Jump to content

Brexit


Corinthian
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

You have some pretty good submarine designers, Stuart.

The Canadians might not agree on that one.

 

Actually the subs aren't that bad and we did get good service out of the O-boats, dickering on the deal for 10 years is our own stupid Canadian way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You have some pretty good submarine designers, Stuart.

You're right, im being unfair.

 

There was little ultimately wrong with Astute, other than Barrow in Furness was apparently in some disarray due to BAE recently taking it over, not having built a new submarine in about a decade, and inadequate project management because the MOD dumped it all in their lap and told them to get on with it. Its distinct credit to the yanks help they got Astute off the slips, from what im reading in 'The Silent Deep' it seems to have veered remarkably close to being another Type 45. Which considering how old the Trafalgar's now are, and the lack of Nimrod would really have put the SSBN capablity at risk.

 

It probably didnt help any that the MOD decided to bolt a special forces capablity onto the design at the last minute. Most people (including myself) believed it didnt have any, but there it was in this book with a special forces chamber bolted onto the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You have some pretty good submarine designers, Stuart.

The Canadians might not agree on that one.

 

Actually the subs aren't that bad and we did get good service out of the O-boats, dickering on the deal for 10 years is our own stupid Canadian way.

 

It probably didnt help matters that those boats were stored in a not particularly careful manner by the MOD. They would have probably have been in a much better state if we had kept using them up to the sale.

 

Cant believe they mount Mk48 over Spearfish though.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, the other thing he notes is that we should abolish import duties altogether - they make it more expensive for us to do stuff. Obviously revenues taken in import duties need to be gathered elsewhere, or (heaven forfend), reduce the cost of government by cutting unnecessary services.

Import/export duties and tariffs sing the syren song of taxation without representation (after all, voters don't directly write a check). Unfortunately, they require intellect, wisdom, and integrity on the part of the regulators and revenooers; thus, always a source of corruption and stupidity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Brexit court defeat for UK government
3 minutes ago
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.
Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.
The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision was not overturned, there could be delays with potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles.
But there was not yet "clarity" - if the judgement was not overturned - on whether there would be a "short, sharp" vote or whether Parliament would have to consider complex legislation, he added.
He predicted that most MPs would ultimately be likely to vote for Article 50, as Brexit had been backed by a majority of voters in the referendum.
The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March.
The other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.
Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court that the government should make the "wise decision of not appealing".
She said: "The result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures."
But a government spokesman announced it would contest the ruling, in the Supreme Court.
He said: "The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgement."
Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people".
But the Lord Chief Justice declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."
Calling the case "a pure question of law", he said: "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue."
Reacting to the ruling, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons the government was "disappointed" but remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".
'Give people a chance to say no'
He added: "There will be numerous opportunities for the House to examine and discuss what the Government is negotiating.
"When we are clear about the position we will adopt, then Article 50 will be triggered but, given the nature of the judgement this morning, we will now have to await the government's appeal to the Supreme Court."
Mr Farage said: "We are heading for a half Brexit."
He added: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand... I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."
Mr Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit."
But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, a supporter of remaining in the EU, said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a Supreme Court first, I think. But the ultimate path is to go to Europe for a decision, because it is a matter of interpretation of the European law.

 

Note that this path doesn't apply to every legal decision made in the UK - only a small subset of UK law is overseen by the European appeal mechanism. In recent years,though, a lot of appeals have ben made b attempting to shoe-horn the human rights laws into other legal decisions.

 

Anyway, it's popcorn time again. The howls of outrage are going to be immense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From both sides of the aisle I guess :)

 

Then again, maybe that is the cunning plan. Bog Brexit in court hearings and parliamentary procedure and start slapping other provisions to it so that in the end it becomes a behemoth of a law that cannot pass as it would contain bits offending Tories and bits offending the Labour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're still going to be farting around with Brexit come the next general election at this rate. What will happen then is that Red Jeremy will get the boot, Labour will win the election on a pro EU platform and they'll give up on the whole thing as a bad idea cooked up by those evil Tories.

 

You heard it here first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Ive got a horrible feeling the Conservatives will so indisputably screw this up, we will end up with up with Red Jer and Britain doing a passable impression of Venezuela. And Red Jer it will be remember is a closet Eurosceptic anyway. The fewer Poles he can let in, the more single legged lesbian mothers from Angola he can let in.

 

It comes to something when a lefty like me hopes the Conservatives really get their shit together and keep Labour out of power, but at this point I think one has to put the country first. Unfortunately I look at the Conservatives, even after commendably ridding themselves of Cameron and Osborne, still look like the gang that cant shoot straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a full scale row going on at the moment, about a Daily Mail news article that accused the 3 judges (that concluded that Parliament has the right to trigger the start of the Brexit negotiations) of being 'Enemies of the People'. Its the responsibility of the Government to defend the judiciary, but thus far they have remained completely silent, presumably because they agree with them.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-high-court-article-50-judges-mail-express-front-pages-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

 

One Conservative MP has compared this to something from Zimbabwe. And one former assistant editor of the News of the World (not the sort I would expect to make moral judgements or talk sense) pointed to it being a great Irony that we vote to depart the EU to give primacy to our own courts, and then condemn our own courts as working against the people. Good God, even former footballers see how bad this is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gary-lineker-daily-mail-daily-express-article-50-front-pages_uk_581c3ad8e4b09d57a9a82b16

 

Any other country in the world, the Courts are venerated at upholding the law over political machinations. But clearly not here, not any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a full scale row going on at the moment, about a Daily Mail news article that accused the 3 judges (that concluded that Parliament has the right to trigger the start of the Brexit negotiations) of being 'Enemies of the People'. Its the responsibility of the Government to defend the judiciary, but thus far they have remained completely silent, presumably because they agree with them.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-high-court-article-50-judges-mail-express-front-pages-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

 

One Conservative MP has compared this to something from Zimbabwe. And one former assistant editor of the News of the World (not the sort I would expect to make moral judgements or talk sense) pointed to it being a great Irony that we vote to depart the EU to give primacy to our own courts, and then condemn our own courts as working against the people. Good God, even former footballers see how bad this is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gary-lineker-daily-mail-daily-express-article-50-front-pages_uk_581c3ad8e4b09d57a9a82b16

 

Any other country in the world, the Courts are venerated at upholding the law over political machinations. But clearly not here, not any more.

Welcome to the club..... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a full scale row going on at the moment, about a Daily Mail news article that accused the 3 judges (that concluded that Parliament has the right to trigger the start of the Brexit negotiations) of being 'Enemies of the People'. Its the responsibility of the Government to defend the judiciary, but thus far they have remained completely silent, presumably because they agree with them.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-high-court-article-50-judges-mail-express-front-pages-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

 

One Conservative MP has compared this to something from Zimbabwe. And one former assistant editor of the News of the World (not the sort I would expect to make moral judgements or talk sense) pointed to it being a great Irony that we vote to depart the EU to give primacy to our own courts, and then condemn our own courts as working against the people. Good God, even former footballers see how bad this is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gary-lineker-daily-mail-daily-express-article-50-front-pages_uk_581c3ad8e4b09d57a9a82b16

 

Any other country in the world, the Courts are venerated at upholding the law over political machinations. But clearly not here, not any more.

No mate, not since St Tony of Blair colonised the legal profession and thus the judiciary with his Common Purpose acolytes, in the same way he did the Civil Service, MoD, Police, House of Lords, Higher Education and pretty much every other organ/arm/institution of the state. As for the rest, if it were just the Daily Heil your whinging might be justified, but from what I've read & heard online more august publications and individuals are also suggesting that there might indeed be a problem, not least with some immigrant business person with deep pockets and anonymous backers using the courts to subvert the expressed will of the electorate. That said, you could also argue the the argument isn't so much about triggering Brexit but the latest iteration of the tug-of-war that goes back to the ECW and 1688 between Parliament and the Crown, with the electorate being a new third and vociferous player. :)

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately I look at the Conservatives, even after commendably ridding themselves of Cameron and Osborne, still look like the gang that cant shoot straight.

 

Well, Stuart, you know what they say: Old habits die hard.

 

--

Soren

 

How so exactly, given that the Conservatives have consistently been the grown-up force that has repeatedly cleaned up the mess created by successive Labour governments for the last half century or more?

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're still going to be farting around with Brexit come the next general election at this rate. What will happen then is that Red Jeremy will get the boot, Labour will win the election on a pro EU platform and they'll give up on the whole thing as a bad idea cooked up by those evil Tories.

 

You heard it here first.

Nah, it will take longer that that for the electorate to forget the damage inflicted on this country by the ultra-pro EU Blair-Brown Terror, and the current Labour pantomime performance is extending that period with every day that passes. If they are still farting about by the next GE it will be fought not along party lines but on whether or not your MP was involved in stretching things out to foil the Brexit vote. An awful lot of Labour MPs will be getting their cards in that scenario, as a glance at how lots of traditional Labour constituencies voted in the Brexit referendum shows; UKIP could clean up if they ever learn how to behave like adults.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dinna understand why you gents are arguing about cause and effect. I have it on Good Authority that the British Isles are inexorably hurtling towards starvation, savagery, cannibalism, and a restoration of the Imperial mensuration system.

 

I think it would be wise for y'all to post at least daily, sort of a "keepalive frame" (using IT jargon), so we ROW folks will know when Britain goes dark. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Unfortunately I look at the Conservatives, even after commendably ridding themselves of Cameron and Osborne, still look like the gang that cant shoot straight.

 

Well, Stuart, you know what they say: Old habits die hard.

 

--

Soren

 

How so exactly, given that the Conservatives have consistently been the grown-up force that has repeatedly cleaned up the mess created by successive Labour governments for the last half century or more?

 

BillB

 

Bill, even if that were true (and in terms of defence it pretty clearly is not with the last incumbent) as a party they seem to have thrown THAT rulebook away and gone paddling up shit creek without a paddle. Basically neither left, nor right, seem able or fit to govern the country. Shouldn't we all be getting just a BIT worried about this?

 

 

There is a full scale row going on at the moment, about a Daily Mail news article that accused the 3 judges (that concluded that Parliament has the right to trigger the start of the Brexit negotiations) of being 'Enemies of the People'. Its the responsibility of the Government to defend the judiciary, but thus far they have remained completely silent, presumably because they agree with them.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-high-court-article-50-judges-mail-express-front-pages-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

 

One Conservative MP has compared this to something from Zimbabwe. And one former assistant editor of the News of the World (not the sort I would expect to make moral judgements or talk sense) pointed to it being a great Irony that we vote to depart the EU to give primacy to our own courts, and then condemn our own courts as working against the people. Good God, even former footballers see how bad this is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gary-lineker-daily-mail-daily-express-article-50-front-pages_uk_581c3ad8e4b09d57a9a82b16

 

Any other country in the world, the Courts are venerated at upholding the law over political machinations. But clearly not here, not any more.

No mate, not since St Tony of Blair colonised the legal profession and thus the judiciary with his Common Purpose acolytes, in the same way he did the Civil Service, MoD, Police, House of Lords, Higher Education and pretty much every other organ/arm/institution of the state. As for the rest, if it were just the Daily Heil your whinging might be justified, but from what I've read & heard online more august publications and individuals are also suggesting that there might indeed be a problem, not least with some immigrant business person with deep pockets and anonymous backers using the courts to subvert the expressed will of the electorate. That said, you could also argue the the argument isn't so much about triggering Brexit but the latest iteration of the tug-of-war that goes back to the ECW and 1688 between Parliament and the Crown, with the electorate being a new third and vociferous player. :)

 

BillB

 

Even if these mythical business people with massive pockets (is there a businessman today other than Phillip Green doing well?) were true, it still overlooks,

1 The Government trying to overrule the right of parliament to have a say in some pretty major foreign policy. And funnily enough even Tony Blair allowed a vote on Iraq. I hardly think overturning 40 years of foreign policy any less significant.

2 They are trying to pretend the courts opinion on what is Royal Prerogative and what isnt, is irrelevant, or so they are telling foreign politicians not least the despised Juncker.

3 If the objective of leaving Europe was to give primacy to British courts, shouldn't we actually take note of what they are saying and do a more effective job of defending them against tabloid muckrakers?

 

There seems to me to be an attempt to portray this as the courts trying to overturn Brexit. Brexit will still happen. All that has changed is that Parliament will debate how we will exit the EU before it votes to start the negotiations. And why is that such a bad thing to take the account of 650 plus mps the public themselves voted for, rather than a handful of the conservative cabinet whom thus far have demonstrated a competency that would shame the Greek Parliament?

 

Besides, its not the first time May has screwed up foreign policy when it bumps up against the courts. Has nobody remembered how many times she tried to deport Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada?

 

Yes, fair point about the ECW actually. I seem to recall last year there was a David Starkey Documentary on about Magna Carta, and there was an occasion, I cant remember when exactly (I think it might have been the latter half of the C18th) when there was a debate to codify in law the place of the courts above politics. And that we rejected those proposals, but the Americans read them, thought they were a swell idea and integrated it in their system. So essentially their political/legal system is the one we would have had if we had shown more balls. It strikes me it might be one of those ideas it would be a good idea to revisit.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dinna understand why you gents are arguing about cause and effect. I have it on Good Authority that the British Isles are inexorably hurtling towards starvation, savagery, cannibalism, and a restoration of the Imperial mensuration system.

 

I think it would be wise for y'all to post at least daily, sort of a "keepalive frame" (using IT jargon), so we ROW folks will know when Britain goes dark. ;)

 

I would take the task on myself, but regrettably I think it would probably end up sounding like a cross between 'Lord of the Rings', 'House of Cards' and 'The Road'.

 

Personally im polishing the assless chaps and filling up the Morris Turbo Interceptor for when the lights go out. Cant be long now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...