The Thread of BREXIT

[pErvinalia]

Of course, I just selected ppp.

I accept that it can be stated in any currency. It just doesn't make a lot of sense for reasons including what Hermit said. Unless there is a massive change in a currency's value (which I guess an argument could soon be made about the Pound).

[rainbow]

Of course, I just selected ppp.

I accept that it can be stated in any currency. It just doesn't make a lot of sense for reasons including what Hermit said. Unless there is a massive change in a currency's value (which I guess an argument could soon be made about the Pound).

You are correct. PPP is the better measure, although it is still stated in US$.
The crunch comes in that imports are 30% of the UK GDP. The rising costs of these imports will result in a knock-on inflation of about 6%, thereby reducing the purchasing power by this amount, over time. The falling Pound of course can result in more local production, and fewer imports, but Blighty has a problem in that its industrial base has been allowed to decay.

[Scot Dutchy]

Not just industrial. Food as well.

[pErvinalia]

Of course, I just selected ppp.

I accept that it can be stated in any currency. It just doesn't make a lot of sense for reasons including what Hermit said. Unless there is a massive change in a currency's value (which I guess an argument could soon be made about the Pound).

You are correct. PPP is the better measure, although it is still stated in US$.
The crunch comes in that imports are 30% of the UK GDP. The rising costs of these imports will result in a knock-on inflation of about 6%, thereby reducing the purchasing power by this amount, over time. The falling Pound of course can result in more local production, and fewer imports, but Blighty has a problem in that its industrial base has been allowed to decay.

But they export big in financial (and other) services. Exports will increase with a falling pound.

If inflation goes up by 6% in UK, I'll suck Tatt's cock.

[JimC]

...pictures Tatt feverishly reading British economic forecasts...

[pErvinalia]

[Scot Dutchy]

Well the Brexiteers are knackered.

Brexit to require parliamentary approval in setback for Theresa May

Now the fox is in the chicken run.

[cronus]

Well the Brexiteers are knackered.

Brexit to require parliamentary approval in setback for Theresa May

Now the fox is in the chicken run.

End of world delayed, or even nullified, on this side of the pond. Now let's see how well they do on the American side of the apocalypse?

[Brian Peacock]

Well the Brexiteers are knackered.

Brexit to require parliamentary approval in setback for Theresa May

Now the fox is in the chicken run.

It's a blow for sure, but the government are going to skip an appeal to the Lords (where they cannot be assured of assent) and are calling a sitting of all 11 supreme court judges to review the ruling. If that goes against them they have two options: attempt to pass a bill through Parliament allowing them to make the decision without reference to Parliament, perhaps by granting a Minister the power to make the decision, or, call a snap election fought on a commitment to Brexit, which though risky, is bound to return a Tory majority after a revision of constituency boundaries by Cameron that was little more than an exercise in gerrymandering.

If they attempt to pass a 'we can do what we like' law it could easily get bogged down at the committee stage, be scuppered or weakened with additional amendments, and would require affirmation by the House of Lords - not something that can be done in a hurry. And yet, after the Tory legislation for fixed-term Parliament was bought into law in 2011, Parliament can only be dissolved before the fixed-term period i) if the House of Commons passes a resolution of no-confidence in the government, or ii) if 2/3rds of the Commons passes a resolution calling for an early election. This is risky because either way it would need a substantial number of Tory MPs to vote against their own government, and if that was done for political reasons (we don't really mean it but we're going to do it 'for the good of the party' as it were) it would totally undermine the 2011 legislation, it's purpose, and the basis on which the Tories argued for it at the time. In short, May will find it very difficult to call a snap election, something which itself could be subject to judicial review, but this might be easier than trying to pass a law that allows a government to do whatever they want just because they've decided they want to do it.

[JimC]

Why don't they simply accept the ruling, and let parliament decide?

[mistermack]

I WANT a government that can do what it wants. That's what we have elections for.

It's a modern fashion in the legal world, for courts to take on greater and greater powers for themselves.
I don't recall any debate or vote on Neville Chamberlain going to see Hitler, to try to put off WW2.
The executive of the government has to have the power to act, without having a motion passed each time it needs to negotiate with foreign powers.
People understand that, when they have a general election. They know that they are electing a government to act and negotiate on their behalf.

You can't do negotiations in advance, in Parliament, without knowing what the other side is going to do.
It's basically a recipe for paralysis.
The House of Lords is a fucking joke, and shouldn't be involved in anything important, other than making a noise and pointing things out. Their powers to delay have to be abolished.

I still think that the supreme court will overturn this, but if they don't, Parliament will have to pass laws limiting the power of courts to obstruct an elected government. Because if this precedent is allowed to stand, there is fuck-all that a government can do, without an act of Parliament passing both houses.

[Brian Peacock]

I WANT a government that can do what it wants. That's what we have elections for.

What about a government that wants to round up all concertina players into re-educations camps? Or all ginger-haired people? Or the members of a particular religion, party, sexual orientation, or geographical region?

It's a modern fashion in the legal world, for courts to take on greater and greater powers for themselves.

Nonsense. That's the Daily Mail talking. An independent judiciary is one of the prerequisites for an ordered and civilised society. In such a system the judiciary should be, well, independent of government influence, though they must ensure they act within the law, nor should the judiciary grant themselves power. The UK courts have no power to 'take on greater and greater powers for themselves' - they act wholly within the law. Sometimes the courts determine that the government have themselves not acted within the law. This is only right and proper. That the government of the day have control of the legislature does not grant them control of the law or over the administration of justice.

I don't recall any debate or vote on Neville Chamberlain going to see Hitler, to try to put off WW2.

The Chamberlain government's policy of appeasement of Germany and Italy prior to the winter of 1938-39 had wide support within his own party, within the Commons, and within the nation. He was, after all, elected as a peacemaker, not a war-monger. Even so, as Prime Minister he exercised full control over the implementation of military action by Royal Prerogative. Likewise, Prime Ministers to this day carry sole responsibility for initiating military action abroad, with any reference to the will of the House (as with Cameron over Syria) being a courtesy wholly at the PMs discretion. This is a moot point however, for what we are talking about here is not simply about whether governments can do whatever they want, but whether they can or should be able to do whatever they want regardless of their obligations in law.

The executive of the government has to have the power to act, without having a motion passed each time it needs to negotiate with foreign powers.

The point herein is that a judicial review has determined that a constitutional precedent was set by the Act of Parliament required to take us into Europe - therefore a similar Act should be proposed, drafted, scrutinised, debated, and voted on in the usual way in order to take us out. Yes, even after the second referendum in 1975 on joining the EEC, actually joining still required an Act of Parliament.

People understand that, when they have a general election. They know that they are electing a government to act and negotiate on their behalf.

The government we voted for in May 2015 advocated remaining within the EU and campaigned to remain. The executive may be in the hands of the same political party, but the political complexion and aims of this government are totally different to that of Cameron/Osborne. Brexit has resulted in a marked political shift within government without any reference to the electorate, just as it has resulted in a marked political shift within the electorate itself.

You can't do negotiations in advance, in Parliament, without knowing what the other side is going to do.

This kind of ramped-up moral outrage is completely bogus. This judgement does not touch on what may, or may not, be negotiated re withdrawing from the EU; it only focuses on what conditions must be met in order for those negotiations to take place. That our elected representatives could debate the merits of our withdraw from the EU, in light of the referendum result and the circumstances it has engendered, is not something to fear, rail against, or decry - on a matter of such vital national importance it seems not only reasonable, but democratically desirable. Indeed, necessary.

It's basically a recipe for paralysis.
The House of Lords is a fucking joke, and shouldn't be involved in anything important, other than making a noise and pointing things out. Their powers to delay have to be abolished.

I still think that the supreme court will overturn this, but if they don't, Parliament will have to pass laws limiting the power of courts to obstruct an elected government. Because if this precedent is allowed to stand, there is fuck-all that a government can do, without an act of Parliament passing both houses.

There is fuck-all that a government can do, without an act of Parliament passing both houses[\b]. That's right. Long gone are the days when our 'elders and betters' decided whatever was in their best interest was for our own good, and the rest of us just had to shut the fuck up and do what we were told. It's called 'representative democracy' for a reason you know..

It would be a serious, and imo unwarranted and perhaps even dangerous, step for any UK government to restrict the scope of the scrutiny an independent judiciary can bring to holding the actions of an elected executive to account in law. It would, in effect, make the notion of an independent judiciary wholly unworkable. Creating laws which simply side-step judicial due process would make a mockery of the notion of open justice within the context of a free society. Balancing the political interests of a particular party and the interests of The Crown (which our independent judiciary represents and which embodies the interests of the country as a whole) is a legitimate role for the courts, and their independence from government goes a long way to maintaining and sustaining our democratic institutions and systems.

Even so, a government with a sufficiency of will and a suitable majority could pass such law, but it would be as legitimate, necessary and welcome as, say, enacting law which outlaws membership of opposition parties (let alone the horror of rounding up all concertina players into re-education camps!). Their action may be legal, in the nominal sense, but they would be perverse and not just at odds with the public interest but detrimental to it: "You can be as independent as you like, but the government of the day will determine the extent of that independence and whether or not the government can be taken to court."

[JimC]

If the government is forced to accept his ruling, and leave it for Parliament to decide, is it thought that Parliament will not allow a Brexit?

[cronus]

If the government is forced to accept his ruling, and leave it for Parliament to decide, is it thought that Parliament will not allow a Brexit?

MP's are better informed and more sensible, generally, than the public.

[JimC]

Aside from being power-hungry, self-serving egotists...