Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[madd0ct0r]

I was astonshied and excited when I saw the last thread was locked. Was Brexit over? Did something happen while I was getting pissed at the food festival yesterday?

Alas no. It rumbles on.

[madd0ct0r]

ghetto edit:

So. Where are we at?

Brexit:
The uk made a lot as a super safe super reliable never-changing regulatory environment for decades scale investment . We have broken that rep so that danage is done.

Leaving with the current deal is expensive, ties us into eu regulations with no formal clout in modifying them, and is universally agreed to be worse then status quo. Some say its the best possible, others that we havent tantrumed enough

Leaving no deal is a bit worse again, but mostly paperwork and checks that can be overlooked if real crisis, and later is long term reduction of british companies dealing abroad and generally poorer population (but only a bit worse then austerity was)


Politics:
At the time of writing, Boris Johnson is still PM, appears to be trying to arrange a general election which he will amend to fall after we leave with no deal, and which he will probably lose. He had no majority when his 1 person lead inherited from May defected to the Lib Dems. Since then 22 tories have rebelled and been thrown out of the party or resigned. Amber Rudd yesterday. There are now more indepentent MPs then SNP, and far more then the bloody DUP.

At the time of writing, Corbyn is still main opposition, has a series of articles about him in the financial times best summed up by it's editorial headline "Labour’s agenda is not the answer for Britain" and "Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to rewrite the rules of the UK economy", which his team are basically viewing as free publicity: @jeremycorbyn Sep 7 "The Labour Party’s economic agenda contains precisely the bold ideas Britain’s economy needs" - writes 82 economists in the @FT

At the time of writing, the other major remain parties - SNP, Plaid, Greens, (TIG?) and Lid Dems have reached a consesus pact to field only one candidate per location, avoid splitting the remain vote.

At the time of writing, The Northern Irish Assmebly has been in suspension for two years due to the DUP not wanting to face a scandal over the 'cash for ash' scheme and also unwilling to allow Sinn Fein to win a irish language vote. They have been able to exercise huge power through the confidence and supply arrangement with the tories, now effectively obsolete due to the vast round of sackings Boris carried out. I have no bloody idea what's going on in belfast day to day, but the impasse does not bode well for managing the new border.

In other news:
The world is burning and the effects of climate change appear to be accelerating. The UK is on track to have a zero carbon grin by 2030, and might end up going into massive forests, seaweed farming and more solar then you expect. Network Rail's target is mass elctirification of trains, and mass solar panels along the tracks to power them, being as independent from grid as possible.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I suggest this thread be stickyed/pinned like the last one was. Regarding energy, the UK has room for a LOT more offshore wind farms, thanks to being an island nation one thing we're not short of is coast. I'm sure there are many criteria for what makes a good site for a wind farm besides the most obvious.

Hilariously, Boris is calling Corbyn out for not pushing for a GE right away, even though the latter is at least smart enough to not do so while the Brexit issue is up in the air.

[LadyTevar]

Topic is stickied. Try to behave yourselves this time?

[Bedlam]

I suggest this thread be stickyed/pinned like the last one was. Regarding energy, the UK has room for a LOT more offshore wind farms, thanks to being an island nation one thing we're not short of is coast. I'm sure there are many criteria for what makes a good site for a wind farm besides the most obvious.

Hilariously, Boris is calling Corbyn out for not pushing for a GE right away, even though the latter is at least smart enough to not do so while the Brexit issue is up in the air.

As I mentioned in the previous thread Corbyn wants Britexit, but he's smart enough to want it and the immediate chaos to be on someone else's watch. A General Election is a loose / loose proposition for him, if Labour loose then well he's seen as a looser and it gives more ammunition for his internal enemies to push to remove him, if he wins then everything that happens can be pinned to him. From his perspective it's better the Tory's stay in power for another yearish and he can step in once things are settling down a little.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 31296.html

Basically 16 people arrested during the protests between both Brexit and anti Brexit side.

Now will they deface Parliament while waving Russian flags.

[The Romulan Republic]

British court rules Johnson's suspension of Parliament illegal:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5887174/john ... -unlawful/

A Scottish court dealt another blow to Prime Minister Boris Johnson‘s Brexit plans Wednesday, ruling that his decision to suspend Parliament less than two months before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union was an unlawful attempt to avoid democratic scrutiny.

The government immediately said it would appeal, as the political opposition demanded Johnson reverse the suspension and recall lawmakers to Parliament.

With Brexit due in 50 days, the court ruling deepened Britain’s political deadlock. Johnson insists the country must leave the EU on Oct. 31, with or without a divorce deal to smooth the way. But many lawmakers fear a no-deal Brexit would be economically devastating, and are determined to stop him.

Their case got a boost late Wednesday as the government gave in to a demand from lawmakers and published a classified document sketching out the potential impact of leaving the EU without a divorce deal. The expected consequences included logjams for freight, shortages of some fresh foods, major travel disruptions and possible rioting.

Earlier, justices at Scotland’s highest civil court said in a surprise judgment that the government’s action was illegal “because it had the purpose of stymieing Parliament.”

Johnson claims he shut down the legislature this week so that he can start afresh on his domestic agenda at a new session of Parliament next month. But the five-week suspension also gives him a respite from rebellious lawmakers as he plots his next move to break the political impasse over Brexit and lead Britain out of the EU by Oct. 31, “do or die.”

But a panel of three Court of Session judges in Edinburgh said “the only inference that could be drawn was that the U.K. government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament.”

WATCH: Bill to block no-deal Brexit gets royal assent in the UK

One of the judges, Philip Brodie, said it appeared the suspension was intended “to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further parliamentary interference.”

The judges declared the suspension “null and of no effect,” but said Britain’s Supreme Court must make the final decision at a hearing due to begin Tuesday.

Johnson denied he was being anti-democratic.

“If opposition members of Parliament disagree with our approach, then it is always open to them to take up the offer that I’ve made twice now — twice! — that we should have an election,” he said in an online question-and-answer session. “There is nothing more democratic in this country than a general election.”

Opposition politicians, however, insisted that the government must recall Parliament. Lawmakers were sent home this week despite the objections of House of Commons Speaker John Bercow and opposition lawmakers, who held up signs in the chamber saying “Silenced.”

“He should do the right thing now, which is to reopen Parliament, let us back to do our job and to decide what to do next,” said Labour Party Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer.

Dominic Grieve, one of 21 lawmakers kicked out of the Conservative group in Parliament by Johnson last week after voting against the government, said it was possible the prime minister had misled Queen Elizabeth II — whose formal approval is needed to suspend Parliament — about his motives.

He said if that turned out to be true, the prime minister would have to “resign — and very swiftly.”

Looks like he may have lied to the Queen to get her approval, too.

[ray245]

British court rules Johnson's suspension of Parliament illegal:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5887174/john ... -unlawful/

A Scottish court dealt another blow to Prime Minister Boris Johnson‘s Brexit plans Wednesday, ruling that his decision to suspend Parliament less than two months before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union was an unlawful attempt to avoid democratic scrutiny.

The government immediately said it would appeal, as the political opposition demanded Johnson reverse the suspension and recall lawmakers to Parliament.

With Brexit due in 50 days, the court ruling deepened Britain’s political deadlock. Johnson insists the country must leave the EU on Oct. 31, with or without a divorce deal to smooth the way. But many lawmakers fear a no-deal Brexit would be economically devastating, and are determined to stop him.

Their case got a boost late Wednesday as the government gave in to a demand from lawmakers and published a classified document sketching out the potential impact of leaving the EU without a divorce deal. The expected consequences included logjams for freight, shortages of some fresh foods, major travel disruptions and possible rioting.

Earlier, justices at Scotland’s highest civil court said in a surprise judgment that the government’s action was illegal “because it had the purpose of stymieing Parliament.”

Johnson claims he shut down the legislature this week so that he can start afresh on his domestic agenda at a new session of Parliament next month. But the five-week suspension also gives him a respite from rebellious lawmakers as he plots his next move to break the political impasse over Brexit and lead Britain out of the EU by Oct. 31, “do or die.”

But a panel of three Court of Session judges in Edinburgh said “the only inference that could be drawn was that the U.K. government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament.”

WATCH: Bill to block no-deal Brexit gets royal assent in the UK

One of the judges, Philip Brodie, said it appeared the suspension was intended “to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further parliamentary interference.”

The judges declared the suspension “null and of no effect,” but said Britain’s Supreme Court must make the final decision at a hearing due to begin Tuesday.

Johnson denied he was being anti-democratic.

“If opposition members of Parliament disagree with our approach, then it is always open to them to take up the offer that I’ve made twice now — twice! — that we should have an election,” he said in an online question-and-answer session. “There is nothing more democratic in this country than a general election.”

Opposition politicians, however, insisted that the government must recall Parliament. Lawmakers were sent home this week despite the objections of House of Commons Speaker John Bercow and opposition lawmakers, who held up signs in the chamber saying “Silenced.”

“He should do the right thing now, which is to reopen Parliament, let us back to do our job and to decide what to do next,” said Labour Party Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer.

Dominic Grieve, one of 21 lawmakers kicked out of the Conservative group in Parliament by Johnson last week after voting against the government, said it was possible the prime minister had misled Queen Elizabeth II — whose formal approval is needed to suspend Parliament — about his motives.

He said if that turned out to be true, the prime minister would have to “resign — and very swiftly.”

Looks like he may have lied to the Queen to get her approval, too.

The Scottish court, not the British court. The Scottish constitution differs a little from the English constitution. So even if Boris Johnson is considered by the Scottish court to be breaking Scottish law, it does not mean he is breaking British law. It means it was illegal for him as the political leader of Scotland to ask the Queen of Scotland for permission to prorogue the parliament. But because the Scottish parliament is the same as the British parliament, and the queen of Scotland is the same as the Queen of England/United Kingdom, that's where the issue will be murky and contested.

So in the best case scenario, you can recall back the Scottish MPs and allow them to take control of the parliament. But the English, Welsh and NI MPs can't do much about it.

A PM doesn't need to do anything to anything to get approval from the monarch, how many fucking times do I have to say this? Her "approval" is basically an automated 100% approval. The monarch is essentially the "sent" button on your email. It can't do anything about what the politician does.

[Vendetta]

The Scottish court, not the British court. The Scottish constitution differs a little from the English constitution. So even if Boris Johnson is considered by the Scottish court to be breaking Scottish law, it does not mean he is breaking British law. It means it was illegal for him as the political leader of Scotland to ask the Queen of Scotland for permission to prorogue the parliament. But because the Scottish parliament is the same as the British parliament, and the queen of Scotland is the same as the Queen of England/United Kingdom, that's where the issue will be murky and contested.

So in the best case scenario, you can recall back the Scottish MPs and allow them to take control of the parliament. But the English, Welsh and NI MPs can't do much about it.

A PM doesn't need to do anything to anything to get approval from the monarch, how many fucking times do I have to say this? Her "approval" is basically an automated 100% approval. The monarch is essentially the "sent" button on your email. It can't do anything about what the politician does.

All of the highest courts of Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland have equal authority, and a ruling in one applies to all territories unless the supreme court passes a ruling. So it is now a legally established fact that Boris Johnson lied to the queen. (And that is likely to remain the case even if the supreme court rules with the English court that the matter is non-judiciable because that does not expunge the record of fact from the Scottish Court of Session)

The constitutional difference in this case is that the English courts cannot adjudicate the matter due to a previous ruling that they will abstain from adjudicating issues that are deemed to be political (because the Parliament should be doing that), but the Scottish court was not included and is not bound by that ruling so it can issue a judgement which applies to all jurisdictions within the Union until the supreme court of the Union as a whole rules on the matter.

[Eternal_Freedom]

What I find hilarious is that Boris, without a trace of irony, called a vote to hold an election, lost, and then immediately called a second vote for a general election as he didn't get the result he wanted.

And yet he and other Brexiters will scoff at the idea of a second referendum because that wouldn't be "democratic" and you have to accept "the will of the people."

Bastard.

Also, since I have (substantially) more politically-active friends on Facebook who follow him for various reasons, I occasionally (about 1 a day) see posts from or about his various efforts. He's off doing the whole "Visiting schools/hospitals shaking hands with people."

Ummm...doesn't he have a somewhat bigger issue to worry about? Shouldn't he be in Downing Street and/or Westminster doing his actual job?

If it wasn't for the fact that I get more from the government in disability money than I pay in in income tax/National Insurance, I'd be grumbling about an egregious waste of my tax pennys.

[ray245]

All of the highest courts of Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland have equal authority, and a ruling in one applies to all territories unless the supreme court passes a ruling. So it is now a legally established fact that Boris Johnson lied to the queen. (And that is likely to remain the case even if the supreme court rules with the English court that the matter is non-judiciable because that does not expunge the record of fact from the Scottish Court of Session)

I see. The question is whether it can be upheld or will the supreme court challenge the ruling upon appeal. But even if the matter is eventually resolved, it might be too late to stop prorogation. The Scottish court might have ruled the proroguing the government as illegal, but they have no issued an or injunction that will order the parliament to reconvene.

The constitutional difference in this case is that the English courts cannot adjudicate the matter due to a previous ruling that they will abstain from adjudicating issues that are deemed to be political (because the Parliament should be doing that), but the Scottish court was not included and is not bound by that ruling so it can issue a judgement which applies to all jurisdictions within the Union until the supreme court of the Union as a whole rules on the matter.

Didn't the English court already adjudicated on this issue?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ourt-rules

[Vendetta]

Didn't the English court already adjudicated on this issue?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ourt-rules

Yes, but the basis of their ruling was that the matter was not justicable in court. And that's based on a principle of English law which the Scottish Court of Session is not bound by, due to the slightly different histories of the two courts and legal systems.

[ray245]

Yes, but the basis of their ruling was that the matter was not justicable in court. And that's based on a principle of English law which the Scottish Court of Session is not bound by, due to the slightly different histories of the two courts and legal systems.

Oh, that does make it quite an interesting development. So in effect, any constitutional issue will be resolved by the Scottish court and the English court have no choice but to follow the ruling of the Scottish court?

[Vendetta]

Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling yes (which it's going to do next week), because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the union as a whole.

[Gandalf]

A PM doesn't need to do anything to anything to get approval from the monarch, how many fucking times do I have to say this? Her "approval" is basically an automated 100% approval. The monarch is essentially the "sent" button on your email. It can't do anything about what the politician does.

Then doesn't that make her a redundant part of the system?

[ray245]

A PM doesn't need to do anything to anything to get approval from the monarch, how many fucking times do I have to say this? Her "approval" is basically an automated 100% approval. The monarch is essentially the "sent" button on your email. It can't do anything about what the politician does.

Then doesn't that make her a redundant part of the system?

It depends on how much value a society place on such rituals and etc. Different societies place different value on things that might seem merely ceremonial or redundant to some, but it can be highly valued by others.

If the British finds no value in keeping the monarchy around, they will end the monarchy. But if they find some symbolic value in having an monarchy, they will keep it around. The British monarchy is seen as a part of the British national and cultural identity.

I mean practically all countries have some quirks in how certain institution can be used to defined national identity. You have symbolic things like national flag, national anthem to help define national identity. You also have things like Americans practically worshipping the Constitution like a sacred text, presidents having to swear upon a Bible and etc. You have the French that anchor their national identity in Republicianism and so forth.

Moreover, the value of having a British monarch around is not the monarchy per say, but the fact that it is a long-lasting and traditional institution. If the British monarchy was only invented in the last decade, it would not have the same degree of influence it has on British mentalities.

Societies constantly does stuff that might seem redundant or useless to people from other societies. But those ceremonial stuff can be the very stuff that help to shape a national identity of a people. If the British can find other stuff to anchor and base their national identity around

[Captain Seafort]

Moreover, the value of having a British monarch around is not the monarchy per say, but the fact that it is a long-lasting and traditional institution. If the British monarchy was only invented in the last decade, it would not have the same degree of influence it has on British mentalities.

That, and the fact a constitutional monarch is Head of State, rather than a having a politician fill the role, gives her an inherent moral superiority over self-selected Heads of State. Having a non-hereditary Head of State, be they directly elected, indirectly elected, or appointed by the government, inevitably means that the individual who is the physical embodiment and representative of what it means to a national of that country is also the embodiment and representative of a relatively narrow and transitory political viewpoint. Having a constitutional monarchy means that all the political bickering can go on at a lower level, without affecting the nature, real or perceived, of that embodiment of the country.

[Gandalf]

Moreover, the value of having a British monarch around is not the monarchy per say, but the fact that it is a long-lasting and traditional institution. If the British monarchy was only invented in the last decade, it would not have the same degree of influence it has on British mentalities.

That, and the fact a constitutional monarch is Head of State, rather than a having a politician fill the role, gives her an inherent moral superiority over self-selected Heads of State. Having a non-hereditary Head of State, be they directly elected, indirectly elected, or appointed by the government, inevitably means that the individual who is the physical embodiment and representative of what it means to a national of that country is also the embodiment and representative of a relatively narrow and transitory political viewpoint. Having a constitutional monarchy means that all the political bickering can go on at a lower level, without affecting the nature, real or perceived, of that embodiment of the country.

So... a national mascot? Also, how do they get moral superiority?

[K. A. Pital]

“Self-selected” sounds like people just appoint themselves to heads of state as opposed to being elected by, well, others?!

[Captain Seafort]

So... a national mascot? Also, how do they get moral superiority?

More than just a mascot - the Head of State is the individual is whose name all decisions of state are made, an active and vital part of the function of government, even if in some cases their role (be that ceremonial president or constitutional monarch) is a rubber stamp 99% of the time. The reason a constitutional monarchy is morally superior is the entire subject of my original post.

“Self-selected” sounds like people just appoint themselves to heads of state as opposed to being elected by, well, others?!

Elected from a pool of candidates who have all chosen to make themselves candidates for the position. That the final choice from among a group of self-selected individuals is made by others doesn't change the fact that they're self-selected.

[K. A. Pital]

What is “morally” superior and how? How does a head of state who is hereditary automatically receive moral superiority? You have claimed them; you have not explained how the duration of service makes one a morally superior head of state. By your logic being a leader for life is morally superior to being a leader only for a defined period. This is either a totally new meaning of morals or I don’t know.

[Gandalf]

So... a national mascot? Also, how do they get moral superiority?

More than just a mascot - the Head of State is the individual is whose name all decisions of state are made, an active and vital part of the function of government, even if in some cases their role (be that ceremonial president or constitutional monarch) is a rubber stamp 99% of the time. The reason a constitutional monarchy is morally superior is the entire subject of my original post.

So what's the difference between the the queen and those varied dogs and cats that are mayors of towns in the US?

Also, I'm not too convinced of the moral superiority of their position considering how much blood was spilled to keep that throne.

[loomer]

I suspect a definition of morality from Seafort may be in order, given its fraught (at best) relationship to political legitimacy and valid lawmaking.

[Captain Seafort]

What is “morally” superior and how? How does a head of state who is hereditary automatically receive moral superiority?

Because, as I explained above, an elected HoS is inevitably associated with a particular political viewpoint, be that a single party or a coalition. A hereditary HoS has no such inevitable association and is therefore a superior representative and embodiment of the entire country to the world, rather than just a subset of it. It's got nothing to do with duration of service.

[K. A. Pital]

I asked how this relates to morals, because you said “morally”. Holding or manifesting principles of better conduct and relating to right and wrong.

I understand your point perfectly, but contend it has little to do with morals or morality.