- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 62,851
Sorry - I wasn't implying a criticism of Ms Phillips or her statements (far from it). I just wrote the past badly.Don't see how they are contrasting?
Sorry - I wasn't implying a criticism of Ms Phillips or her statements (far from it). I just wrote the past badly.Don't see how they are contrasting?
Clearly, its beyond your pay grade!What are you even rambling about?
Just don’t get this. For years I have listened to defenders of our unwritten constitution, mostly Tories, bang on about how flexible it is and adaptable to new circumstances. Well here it is, adapting away to all these new circumstances, and the Tories keep crying about it. I wish they would make their fecking minds up. (For what it is worth, I support wholesale constitutional reform and a written constitution)Don't laugh, the rest of this parliament will lead to even more precedents being set, some of which will change parliament and thereby our unwritten constitution forever... well until we decide to write one that is!
Look around.@nickm Why do you feel that a written constitution suits us more than an adaptive one based on common law?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
On 1) I think you are right the horse has bolted on this, but I wonder if we’d had a different, less Westminster and London centric politics longer ago, perhaps more of a federal UK with the structure more clearly defined (ie written down) whether this might have reduced the pressures and nationalisms that have fuelled Brexit.on point 1. I believe Brexit is far more crucial than the constitution in the medium term to that aim. No deal and breaking the gfa will go a long way to breaking up the Union.
on point 2. A constitution would not generally define referendum rules.
3. I believe the point has merit. A clear rule set may help. However it also has significant downside.
The Telegraph is propaganda rag now and they make no pretence of it.A written constitution will not solve any of these problems, this whole farce just proves that we need the ability to adapt to prevent abuse.
Anyway what i came to post:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The former is the government begging for help and surely undermines this whole argument that we need to pretend we're absolutely ready or they won't deal. Also jesus fecking christ let's hope we block no deal.
The latter is extraordinary, not only a former journalist denouncing the telegraph but the guy who was chancellor just a few month ago quoting the telegraph comments section
I mean the four current headlines on telegraph.co.uk read:A written constitution will not solve any of these problems, this whole farce just proves that we need the ability to adapt to prevent abuse.
Anyway what i came to post:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The former is the government begging for help and surely undermines this whole argument that we need to pretend we're absolutely ready or they won't deal. Also jesus fecking christ let's hope we block no deal.
The latter is extraordinary, not only a former journalist denouncing the telegraph but the guy who was chancellor just a few month ago quoting the telegraph comments section
Not sure how you mean conflate in this instance?I feel @Maticmaker is conflating constitutional change with that of parliamentary precedent/procedure.
The constitution is doing just fine. Working as intended.
Yes of course, the Tories see themselves as the natural party of Government in the UK, for centuries they and their predecessors have been the main 'precedent setters' they have been (even when out of power) in control. It has suited them in the past to be able to what in effect amounts to making it up as you go!Just don’t get this. For years I have listened to defenders of our unwritten constitution, mostly Tories, bang on about how flexible it is and adaptable to new circumstances. Well here it is, adapting away to all these new circumstances, and the Tories keep crying about it. I wish they would make their fecking minds up. (For what it is worth, I support wholesale constitutional reform and a written constitution)
You mean like exposing their taxes and hidden money and showing them up to be the Wild West medicine salesmen that they are?Yes of course, the Tories see themselves as the natural party of Government in the UK, for centuries they and their predecessors have been the main 'precedent setters' they have been (even when out of power) in control. It has suited them in the past to be able to what in effect amounts to making it up as you go!
Even attempting to produce a written Constitution would shine light in places that many people would not want exposed. This is why the current situation is so dangerous in upsetting the status quo, across the UK, i.e. because precedent setting in all three branches of the Constitution, the Executive/Parliament/Judiciary is now a runaway horse, and nobody really knows how to chase it down and stop it.
I disagree with Boris in a lot of what he says (stuff and nonsense in many cases) but he is right about one thing, that Brexit has to be settled now, at least the principle, before even greater forces are unleashed that no one will be able to control. In terms of necessary evils, I suspect many would prefer a decade of renegotiating trade deals with the EU, to a decade of stagnation, political infighting, 'the country going to hell in a hand cart' etc.
Something like that, the grip on power is the main issue how that is maintained no matter what Government and incidentally it doesn't just effect out and out Tories, there are many fellow travellers. Also the whole issue of people being 'subjects' rather than' citizens', the list is endless. Attempts to draw up a written Constitution would have to first of all 'unearth' a great deal of what has been in play for centuries, before it could even begin to consider how to move forward.You mean like exposing their taxes and hidden money and showing them up to be the Wild West medicine salesmen that they are?
Bannon would be too subtle. Though the "Europe blowing itself up" will just be the same one they've published every single month for the last 15 years, that's nothing new. But the **** they've created around Boris is insane. Worst thing is, I know it works on their readers.I mean the four current headlines on telegraph.co.uk read:
And the top opinion piece is about "Europe blowing itself up"
- Boris Johnson: I will spend £13bn and build 40 new hospitals
- Boris Johnson interview: 'Surrender Act? More like the Abject Capitulation Act'
- Boris Johnson reveals £5bn broadband bonanza
- Rich or poor, everyone will benefit from Boris Johnson’s tax cuts
They might as well hire Steve Bannon as chief editor at this point.
We're just 2 mates debating random stuff. Don't worry about itNot sure how you mean conflate in this instance?
As Parliament is one of the three Pillars of our current Constitution, then precedents set in the context of how procedures etc are arrived at and carried out in Parliament and how they are taken forward in future, would I assume ultimately affect any unwritten Constitution that is based on Precedence. This may especially be true as the linkage between Executive/Parliament/Judiciary now seems to becoming more tenuous, in a political sense, the longer this apparent 'Mexican standoff' between Parliament and the Executive, continues.
Possibly the law of unintended consequences may apply further down the road (along with the now famous Brexit tin can) perhaps ?
I have no particular expertise in these matters just applying what seems common sense; however if you do posses such expertise I will bow to your superior knowledge
1) agree, though with a more federated government, the constitution would have needed to be flipped on its head as opposed to simply rewritten. You couldn't have parliamentary sovereignty in Westminster and co-equal partners elsewhere.On 1) I think you are right the horse has bolted on this, but I wonder if we’d had a different, less Westminster and London centric politics longer ago, perhaps more of a federal UK with the structure more clearly defined (ie written down) whether this might have reduced the pressures and nationalisms that have fuelled Brexit.
2) they can and in Ireland I believe, it does. Up to the writers of the constitution to define the role of referendums in the political process, what they are for etc, so we don’t end up with confusion. Eg The lack of clarity of the constitutional role of the Brexit vote is how we’ve ended up with an advisory referendum splitting the country and causing a crises between whether it’s the referendum or parliament that decides stuff.
3) I think the People, if they are genuinely sovereign, must know how that sovereignty is expressed in practise.
Have fun at the conference, Boris.Ps. apologies to everybody waiting for a reply from me, and for my short responses lately. It is not a lack of patience or unwillingness to discuss points. I'm simply travelling heavily this week. (And have another 3 days of it to go)
feck, you got me.Have fun at the conference, Boris.
Aha! You've been discovered! No further questions your honour.
Fair enough!We're just 2 mates debating random stuff. Don't worry about it
Surely how and in what manner Parliament conducts its business is consequential to its retaining/enacting that sovereignty? Dancing around dead goats notwithstanding, many would argue that its the Will of the People expressed through Parliament, that is sovereign not Parliament itself?As I understand it, the constitution underpins the sovereignty of parliament, not how it conducts its business.
This the Supreme Court has now found by 11-0 judgement, to be unlawful. What is not clear though, which was prominent in the judgement was it the length of time i.e. five weeks, or the attempt, by prorogation, to stymie the power of Parliament, regardless of the time frame? This would seem to be a precedent that in future could limit prorogation, either by the time span used and/or or by the intention of the prorogation and it would seem to be something that in future is no longer an issue that needs to bother HM?By using a prerogative power to prorogue for 5 weeks, the executive sought to stymie the power of parliament.
What specific underpinnings (in an unwritten Constitution) are you referring to ? Also can you explain just what definitions of 'justiciable' they used related to the protection of parliament?Outcome : Based on the law and the underpinnings of the constitution, they decided it was justiciable to protect parliament. In doing so, they 'pushed' further into what 200 years ago would have been the 'absolute' power of the executive.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"Democracy is not just for when it suits you."
The UK government has refused to launch an inquiry into its links to financial speculators who are accused of shorting UK assets to profit from a disorderly departure from the EU.
Treasury minister Simon Clarke has tried to rebut claims, from former chancellor Philip Hammond, that Boris Johnson’s hedge fund backers would win “billions of pounds” from a no-deal Brexit.
But several MPs have warned that Boris Johnson faces a conflict of interest, having taken money from investors -- who have shorted UK companies and could be speculating heavily against the pound.
Answering an urgent question on Hammond’s allegations, Clarke claimed that such theories were “more fit for the tin-foil-hat brigade”. He insisted that the pound should be free to float, and accused critics of “selling this country short”.
Claims that investors who backed Johnson, or the Leave Campaign, would win billions from the collapse of sterling were simply wrong, Clarke insisted.
And he told several MPs that the best way to avoid a no-deal Brexit was to support efforts to leave with a good deal.
But opposition MPs fear that City speculators are hoping to profit from a disorderly Brexit - as the Treasury’s former top civil servant, Nick Macpherson, has warned. Labour’s Tracey Brabin said it was simply immoral for speculators to profit from the pain and disruption that a no-deal Brexit would cause.
Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said “sizeable funds” were being mobilised to profit from no-deal, and criticised the Conservative Party for accepting large donations from hedge funds.
McDonnell said there was a clear conflict of interest:
"The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have received £726,000 from individuals who back a no-deal Brexit, many involved in hedge funds, in this year alone.”
In response, Clarke accused McDonnell of “throwing mud around” to “smear” the government, and claimed that a Labour government would be a bigger risk to sterling than Brexit.
But Liberal Democrat Sir Ed Davey also demanded an inquiry, saying:
Some of the PM’s biggest donors are clearly betting against Britain, and intentionally or not the prime minister is aiding and abetting them by pursing a no-deal Brexit.
Will the government set up an urgent, independent investigation?
Clarke refused.
Several MPs quoted Philip Hammond’s claim that “Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit – and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring.”
In response, Simon Clarke says that he has great admiration for the former chancellor, but he’s “very clear that in this case he is wrong”. He also insisted that the government doesn’t have a position on individuals shorting sterling.
Earlier, Crispin Odey said it was “absolute rubbish” to say he was backing a no-deal Brexit to profit from shorting companies.
As always, it's about money.Crooks.
Government won't hold inquiry into hedge funds speculating on no-deal Brexit
Presumably with a little area in between known as the DMZ. Maybe we can get advice from North and South Korea about it.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
UK solution to avoiding a hard border is to have 2 hard borders but NOT at the border. Genius.
Well yeah... But then he will blame them for no deal which was probably the intention all alongits like Boris is putting forward suggestions to just show he’s suggesting things even though they are completely unworkable (fantasy land stuff) and will be laughed at by the EU and Ireland
Also some manuals you can get from the former German Democratic Republic.Presumably with a little area in between known as the DMZ. Maybe we can get advice from North and South Korea about it.
I’m just amazed he hasn’t suggested building a wall yet.its like Boris is putting forward suggestions to just show he’s suggesting things even though they are completely unworkable (fantasy land stuff) and will be laughed at by the EU and Ireland
He's thinking about it. The EU can pay for it? (He knows that the cunning Mexicans won't pay for it.)I’m just amazed he hasn’t suggested building a wall yet.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes of course (you are getting the hang of it now)! Boris keeps posing questions to the EU where the only answer from them has to be 'in the negative'.Well yeah... But then he will blame them for no deal which was probably the intention all along
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I heard some moron on radio Ulster this morning saying that the alleged plans from UK were only stuff the Irish Government had already suggested. He forgot to mention that it was only in Irish plans for no deal preparation. There is absolutely no way the EU/Ireland will agree to anything close to this.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Incredible stuff.
But hey give them a friendly sounding name, genius.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
UK solution to avoiding a hard border is to have 2 hard borders but NOT at the border. Genius.
I don't see any explanation there as to how a border isn't still needed between NI and England/Wales in that scenario?What do people think about this?
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-divided-kingdom/
Basically NI and Scotland get special status allowing them to remain in the EU markets. This would mean that there would have to be a hard border between England and Scotland meaning you probably wouldn’t need one between NI and the UK
I haven’t explained that well so just read the link