Brexit: Now What? Part II

[ctamblyn]

Whilst people may not like it holding that view can't be controversial as that has been the case for a few hundred years.

That is true if the Scotland Act 2016 lacks any legal/constitutional significance. The SC are (ETA: were) today hearing arguments to the contrary. It'll be interesting to see how they decide. If it turns out that the Act is at its core empty, I could imagine that being politically useful to advocates of independence.

 

[Craig B]

That is true if the Scotland Act 2016 lacks any legal/constitutional significance. The SC are (ETA: were) today hearing arguments to the contrary. It'll be interesting to see how they decide. If it turns out that the Act is at its core empty, I could imagine that being politically useful to advocates of independence.

Probably yes, in the long run at least. The English Constitution has never admitted the possibility of a federal structure, and none has ever evolved. The "Crown in Parliament" can't share or devolve its sovereign power.

But the abolition of autonomy in Scotland would surely have such disastrous political consequences, that only in an existential extremity would any administration contemplate it.

 

[ceptimus]

What have your anti-Muslim opinions got to do with Brexit?

I don't have anti-Muslim opinions.

If you bothered to read the posts immediately before mine in the thread you'll see why that factual information poster originating from the Muslim Council of Britain was relevant.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'm not sure I understood the question fully. As a general rule I would oppose any policy which denied any person or group human rights however I am not an absolutist and recognise that in some very limited cases there may be a very good reason to restrict human rights (at least in theory) however there would need to be a damn good case made that there is a need for it and a benefit from it.

I also acknowledge that in a number of cases there may in fact be a conflict of rights and some compromise may require to be made.

Thanks for that. I'll pursue these ideas no further, as this is the Brexit thread. I look forward to the possibility of continuing discussion in a thread on the topic when one goes 'live' again.

Therefore moderate people should jump on the bandwagon of denying Muslims rights otherwise they will be primarily to blame if bigots vote for bigotry.

I'd phrase this differently. I would deny anyone seeking by doctrine to impose it the 'right' to do so, which, in my understanding, is no right at all. Goes for all stripes, in religion or politics. Perhaps we'll get a chance to discuss in some future thread.

***

Soooo, what about Brexit? To summarize my viewer impressions from the news over the last few months, it seems we are at an impasse, with Leavers hesitant to start the clock, and the EU anxious to see the sword of Damocles fall, or be withdrawn. Will May in fact meet her deadline to invoke Art50 in what, March 2017 was it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Thanks for that. I'll pursue these ideas no further, as this is the Brexit thread. I look forward to the possibility of continuing discussion in a thread on the topic when one goes 'live' again.



I'd phrase this differently. I would deny anyone seeking by doctrine to impose it the 'right' to do so, which, in my understanding, is no right at all. Goes for all stripes, in religion or politics. Perhaps we'll get a chance to discuss in some future thread.

***

Soooo, what about Brexit? To summarize my viewer impressions from the news over the last few months, it seems we are at an impasse, with Leavers hesitant to start the clock, and the EU anxious to see the sword of Damocles fall, or be withdrawn. Will May in fact meet her deadline to invoke Art50 in what, March 2017 was it?

Re the Muslim stuff I think youre addressing a different point. Wearing a burqa isnt imposing your doctrine on anyone and denying Muslims the right to do it purely to pander to bigotry is a non starter as an argument. There actually may be good reasons to discuss whether the burqa should be allowed but those relate to the rights of muslims and are nothing to do with whether whitey mcracist likes it or not.

The mere presence of Muslims looking Muslim is enough to trigger some on the right to insist that they shouldnt be allowed.

As for Brexit. No change. Hardly surprising when the best deal for britain is incompatible with pandering to bigots and idiots.

 

[Tolls]

Well, the last I heard from the Supreme Court was the argument that Northern Ireland could scupper it, which I think has been brought up here.

 

[wobs]

Earlier in the thread I alluded to an interview with the PM. It has finally been published here:
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...ial_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons

Interesting, in that it it is by a non-journalist in a constituency surgery.

 

[3point14]

Earlier in the thread I alluded to an interview with the PM. It has finally been published here:
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...ial_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons

Interesting, in that it it is by a non-journalist in a constituency surgery.

Thank you for that.

Our PM (elected by the few a the behest of the poorly informed) is increasingly seeming less like a cunning stateswoman and more like a lady who just really, really wanted to be PM regardless of what the job actually entailed.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Re the Muslim stuff I think youre addressing a different point. Wearing a burqa isnt imposing your doctrine on anyone and denying Muslims the right to do it purely to pander to bigotry is a non starter as an argument. There actually may be good reasons to discuss whether the burqa should be allowed but those relate to the rights of muslims and are nothing to do with whether whitey mcracist likes it or not.

The mere presence of Muslims looking Muslim is enough to trigger some on the right to insist that they shouldnt be allowed.

As for Brexit. No change. Hardly surprising when the best deal for britain is incompatible with pandering to bigots and idiots.

I skipped the burqa issue on purpose to derail no further, and was addressing another point entirely when speaking of doctrine. I will simply agree that catering to racists is not a good idea.

I'm a bit at a loss on the Brexit comment; perhaps you could flesh that out? Or, more appropriately, help me gauge the latest drift in UK sentiment as to what kind of deal, now more calmly and in light of the EU's stance, is possible that is neither hard Brexit, nor Brexit in name only. Or is hard Brexit increasingly seen as a good thing?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Earlier in the thread I alluded to an interview with the PM. It has finally been published here:
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...ial_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons

Interesting, in that it it is by a non-journalist in a constituency surgery.

At first, I thought, "what an eye-popper!" Then, the experience described seemed typically par for today's woeful statesmanship (-personship?). The author, however, is as lucid a writer as I've seen in some time. Kudos.

 

[Greebo]

At first, I thought, "what an eye-popper!" Then, the experience described seemed typically par for today's woeful statesmanship (-personship?). The author, however, is as lucid a writer as I've seen in some time. Kudos.

Shame there isn't a "like" button here eh?

 

[Darat]

The people in this image were not Poles, Bulgarians and the like.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/41/590x/secondary/Ukip-advert-567064.jpg

Of course Brexitards campaigned on Poles, Bulgarians and the like, they would be obviously called out that EU doesn't regulate non-EU migration if they didn't. I'm saying the anti-Islamic feelings brought the anti-immigrant voters to a far greater extent than EU migration ever did.

McHrozni

Again totally disagree there was very little anti Muslim immigration it was mainly about the hordes of East europeans.

 

[Darat]

What I also found ironic was that those more likely to vote for Brexit were those more likely to receive some form of benefits from the EU in their area.

I think it illustrated how much the leave campaign used fear of the hordes to get a leave vote. I don't find it surprising that in areas with comparatively little immigration where the most fearful of the hordes. It has always been the case that when people live with the hordes day in day out they realise there is little to nothing to fear. It is the unknown that is the most fearful.

 

[ddt]

Earlier in the thread I alluded to an interview with the PM. It has finally been published here:
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...ial_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons

Interesting, in that it it is by a non-journalist in a constituency surgery.

Wow.

That is one hell of a take-down of Ms. May. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[Garrison]

So the Brexit debate was today, alas they ignored the clearly crucial question of whether Muslims are evil in favour of the mechanics of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38232780

Labour's position was summed up thus:

Opening the Commons debate, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the government had refused "on every occasion" to give more details, saying information about its negotiating stance was important because it "sets the scene" for Brexit.
The plan which the government has now committed to via an amendment to today's Labour motion must be detailed enough to allow parliamentary scrutiny and enable the Office for Budget Responsibility to assess the impact on the public finances, he said.

In other words the government should have their plans vetted to make sure they aren't going to just wreck the economy in their pursuit of Brexit.

Naturally the government sees things differently:

But Brexit Secretary David Davis responded: "The simple fact is that the mandate (in June's referendum) was to leave the European Union - full stop. We need to keep that in mind when we are going through that process."

Basically the leave vote is a mandate to ignore the promises made to get people to vote leave. Of course Davis has made it clear he doesn't feel bound by the promises made by the leave campaign:

David Davis, the minister tasked with negotiating Brexit, has distanced himself from Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign’s pledge to spend £350 million more on the NHS after exiting the EU.*
In further signs of differences between the pair, Mr Davis pointedly refused to endorse the slogan, which had appeared on the side of the official Leave campaign’s bus.*Instead Mr Davis, who voted for Brexit, told a committee of MPs that he “made no such pledge” during the referendum– an implicit criticism of those senior Tories who endorsed the promise.*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-himself-from-vote-leaves-pledge-to-spend-3/

 

[KDLarsen]

So in short, the Labour MP's (minus the 80-something rebels) are pro-triggering article 50 by march 31st, if the government will submit a plan of what they actually intend to do during the negotiations.

 

[Garrison]

So in short, the Labour MP's (minus the 80-something rebels) are pro-triggering article 50 by march 31st, if the government will submit a plan of what they actually intend to do during the negotiations.

And doesn't trigger a panic attack at the OBR. Basically accepting the leave vote, but pointing out that it wasn't 'at any price'.

 

[Craig B]

So in short, the Labour MP's (minus the 80-something rebels) are pro-triggering article 50 by march 31st, if the government will submit a plan of what they actually intend to do during the negotiations.

Do we know how extreme a demand that is, to require the government to submit a plan? Is there a plan? Is a plan even possible?

 

[catsmate]

Do we know how extreme a demand that is, to require the government to submit a plan? Is there a plan? Is a plan even possible?

To quote Reg: "Yes, no and maybe".
Yes it is pretty extreme for a UKGov to actually have it's plans subject to scrutiny.
No there is no plan atm, just an incoherent mess or incompatible demands and ideas.
Maybe a plan is possible. But it's guaranteed to piss off major sections of the UK.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Thank you for that.

Our PM (elected by the few a the behest of the poorly informed) is increasingly seeming less like a cunning stateswoman and more like a lady who just really, really wanted to be PM regardless of what the job actually entailed.

Like Trump?