Brexit means Brexit means....what??

[Horus]

I didn't realise I was debating with a Jesuit

[Horus]

"Wind em up and watch em go"

[Who2]

My b*stard transalvanian offspring back in the 'Smoke is moaning about brexit stating that
"She's fed up in London and might immigrate to Canada"

I just said "Anyone who is tired of London, is tired of life"..best... "Go out and get your leg-over"......wimmin?.....
complicated creatures.....

[Hafiz]

The derided banker who launched the High Court action was interviewed on TV the other evening and made a number of points.

She is not a London elitist - she was bought up by a single mother in a one bedroom flat in the East End. Unlike many Brits she got a first class education and is now both employed in a sector where there are opportunities and the pay is good. All of this is unlike a fair segment of Brexiteers – oh she is also not white – again unlike many Brexiteers. She has been subject to complete and universal derision by the press, with the possible exception of the Guardian, but no media outlet that currently attacks her has asked for an interview. Like many hot head Brexiteers the media seem to prefer to hurl abuse and not engage in informed debate – well, in this case, with no information about her.

Her simple points were:

1. The vote was not binding and known to be non binding on Parliament and the Executive.

2. The vote was a democratic expression, albeit an exceptional one, taken in the broader context of a known, well-defined and pre-existing democratic process. No-one ever said that the vote would change centuries of precedent and deal MP’s out of their jobs as representatives of the people or deprive Parliament of its power and responsibilities. It is Parliament which makes and changes laws not plebiscites and the novel plebiscite must harmonize with well established conventions - not the other way around.

3. The next step proposed by the government was not democratic.

4. The government – well the PM and Cabinet – proposed to use an ancient and unwritten convention – the Royal prerogative – to implement the vote away from debate and scrutiny by the Parliament which has a long established role in this area.

5. The use of the prerogative is not a transparent democratic process and gives too much, and secret, power to too few – particularly on such an important and complex issue.

6. Any democratic society should welcome debate and transparency – particularly on important issues.

7. Governments operate under the law.

8. This means that they are subject to the courts - where arguments are in public - and, in this case, the decision at first instance can be reviewed in public by a higher court.

9. Only dictatorships are above the law. Even the ‘will of the people’ is subject to the law.

10. The proposed use of the prerogative, and the private way in which this would be done, was probably driven by politically opportunistic reasons including the following: the fact that the government has no current feasible plan and does not want this embarrassment disclosed via parliamentary debate and any public debate might split the government, lead to Ministerial resignations, threaten business confidence and cause a leadership crisis. However, none of these justify the use of an arcane and untransparent process: a process which, in the first court hearing, was held to be illegal.

11. Are the Brexiteers really calling for an illegal process to implement their vote, if so the UK is on the skids. Or are they saying the courts have no role in deciding the law? In this case the courts have said that the law requires the vote be implemented in a public way by Parliament – they are not frustrating the ‘public will’ – rather than via a document signed in private by the Queen, based on advice which is secret and cabinet minutes which cannot be released for 30 years and cabinet solidarity which prevents members from disclosing debate or how they voted.

12. The Executive, PM, Cabinet and the Queen, are accountable to Parliament and should welcome that accountability and transparency. The alternative would be an Executive which ignores Parliament and where would that lead?

Seems a not illogical argument and not inferior to any alternative posted here.

Some voices seem to be calling for a revolutionary change in the constitution where Parliament and the courts are sidelined and where the Executive is able to deal directly with the population and implements their 'will' in private. Surely uncharted territory but quite attractive if you were part of the Executive or had the tools to manipulate public opinion.

She presented as sane, logical, poised and understated which is a lot more than can be said for those attacking her.

[Who2]

An awful lot of people are totally ignorant on the law of this land,
but judges can be swayed in their decisions by powerful men over a brandy in many of St James' clubs....
Ps: Especially if they are Masons.

[newcastle]

I'm not sure the Queen is accountable to parliament but, apart from that minor quibble, I concur wholeheartedly with Hafiz's post.

It wasn't only Gina Miller et al who came in for some stick for having the temerity to challenge the government in the courts.

The law lords themselves, despite stating that they were ruling only on a point of constitutional law, found themselves objects of derision in the seedier newspapers....including the (shock horror) revelation that one of them was "openly gay" and, by inference, incapable of making a sound legal judgement.

[newcastle]

An awful lot of people are totally ignorant on the law of this land,

The 17.4 million OUT voters who thought the referendum result was legally binding for starters.......

[A-Four]

but judges can be swayed in their decisions by powerful men over a brandy in many of St James' clubs....
Ps: Especially if they are Masons.

Strange you should mention St James, last night was on an 'all night sitting' up West, you might have probably notice from my very early post on ST's initial post, that is before it was removed, anyhow I digress. I came across an old mate who has now become a 'gentleman-of-the-street, one might say, just off the Dilly.

Anyhow, I showed him the front entrance of Whites, where he deposited himself, within five minutes the doorman came out and offered him £20 to 'push off'. I then took him down and across the road to Boodles, where I persuaded him to perform the same trick, within five minutes another £20 added to the pot. I was going to show him the R.A.C. down the Pall, though I did not want him to know how easy it is to make a fortune within one hour.

Unfortunately, I discovered these days they appear to offer Joe public French muppet wine at £35 per bottle, five bottles later we were all still sober, but not so tonight, thanks to Mr Waitrose. .


P.S. One day soon, I may do a write up just to show what the whole of the EU is really all about. Until then can any one give me THREE good reasons why it benefits themselves as a PERSON, not Britain as a nation, or business which may or may not benefit, BUT as a individual.

Do any of you really understand the meaning of a well known EU term called HARMONISATION,.............I think not. .

[newcastle]

Cavorting through the streets of the West End with an inebriated tramp.

How are the mighty fallen.....

[newcastle]

P.S. One day soon, I may do a write up just to show what the whole of the EU is really all about.

Oh good.....I could do with a laugh.

(Don't forget to include your qualifications.)

[Who2]

As a kid I used to clean the windows of Boodles, Brookes, The Athenaeum & Crockfords.
Fascinating insider views on these amazing places, lots of weird & interesting elderly gentlemen.....

[newcastle]

As a kid I used to clean the windows of Boodles, Brookes, The Athenaeum & Crockfords.

Casing the joint were we?

........ lots of weird & interesting elderly gentlemen.....

Have a care.....that could be horribly misconstrued by anyone with a suspicious mind

You've met A-Four and his tramp friend I take it

[Who2]

I think he was talking about an ex Dillyboy, many sad f*ckers survive in the 'smoke.
When I was a waiter in the Stafford St James's our club, the Alphabet in Gerrard st were 'smack-head scots selling
the evening news and standard around the West End.

Your either a survivor or just one of the sheep,
We are after all carnivores are we not ? well the intelligent ones among us that is..

5am in Regent Street during the Winter cleaning Aquascutum's window
and it's chucking out time round the corner at "The Bag of Nails' .....'hilarious fun!.....

Ps: 'Shiners access all areas no-one takes a blind bit. And all those roofs are connected miles of them...
My 'handle was then the 'silver shiner' that's CB talk....

[newcastle]

I think he was talking about an ex Dillyboy, many sad f*ckers survive in the 'smoke.

Surely not? A remarkably unsuccessful Dilly boy if he's ended up on the streets.

Still.....you never know what strange "old mates" people have from their past

[Hafiz]

Newcastle – I differ on the accountability issue - see below.

Also you say the attacks on judges and others were just from the seedy press. Not so. The Telegraph has joined the feeding frenzy and I think The Observer is foaming at the mouth. A momentary irruption but starting to become a pattern with even the Communities Secretary attacking the judges.

There are new developments: Suzanne Evans (a public relations consultant and ex journalist and likely future leader of UKIP) wants ‘democratic control’ over judges http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/s ... e24aafe6ab and her mate EuroMP Daniel Hannan wants elected judges like the US but fails to mention they are only in very junior courts. As if he doesn’t know better with his Oxford Mods.

These people don’t seem to understand the decision, the role of the courts, the separation of powers or very much of English constitutional theory or history. Still if you yell loud enough and tell lies often enough you will get someone to believe you.

What gets lost in the witches brew is that the decision was that the PM did not have the power to make the Article 50 decision without a Parliamentary vote.

The screaming mob have no evidence of judicial bias or incapacity – its just smear/innuendo, not entirely unlike a witch hunt which passes for debate and free speech at the moment and fueled by press and politicians who have something to gain from the heat and instability it produces. The reality is that they just don’t like the decision – well join reality – when did all judicial decisions get universal approval? If you don't like it then appeal and if you are UKIP, bother to send a barrister to argue your case this time and don't complain about an umpires decision when you weren't even a player in the game..

Do we want judges who establish precedents which apply for generations based on the current mood of the population or media proprietors? Those who want this make the mistake of assuming the role of the courts is to implement the ‘peoples will’. It is not – courts apply the law. Politicians represent the popular will. If judges were in the business of applying/interpreting the ‘peoples will’ they would cease to be judges and become politicians – albeit unelected ones competing with Parliament as the true representatives of ‘the people’. Imagine two institutions competing to champion the ‘peoples will’. Maybe frightened and intimidated judges will make good decisions and good law.

Maybe the next judges to hear the matter will have their sheets stolen by the press for DNA testing or their phones hacked? Maybe Fleet Street could offer rewards for the dirt and UK judges hearing any future appeal disqualify themselves if they did something in their past they don’t want on the front page of The Mail? Maybe Brexit could appear before the appeal court to oppose certain judges from sitting? Maybe Olympians could be removed.

Newcastle, if, as you imply, the Crown is not accountable to Parliament – who is it accountable to – God (as in the arcane Coronation Oath)?

This was all decided centuries ago and only courtly behavior surrounding the sovereign, smoke and mirrors, charming fictions and mystery obscures where real sovereignty lies.

Under the Westminster system Parliament is sovereign. In addition, because there is no constitution in the UK, only just conventions and judicial rulings, Parliament can change the so-called constitution with a simple statute.

Parliament cut off Charles I’s head, fought a 9 year civil war, appointed Cromwell, restored the Stuarts, then removed the Stuarts and replaced them with the 182nd next in line. In the 20th century Edward VIII could not succeed, although legally entitled to, because the elected representatives did not support him. Statute, not god or the prerogative, made the Emperor of India and then removed him and Parliament went to war to establish that the prerogative/Crown could not be used to raise taxes or close down the House of Commons. More recently, Parliament changed the line of succession and could pass a valid statute to remove Charles from the succession at any time. In addition, and this is arguable at the margins, the Crown can only act on the advice of the Ministers and those Ministers must be able to command a majority in the Commons.

The Crown lives under laws made by Parliament and could be abolished by Parliament at any time. That looks like accountability to me.

The whole thrust of British constitutional history over 500 years has been a transfer of power from the Crown (and its ‘agents’ the Executive – PM, Cabinet and the bureaucracy) to Parliament. A powerful secretive executive of insiders has always been the enemy of democracy and those Brexiteers who now claim to be so democratic should bear this in mind before they back the use of the Royal prerogative. which is a law without a statute – basically rule by the few and the insiders.

Those interested in more than the ‘gay judges’/ frustrating the will of the people angle could do worse than read the following: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ing-brexit. Its thoughtful, looks at the costs and benefits of all the options, points out all the unintended consequences of implementing Brexit and the lies told. Its all you would want from a Parliamentary debate – the devil is in the detail, one sentence plebiscites are one thing, implementation is another thing, slogans aren’t a policy, careful hands are needed, much of the anger is about poor domestic policies not caused by the EU etc. Its written by a LSE academic (anathema to those who hate elites) and is a bit starry eyed about solutions - but worth reading.

A summary of the London press attacks (as of a few days ago – complete with pics of the screaming front pages) on the judiciary and the tepid defense of the judges by the Lord Chancellor (a member of the Executive that wanted to use the prerogative) is at: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/no ... ing-judges and https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-ruling.

Obviously something has changed and for the worse. In previous times of crisis Parliamentary debate was allowed. For example, the UK Parliament debated all key issues in the prosecution of WWII and Churchill had to face his accusers and survive no-confidence motions. In that crisis Parliament was used to build consensus and confidence rather than a bear pit to score cheap media points.

The current extreme debate, anger and disregard for truth and fairness is ‘nicely’ summed up in the words of UK Brexiteer export who is currently campaigning across US campuses for Trumpland - in lockstep with Farage:
“We live in a post-fact era. It’s wonderful,” he says, pointing to various web pages on his giant computer screen that show photos of, supposedly, Bill Clinton’s grown black son. “The Washington Post gives a truth check, and no one cares. Now you have to use the truth and other strategies. You have to be persuasive. Dumpy lesbian feminists and shrieking harpies in the Black Lives Matter movement are not persuasive,” he says, digging into the egg, turkey, and avocado scramble prepared by his full-time trainer.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016- ... nnopoulos/.

[newcastle]

[quoteNewcastle, if, as you imply, the Crown is not accountable to Parliament – who is it accountable to – God (as in the arcane Coronation Oath)? ][/quote]

Possibly....although that gives me the further problem of HM being accountable to a non-existent personage

Of course, in practice, the Queen is accountable to parliament but , in the absence of a written constitution, she appears to have powers superior to it. She can, for example, simply dismiss it. That would create a constitutional crisis....a crisis, as it were, of something else that doesn't exist! You have to concede - we Brits have a wonderful way of creating complexity

Acts of Parliament require the Royal Assent (which can, and has been, withheld on occasion...though not by the present queen) to be effective, The armed forces & police swear allegiance to the Queen, not parliament etc etc.

Weirdly....the Treason Felony 1848 makes even thinking about the abolition of the monarchy an offense punishable by a life sentence.

All rather academic in practice and, as you rightly point out, the last monarch to seriously dispute the question of supremacy lost the argument ....and his head.

I will be reading the rest of your opus magnum, and the references, with interest....later.

[newcastle]

Quote Hafiz : "Newcastle, if, as you imply, the Crown is not accountable to Parliament – who is it accountable to – God (as in the arcane Coronation Oath)? "

Possibly....although that gives me the further problem of HM being accountable to a non-existent personage

Of course, in practice, the Queen is accountable to parliament but , in the absence of a written constitution, she appears to have powers superior to it. She can, for example, simply dismiss it. That would create a constitutional crisis....a crisis, as it were, of something else that doesn't exist! You have to concede - we Brits have a wonderful way of creating complexity

Acts of Parliament require the Royal Assent (which can, and has been, withheld on occasion...though not by the present queen) to be effective, The armed forces & police swear allegiance to the Queen, not parliament etc etc.

Weirdly....the Treason Felony 1848 makes even thinking about the abolition of the monarchy an offense punishable by a life sentence.

All rather academic in practice and, as you rightly point out, the last monarch to seriously dispute the question of supremacy lost the argument ....and his head.

I will be reading the rest of your opus magnum, and the references, with interest....later.

[Hafiz]

The execution of Charles I established a precedent that you cant prorogue Parliament except on the advice of your Ministers. In typical English fashion after waging a 9 year war on his people and being executed for treason he was canonized by the Church of England. Only in England.

The absence of a written constitution gives too many speculative opportunities to theorizers and some myth makers whilst the populace can't be expected to trawl through thousands of pages of judicial decisions going back to dot and the many fragmented pieces of legislation that make up the so called constitution. If the voters are confused about who does what maybe this is one of the reasons.

You are right about badly behaving royals. Victoria overstepped the mark, Edward VIII tried to run foreign policy and George VI refused his ministers advice to appoint a Jewish (Australian) general - and these are just a sample of the published bad behaviors. Given the Brexiteers are so keen on the Royal prerogative they would support this and its use in the courts to prevent disclosure of lurid family sexual behavior - say in the case of the Mountbatten's. Nevertheless on most important issues the Crown has followed precedent and done what it was told to do whilst maintaining the aura and mystique of sovereignty.

The Queens recent secret attempts to secure the Head of the Commonwealth for her underwhelming son, and without UK government approval, seems to go to the limit. Australia's secret agreement to this is another example of the dangers of letting the Executive settle things in private which would never be approved of by the public. So maybe the 'Germans' need to relearn the lesson.

Those Stuarts might have been reckless and feckless but the 'Germans' kept their heads and learnt from their mistakes - so far.

[newcastle]

Those interested in more than the ‘gay judges’/ frustrating the will of the people angle could do worse than read the following: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ing-brexit. Its thoughtful, looks at the costs and benefits of all the options, points out all the unintended consequences of implementing Brexit and the lies told. Its all you would want from a Parliamentary debate – the devil is in the detail, one sentence plebiscites are one thing, implementation is another thing, slogans aren’t a policy, careful hands are needed, much of the anger is about poor domestic policies not caused by the EU etc. Its written by a LSE academic (anathema to those who hate elites) and is a bit starry eyed about solutions - but worth reading.

It is indeed an interesting read.

I hope parliament gets the chance to air some of the points made......particularly that remaining in the Single Market and accepting freedom of movement of labour is one possible option within a Brexit.

Whilst I suspect rejecting free movement of labour was high on many Brexiteers' "wish lists", even they must concede that the referendum wasn't solely about this.

[newcastle]

Another spanner in the Government's headlong rush to leave EU?

Lawyers say uncertainty over the UK's European Economic Area membership means ministers could be stopped from taking Britain out of the single market.

They will argue the UK will not leave the EEA automatically when it leaves the EU and Parliament should decide.

But the government said EEA membership ends when the UK leaves the EU.

If the courts back the legal challenge and give Parliament the final say over EEA membership, then MPs could vote to ensure that Britain stays in the single market until a long-term trading relationship with the EU has been agreed.

All EU member states are in the European Economic Area and it had been assumed that when Britain leaves the EU it would automatically leave the EEA as well.

But some lawyers argue that leaving the EEA would not be automatic and would happen only if Britain formally withdraws by triggering Article 127 of the EEA agreement.

Professor George Yarrow, chairman of the Regulatory Policy Institute and emeritus professor at Hertford College, Oxford, said: "There is no provision in the EEA Agreement for UK membership to lapse if the UK withdraws from the EU.

"The only exit mechanism specified is Article 127, which would need to be triggered."

Jolyon Maugham QC, of Devereux chambers, said: "My own view is that you do not automatically leave the EEA. Given Article 127 provides an express mechanism for withdrawal, it implicitly excludes other implied mechanisms for withdrawal such as ceasing to be a member of the EU."

If MPs do get to decide on Article 127, they could potentially overcome the government's small majority and keep Britain inside the single market after Brexit.

This would infuriate Brexiteers, but pro-EU campaigners say MPs would feel able to do this because people voted in the referendum to leave the EU and not the single market.


A government spokesman said: "As the UK is party to the EEA Agreement only in its capacity as an EU Member State, once we leave the European Union we will automatically cease to be a member of the EEA."

Well they would, wouldn't they

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-381 ... e=facebook