General Brexit discussion thread

[patman post]

England before 1975 must have been a wonderful place: streets paved with gold, full employment, wonderful housing and all that. And now we're promised the same — we will be brought up out of the affliction of the EU unto the land of the Johnsonites and the Faragists and the Rees-Moggorites and the Hannanites and the Hivites and the Goveshites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey...

[BeElBeeBub]

I was replying to Mr Churchill, who said "as for Brexit no person with any common sense would have thought it was going to be easy..." by pointing out that is exactly what people were told and many believed it.



I made my own mind up. As I have pointed out before, I started mildly Leave before the ref.  Many of the arguments made sense.  What changed was the £350m line (to be fair the cracks were showing before then).  It seemed odd.  Whilst a big number I was curious as to how much of gov expenditure it represented, so I looked.  When I found out it was a tiny % my interest was piqued.  The more i dug, the more I found Leave's claims were lies.



The "unelected commission" and "pointless Parliament" arguments were tough ones as they seemed very powerful.  I too I dug into how it worked and the reasons behind the structures, not to mention I found out how much power the UK really did wield in the EU.



The "sovereignty" argument is BS. Leaver's are chasing the illusion of sovereignty over the substance.  What matters is a country's ability to project it's influence.



Question: Texas has a GDP similar to Canada but a smaller pop and size.



Texas is a major state in the US, it is influential politically, socially and economically. Second only to California really (though New York has maybe more cultural influence).



Does Canada have more influence on the world stage than Texas?



Would Texas do better as an independent country, free to make it's own trade deals, outside the US internal market and Customs union?



Would it's citizens be better off losing their freedom of movement across the entire US just so they could stop Iowans, New Yorkers and Floridians being able to move to Texas?

[Stevlin]

except that is *exactly* what people were told.



"The easiest trade deal in history"

"They need us more than we need them"

"We will hold all the cards"



And as for





The reasons for brexit were mostly untrue.



"Turkey will join"

"We can't control our borders"

"We have no say"

"EU army"







If iwe don't leave because another referendum, now we know the actual terms of brexit (as opposed to a generalised fantasy version of it), how is that undemocratic?



Is having another election, when the electorate decided in 2017 on the make up of parliament for the next 5 years, undemocratic?



Even arch brexiter and invisible man impersonator Jacob Rees Mogg thought two referendums, with the second one on the terms negotiated was the correct way to do it.

Still peddling your usual Brexit garbage I see.....the referendum was a simple issue - Leave or Remain in the EU. Both Remain and Leave advocates. just like yourself, spouted all sorts of clap trap...yes, BOTH sides did....but most people aren't as daft as many Remainers! They can make their own minds up - and regaining a country's sovereignty is hardly a situation to be afraid of is it? As I keep pointing out, the state of 'NORMALITY' is not a situation to be afraid of it it?? After all, the ABNORMAL situation is joining an undemocratic political entity in an endeavour to promote economic growth......

But maybe you could quote the last UK trade that was agreed AFTER consultation with  the electorate on whether or not it was acceptable??

[BeElBeeBub]

We will have to agree to disagree , as for Brexit no person with any common sense would have thought it was going to be easy...

except that is *exactly* what people were told.



"The easiest trade deal in history"

"They need us more than we need them"

"We will hold all the cards"



And as for

...it just need doing

The reasons for brexit were mostly untrue.



"Turkey will join"

"We can't control our borders"

"We have no say"

"EU army"

if it does not happen goodbye Democracy why bother ever voting again

If iwe don't leave because another referendum, now we know the actual terms of brexit (as opposed to a generalised fantasy version of it), how is that undemocratic?



Is having another election, when the electorate decided in 2017 on the make up of parliament for the next 5 years, undemocratic?



Even arch brexiter and invisible man impersonator Jacob Rees Mogg thought two referendums, with the second one on the terms negotiated was the correct way to do it.

[Churchill]

We will have to agree to disagree , as for Brexit no person with any common sense would have thought it was going to be easy it just need doing, if it does not happen goodbye Democracy why bother ever voting again

[BeElBeeBub]

I speak plainly because I am originally from the North its a cultural thing that some further South may find difficult to understand , the fact I voted to leave came much later in my life I waited decades for the Referendum to come to fruition, when we got it our vote was dismissed



You are right I and many others do not understand the Constitution as we don't have a written one.

The UK constitution *is* written down (mostly).



It is not written down in a single place (like the US Constitution) - which can make it hard to follow.



The Wikipedia article sums it up quite well.

An uncodified constitution is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules often take the form of customs, usage, precedent and a variety of statutes and legal instruments. An understanding of the constitution is obtained through reading commentary by the judiciary, government committees or legal experts. In such a constitutional system, all these elements may be (or may not be) recognized by courts, legislators and the bureaucracy as binding upon government and limiting its powers. Such a framework is sometimes imprecisely called an "unwritten constitution"; however, all the elements of an uncodified constitution are typically written down in a variety of official documents, though not codified in a single document.

This makes it much more confusing to follow as it tends to end up like some sort of top trumps with various parties arguing that procedure X is invalid or valid due to precedent Y.



On the other hand a written constitution doesn't seem to help much either. Over 200 years on and the Americans are still wrangling over exactly what "the right to bear arms" is.



In fact you end up with even greater power in the hands of (unelected) judges. Constitutional matters can only be decided by the judges as the politicans have very limited powers to alter the constitution.  So you end up.with matters like abortion, gun control etc, being decided by the supreme court.



To get to the matter in hand, you appear to be getting confused between the executive (PM, ministers etc) and Parliament (MPs and Lords).  It's extremely common for this confusion as out PM etc are all MPs and Lords.



However they are distinct entities.  For example, we currently have no parliament.  We have no MPs. Every seat is now vacant. No legislation can be passed.



On the other hand we still have an executive. Johnson is no longer the MP for Uxbridge but he is still the PM.



The courts have no jurisdiction over parliamentry business. For example an MP cannot be taken to court for anything they say in parliament. Which is sometime used to break injunctions which would land you or I in court.

My opinions on Labour are from past experiences of them since the 60's when I started work and came up against Labour Shop Stewards and the closed shop, they have failed the country every time in office, under Corbyn and his extreme far left Comrades even I can see what will inevitably will happen

you are pushing against an open door when it comes to Corbyn and me.  On this matter we are, if not in agreement, at least facing the same way.



My point is that the statments that Labour's policies will have various negative impacts relies on economic linkages (eg if you bump up corp tax companies may not want to invest in the UK etc).



I'm not arguing that these are wrong.



What I am curious about is the number of people who are very happy to use these linkages (if you tax too much it will slow the economy, if you borrow to much it will crash the economy etc) regarding Labour, but absolutely refuse to believe that any similar inferences or predictions can be made regarding Brexit.



In fact the IFS study that shows debt to GDP rising under labours plans shows it going up by *more* under the conservatives  "hard brexit" plans.  



If you use the former to poke at Labour why can you ignore the latter?

[Churchill]

If you genuinely think judges ruling on whether the executive has broken the law is the same as abolishing Parliament then you don't understand the constitution enough to comment on it.



Sorry to be blunt but I know "straight talking" and "telling it like it is" are often valued in Leave circles.

The PM was found to have acted "unlawfully" with respect to his advice to the queen to prorouge Parliament.



He did threaten (or at least promise the public) that he would break the law by not requesting an extension as per the Benn act.



As it turned out this was (as predicted) more of his trademark bluster as he did eventually comply with the law.







Again, how can you make these economic predictions?

I speak plainly because I am originally from the North its a cultural thing that some further South may find difficult to understand , the fact I voted to leave came much later in my life I waited decades for the Referendum to come to fruition, when we got it our vote was dismissed



You are right I and many others do not understand the Constitution as we don't have a written one.



My opinions on Labour are from past experiences of them since the 60's when I started work and came up against Labour Shop Stewards and the closed shop, they have failed the country every time in office, under Corbyn and his extreme far left Comrades even I can see what will inevitably will happen

[BeElBeeBub]

Why not go the whole hog and abolish the Commons completely and their quality control the unelected Lords, and appoint a panel of Judges  to run the UK who like the Lords are not elected by the people, Judges are appointed by the Judiciary themselves.

If you genuinely think judges ruling on whether the executive has broken the law is the same as abolishing Parliament then you don't understand the constitution enough to comment on it.



Sorry to be blunt but I know "straight talking" and "telling it like it is" are often valued in Leave circles.

As far as I am aware Boris did not break any Law, perhaps now Parliament should introduce a written Constitution.

The PM was found to have acted "unlawfully" with respect to his advice to the queen to prorouge Parliament.



He did threaten (or at least promise the public) that he would break the law by not requesting an extension as per the Benn act.



As it turned out this was (as predicted) more of his trademark bluster as he did eventually comply with the law.

Yes I dread Corbyn his supporters Marxists and Moment gaining power who will turn the clocks 40 years, the Unions would make a comeback return to the closed shop, industrial unrest , Labour introduced hundreds of new laws in 13 years some claim 3 thousand more than all previous Governments combined.



The PC Brigade will have a field day, we would be bankrupt within a year at most if they win with a sizeable majority and up to our eyes in debt.

Again, how can you make these economic predictions?

[Churchill]

The "government" (the executive in the form of PM and ministers) are taken to court all the time.  This is not new or controversial.  We really don't want to live in a country where the government cannot be taken to court.



There is a lot of fear on this board about a Corbyn and how Marxist he is.



Remember, if he (or anyone else) gets in power, you will be the ones relying on the courts to prevent him nationalising your business for 1p or taxing private pensions at 100% or whatever thing it is you fear.



A fundamental part of our constitution is that the government is not above the law.  



If the government thinks it should have the power to do a particular thing then it should try to pass legislation through Parliament and change the law not just ignore the law.



And yes, the judges weren't elected. Elected judges not a good thing.



Do you really want your judgement or sentence to be dependent, not on an impartial reading of the law, but on where we are in the election cycle or if your opponent happens to be a major donor to the judge's re-election campaign?

Why not go the whole hog and abolish the Commons completely and their quality control the unelected Lords, and appoint a panel of Judges  to run the UK who like the Lords are not elected by the people, Judges are appointed by the Judiciary themselves.



As far as I am aware Boris did not break any Law, perhaps now Parliament should introduce a written Constitution.



Yes I dread Corbyn his supporters Marxists and Moment gaining power who will turn the clocks 40 years, the Unions would make a comeback return to the closed shop, industrial unrest , Labour introduced hundreds of new laws in 13 years some claim 3 thousand more than all previous Governments combined.



The PC Brigade will have a field day, we would be bankrupt within a year at most if they win with a sizeable majority and up to our eyes in debt.

[BeElBeeBub]

I still think it was a step onto a slippery slope that in the future we may well see more Court hearings against the Government by disgruntled MP's and wealthy people or organizations, after all its Parliament that makes all legislation that our Courts have to administer



We don't have a written constitution just customary ways that Parliament has worked for many years, Boris considered that he was able to do what he did, but was overruled by unelected by the people Judges, I fear this could happen again over the years.



We will have to agree to disagree

The "government" (the executive in the form of PM and ministers) are taken to court all the time.  This is not new or controversial.  We really don't want to live in a country where the government cannot be taken to court.



There is a lot of fear on this board about a Corbyn and how Marxist he is.



Remember, if he (or anyone else) gets in power, you will be the ones relying on the courts to prevent him nationalising your business for 1p or taxing private pensions at 100% or whatever thing it is you fear.



A fundamental part of our constitution is that the government is not above the law.  



If the government thinks it should have the power to do a particular thing then it should try to pass legislation through Parliament and change the law not just ignore the law.



And yes, the judges weren't elected. Elected judges not a good thing.



Do you really want your judgement or sentence to be dependent, not on an impartial reading of the law, but on where we are in the election cycle or if your opponent happens to be a major donor to the judge's re-election campaign?

[Churchill]

And parliament is still sovereign, the courts haven't changed the doctrine that Parliament is above the court's jurisdiction (as a side note it wasn't a criminal case either)



The executive on the other hand is not sovereign and very much under the jurisdiction of the courts.



The courts rules that the executive does not have *unlimited* powers to prorogue Parliament (thus preventing it from carrying out it's function).



This is entirely consistent with previous constitutional law.



The alternative would have been that the executive could prorogue Parliament for any reason and any length of time.



As the above was the unanimous judgement of the maximum panel of 11 supreme court judges, your (and my and everyone else's) humble opinion means diddly.



Subsequent events (a 2nd Queen's Speech after a much shorter prorogation and then the almost immediate abandonment of the QS with and election) rather proved the point that the original reason given was a sham.

I still think it was a step onto a slippery slope that in the future we may well see more Court hearings against the Government by disgruntled MP's and wealthy people or organizations, after all its Parliament that makes all legislation that our Courts have to administer



We don't have a written constitution just customary ways that Parliament has worked for many years, Boris considered that he was able to do what he did, but was overruled by unelected by the people Judges, I fear this could happen again over the years.



We will have to agree to disagree

[BeElBeeBub]

Parliament is Sovereign or was, not a Criminal Court of Law which has IMO set a dangerous precedence  

And parliament is still sovereign, the courts haven't changed the doctrine that Parliament is above the court's jurisdiction (as a side note it wasn't a criminal case either)



The executive on the other hand is not sovereign and very much under the jurisdiction of the courts.



The courts rules that the executive does not have *unlimited* powers to prorogue Parliament (thus preventing it from carrying out it's function).



This is entirely consistent with previous constitutional law.



The alternative would have been that the executive could prorogue Parliament for any reason and any length of time.



As the above was the unanimous judgement of the maximum panel of 11 supreme court judges, your (and my and everyone else's) humble opinion means diddly.



Subsequent events (a 2nd Queen's Speech after a much shorter prorogation and then the almost immediate abandonment of the QS with and election) rather proved the point that the original reason given was a sham.

[Churchill]

The UK's democracy is made up of the executive, legislative and judiciary. The juduciary ruling on the executive abusing its powers is entirely reasonable and the system working as it should. Did you even bother to read why the judges ruled as they did?



It is ludicrous to claim that 17.4m people voted for the Conservatives vision of Brexit, not least because it's doubtful they voted to be poorer.



We get another GE vote in five years time where whoever wins this GE can be judged on their performance. Why can't the public have another vote on whether the Brexit on offer meets the expectations that were set in 2016?



Brexit was supposed to be easy to negotiate and make everyone better off. The actual deal has been anything but easy to negotiate, is expected to leave us worse off and may even lead to the break-up of the union.

Parliament is Sovereign or was, not a Criminal Court of Law which has IMO set a dangerous precedence  



Yes read it wrong assumption and a rather arrogant patronizing sweeping remark you have no idea what 17.4 million people were thinking when they voted and still don't, it was a simple question stay of leave nothing else, it is ludicrous think otherwise



I wanted a clean break but it has not happened, the EU has played silly beggars and is desperate to keep us in, if we make a go a of it which I think we can and will, other nations may well follow our lead which is what the EU fears.



I know how GE work I have been casting my vote for the last 50 years , my remark about rerunning the GE was very much tongue in cheek Remainers want another go round.



Referendum or no Referendum many Scots want Independence it did not happen so they want another go round, I hope they get it.

[Ciaphas]

I disagree the Government could not perform as it should even when it had a modest majority, bringing in 11 unelected Judges into the equation to override the Government is not good for Democracy why not do away with Parliament completely and let Barristers and Judges run the country instead.



Democracy is already in danger and has been since many OF our Poloticians and unelected business people began to try and stop the will of the majority who voted to leave the EU, something I have wanted to happen for decades, I had my say at long last and have been ignored .



I am not keen on Boris but he is the best of a very bad bunch, Corbyn and his posse of far left wing Marxists and Momentum fill me with dread totally incompetent untrustworthy and will bankrupt the UK in very short order.



If they win I want the GE run again until I get the result I want, if it good enough for those who want to keep us in the undemocratic EU its good enough for the 17.4 million majority.



As soon as a GE is called , I believe no matter what is in the Queens speech is null and void everything stops

The UK's democracy is made up of the executive, legislative and judiciary. The juduciary ruling on the executive abusing its powers is entirely reasonable and the system working as it should. Did you even bother to read why the judges ruled as they did?



It is ludicrous to claim that 17.4m people voted for the Conservatives vision of Brexit, not least because it's doubtful they voted to be poorer.



We get another GE vote in five years time where whoever wins this GE can be judged on their performance. Why can't the public have another vote on whether the Brexit on offer meets the expectations that were set in 2016?



Brexit was supposed to be easy to negotiate and make everyone better off. The actual deal has been anything but easy to negotiate, is expected to leave us worse off and may even lead to the break-up of the union.

[BeElBeeBub]

The government serves Parliament not the other way around.



Yes, it is much easier for a government to enact it's policies if it has a majority.



In that circumstance it doesn't have to compromise or reach consensus with the opposition. It still needs to do so within itself.



If it doesn't have a majority, it can still govern effectively (minority and coalition governments are the norm around the world and even countries with a Westminster system like Canada and NZ have effective governments without absolute majorities).  However in order to do so it must learn to compromise and build consensus, which the conservatives failed to do.



This illustrates (imho) the issue with our current setup - namely the closeness of executive and legislative branches.



It would be alot more comprehensible if the executive was more distant from the legislature and had to rely on compromise and consensus rather than internal party discipline which is by it's nature undemocratic and opaque.