Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
harper

Brexit

121 posts in this topic

Not so much hard or soft Brexit as a scrambled Brexit.

 The  two sanest comments I have heard this week have come from the Labour side; Gordon Brown calling for a federation model to fix the divisions within the UK and a rare sighting of Corbyn who managed to make a statement in support of the judge's ruling without being offensive to the people who voted Brexit. 

The best of Brexit this week has to go to Newsnight... 

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a813156/bbc-newsnight-trolls-tory-mp-god-save-the-queen/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha. Before I got to the punchline I was thinking that they should play the version they chose.

I can't abide Gordon Brown. I don't know how a Federation would work. At the moment other parts of the UK have a range of powers but such a reluctance to hand over the power to grow their economies as they would like. And not one single amendment put forward by SNP MPs has been passed. The Tories even filibustered the Turing Bill. Not because in essence they were against it but because it was introduced by John Nicholson, SNP.

It is a bit strange seeing The Daily Mail direct their flak at the Judges.  The whole thing is indeed one hefty mess.

I see Madrid is putting forward its case to take over from the City of London as Europe's Key Financial Hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a case of personal like or dislike.  It's about having a Union that is fair to all parts.  I would have thought that would be in everyone's interest. Brexit has thrown up some very deep divisions and personally I would support a system that works for all parts of the Union.  I think it is inherent in Brown's statement that he recognises that the current system doesn't work.  If we had had to work out a system to support the division between Scotland and England, I'm sure we could work out a Federation model for every part of the UK. In the end we may have to.

i don't read the tabloids, so can't comment but from the coverage I have heard and read, the objections seem to be more connected to what is perceived as an underlying attempt to prevent, stall or frustrate Brexit and undermine the democratic result of a UK referendum by a motion introduced by a privileged, self interested party. How and ever, it the law has been clarified and it leads to a better process for Brexit then well and good. 

Off Brexit.  My understanding was the Turing Bill was turned down in favour of the introduction of the more finely tuned  Turing Law which is imminent, on the grounds that a blanket pardon might include some same sex convictions that had included other sexual crimes.  I think the Bill  was considered too far reaching, as it was presented?

Back on Brexit.  I think your description of parts of the UK having wide reaching powers over some parts is the same argument some people object to the EU.  Scotland and London are going to have to live with the result of the EU referendum and work towards a good Brexit, until Scotland decides differently but quite frankly, I would be wary of being out of the UK and the EU or in the EU  after seeing the EU treatment of Greece and Italy.  

I am sure there will be a lot of proposals put forward for the relocation of the financial markets.  There is no end to the stirring up of daily disasters and and speculation from various sources.  The Mayplan needs to come soon for everyone. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Federalism is defined as ‘a system of government in which central and regional authorities are linked in an interdependent political relationship, in which powers and functions are distributed to achieve a substantial degree of autonomy and integrity in the regional units. In theory, a federal system seeks to maintain a balance such that neither level of government becomes sufficiently dominant to dictate the decision of the other, unlike in a unitary system, in which the central authorities hold primacy to the extent even of redesigning or abolishing regional and local units of government at will". LSE.

I think Federalism is an option worth exploring it makes perfect sense to consider it on its merits.  It's not just Scotland who are fed up and angry with Westminster.  People the length and breadth of the country are fed up with centralised governance and Tory rule.  A second referendum might solve the problem for Scotland but not for other parts of the UK.

Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean the concept of Federalism is not worth considering and follwing the Brexit result, it may be the only solution for sensible government in a country riven with divisions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Federalism is worth considering but I cannot see the Tory Party being willing to give up power. I do not know if the Labour Party in England would support this idea. I do not think that Independence supporters in Scotland would prefer this as an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Rory, unlike the Scottish referendum, Brexit is about the whole of the UK.  One of the benefits would be that it would be a fairer system across the board  and not just for the parts of the UK that could achieve independence.  Areas like Cornwall have long campaigned for their livelihoods that they feel have been badly damaged by the UK's membership of the EU.  A Federation model would go a long way to ensuring that regions that are often overlooked are recognised in a more constitutional way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why you ever joined the EU is beyond me. Sooner you are out the better

You ditched your staunchest friends and trading partners for what?... The mess you are now in!

If you do decide for a Federal System first thing is ditch House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house. The Australian system is worth a look. Senate is composed of 12 senators from each state and 6 from the territories. Reps is based on population size with each constituency having the same number of voters +/- 10%   . Smallest is in Sydney about 2sq miles  largest is Kalgoorlie in WA  about same size as France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-dont-be-fooled-by-gordon-browns-mouldy-carrot-of-federalism.24414

 

What stanchest friends and trading partners were ditched?  The mess the UK is in right now is of its own making.  It wasn't the EU that demanded nil regulation of banks, it wasn't the EU that demanded decades of under investment in industry, it wasn't the EU that destroyed our industrial base to create a super financial service sector in the square mile.

It was the EU however, that has put in place protections for the most vulnerable, it was the EU that gave the people of the UK a basic written constitution and it was the EU that put in place stricter controls to protect the environment.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU did introduced many wonderful things but it is also a toxic, outdated system that is long overdue a compete overhaul. For its treatment of Greece and Italy alone, the EU should hang its head in shame.  It is not fit for purpose and any attempts to reform it from the inside meet with staunch resistance.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/10-things-i-hate-about-eu/18845#.WB7i38nRaJl

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ozneil said:

Why you ever joined the EU is beyond me. Sooner you are out the better

You ditched your staunchest friends and trading partners for what?... The mess you are now in!

If you do decide for a Federal System first thing is ditch House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house. The Australian system is worth a look. Senate is composed of 12 senators from each state and 6 from the territories. Reps is based on population size with each constituency having the same number of voters +/- 10%   . Smallest is in Sydney about 2sq miles  largest is Kalgoorlie in WA  about same size as France.

At the time Ted Health took Britain into the European Common Market he reassured Parliament and the British people that British sovereignty would not be affected and that we were just joining a trading partnership. His 1971 government White Paper stated the following: “There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty… The British safeguards of habeus corpus and trial by jury will remain intact. So will the principle that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty.” Subsequent papers came to light, which unequivocally show that Edward Heath recognised that he had known all along that Britain was signing up to a federal Europe. 

We are part of a dysfunctional federal Europe and we are already moving towards a gradual system of Federalism within the UK,

  I would like to see this formalised and introduced with focus and intent.  I woud support a complete move away from centralised government to see the four parts of the Union governed by regional parliaments with powers decided and devolved within their own areas. 

Seriously, what's not to like?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things worked in the EU – research grants, without which our Universities are going to flounder, and the vast social funding received, for example, by Wales.

The barney now going on with regard to the judges ruling is very interesting and embarrassing that May and her government really don't have a scooby about legal process:
"It has become painfully clear since June’s vote to leave the European Union that Theresa May’s government and its supporters have little or no idea where the country is heading. Lacking a plan or a shared philosophy, they are united by an arbitrary and destructive rush to the exit. Their hysterical reaction to last week’s unanimous high court ruling that Britain cannot quit the EU without parliament’s consent also reveals extraordinary ignorance about where we, as a country, have come from. It is dismaying that those who campaigned so passionately to reclaim British sovereignty appear not to have the first idea about their country’s long-established constitutional arrangements.

It is a fundamental principle of British democracy that parliament is sovereign. Not the government. Not the executive or a self-selecting clique within it. Certainly not this prime minister, who lacks a personal mandate. Sovereign power resides with our elected, representative parliament.'

Even the much lauded Hillary Benn has pointed out that it is about sovereignty.  So many voices declaring prior to the Referendum that they wanted sovereignty without actually having a clue what it means.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/high-court-ruling-brexit-not-sabotaging-parliamentary-democracy-best-deal-britain?CMP=share_btn_tw

I doubt May is going to get far in her business negotiations with India. Sure they would strike a deal with the UK but they'd be looking for the granting of a larger number of Visas. Doesn't exactly fit in with her promises of reducing immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding like I am splitting hairs, I think the issue related to taking back sovereignty from the EU and the issue of "Royal Perogitive" seems to be a moveable feast.  That said, the law has been applied, the process has been clarified and now we need to get on with it. 

There seems to be a lot of hysteria on all sides ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching all the usual guff Marr, Peston and Jo Coburn.  The hysteria seems to be more or less in the form of outrage towards the judges – 'the enemy of the people'. 

I think the Sovereignty is very straightforward. It lies with parliament and not the government in power – much as May seems to be intent on a pseudo dictatorship approach. Apparently she's even considering an election!!!  These constitutional crises are becoming ten a penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only it was that clear ...

Some prerogatives are directly exercised by ministers without the approval of parliament, including, some of the powers to regulate the civil service, issue passports and grant honours.  Some prerogative powers are exercised nominally by the monarch, but on the advice of the PM and cabinet.  Some key areas of government are still carried out by means of the royal prerogative, but its usage has been diminishing, as functions are progressively made statutory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think that just translates into – they try to suit themselves. Adept at sneaking things through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems if the royal perogative can be used in war, Brexit should have been a dawdle ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Supreme Court judge has suggested “comprehensive” legislation may be required to trigger Brexit, potentially delaying the move for two years.  The view has been put forward by Lady Brenda Hale,one of the 11 justices who will hear the Government appeal to the Supreme Court for the right to bypass Parliament when it triggers Article 50.

'Lady Hale explained how the High Court ruled against the Government on the grounds that it did not have the right to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50 alone.

She said: “The argument is that the European Communities Act 1972 grants rights to individuals and others which will automatically be lost if the Treaties cease to apply.

“Such a result, it is said, can only be achieved by an Act of Parliament.

“Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple Act of Parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement for the 1972 Act.”

No end in sight to this Brexit thing.  Hard or Soft.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-dealt-fresh-blow-as-supreme-court-judge-signals-major-delay-on-starting-brexit-a7418986.html


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had no plan because none of them expected it to happen. Seems that the EU is more disposed towards Scotland gaining entry than they were a couple of years back. Indy is on the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa May voicing her opinion that in 2014 SNP wanted people to vote to leave the EU. How's that for putting a spin on things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, samscafeamericain said:

Cy1GzVfWgAAZw_X.jpg

No idea how this can be explained.  Maybe they watch more telly and read more red tops in the dark purple places?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit's looking like a coat of many colours- white, grey, black, hard, soft.  They should go for a UKIP free tartan Brexit.  hee hee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court Judges come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0