Brexit - the next steps

[ippy]

Why? We had a vote in 1975. Why ignore that vote?We know why you're not debating. It's because you have nothing to debate with. We've repeatedly asked you to tell us how the EU makes your life worse and how it will be improved by Brexit but you have no answer.

I voted against the EEC as it was then as well, I repeatedly tell you why;  it seems you have a need or want a punch bag and are disapointed when you haven't got one, it's as though I haven't answere

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

Ippy,

So regardless of a corrupted referendum and regardless of the evidence that’s become available since nonetheless you think that that one vote on that one day should now be binding, even though it was only ever advisory in any case? (Oh, and it was only because it was advisory by the way that it wasn't scrapped and re-run lawfully as it would have been had it been a binding vote.)

And you think that’s democratic? Seriously though?
 
That’s a tory BS trope that collapses as soon as you examine it. You’d only have a best of three (or whatever) if the circumstances were the same each time and you were just hoping for a different answer. The circumstances now though are very different from those in 2016 – we actually have a factual basis for knowing what Brexit would look like, and it’s not at all pretty.

My promised supercar I sold you a while back for £1k that turned out to be a rusty old banger instead – I do hope you won’t ask to change tor mind about your decision. After all, it’s not a best of thrree you know. 

Doesn’t work. This isn’t evidence of the “marmite tastes nice/no it doesn’t type” – this is evidence from multiple, highly qualified sources that’s already beginning to happen as businesses close, investments are cancelled etc. You can maintain an Alan Burns type faith position – “no logic or evidence will ever change my mind” – if you want to, but it’s not a good look as you know full well from your dealings with him.   

Yes we know Ala – er – ippy.

Nice try Blue.

Regards, ippy

[Aruntraveller]

it's as though I haven't answere

I think we've all told you at one time or another. You haven't.

[Gordon]

Just seen a newsflash, and no doubt details will follow, that the Court of Session have found that Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful - not doubt this will be appealed but is a further illustration of the chaos that Brexit is causing.

[Gordon]

Apparently it goes to the UK Supreme Court next week, so no immediate change.

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Scotland's High Court has just ruled that Johnson's suspension of parliament is unlawful!

[Outrider]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Scotland's High Court has just ruled that Johnson's suspension of parliament is unlawful!

Not that that's meaningless as such, but practically is it going to have an impact?  I don't imagine Parliament is going to come back and sit?  Johnson might well get a reprimand, but he just has to cycle through Justice Secretaries until he appoints one that will commute any punishment that might arise?  In the meantime, he still has no oversight on efforts to subvert the will of Parliament and weasel his way around the latest Brexit bill.

It shouldn't make a difference, but it does, that this isn't an 'English' court, but rather a Scottish one - I think he'd be marginally less inclined to ignore it if it were the other way round (and if Gina Miller's similar case hadn't already been found the other way, of course).

O.

[Anchorman]

Not that that's meaningless as such, but practically is it going to have an impact?  I don't imagine Parliament is going to come back and sit?  Johnson might well get a reprimand, but he just has to cycle through Justice Secretaries until he appoints one that will commute any punishment that might arise?  In the meantime, he still has no oversight on efforts to subvert the will of Parliament and weasel his way around the latest Brexit bill.

It shouldn't make a difference, but it does, that this isn't an 'English' court, but rather a Scottish one - I think he'd be marginally less inclined to ignore it if it were the other way round (and if Gina Miller's similar case hadn't already been found the other way, of course).

O.

   





Not sure how much jurisdiction the English justice secretary will have under Scots Law.
As I understand it, should the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Session judgement, English law cannot supercede Scots law.
If it does, all hell will break loose here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The Scottish decision says in no certain terms that he lied to the Queen. That's huge - if the decision is upheld next week no PM could survive that.

[ippy]

I think we've all told you at one time or another. You haven't.

I wouldn't describe any of the posters on this forum as daft, your good self included, just that we quite obviously have differing views about brexit and I've frequently repeated that, 'I won't be putting up any clay pidgins', I wouldn't have thought that could be taken as a cryptic statement.
 
Regards, ippy.

 

[Stranger]

...I've frequently repeated that, 'I won't be putting up any clay pidgins', I wouldn't have thought that could be taken as a cryptic statement.

It just emphasises the fact that you will not actually debate the issues. The fact that you still want to keep posting about it, however, suggests that, rather like AB, you want to preach your faith without any engagement with reasoning and logic.

[Outrider]

Not sure how much jurisdiction the English justice secretary will have under Scots Law.

As far as I understand it, he's not the English Justice Secretary, he's the UK Justice Secretary and therefore technically is last recourse in the UK, even supplanting the Scottish Court.

As I understand it, should the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Session judgement, English law cannot supercede Scots law.

I confess, I've not kept up with the place of the Supreme Court in all this, I don't recall if it trumps the Justice Secretary, sits below him or replaces him in the scheme of things.

If it does, all hell will break loose here.

That, at the moment, seems to be norm, unfortunately...

O.

[Anchorman]

As far as I understand it, he's not the English Justice Secretary, he's the UK Justice Secretary and therefore technically is last recourse in the UK, even supplanting the Scottish Court.

I confess, I've not kept up with the place of the Supreme Court in all this, I don't recall if it trumps the Justice Secretary, sits below him or replaces him in the scheme of things.

That, at the moment, seems to be norm, unfortunately...

O.

   


The Scotland Act (1998) gave the jurisdiction of Scots law to the Scottish Parliament, with the understanding that any Supreme Court ruling affecting that law would be observed by Holyrood.
The UK cannot interfere withouth amending the Act, which might require a referendum, since the Act itself was only passed by Westminster after the overwhelming double Yes vote - curiously enough on this day in 1997.

[ippy]

It just emphasises the fact that you will not actually debate the issues. The fact that you still want to keep posting about it, however, suggests that, rather like AB, you want to preach your faith without any engagement with reasoning and logic.

I'm sure I conveyed somewhere here that remain and leave are never as I can see it to any extent will be in agreement anywhere near enough to be able to resolve this difference.

It's such a profound difference you're unlikely to get any other match to this disagreement in another lifetime or maybe more, it's a complete standoff this leave or remain.

I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.

All the EU should be by now be seen as just another potential trading block, after all that's what the referendum was all about, a trading block that's very welcome to go its own way in the same way we should be I don't see them as enemies in common with how most leavers view the EU.

Regards, ippy

[Gordon]

I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.

There was no 'standoff' leading up to the 2016 referendum: you are imagining that, where leaving the EU was not of great public concern in either the 2010 or 2015 GE's.

The referendum was a device to tackle Tory party problems, in that Cameron wanted to silence his own lunatic fringe (Cash et al) and also any future electoral threat from Farage/UKIP - we were supposed to vote 'Remain' you see, which would have silenced both these elements for the foreseeable future, which is why Cameron looked like a frightened rabbit the day after: nobody had planned for the result he got.

[Stranger]

I'm sure I conveyed somewhere here that remain and leave are never as I can see it to any extent will be in agreement anywhere near enough to be able to resolve this difference.

It's such a profound difference you're unlikely to get any other match to this disagreement in another lifetime or maybe more, it's a complete standoff this leave or remain.

I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.

Yes, you keep on and on with these mantras in order to avoid any actual reasoning. This is not (however much you may want it to be) just a matter of abstract principles, this has the potential to ruin people's lives across this country.

Apparently you can't or won't say, in any practical, down-to-earth way, what you find so terrible about the UK being in the EU, but you're quite prepared to make people suffer for your faith that it is bad. The very fact that you keep calling it an unbridgeable gap that can never be overcome suggests that you didn't arrive at your choice by reasoning or evidence (otherwise, you'd have to be open to changing your mind).

This looks just like blind faith and religious fervour...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ippy,

I'm sure I conveyed somewhere here that remain and leave are never as I can see it to any extent will be in agreement anywhere near enough to be able to resolve this difference.

It's such a profound difference you're unlikely to get any other match to this disagreement in another lifetime or maybe more, it's a complete standoff this leave or remain.

I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.

All the EU should be by now be seen as just another potential trading block, after all that's what the referendum was all about, a trading block that's very welcome to go its own way in the same way we should be I don't see them as enemies in common with how most leavers view the EU.

There was no “stand off” – the issue was substantially whipped up by an unholy alliance of political extremists, a callow PM who thought he could fend off leeching votes in a coming election to those extremists, and a right wing press led by the Mail.

And if you heard correctly that the leave voters won and that the result should stand, then I heard correctly that you voted to buy my supercar for £5k and that the decision should stand too even though you received a pile of scrap.   

[Anchorman]

Not sure about the Scots law thingy? The Dug will tell you what the mess is....but I doubt LBJ will be able to extracate himself from it...... https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/11/the-mess-got-messier-very-quickly/

[ProfessorDavey]

There was no “stand off” – the issue was substantially whipped up by an unholy alliance of political extremists, a callow PM who thought he could fend off leeching votes in a coming election to those extremists, and a right wing press led by the Mail.

And it was a completely 'whipped up' issue - not one that bothered the vast majority of people. For years MORI have performed a monthly issues monitor - effectively they ask people, unprompted, what they think is the most important issue facing the country and then ask them to name as many other important issues as they like. Remember unprompted. So people could say 'jobs', education, terrorism, the NHS etc etc as they wish. The result are then collated into broad headings - so if someone said 'health' and another said 'NHS' they'd be lumped together.

So there has been a category (termed EU/Euro/Common market/Brexit) that collates all the people who think that is an issue without being prompted. So of course now it is the most important issue with approx 60-70% of people thinking it is the most or another important issue facing the country.

So what about in 2015 when Cameron called the referendum - surely it was a burning issue - well, no - less than 5% of the population saw the EU as an issue - yes 5%. Why on earth we had a referendum with the result that we are destroying our country on a issue that less than one in 20 thought important is beyond me.

[jeremyp]

I voted against the EEC as it was then as well,

But Remain won on that occasion. Why are you going against that democratic vote?

I repeatedly tell you why;

No you don't. You have never told me why you personally will be better off with us outside the EU. Surely you can think of one indisputable advantage to you of leaving the EU. If not, why are you so set on doing it?

it seems you have a need or want a punch bag and are disapointed when you haven't got one,

But we have got one. If you want to stop being a punchbag, present arguments that show why you are right.

it's as though I haven't answered

Yes, it is isn't it. Perhaps that is because you haven't answered.

[jeremyp]

Not that that's meaningless as such, but practically is it going to have an impact?

It will have no impact. We will already be well into the prorogation, plus I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. I was extremely surprised that the Scottish Court didn't throw the case out because, IFAICS Johnson was within his rights to prorogue Parliament.

[ProfessorDavey]

 
In my book democracy is and still was the vote taken in 2016,

Why is that other than your side won that vote - by that argument the 1975 referendum should have been definitive and final

surly you're not still not looking for the best out of three - five, we're supposed to be the dippy ones that didn't know what we were voting for.

Well we are already on the 'best of three' as we've had two straight remain vs leave referendums. For the record the cumulative total is currently:

Remain: 33,519,822
Leave: 25,880,815

[Gordon]

The Yellowhammer document, with 1 para (para 15) redacted - I suspect that will cause a stushie, as will the government's refusal to publish other documents as required by the HoC vote. Ain't Brexit fun!

Yellowhammer paper

[ProfessorDavey]

The Yellowhammer document, with 1 para (para 15) redacted - I suspect that will cause a stushie, as will the government's refusal to publish other documents as required by the HoC vote. Ain't Brexit fun!

Yellowhammer paper

Is that it - I thought they'd been working on this for months - 5 pages and absolute zero detail on the likely effects. Heaven help us.

[Gordon]

For anyone interested - the redacted para 15 has been released by the journalist Rosamund Urwin

15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries