Are you and "in" or an "out"?

1394042444553

Comments

  • TheDan wrote (see)
    I think the tabloids are missing the point, this is less about changing the outcome, and more making sure the decision isn't overly screwed to a single viewpoint

    Deliberately missing the point to wind their readership up perhaps?

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    I fuckin hate The Mail

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    From what I can deduce from news sources genuine/dubious and just there to fuck with us, parliament gave permission for the referendum to proceed.

    I assume that meant that the same parliament accepted that whatever the result was, it stood.

    Apparently not.

    Some losers decided to bring in some inbred entitled guys wearing fancy dress and they (all three of them) decided that the same parliament now had the right to disagree with what they had already agreed to... allegedly I imagine.

    It's a bit like always following the rules until it becomes convenient to break them.

    Democracy my arse.

    Might is right!

     

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    You sound like that prick Farage. The referendum was advisory. So now the parliament of our representative democracy should debate and pass whether and what type of Brexit we are going for. It isn't just up to our unelected PM to decide.

  • Ric, your knowledge of politics really is scant isn't it? I mean you voted to leave on some vague, ill-informed crap about Turkey joining the EU didn't you? Not that you have to be an expert on politics to realise how stuff works in the real world.

    The fact that parliament agreed to a referendum doesn't mean it agreed to have no part in what happened afterwards. Do you think that if the Lib Dems had won the referendum on AV all the other parties would have said. "Ah well, fair play to you, off you go and get on with it."

    Of course not. Parliament would have had to debate all the details about how it was going to work.

    Some losers decided to bring in some inbred entitled guys wearing fancy dress and they (all three of them) decided that the same parliament now had the right to disagree with what they had already agreed to... allegedly I imagine.

    And this is nothing more than ignorant parroting of Daily Mail bullshit. These guys are there to uphold the law of the land not to take sides. FFS, why don't you actually ENGAGE, try a bit of critical reasoning and and learn to think for yourself? Why don't you start, for instance, by reading the details of the ruling that explains why they found against the government?

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)
    TheDan wrote (see)

    yes, damn the sovereignty of parliament to make decisions based on the authority of the elected body over a party leader!

    Yes, how dare they!

    Personally I don't see how any leave voter who isn't actually a racist/bigot/xenophobe can have anything to complain about. It means that the government have to come up with a Brexit strategy that's half way acceptable to all those voters and politicians who didn't want it as well as those who did, otherwise the repercussions will go on for decades.

     

    If everybody gets some of what they wanted and some of what they didn't it could be the best outcome. 

     

    You don't need to be a racist, bigot or xenophobe to have decided to vote leave, that is a massive sweeping statement and simply says you are regurgitating the Guardian! (you quote Ric as a DM recycler)

    Why can't a leave voter be disappointed with the ruling? I agree the law has to be upheld as does democracy, but our parliament voted to leave the decision to the public and they did.

    The main disappointment I have with the ruling, which does uphold the law, is that nowhere did I read the judges saying "The Government doesn't have the necessary powers under current legislation". This would have been more acceptable to many, irrespective of their own vote form the 23rd June. What was the point of having simple leave or remain votes, we should have been given 27 options instead on our ballot papers.

     

  •  

    You don't need to be a racist, bigot or xenophobe to have decided to vote leave,

    Anybody that isn't any of the above should be actively welcoming the fact that it's going to be properly debated by all MPs (to the good of both sides) rather than imposed by the government according to its own ideals. Parliament has to vote on any government policy so why should a fundamental change like this be exempt from scrutiny? And I have not heard a single MP say they will block Brexit. 

    The right wing press is, however, all those things. Actively and openly. None of it is an accident, it is deliberate policy to appeal to emotion rather than reason to stir up hatred and subvert democracy, even it f it means openly lying. I suggest that should concern you more. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • MsEMsE ✭✭✭

    Exactly, Screamapillar.  Populist politics aside, the EU referendum and subsequent Miler high court case illustrate just how ill-informed the media and a large part of the general population are on the relevant legal and political matters. It should be every citizen's objective to understand the representative democracy we live in and to know how it operates.  To question what is out there.  It can only be a good thing that the executive should be accountable to the legislature, that Parliament is sovereign and that we have an independent judiciary (which is more than can be said of the US).  If you take the time to read the case, it should give us all cause for concern that the government's arguments were "flawed... at a basic level" and "divorced from reality".  I think a general election beckons...

     

  • Oh and BTW, all those "other reasons" for voting to leave - still waiting to hear what they are.

    If it's the one about "sovereignty" we had it all along. 

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    At least it has given something for Farage to do. Maybe he could bring it up with the EU court of justice.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Screma and Westy.

    I'm fully aware my comments are rhetorical lazy fare.

    They are generally based on the nonsense that the masses are fed each day.

    Fortunately I'm fully aware of how the world really works, rather than bleat about how it should work.

    That affords me the luxury of idle guff.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Why not try less idle guff and a bit more genuine engagement?

    Lazy worse than stupid, it has less excuse.

  • JT141JT141 ✭✭✭
    It's a complicated one with this legal adjudication. Parliament are going to have to debate and come to agreement on an approach - a concensus on priorities I guess. Not an agreement on a deal because negotiations can't start until article 50 is triggered. Whatever is debated may bear no resemblance to the final outcome.

    For pro-leavers it's not such a terrible thing. If the aim is to stop freedom of movement then debate and vote could put that at the top of the agenda, making it more difficult for government to fudge the issue if unfettered by guiding principles. Concensus in parliament will be hard to achieve though. I imagine the primary interest will be maintaining access to the single market in some form. That's really what all the tough negotiations with the EU are going to be about. If we give up on that ( I assume that's what "hard brexit" amounts to) it actually makes things much more straightforward.

    PM May is in India at the moment sounding out a trade deal. India wants a relaxation of immigration regulations to the UK in return. I'm sure when all those people voted Brexit this is exactly what they had in mind.
  • "The main disappointment I have with the ruling, which does uphold the law, is that nowhere did I read the judges saying "The Government doesn't have the necessary powers under current legislation"."

    This is what the Judgment says, though.  It says that by enacting the ECA 1972: "...Parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and that this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the Crown in exercise of its prerogative powers" i.e. the government does not have the necessary powers under the currently applicable legislation, which is the 1972 Act and its successors.  See paragraphs 92-94 of the judgment, if interested.

    The government did not argue that the 2015 Referendum Act gave them the power to trigger Article 50 without going back to Parliament (see para 105 of the Judgment if interested), recognising that such an argument would be clearly wrong.  (For example, because the 2015 Act was expressly promoted in Parliament as being advisory only.)

    As the editor of the Daily Mail knows, if he is remotely competent, all the court was doing was applying the constitutional law of this country, as it has to.  How can it do anything else?  If it didn't, we wouldn't have the rule of law and could kiss goodbye to any pretence of being a democracy.  We are particularly vulnerable in this country to a government acting in an undemocratic way, we don't have a written constitution, we have legislative techniques that allow the government to make law without Parliamentary scrutiny and approval in many ways (Henry VIII clauses, delegated legislation etc), and an electoral system which gives an effective dictatorship to a party which will probably have won under 40% of the votes cast.  

    We need courts that can hold the government to account for acting beyond their powers. 

    The DM was breathtakingly, disgracefully irresponsible in ignoring that to get a rise out of its readership. The government was disgracefully irresponsible in its limited response to the press reaction.  Zero moral integrity.

     

     

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    From my position of ignorance, I feel the Government could have done itself a favour by explaining that much as it would like to just press the 'send' button to invoke Article 50. There were constitutional protocols which had to be addressed first.

    The Government must have been aware of these issues. 

    I'm all for straight forward efficiency to get things done. But only within the framework of laws and rules as they stand.

     

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    Apparently we have a Brexit black hole of £122bn. Woohoo!

    At least we've taken back control.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    /members/images/493151/Gallery/uk-national-debt-600x424.png

     History lesson time.

     

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    Couple of big wars in there.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    As Spike Milligan summed up. (WW's)

    We must have all been fucking mad!

    Actually that's the point of modern communications and attitudes.

    Once, it was assumed that a war was a given. A bit like the football world cup; or at a smaller scale, Strictly Come Dancing.

    Bloody hell. It only took one set of tossers to make a massive 'beat all' weapon, and they were itching to try it out.

    Now we get all het up about nasty twitter remarks and dislikes on facebook.

    Are you (me) going to go on the offensive on the behest of some nut. Of course not.

    We'll just say go fuck yourself. You want it, do it yourself.

    Anyway, modern wars are fought by accountants. They cost too much. The bombs cost millions. Even the torpedoes are on bits of wire so they can retrieved (a secondary benefit) if they don't go off.

    Wars need participants. Not if the masses don't fancy it.

  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭

    More and more I find the words of Terry Pratchett scarily prophetic:

    “Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.”
  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    You're right there Nessie.

    Watched a program yesterday which was about how Soviet scientists had put together some automatically triggered nuclear Armageddon, which if activated, would have destroyed planet earth.

    Khrushchev put the blocks on that one, realising it wasn't the military or politicians we had to fear, but the scientists.

    Those are the twats who would push 'the button' just out of curiosity.

  • JT141JT141 ✭✭✭
    Yesterday I saw a woman breastfeeding in John Lewis cafeteria. And I was eating quiche. This is all actually true. Bloody modern Britain.
  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I think the comedian (debatable) Steve Martin confronted a women breastfeeding in a restaurant he was frequenting.

    She stood her ground proclaiming "There can't be anything wrong, since what she's doing was natural".

    His retort was, "Well so's masturbation. Lets see what happens if I do that in here".

  • The Iconoclast wrote (see)
    /members/images/493151/Gallery/uk-national-debt-600x424.png

     History lesson time.

     

    What's the lesson there?

    I see a chart showing declining debt during peace time between the years 1903 and 1992. Also between the years 1996 and 2002.

    Reasonable to conclude that national debt was increasing in the years of WW1 and WW2 directly because of the wars.

    This leaves the periods of interest for anyone concerned about national debt to be 1992 to 1996 and 2002 to 2014. Is there one or two major factors involved in increasing national debt or many loosely related factors during these periods?

    What is the current trend from 2014?

    What caused the decline in debt between 1996 and 2002?

  • Can anyone seriously be upset by breast-feeding in public?  Unless you have a strange quasi-Victorian hang-up that breasts are rude and naughty and shouldn't be seen, except in their proper context on page 3.  Even in Saudi they don't have a problem with women breast-feeding in public. (I appreciate the comment from JT was t.i.c. but the Steve Martin reaction is absurd.)

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    What caused the decline in debt between 1996 and 2002?

    Could be a time when people thought it was safe to spend all the spare money they had on consumables. After all, everyone else was doing so and the new government was wonderful.

    After that, to keep the show on the road, they had to borrow money.

    The government of course were more than happy to create the conditions for such a party.

    Really the core problem is the fact that people don't save money. They spend it. All.

    When the banks de-regulated (the big bang) it meant they could pretty well lend out what they liked to whoever wanted it.

    Give everyone £1000 and 24 hours later, that money will be in the hands of 10% of the population. One year later, that money will have filtered up into the 1%.

    Just keep lending money out for nearly 30 years under those circumstances and you get to today.

    Brexit in or out. No difference.

    As Westy says. 'We're 'f' ed! (well 99% are)

     

  • I suppose the  truth of the 1% data is key.

    Although saying that people don't save (or invest?) indicates a choice to be part of or expand the 1% does it not? If we spend everything and get into debt on top there can be little to complain about.

    interesting expansion to  your chart:

    http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/ukgs_chartDp14t.png

     

    I'd like to see an overlay on a second axis of the  change in GDP over the same period to  give the chart context.

    However looking at the picture in isolation does indicate the risk that we are at the commencement of an extended period of increasing debt.

    People should heed the warnings if they care.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

     If we spend everything and get into debt on top there can be little to complain about.

    In the case of those who have earned above average wages for two or three decades, certainly not. Though I know someone like this, who is convinced life has sold him a pup.

    The fact he has progressively liquidated his house and assets for extra spending money. ("Well how else do you get what you want?") doesn't strike him as an aspect of behaviour he should suffer for, long term.

    His main complaint is that the state pension; which is still a decade of work away, isn't worth anything. "How am I supposed to live on that? I need that much each day!"

    To say he has a sense of entitlement is putting things lightly.

    For those on low wages and always were 'low wages', they have had to suffer the price increases brought about by the billions of extra borrowed £'s sloshing around in the economy.

    The predictions of debt were made at least 25 years ago. But really. People tend to live day to day, a dab of denial and a belief they can cross that bridge when they come to it.

    Seems someone forgot to mention that at the moment the bridge needs to be crossed, it no longer exists.

    I'll do a bit more study of the data.

    The speed of modern communications has to be a factor not in place 30 years back.

    Then, when there was a run on the stock market, it crashed. Now if there's the chance of a run, the computers step in and shut the whole thing down.

    Everyone catches their breath, and after a short while, realises no one has to do anything to spoil their day.

    Hence Trump and Brexit - stock markets - up.

    Mind you. The increase in stock market values knocked a few funds down a notch or two.

    That's the side effect of the managers selling 'short' to make gains. The stock has to fall in value for them to profit.

     

     

     

  • Here's your government debt and public debt 

    http://www.mmcgrath.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/economic-graph.jpg

     strikes me how flat the government debt has been in the last 100 years

    I wonder what the definition of public debt is.

    And the line that goes up and down is this actual GDP ever rising except for a significant blip in 2007

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/pngrealgdp_tcm77-325235.png

    and a fascinating one is defense spending by the government as percentage of GDP:

    http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ourworldindata_uk-defence-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp.png

     

     

     

     

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I'll come back when I've studied this. 

    Thanks LS.

Sign In or Register to comment.