No I haven't. You keep making unsubstantiated claims like this and then ignoring my denials.Originally Posted by Loki
No I haven't. You keep making unsubstantiated claims like this and then ignoring my denials.
Incidentally the Governor of the Bank of England has suggested that inflation "could" get as high as 3% by the end of next year. Ooh scary. So worst case we may get inflation substantially closer to target than the last six years.
These partnerships are based on negotiations that have to be conducted in good faith with mutual respect. If one party suddenly makes demands that may have a significantly negative impact on the other party then the other party can reasonably expect a justification for why the new demands are fair rather than just unscruplous price-gouging a la Mylan. Obviously if they can't come to terms they can end their relationship but that's not exactly the best way to do business in the long term because you'll eventually become known for being a jerk, so to speak.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I see little to indicate that the problems with the line of reasoning above (about improving your current account deficit) that have been mentioned before have been resolved:
http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post174574
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If you believe in parliamentary supremacy, then why so much emphasis on the referendum? Parliament can ignore it at will.
Hope is the denial of reality
Parliament passed the referendum as a final decision which the government would then implement (see Hansard and government material at the time). The government could indeed ignore the referendum at its peril but it has chosen not to do so.
Exercising executive power like the exercise of Article 50 is the government's job not Parliaments.
Except Parliament can decide tomorrow to completely reverse policy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Parliament can reverse laws or policies if they get a vote through but for as long as the government has the Confidence of Parliament that's almost impossible without the government's backing.
Yours isn't the only nation with different powers for the legislature or the executive.
The legislation necessary for Article 50 has all already been passed. Now we need the executive to act.
Which legislation has passed?
Congratulations America
Actually, I don't. It's too easy to interpret a referendum to mean whatever you want. I wouldn't go beyond the simple facts - on one day in June 52% of voters answered this question with 'leave':
Beyond that, I'd want to see serious analysis, not the usual anecdotal bullshit.Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Of course, my anecdotal bullshit disagrees with your interpretation.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Well, given that you are not going to have elections before March 2017 and no second referendum is foreseen the outcome of the referendum will mean whatever May bloody thinks it is.
I must say that it is surprising that RandBlade thinks all of that is the way it should be because the interpretation of the PM and her Brexiteers is in complete contradiction with the actual specifically given mandate in the General Elections to keep the UK in the single market.
It would be constitutional for the house of lords to vote down legislation with the purpose of a Brexit including leaving the internal market.
Congratulations America
Three relevant statutes.
1972 European Communities Act made European laws and Treaties in force in the UK.
European Union (Amendment) Act made the Lisbon Treaty including Article 50 an established part of European and British law.
European Union Referendum Act 2015 gave the "final say" on our membership of the EU to the public.
The people had the final say as approved by Parliament's passage of the 2015 Act. The government has an established power in Article 50 which is existing law. It is the legislatures job to pass new laws and Treaties but Article 50 is an already established law. The executive needs to exercise the powers granted to it by the 2008 Act to put into power that decision made from the 2015 Act.From Hansard
This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
Does Parliament vote before every exercise of executive power under Articles 1 to 49 for legislation already passed? No.
Aborting Brexit and staying in the EU is probably not in the interests of the UK after this farce. I can't imagine that having said "that's it i'm leaving for good! oh wait bad idea we'd better stay after all" is going to do anything for our standing in the EU, or the world, or do much for our ability to accomplish anything within the framework of the EU or encourage anyone in there to take our interests seriously - "don't like these punitive new financial regulations? *in an outrageous French accent* ohhhh it is so sad, what are you going to do leave? *gaelic sniggering*".
Not to mention the literal civil unrest that will likely follow amongst theracistspeople who voted to take back control.
There are no take backs. The only sensible approach is to try and make the best of a bad situation.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I think it would be foolish to not follow up on the out vote. However unlike what RandBlade claims the referendum act did not give the final say to the voters. Which in my eyes means nothing more or less than that any Brexit legislation is subject to regular constitutional rules. Which as far as I know recognize no other sovereignty than that of parliament. Notification is a bit iffy because in itself it's not an act but merely a statement of intent. It's not odd in any way though to claim that parliament should have a say on it because after 2 years notification de facto and de jure means voiding a big number of laws previously passed by parliament.
Congratulations America
I agree, but it sticks in my throat to do so. Farage made it clear he
wouldn't accept a remain vote as the last word, but we can't let that shitsack set our standards of behaviour.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Regardless of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament derives its legitimacy from the people these days. But I agree, parliament should have a say.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not necessarily a moral question or one of democratic propriety - hypothetically, another government could come to power and with a mandate for another referendum, and if the result of it was was 'remain, after all' then that would be completely legitimate on a democratic levelI agree, but it sticks in my throat to do so. Farage made it clear he wouldn't accept a remain vote as the last word, but we can't let that shitsack set our standards of behaviour.
I just don't think it's our interests to remain in an institution we have, stupidly, repeatedly thumbed our noses at. Not unless there are some, *massive* changes between now at then.
Which, given how the past several years have gone in terms of 'momentous world events' is actually pretty likely.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
There's always article 49.
Congratulations America
Not for decades.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Who knows. One of the big problems with that whole referendum was that the people who logically should have been more than enough to out-vote the brexiteer nuts started to believe that EU membership wasn't good enough to bother. I think they'll have something to think about; for example if they should have let the Brexiteers run with it.
Congratulations America
Parliament will and must have a say at the appropriate times. For one thing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended needs to be repealed. Any new deal needs to be ratified. I was referring to executive power solely for Notification under Article 50.
You raise an interesting question as to what happens if Article 50 notification is granted and Parliament does nothing further. Theoretically if the European Communities Act 1972 is still in place then EU law would still be in place and have primacy as granted by that statute. We would have left and lost our votes etc but still with the laws in place as they hadn't been repealed.
Are you counting me there? As I started wanting to outvote the nutters but then switched to the sane Brexiteer brigade.
I suspect you're not but if you're talking about non voters that's silly as turnout was very high.
Thankfully Brexit means that shitsack has been made redundant so he's now off shilling for the shitsack Trump across the pond.
I think perhaps shitsack is too nice a word for him.
Back on topic I heard an interesting suggestion as a potential compromise (ignoring the issue of migration for one minute).
Free trade deal with no contributions to EU budget directly but financial institutions which want a passport must make a contribution to get it. EU maintains its budget, finance firms maintain their passport (at a cost) and UK doesn't make contributions as promised, but London/Edinburgh finance firms do.
Literally 0% chance.
Hope is the denial of reality
What happens to your NATO contributions? The UK is probably paying its promised share of GDP (and you're definitely paying more than others) but what happens moving forward? Will there be a referendum on using tax dollars to fund NATO? Will there be a referendum if funding NATO coalitions is the best way to fight global terrorism?
Seems to me the biggest geopolitical impact of Brexit.....is that every voter referendum has gained credibility, and every politician will use that for their own benefit, and the hatred of political processes has extended far into the future
No. They UK will continue funding it's military unless Jeremy Corbyn gets elected. Nothing to do with this.
What happens if Corbyn does get elected ?
We join the USSR.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote