Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Printable View
Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
If you say that, then this is the time to specify and clarify.Quote:
Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.
It grew by more than expected because of the sudden drop in the pound post-Brexit that really helped.
I labeled it "markets/capitalism" precisely for a reason. I wanted it to be understood that I was referring to the divers forms of market exchange (capitalism, mercantilism, barter, etc.) that rely on negotiation (implicit or explicit) and the individual protecting their own value in the exchange. I was not trying to quibble over which form was in ascendance at which point in history. I was contrasting it with efforts at directed or controlled economies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
There are always points of time where some expert or cadre of experts believes that they can direct/control things better than the controlled chaos of the marketplace in order to promote the greater good. Such efforts have always fallen short, even if they enjoyed short term success, and we revert back to some form of markets/capitalist exchange.
"Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism." So Greece, Rome and England are the world...
Joke apart, you should read a little bit more about Middle Ages (Guilds), and about the how titles were distributed. And of course, later, why the new bourgeoisie wanted titles as well...
And then, you can explain the 3 orders following St Augustin.
Capitalism: Wealth creating more wealth, according the definition from the "genius of Humanity" aka Google. or "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets." from the same.
Private property in Medieval Ages: Not really. The 100 years war started because a king confiscated the land of his vassal. In the Tsarist Russia, the Emperor (Autocrat) owned all the lands and lands were redistributed in the Mir System/Obshchina until the Revolution. Even in UK today, (but I might be mistaken) the land still belongs to the Queen who rents it to you for building your house or cultivate it (The Crown is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly): all other owners hold an estate in land).
A NO is not enough, you have to give your definition of it. Market did exist before capitalism, whatever your exchange system was, cocoa (Inca), rice (Japan), sea-shells (Kingdom of Kongo). And we can debate if the Empire of China was capitalist: the government was bureaucratic and absolutist, order and subordination, so was India and the Caste system.
And as a probable player of Shogun, you are aware of what was the economical system, warriors (and honor) at the top, and merchants at the very low level. Far from Capitalism indeed.
I think you mix-up market economy and capitalism.
That's partially true,but it's also true that the feared sudden flight of investment failed to materialise.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
what's more, it illustrates the upside to a devalued currency, especially when that currency is as overvalued as the Pound was
I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.
If they move out of London, Frankfurt is a safer bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Your statement is not accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
1. It totally omits landowners (pomeshchiki) who owned most of arable land.
2. The Mir system is about distributing lands OWNED ONLY BY PEASANTS whose lands were significantly smaller (than the pomeshchikis' ones) and of worse quality.
3. The Mir system started to deteriorate by 1905 and was demolished not in 1917 but by Stolypin's reforms prior to WWI.
4. I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire. It was not true of medieval countries (and Russia was one until at least 1861, and perhaps even until 1917) where the monarch was just one of the landowners.
In the Pharmaceutical industry, a articular role has to be in Europe. Yet many have their HQ in Switzerland. They just have this role in a different office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So, regarding the HQ, they could easily just designate a different branch the EU HQ and that's that. It is what trade has to be physically undertaken in the EU HQ and not routed there from somewhere else that will be interesting - VPN from London.
~:smoking:
"You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I."
It might surprise you, but the best books about 100 years war are French.
But to answer your smart remark, I was showing a cause relevant to the debate... Can't really see the importance of the death all the heirs of the French King as relevant...
For English, I recommend:
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hy...tm#preliminary summary
Or for TV show, if you prefer:
https://youtu.be/mQbdN-JCMbk
The 1973 version was much better with the superb interpretation of Robert d'Artois by Jean Piat.
"I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire." Well, I think he was. He could take back any title and any lands attached to the title.
"Your statement is not accurate." Don't care. The purpose was to prove that it was not capitalism. Partially accurate is enough for the purpose.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mir-Russian-community
Apparently, Encyclopedia Britanica disagree with you...
It is a judgement-based claim of a person who is as much competent in the War in question as in the differences between a language and a dialect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Neither this nor "confiscation of the land by the king" is a cause. A marxist like you claim you are should know the difference between a cause and a pretext (aka casus belli). Otherwise you would say that the cause of WWI was the Sarajevo assassination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
:laugh4: In this case the judge is the owner of EVERYTHING since he can take anything from a person by the court's decision. The ability to decide doesn't make anyone the owner (unless he proclaims the estates his property after the decision).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I didn't see anything in Britannica that is contrary to what I said. Unless it is the conclusion on how viable the Mir was. And I based my judgement (besides the previous knowlege) on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina
in which:
The institution was effectively destroyed by the Stolypin agrarian reforms (1906–1914), the Russian Revolution and subsequent collectivization of the USSR.
I'm glad you admit it. Yet if I said something like "partially accurate" about my claims, I would earn a ton of contempt (and a hundredweight of insults) from you, now wouldn't I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Brexit will require a parliament vote \
A blow for the PM who insisted that government doesn't need parliament's consent.
Since the majority of MPs are against Brexit, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Take a brave MP to vote for party preference against the will of their borough on this one. Though, some of the Boroughs may well have shifted a bit since the vote...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You've hit on the London-centric theme a couple of times now, and I see how you believe it would play out here to further the "goal" of brexit (at least after the fashion of "paying off" the London Boroughs to accept it whilst the less populated but geographically broader hinterlands receive less). And your argument seems to make sense to me on a political level -- it very much ties in with my assessment of the limitations of democratic-republican government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As I recall, however, NI and Alba were nearly as solid in support of the "NO" vote as was greater London. Yet if it plays out as you suggest, would that not end up encouraging/reinvigorating the independency movements in Ulster and Scotland? After all, they would not get the "payoff" London would receive under your formula.
Excuse me, I threw up in my mouth a bit at this-but I have been drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If the MP's try to stop Brexit they just make Brexit, a nastier Brexit, more likely a decade from now. We're only having Brexit now because the Lisbon Treaty was forced on us, to double down on the same stupidity is to further erode trust in British politics.
Of course, there will be some Eurocrats relieved by this - the more ineffectual the British are as a "political body" the harder it is for them to stand in the way of EU integration.
It's important to understand that, up to now, the pound has been over-valued vs the UK economy (which is why we cannot export) and London is laundering everyone else's money. Brexit would have hurt London in the long term and benefited the UK's manufacturing sector (by re-aligning our currency with the actual strength of our economy). It says a lot that it was Hedge Fund managers with no actual vested interest in the UK who brought this case.
The ruling is also nonsense - Parliament will demand to know the negotiating terms before agreeing to triggering article 50, but the EU won't even discuss negotiation until the article is triggered.
So, now we have a REAL Constitutional crisis instead of an imagined one looming. Great fucking job, guys.
We call that "baby barfing" on this side of the pond. Thought you'd enjoy the alliteration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yes, very Anglo-Saxon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
fun fact: I fitted my new RX480 whilst tipsy - seems fine so far.
PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?
I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
That kind of London-centric policy-making isn't paying off London for giving them what they didn't want. It's just what UK governments do, probably exacerbated by the government and Parliament being based in London. The EU forced at least some degree of decentralisation in funding by redistributing EU dues to the regions in order to promote regional identities (a game which Italy are particularly adept at). Once the UK government doesn't have to do this any more, it will revert to its own tendency, which is to be London-centric. The first big spending commitment since the referendum has been made, to expand Heathrow. It will benefit London's economy (at the cost of upsetting some nimbies), with some trickle down effects for other areas, but it will cost a hell of a lot, which will mean commitments to other areas won't be met. There will probably also be some upgrading on rail links around London, again benefiting London's economy with some trickle down effects for others, but again costing a hell of a lot and meaning commitments to other areas won't be met. That's what UK governments do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The Crisis will be triggered when the government says it wants to take a diplomatic action and parliament is able to prevent it. Hopefully this will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. The problem is built into the exit procedure though - because the UK can't negotiate before it triggers article 50 (which means the UK is leaving the EU, no take-backs) it is unclear what will happen, say, to the rights of UK Citizens to work and travel around the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In a sane world the UK would indicate a desire to leave the EU, would then try to negotiate an exit and then Parliament would pass a bill to ratify to the treaty. Parliament will still need to pass that Bill - but now we're being told they need to pass a Bill just so the government can open negotiations.
We don't, and mostly that's a good thing - until you get something like this. One might argue this is our flexible unwritten constitution coming up against the codified EU Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You mean the decision that has been put off for a decade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The refusal of multiple UK governments to put the South East's Transport links in order have held up sensible development for decades.
As to UK governments only benefiting London,it's not some sort of blind bias. London launders Europe's money, and thereby generates money for the exchequer. The UK's other regions either produce food, raw resources or finished goods. The unnaturally high value of the pound makes these other endeavours unprofitable, and the UK government has been trying to lower the value of the pound on and off since before they found oil in the North Sea. A few days ago, before the rise in the Pound analysts were saying that the expansion in manufacturing meant that the sector might actually make a positive contribution to GDP. That's not going to happen now.
Consider - for example - tin and copper mining, Cornwall's economy requires mining for the county to be in growth, Cornwall's farmland is too poor for mass production of crops or livestock and it's too remote with too little flat land for large scale production of finished goods, except possible ships. The fall in the price of tin and the high cost of labour in the UK meant mining wasn't practical. With the fall in the Pound it was conceivable that once things stabilised mining might become profitable again, meaning thousands of new jobs in Cornwall.
Not to mention that, in general, if £1=€1 then the cost of producing and exporting finished goods in the UK is roughly the same as it is in Germany because the Euro keeps German labour costs and export prices artificially low vs the UK.
Membership of the EU has become a systemic problem for the UK economy, leaving is one way to fix the problem - and nobody seems to have a better idea.
To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question, certainly not at this point in your country's history. If it indeed is, then that needs to be checked one way or another by the courts.Quote:
In a sane world the UK would indicate a desire to leave the EU, would then try to negotiate an exit and then Parliament would pass a bill to ratify to the treaty. Parliament will still need to pass that Bill - but now we're being told they need to pass a Bill just so the government can open negotiations.
IMO the argument that PVC made, about EU inflexibility vs. flexibility isn't very convincing, because of...
...this. The way the exit procedure is setup, and the fact that European politicians won't discuss details until the exit procedure is triggered, has a very good reason. Leaving the EU is not a decision to be taken lightly, or something that you'd want member states to wave around as a bargaining tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It's not a problem with the UK Constitution, it's the withdrawal mechanism. It's designed not to work (surprise) because you basically leave, and then negotiate your exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Where is the problem, in legal terms, of the UK government following that process?
Well, there's the rub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
In order for us to leave we have to repeal an Act of Parliament, which will require a vote. However, once we trigger Article 50 we ARE leaving, so the argument being put forward is that, because the Referendum was not explicitly mandatory (vs advisory) Parliament will have to pass an Act SAYING we're leaving, because the process is designed to be irreversible, once it starts it won't stop - we would have to re-apply for membership.
Normally when negotiating something the Government would begin negotiations and then present the deal to Parliament for approval at the end. What certain people are now trying to do is force a vote before negotiations begin. That means the Government will have to put forward its negotiating strategy in detail (the EU doesn't) and it also means that Parliament might try to proscribe the Government's ability to negotiate.
This would, of course, be easier if the EU would agree to negotiations before triggering Article 50 - so far they have refused.
Basically, Tony Blair signed the Lisbon Treaty and now we're screwed.
Edit:
Sorry, I'm not sure that explicitly answers your question.
The point under argument is that because Article 50 is irreversible it inevitably means stripping UK Citizens of certain rights (Rights they have from the EU to work and travel etc) and, so the argument goes, we therefore Require an Act because the Government cannot remove rights of any kind without Parliament's consent.
So, it's not leaving the EU that will strip us of our Rights, it's saying we intend to negotiate to leave.
Kinda sums up why I want to leave - if the EU was a boyfriend it would be the emotionally abusive kind.
Well sure, it can do so or it can explicitly grant full discretion to negotiate however necessary subject to ongoing review - as is typically done in various other countries.Quote:
and it also means that Parliament might try to proscribe the Government's ability to negotiate.
We've already heard about whether or not this is "fair" to applicants for exit. But prompted by your earlier post here, where does a constitutional problem come into play at any point?
The problem arises because the Government would usually use the Royal Prerogative for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So what's at stake is the balance of power between Monarch and Parliament.
If the Prerogative doesn't work for this, what else doesn't it work for?
Edit: There's also the basic principle that, explicit or not, the referendum was intended to settle the question - now Parliament might settle the question.
So you actually have two things at stake - executive power and the value of the popular vote.
How? What circumstances are you thinking of, if we have already covered those in which the Parliament explicitly invokes the article and the government proceeds with negotiation, the Parliament rules out the referendum result and maintains the status quo, or the Parliament rules out the referendum with the caveat that the government is directed to otherwise seek modifications or accommodations to EU membership standards (as the UK has always done)?Quote:
The problem arises because the Government would usually use the Royal Prerogative for this.
So what's at stake is the balance of power between Monarch and Parliament.
If the Prerogative doesn't work for this, what else doesn't it work for?
What specifically could happen or come into legal conflict in these or unmentioned circumstances? Clandestine diplomacy at the highest levels? That would be a more run-of-the-mill political crisis.
Are you sure you haven't gotten confused and weren't just thinking of this the whole time?Quote:
Edit: There's also the basic principle that, explicit or not, the referendum was intended to settle the question - now Parliament might settle the question.
So you actually have two things at stake - executive power and the value of the popular vote.
Since we don't seem to agree on a lot otherwise, maybe we can be RX 480 buddies? Also, welcome to the club!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You are having Brexit because some politicians spouted too many fairy visions of the Promised EUless land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You don't have to have a constitution to enjoy constitutional crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...P=share_btn_tw
Apart from the obvious issue of not respecting the highest court (disagreement obviously happens here as well, but never as strongly as in this case AFAIK), I would also like to ask why the judges look like sad christmas presents wearing carpets from the 70s on their heads?Quote:
On Thursday morning, the high court ruled that parliament – and not the prime minister by use of prerogative powers – would need to trigger Article 50 to start the UK’s exit from the European Union.
On Thursday evening, a portion of the British media exercised its own prerogative: to attack the judges behind the ruling.
I get that judges are meant to look ridiculous in every country, but those wigs really take the cake. :sweatdrop:
And no, that does not mean one shouldn't respect the ruling, it is merely about maybe updating the looks just a tad little bit once in a thousand years. I mean they probably also, hopefully, don't talk anymore like they did in the 1070s.
To paraphrase dear old Furunculus, there's no connection between demos and kratos in the UK.
The people clearly want out, but the bureaucratic machine won't let them. Maybe Brits should get the EU to help them cut through all that red tape and regulations.
City mice/country mice. The city mice "know better" and think the country mice voted Yes for silly reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You don't have a constitutional crisis - the UK doesn't have a constitution. At most you have a discussion about the rule of law, and let's not forget the referendum was advisory and in no way legally binding.
And the High Court judges simply respected the rule of law.
The city mice know the country mice voted for stupid reasons. They know this because, immediately after the result, the country mice asked the government to guarantee what the EU had previously given them. When the tendency over the past few decades indicates that the government has little inclination to give them that, and in some cases (eg. Liverpool), deliberately starve the region into irrelevance in favour of the city mice. Given the option of spending 5bn on London or spending numerous packets of 100m in outlying regions, Westminster can be relied on to give London 4.8bn while the regions have to make do with 10m each. Londoners know this, despite the regioners desperately asking Westminster for assurances that they won't miss out on the 100m that the EU had previously given them. The city mice have little sympathy for the almighty shafting that the country mice are going to get in coming years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"The people clearly want out, but the bureaucratic machine won't let them" Nope. The decision of the Parliament ruling over the Monarchy, as May evoked the "Royal Prerogative" was dealt with by the Civil War (1642 to 1646).
Let's be clear: the UK does have a Constitution, it is simply distributed, not contained in or confined to a single document. None of the legal reasoning surrounding the actions of government or Parliament in this particular case, however, involve anything more than the most straightforward questions; there is no crisis.
While I believe that in the case of the US federal government, there would be more scope than in the UK to proceed with negotiations and afterward present the results to Congress, as a general rule for states where there is specific legislation affected or nullified by larger executive efforts, then it is inevitably and only the legislature that can authorize executive action by removing or modifying that legislation. This is even the case in most dictatorships that I know of, with the legislative process being no more than a pretense but existing nonetheless.
To simplify what I've been speaking of, partly using as reference American negotiations on the nuclear agreement with Iran:
1. Legislature passes resolution of approval for terms of engagement.
2. Officials of government discuss with foreign parties or under auspices of foreign/multinational body.
3. Officials of government present terms for finalization.
4a. Inconclusive, return to Step 2.
4b. Legislature passes resolution of disapproval, possibly cancelling the enterprise in its current form.
4c. Legislature passes resolution of approval, finalizing terms.
If Step 4c is taken, then if course there must be further legislative changes to fit whatever the results of Step 2 were fit into the existing legal structure.
In the specific case of the United States, partly due to the nature of the federal executive and the highly multinational nature of the topic, Congress has passed some legislation pertaining to things like waivers for sanctions in the case of following the roadmap, which was agreed to by Iran and the body involved, but Congress AFAIK never passed either approval or disapproval of the final agreement as it stands.
Well, strictly speaking 'constitution' just means 'foundation'. As in, the fundamental principles that underpin the state and its laws. In most countries the word is translated and understood as meaning a document containing these principles (i.e. Grundgesetz/Grondwet, meaning 'basic (written) law')Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
That would have been perfectly fine except, well, we have the UK.
Even in countries that have written constitutions there are principles or conventions that are not literally included in the written document, but which are considered important enough that violating them would cause outrage and political upheaval. I don't think the Brexit court case qualifies though. I'm not even sure I understand PVC's point.
From the angle of the EU, article 50 is drafted under the assumption that countries which start the exit procedure had better be serious about wanting to leave. And from the UK angle, such a commitment would have to be approved by parliament first.
It certainly sucks for the UK parliament that they "have" to agree to an exit procedure without knowing beforehand what the final terms will be, or without being able to dismiss the final terms if it turns out they're not beneficial....but I don't see how any of that amounts to a constitutional crisis. Or why it reflects badly on the EU, which seems to be PVC's implied point.
By any stretch, the UK has a constitution - except it really doesn't. We view the UK constitution as a constitution because it acts like one, definitely, but it is a compendium of legal documents, statutes, common laws... It's not a constitution per-se, but it does act like one.
And within this legal framework of the United Kingdom, you have the Parliament that acts as the sovereign power of the people. It's a matter of rule of law here. The High Court of Judges simply outlined that the UK constitution/legal documents have enforced for hundreds of years. Parliament is the boss and you have to respect the will of the Parliament. And that's not a constitutional crisis because it simply respected the rule of law, as it had been outlined for hundreds of years and that's how the British system has worked from the days of King John Lackland who was forced to sign the Magna Carta.
This is democracy. Just as the referendum was.
:rulez:
Well, I told you I wasn't sober.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Really though, I think it's two issues. You have Parliament backing a Referendum and then possibly disregarding it. Then you also have Parliament trying to curtail the government's Royal Prerogative using the Referendum as a stalking horse.
Of course, Parliament may just rubber stamp the Referendum - we don't know. However, at the time the Referendum was held it was generally understood that it would decide the issue. In a country where Common Law still governs that's actually very important. The Referendum Bill apparently didn't specify if it was Mandatory or Advisory. The Government position is that it was understood to be mandatory and therefore is. The Judges to the opposite view.
We can be buddies, just don't expect me to vote with you. Also, thanks. I'm liking it so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
No, we're having Brexit because, with regards to the EU, Parliament has repeatedly acted Contrary to the Will of the People. This has created a Democratic Deficit, as Sarmation says, and because we are a democracy it made a referendum on membership inevitable. The British don't really want what the EU is selling, except for trade. We want tradeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
To be fair, the current costume is only about 2-300 years old, and those are bad wigs. It's perfectly possible to have a good wig and not look like an idiot. However, now that woman can be judges (and powdered wigs never look good on women) it seems all male judges must now have poorly fitting wigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
To address your main point, this will now go to the Supreme Court (that was always going to happen, I see no reason why the government should no appeal - the hedge fund managers would have). I personally think the judges are wrong, and it's clearly a matter of opinion, their opinion being that the Government cannot proceed because the Referendum was not mandatory.
If Parliament DOES try to stop us leaving in the end it will poison politics in this country for decades. It will also destroy the Labour Party, as they will never be able to call themselves "party of the people" afterwards.
The City Mice think they know better, they also think they know why the country mice voted the way they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What they don't think about is what politics will be like after we leave the EU - there will be no more cover for Westminster, so when someone dumps two tons of manure outside the entrance to Downing Street and demands to know why British farmers are being driven into the ground the Government won't be able to blame the CAP.
The people trying to overturn the result keep going on about "our democracy" but they refuse either to address the fact that Europe has been used as anti-democratic cover for successive UK government for decades (whether true or not) or the fact that outside London life is pretty bad for a lot of people. EU subsidies pump in money, they don't give people jobs or a livelihood they can be proud of.
Again Cornwall - tin. Go ask a Cornishman and a lot of them would rather be down a mine breathing in toxic fumes that handing our leaflets to German tourists about all the old, sad, closed mines. That's not a dig at the Germans btw, they just seem to be over represented in Cornwall in the summer.
If the country mice are so confident about life outside the EU, then they should accept whatever the UK government hands out to them rather than ask for assurances, including any loss of investment as the price to be paid for reasserting national sovereignty. As with the cited example of Liverpool, back in the days before the EU took an interest in promoting regional identities, the UK government were free to carry out a policy of starving regions that were deemed to be politically undesirable or irrelevant. That kind of policymaking was, of course, what estranged Scotland from England, with the Scots deemed to be a suitable test bed for policies that the UK government wanted to try out on a limited scope before introducing them to England. With the Europeans out of the equation, the UK government is free to resume this strategy, free from any worry that the EU may make up for what they deliberately set out to deprive the regions of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yes, there are many American rural folk who demand in various ways that the government leave them to suffer in peace, while demanding intervention elsewhere. Fundamental democratic deficits are driven by the latent characteristics of a society, not the availability of scapegoats (which are inherently always available).
this voter is quite content with the court ruling, people are getting a taste of what the sovereignty of parliament means in practice, and they will grow to like it. we are refounding the link between the demos and the kratos, and this leaver is smiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I always take the view that what matters is legitimacy, and this derives from a combination of [both] representation [and] accountability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Representative democracy is two words, and people get awfully hung up on the second without pausing to consider the first.
It doesn't matter if you get to vote if you have no confidence that the outcome will be acceptable to your wishes, and the only reason we consent that others may act in our name is because we do believe they will represent us.
When governance ceases to be deemed legitimate it becomes tyranny, and we turn up in front of parliament with pitchforks and burning brands. it's the way we roll.
"I personally think the judges are wrong" Nope.
It is a point of law: "The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that "Parliament" has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament,"
A V DICEY, in
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm
Chapter: The Sovereignty of Parliament
So if Parliament passed a law to hold a referendum which was understood to have the purpose of settling the Question of EU Membership and then Judges set aside the result and say that, in fact, another law is needed... is this not a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The Argument is legal positivism vs legal negativism. I.e. if it was understood that the government would follow the Referendum result when Parliament passed the Act is that sufficient, or does the requirement have to be written into the Act?
Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?
Not really. If it is understood to be binding, then that should be explicit in the first place. You said it was not specified either way when the referendum was granted.
Will of the people is irrelevant in the first place, and in the second place as well since the referendum was on "Leave or Remain", not any specific procedural sequence. How the state goes about it has no bearing on the will of the people via the referendum, nor vice versa.
You give the reason why you had a REFERENDUM. I gave the reason why it (the referendum) turned out the way it did (i.e. with Brexit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Yes, of course they can. At their peril!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
We have just had Nov5th if you'll recall, a warning for a parliament that fails to represent as much as a celebration of the survival of our parliament from existential threat.
Interesting, expand on that if you would please?Quote:
The Argument is legal positivism vs legal negativism. I.e. if it was understood that the government would follow the Referendum result when Parliament passed the Act is that sufficient, or does the requirement have to be written into the Act?
A Sarmation - I always admire a chap who quotes A.V. Dicey. ;)
He was incidently, grudgingly accepting of referenda as a valid mechanism to decide matters of deep constitutional importance that cut across party lines - in a way that no party is likely to oppose the other allowing normal parliamentary democracy to decide the issue.
"Also - can Parliament set aside the will of the people?" To oppose the Parliament (foundation of the democratically elected representation of the people) is a path you don't want to take: it is the open way to Dictatorships where the secret will of the people (that suddenly only few know) is opposed to the openly democratically elected representation.
The UK is a parliamentary Monarchy. You elect representatives who themselves choose the Prime Minister.
In France, our Constitution makes a referendum executive and law. Which didn't stop Zarkolland to ignore the result of the last one against the Euro-Constitution...
Cameron didn't expect to lose the referendum, and the Brexiters didn't expect to win, None of them thought about how to deal with it really.
Fault is on Cameron and his party when they pledged to have a referendum on the question and ignoring how to do it, in following the law and the English Constitution.
"So if Parliament passed a law to hold a referendum " Did it? Referendum in UK are not binding... I don't think you need to pass a law to organise a general consultation... But, I might be wrong on this one...
Me think the only way out is general election with clear indication from MPs what they will vote. And if Media are to be believed, May should win easily as all agree Corbyn can't win elections.
We should see how Boris will come with his bus and the hundred of Pounds saved for the NHS...
And this time, I will be allowed to vote!!!!!
Given all the Brexit lies, if there was a 2nd referendum, it would be significantly in the stay camp.
i rather think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
how many of the 48% voted to remain out of love for the EU, and how many of the rest simply to avoid what project fear promised?
but there won't be one. there might be a general election, and i'll lay a crisp .org tenner on may returning with a majority at least five times the size of current.
stick that in your mandate and smoke it, as corbynites might say.
The tragedy of Europhiles who argued against Corbyn. May has a free run to do whatever she likes, as Corbyn has no interest in parliamentary democracy, or any kind of democracy outside the Labour party and his affiliates. His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"His mates reckon that, were the Parliamentary Labour party reduced to a rump of 30-40 MPs who are all approved by Corbyn, it would be a success." Still, May doesn't do it... Why?
You could think she had a boulevard in front of her let's have elections and Labour in in History for a long long time... So why doesn't she do it? :yes:
The tragedy of the Europhiles who argued (plotted) is they still refused the result of the Labour elections. They want to change the people. Bad Labour voters who didn't vote for what they were told by Tories and Media...
For the most part, there won't be another vote for the European Union referendum. That's pretty much clear.
However, a clear path to Brexit is not there because MPs will still oppose it, and a significant portion of Remainers will still fight against Brexit.
Plus - economic problems.
By not supporting democracy, do you mean that I'm obliged to think that Corbyn is a good idea when I don't? I'm not going to go via other avenues to oppose him, but neither am I obliged to support him. In a democracy, I'm free to continue to think how I wish, even as I accept the electoral result and the right of the electorate to get what they voted for. In the case of Labour, it is the right of the Labour members to see their party get driven into irrelevance by the British electorate. Just as it's the right of the British electorate to see their country decline as a result of the Euro referendum. They voted, and they have to accept the result of their vote. And I'm not obliged to think that either was a good decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
What would have been a constitutional issue is if a party with a platform of remaining in the EU, or at least a clear platform on what kind of Brexit to pursue, wins a general election. Does the referendum, which according to Brexit campaigners does not commit them to any concrete promises, hold sway, or does a manifesto with concrete promises hold sway?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
It doesn't matter anyway, as Corbynite Labour have no intention of appealing to the British electorate, with the result that May's Tories will win any general election on any manifesto they care to print.
Incidentally, Corbyn was recently asked by an ITV journalist for his view if May were to call a general election. Corbyn's response was to accuse the journalist of harassment. If he's not prepared to answer a simple question about parliamentary politics, what is he doing as Labour leader? Is he planning to turn the Labour party into something that exists outside parliamentary democracy?
"By not supporting democracy, do you mean that I'm obliged to think that Corbyn is a good idea when I don't?" :laugh4: No. Democracy is not the concensus, but the confrontation of idea by peaceful means... It is a social contract, a regulation. In democracies, we decide that 50.01 as the power of decision even if 49.99 are against. Does not mean the 49.99 have to agree, that means they have to accept the decision until they can change it by vote.
"what is he doing as Labour leader? " He was elected. What is the part you don't understand?
She didn't asked his view: She asked: “Would you be happy if Theresa May called a general election?”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7400621.html
This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37989728
Essentially, the vast majority of Britons want to remain part of the Single Market and a very strong majority want curbs on EU migration. If you read all the way through it looks like the result of the Referendum just came down to which one of those people thought was more important.
Which makes you wonder about Labour's position, which is pro-Brexit but also pro-freedom of movement. It's as though Corbyn and McDonnell sift through the options, but instead of dreaming of being allowed all the good bits, they somehow cherry pick all the bits that are unpopular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The people wanted the EEC. And hence the people have not been asked their opinion as things changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
~:smoking:
“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.”
The Brexit White Paper
IIRC PFH argued that his Brexit involved regaining sovereignty but remaining part of the single market. The government reckons we'd never lost sovereignty during our membership, and we're leaving the single market.
:laugh4:Quote:
It is more important than ever that we face the future together, united by what makes
us strong: the bonds that unite us, and our shared interest in the UK being an open,
successful trading nation.
3.1 We have ensured since the referendum that the devolved administrations are fully
engaged in our preparations to leave the EU and we are working with the administrations in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver an outcome that works for the whole of the
UK. In seeking such a deal we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, as well as those of all parts of England. A good deal will be one that works
for all parts of the UK.
Come on, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should get their sovereignty back.
Keeping Ireland artificially divided is a terrible idea, it leads to ethnic mixing with a lot of tension and problems such as terrorism, murder and other crime. And ever since Hadrian's wall was rendered inoperable, the Picts caused trouble of all sorts in England, it should be returned to its former glory. And Scotland should pay for it. :2thumbsup:
There are two things that brexit's win was supposed to secure; soverignty and immigration controls, the single market is a worthy prize and bargains should be attempted but if europe insists that access is only for those that sacrifices one or both of those principles Britain will choose to do without.
1. We've never lost control of our sovereignty, as the white paper explicitly states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
2. We've always had control of immigration from non-EU countries. It's that our governments haven't enforced existing controls. That's Westminster's choice, not Brussels. And even EU immigrants are limited, as they have to be within a job within 3 months or their stay here is revoked. There are certain key infrastructure areas that are heavily dependent on EU migrants, so even with control, the government isn't going to reduce their number.
In exchange for not much change in the above, we're leaving the single market.
1. We werent able to dictate our own policy without being overruled by the EU in multiple areas. Parliament's soverignty was only absolute in that it had the ability to cancel the EU's influence in an "I reject all and choose nothing" act, as it just did.
2. You havent refuted that we didnt have total control over our immigration policy.
You ever get tired of losing this argument?
But your sovereignty will still be constrained. You would have to proceed by pulling out of the United Nations and any international treaties and organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Much less, and by our consent, that's the point.
Last I checked the UN hasnt drastically expanded it's influence on our domestic policy since it's inception without our consultation.
And GB continues to (probably intentionally) miss the fact that the UK government has always had more control over all these things than it has chosen to exercise. Once the UK government has even greater control, it will continue to do the same as before, for the same reasons as before (ie. the economy and infrastructure are dependent on them), except without access to the single market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
That is and isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
For example - weights and measures - we were briefly forced to adopt metric and Imperial was banned until mass-revolt forced the EU to soften the regulation.
Port Talbort Steel - the UK Government cannot take it into public ownership without violating EU regulations on unfair state support for private business. The same regulations that enforced mass-privatisation in Bulgaria and Romania, creating new opportunities for graft.
The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.
And when nothing changes because the practicalities demand current solutions? How do you resolve sectors that employ a disproportionate number of non-UK citizens? Do you close hospitals because Asian nurses and doctors aren't welcome any more? Do you let OAPs rot in their homes because eastern European carers aren't wanted any more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was talking about EU regulation making UK regulation inflexible, you are talking about the UK becoming Xenophobic.
What's the next excuse?Quote:
The best thing about leaving the EU will be removing the excuse that the EU is preventing the government from doing anything in a given situation.
You've listed a couple of instances where the UK overturned or did not implement EU regulations, in keeping with the white paper's statement that the UK had never actually lost sovereignty. In return for not having those disagreements which had ended in the UK's favour, we've left the single market, meaning we will no longer be competitive in the market where 50% of our exports go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And note that by far the biggest reason voters have cited as the reason for Leave is immigration, ie. they want less of it. The reason we are leaving the single market is because the government recognises this as a non-negotiable point. If you disagree, and freedom of movement isn't as important a point as flexibility of regulations, then perhaps you can write to the PM and explain that FoM is actually negotiable after all, and thus access to the single market is possible. Perhaps we can have another referendum clarifying this point. Perhaps this second referendum will clarify that, yes, the UK is indeed xenophobic after all, and we're willing to wreck our economy if it means fewer of these nasty foreigners will be here. As it is, the government takes this as a given.
Foreigners who are already here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The Commonwealth included?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency