. You end up trying to work out how to fit the EU stuff into the existing UK framework, and there's no guarantee this will actually work smoothly. You're liable to end up with situations where you have to translate the literal words of an EU provision into something that will actually make sense within the UK laws.

I would hope that the EU, having to constantly deal with the different legal arrangements of lots of countries, would draft its legislation to take this into account and so it would probably be smoother than the system I have to deal with where one jurisdiction is pretty much an add-on to another. Even so, it's never going to work as smoothly as a system where UK people write and make UK laws specifically for the UK, using UK terminology and referring to UK institutions.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.

What a way to go down that would be though. Much better than the quiet sputtering finish that they'll have otherwise.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour have decided to roll over and not be the Opposition.

I seem to remember Labour elected Corbyn to be leader on the grounds that he was going to be the Opposition and not roll over.

Apparently not.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10275 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan:
quote:
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.
If a majority of the Lords believe that triggering Article 50 is not in the national interest then it's their plain duty to reject it. It would be a great way to go.

Of course, that would leave May & Co. with no opposition at all - unless HM decided to trigger another constitutional crisis by refusing to sign the legislation...

<pauses to contemplate the spectacle of a Tory government abolishing the monarchy>

Nah.

Posts: 3837 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So the devolved governments have no real power it seems. It seems very odd to me that you would devolve power until it comes to something like this and then say, 'Oh no, you don't get to vote on this'. It's a golden egg to Nicola. I see an independent Scotland looming large on the horizon.

The whole point of devolution is that you give the area in question independent control over certain things, but not over everything. This is one of the things they don't have independent control over.

As for not being able to vote on it: the Scottish people had as much of a vote as anyone else in the UK during the referendum, and 59 of the 650 MPs who will now vote on Article 50 are from Scottish constituencies - most of them being SNP members.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29795 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even so, it's never going to work as smoothly as a system where UK people write and make UK laws specifically for the UK, using UK terminology and referring to UK institutions.

Yep, they can now proceed to strip the NHS much more efficiently. Can use the Snooper's Charter to erode personal freedoms with much more ease...

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16541 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.

One imagines that Mrs. May would reach for the Parliament Act under such circumstances.
Posts: 4679 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must be missing something and hopefully someone can point it out to me. Labour MP's are not allowed to vote against the triggering of article 50, but even if they voted against it as a block they still wouldn't amount to enough to stop it; so the question seems to be why? Why not let Labour MP's vote in their own conscience? This is quite apart from the fact that they are meant to be an opposition party but this is the first time I think I've ever seen an opposition party amount to a puppy that rolls over to have its belly scratched every time it has the opportunity to be an actual opposition.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5159 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  46  47  48 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools