• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Parklaner81 said:
With respect, I'm not the one trying to pin the movements of complex international markets on a single issue to suit my agenda - I'm arguing against that. Nor am I the one presenting misleading, cherry-picked data. That's you. And unless I'm very much mistaken, you have form in this thread for doing likewise on other topics.

So I think it's pretty clear you've got the bolded bit back to front.
Click to expand...

Ok lets run with your version of events...the pound dropped off because of what factors? If it wasn't Brexit what was it???

Investment into manufacturing also fell off a cliff post vote. It was just cooincidence that happened post vote? Another funny aberration?

Meanwhile the UK goes from the one of the faster growing developed economies to the slowest. What caused this? It happened around the time of Brexit. But if it was not Brexit, what was it that caused it?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Ok lets run with your version of events...the pound dropped off because of what factors? If it wasn't Brexit what was it???

Investment into manufacturing also fell off a cliff post vote. It was just cooincidence that happened post vote? Another funny aberration?

Meanwhile the UK goes from the one of the faster growing developed economies to the slowest. What caused this? It happened around the time of Brexit. But if it was not Brexit, what was it that caused it?
Click to expand...

If you look at the ten year data it's perfectly reasonable to question whether 2015 wasn't actually the outlier. If that were the case, what the pound has done is simply revert to something approximating it's previous level. And if you'd taken any notice of my previous posts you'd have seen that I've already offered one possible explanation for euro weakness at that time.
 
Parklaner81 said:
If you look at the ten year data it's perfectly reasonable to question whether 2015 wasn't actually the outlier. If that were the case, what the pound has done is simply revert to something approximating it's previous level. And if you'd taken any notice of my previous posts you'd have seen that I've already offered one possible explanation for euro weakness at that time.
Click to expand...

So the only reason for these quite dramatic economic changes, when all else (apart from the vote result) was stable, is the pound was just reverting to where it shoud be. It's reversion wasn't caused by anything you can identify. Right.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's a dangerous precedent the courts becoming politicised. The whole basis of our constitution is the separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary.
Click to expand...
All parties agreed that the the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. Boris misled the Queen and was dishonest about his reasons for prerogation. Whatever your views on Leave or Remain, it is a far more dangerous precedent to allow a sitting PM to act unconstitutionally. It's how dictatorships are made.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
So the only reason for these quite dramatic economic changes, when all else (apart from the vote result) was stable, is the pound was just reverting to where it shoud be. It's reversion wasn't caused by anything you can identify. Right.
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? It seems not, so I'll repeat again that I've already put forward one possible explanation for euro weakness in 2015. The point though, is that there's more going on than Brexit. I'm sorry that this clashes with your preconceived ideas.
 
Last edited:
Robspur12 said:
All parties agreed that the the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. Boris misled the Queen and was dishonest about his reasons for prerogation. Whatever your views on Leave or Remain, it is a far more dangerous precedent to allow a sitting PM to act unconstitutionally. It's how dictatorships are made.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to understand the separation of powers. The very fact that the Supreme Court made this ruling is actually proof of the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is a check and serves democracy by disallowing illegal legislation. The fact that a bill is passed by parliament or any other decision does not in itself make it legal.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
He doesn't seem to understand the separation of powers. The very fact that the Supreme Court made this ruling is actually proof of the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is a check and serves democracy by disallowing illegal legislation. The fact that a bill is passed by parliament or any other decision does not in itself make it legal.
Click to expand...
Can't say I am an expert but I don't think the Supreme court can overturn legislation made by Parliament no matter how bad it is. They can only determine if Parliament has acted in accordance with the constitution.
 
Robspur12 said:
Can't say I am an expert but I don't think the Supreme court can overturn legislation made by Parliament no matter how bad it is. They can only determine if Parliament has acted in accordance with the constitution.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The judiciarys role is to assess cases against the law. If say a law was passed by parliament for the killing of every first born, the role of the judiciary would be to judge those who don't comply; not to have any say about the law itself

By becoming a political force this week, the judiciary has massively damaged its long-term position. We will need explicitly political appointments to it now the idea of neutrality has been shattered - like happens in America with the president installing sympathisers
 
Robspur12 said:
Can't say I am an expert but I don't think the Supreme court can overturn legislation made by Parliament no matter how bad it is. They can only determine if Parliament has acted in accordance with the constitution.
Click to expand...
There's also no such thing as a British constitution. We only have convention and consensus
 
Gutter Boy said:
Absolutely. The judiciarys role is to assess cases against the law. If say a law was passed by parliament for the killing of every first born, the role of the judiciary would be to judge those who don't comply; not to have any say about the law itself

By becoming a political force this week, the judiciary has massively damaged its long-term position. We will need explicitly political appointments to it now the idea of neutrality has been shattered - like happens in America with the president installing sympathisers
Click to expand...
This rhetoric is dangerous and wrong, just like Johnson's rhetoric tonight. If you think that 11 supreme court judges have decided to rule this case with a political lean then you are deluded. The supreme court has intervened before when it was warranted as outlined in Pannick's examples. Boris was naughty, he was called out on it. The UK is not the USA (at least not yet).
 
The question is, while this kind of approach works for Trump, will it work for Boris? I'm not so sure the UK will take to it. Trump, for all his foibles, has honned his popularist zeal over decades. I'm not sure Boris can switch it on, and get the UK to run with him. Interested to see what Leavers think on here.
 
SpurMeUp said:
The question is, while this kind of approach works for Trump, will it work for Boris? I'm not so sure the UK will take to it. Trump, for all his foibles, has honned his popularist zeal over decades. I'm not sure Boris can switch it on, and get the UK to run with him. Interested to see what Leavers think on here.
Click to expand...
It only needs to work for the next 6 weeks. Win the battle against the remainer parliament, and he will be able to live off that popular goodwill for years. I imagine the London mayor version of Johnson will return once this particular exceptional confrontation is over

Although he'll probably still get dumped in a post brexit election, like Churchill in 1945
 
Rorschach said:
This rhetoric is dangerous and wrong, just like Johnson's rhetoric tonight. If you think that 11 supreme court judges have decided to rule this case with a political lean then you are deluded. The supreme court has intervened before when it was warranted as outlined in Pannick's examples. Boris was naughty, he was called out on it. The UK is not the USA (at least not yet).
Click to expand...
There wasn't merit in their judgement. They assessed motives against convention, not fact against law. It was political to make any ruling - it was outside the scope of their function
 
Rorschach said:
This rhetoric is dangerous and wrong, just like Johnson's rhetoric tonight. If you think that 11 supreme court judges have decided to rule this case with a political lean then you are deluded. The supreme court has intervened before when it was warranted as outlined in Pannick's examples. Boris was naughty, he was called out on it. The UK is not the USA (at least not yet).
Click to expand...
The SC intervention wasn't required, that's the whole problem here.

For centuries, if the PM has acted against the will of parliament then Parliament simply loses confidence, votes in such a way and elects a new PM. If they can't, the people do for them. This situation should have been resolved in the normal manner, but can't because parliament is trying to act against the will of the people.

Taking the equation from Parliament Vs People to Parliament + SC Vs People does nothing to improve the democratic nature of it.

Incidentally, I had lunch in the restaurant where the French Revolution is said to have been formulated yesterday. It's a shame we're all less willing to fight for our democracy than we were because the remainder MPs and their lawyers have just run off with our democracy and I don't see us getting it back.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
The SC intervention wasn't required, that's the whole problem here.

For centuries, if the PM has acted against the will of parliament then Parliament simply loses confidence, votes in such a way and elects a new PM. If they can't, the people do for them. This situation should have been resolved in the normal manner, but can't because parliament is trying to act against the will of the people.

Taking the equation from Parliament Vs People to Parliament + SC Vs People does nothing to improve the democratic nature of it.

Incidentally, I had lunch in the restaurant where the French Revolution is said to have been plotted yesterday. It's a shame we're all less willing to fight for our democracy than we were because the remainder MPs and their lawyers have just run off with our democracy and I don't see us getting it back.
Click to expand...
It is unprecedented though for a PM to work to force a no confidence vote! I have never known a government to have no confidence in itself. As for the will of the people? That would have been served by voting for May's deal. Something which several of those ministers sitting next to Boris voted against. This isn't about securing the will of the people. This is about the Tories securing a majority for their brexit. For once a largely spineless parliament developed some courage and actually stood up for the people.
 
Last edited:
Listening to Radio 5 this morning and seems alot is being made of the wording being used in the HOCs and linking it all to the Jo Cox stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back