Brexit

[Jeremy Roussak]

... which, in a Parliamentary democracy, they alone can't do - it first requires an Act of Parliament.

The Prime Minister says she doesn't need one.
The Applicants say she does.
And THAT is what the application for judicial review is about - it's not the 'what', but the 'how' and the 'who'.

Quite: and that's a point which few seem able to grasp. The issue is very complex, based in large part on how much of the Royal Prerogative remains intact.

In theory, Parliament, given the chance, could refuse to sanction the Article 50 notification. In practice, it's hard to imagine their doing that, given that there was a referendum (however ill-advised) and the result was to leave. The Grand Repeal Bill, or whatever it's going to be called, will give Parliament a chance for a vote anyway.

I really don't understand the basis of the whinging about "lies". Representations were made by politicians. Politicians lie, or at least choose to present what they see as the truth through a lens which makes it appear as they wish it to appear. There was no shortage of scaremongering (lies, to adopt easier terminology) on both sides: Osborne's threat of a panicked and emergency austerity budget, for one. Armageddon has not followed the vote to leave, at least not yet.

There's a similar application for JR being heard in Northern Ireland, with the added spice that the Anglo-Irish agreement (an international treaty which wasn't the subject of the referendum vote) is said to make specific reference to membership of the EU. As a disinterested lawyer, I found the skeleton arguments for the English application very interesting (there's a bizarre mistake in one, relating to Denning, but it doesn't affect the sense). For anyone having sufficient difficulty in nodding off one evening, here they are:

Miller's skeleton

The Government's skeleton

We'll have to see what the decision is: the tribunal (Lord Thomas LCJ, Sir Thomas Etherington MR and Sales LJ) was about as senior as one can get at first instance.

There's a good description of the proceedings here.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Rob, let me put it this way: his opinion matches yours... 

For me, that would be good enough!

Of course, it depends a lot on what I had for lunch, or whether my images satisfied me once downloaded, or I felt that I had simply wasted electricity.

That's one of the delights of opinion: it can be as hard-set or as flexible as one desires. It is close cousin to situation ethics, if not as dishonest.

Funny thing, technology. My daughter and husband have just left on their trip back home; I am wearing a set of Bose earphones they brought me, and, listening to my constant companion, the Rajun' Cajun, I am absolutely disconnected from the sounds of my keyboard. I think I am hitting the keys too hard... I'm not sure that it's a good thing to have an aural disconnect between what's being thought, typed and then checked. But sitting and doing this to silence is even worse. Especially now, as I hear the beautiful version of Great Pretender by the magnificent, neglected talent of Carol Fran. Heaven. My reward.

;-)

Rob

[jfirneno]

... which, in a Parliamentary democracy, they alone can't do - it first requires an Act of Parliament.

The Prime Minister says she doesn't need one.
The Applicants say she does.
And THAT is what the application for judicial review is about - it's not the 'what', but the 'how' and the 'who'.

Well if you are a majority that shouldn't be too hard to get.

[jfirneno]

I really don't understand the basis of the whinging about "lies". Representations were made by politicians. Politicians lie, or at least choose to present what they see as the truth through a lens which makes it appear as they wish it to appear. There was no shortage of scaremongering (lies, to adopt easier terminology) on both sides: Osborne's threat of a panicked and emergency austerity budget, for one. Armageddon has not followed the vote to leave, at least not yet.

Politicians lie, yes.  But only the other guy's.  Your own are always unimpeachable!  It should be carved in granite (in scare quotes) over the polling stations.

[Manoli]

Well if you are a majority that shouldn't be too hard to get.

/*sigh
What is it about the distinction between a Law Court and a Parliament (a legislative assembly) that you have such difficulty comprehending ?

[Rob C]

Politicians lie, yes.  But only the other guy's.  Your own are always unimpeachable!  It should be carved in granite (in scare quotes) over the polling stations.

That's why it's better to listen to the boots on the ground, the ones who know the score: the Treasury; the business community and the stockbrokers. They said remain. I agreed but wasn't allowed to vote...

Facts are not propaganda. They are coldly unemotional, whether you accept them or turn a blind eye. They are not opinion.

Rob C

[jfirneno]

/*sigh
What is it about the distinction between a Law Court and a Parliament (a legislative assembly) that you have such difficulty comprehending ?

Of course, when democracy let's you down just keep looking for the right judge.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Facts are not propaganda. They are coldly unemotional, whether you accept them or turn a blind eye...

Rob,

Facts are like recipe ingredients, necessary, yet insufficient element of a meal. You wouldn't eat them uncooked or unprepared. Some cooks are better than others.

Which ingredients (facts) you choose for a meal, how you prepare them individually, how you combine them together, in which order and what proportion, is what ultimately matters more.

[Rob C]

Rob,

Facts are like recipe ingredients, necessary, yet insufficient element of a meal. You wouldn't eat them uncooked or unprepared. Some cooks are better than others.

Which ingredients (facts) you choose for a meal, how you prepare them individually, how you combine them together, in which order and what proportion, is what ultimately matters more.

Now now, you're trying to blow smoke onto the kitchen table. I'd rather accept inconvenient facts than downright lies, as we were being fed by a phalanx of Exiters... That tricksters and vagabonds combine both fact and fib in order better to sell a bill of goods, cold fact remains cold fact. Only the simple-minded or uninformed can't tell what's what, can't reason it out for themselves. The basic fact underlying everything, is this: you can't continue to take out more than you put in for very long, and that's where the politicos begin to lie, telling various factions of society that that's not a fact, that they know a way to alter basic arithmetic.

The rest of the scam just follows along naturally, gathering momentum and kinetic energy as with all great scams and lies. From such techniques, icons grow.

Rob

[Jeremy Roussak]

Facts are not propaganda. They are coldly unemotional, whether you accept them or turn a blind eye. They are not opinion.

Probably true in relation to past fact, Rob (although arguably not even then); but obviously untrue when it comes to predictions. Nobody's crystal ball works all that well.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Probably true in relation to past fact, Rob (although arguably not even then); but obviously untrue when it comes to predictions. Nobody's crystal ball works all that well.

Jeremy

Predictions are just predictions; facts are real things and should play no part in predictions beyond providing the weights that are placed in the balance pans. How the equilibrium of a prediction is or is not achieved is the value of fact within prediction, not of the prediction itself.

Using fact to distort a prediction into meaning what the distorter wants it to mean is dishonest argument, a misrepresentation, then.

Of course, that's a profitable skill set, too!

;-)

Rob

[Telecaster]

I've been both fascinated and dismayed my entire adult life by the phenomenon of people insisting, often at volume, on the absolute nature of evidence-less claims while simultaneously insisting, often with much hemming & hawing, on the relative nature of evidence-rich conclusions. This is, to say the least, schizo. In reality no claims or conclusions can be absolute, but the weight of evidence is a reliable guide as to what shouldn't & should be taken seriously.

Brexit intrigues me because it was a faux-rational economic decision made primarily for emotion-fueled cultural reasons. This, rather than the mechanics of how it plays out, is what I think deserves attention.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

I've been both fascinated and dismayed my entire adult life by the phenomenon of people insisting, often at volume, on the absolute nature of evidence-less claims while simultaneously insisting, often with much hemming & hawing, on the relative nature of evidence-rich conclusions. This is, to say the least, schizo. In reality no claims or conclusions can be absolute,1. but the weight of evidence is a reliable guide as to what shouldn't & should be taken seriously.

Brexit intrigues me because it was a faux-rational economic decision made primarily for emotion-fueled cultural reasons. 2. This, rather than the mechanics of how it plays out, is what I think deserves attention.

-Dave-

(Numbers/bold type mine.)


1. Exactly, just as I pointed out: weigh the facts and then deduce the worth of the prediction built around them.

2. That's because your life, and that of your kids and theirs will probably not be impacted. Ours will, directly and hard. Mine already has.

Rob

[MarkJohnson]

+2

[Telecaster]

2. That's because your life, and that of your kids and theirs will probably not be impacted. Ours will, directly and hard. Mine already has.

Yes. My comment reads cold, for which I apologize.

One of my English nieces is considering a move to Canada, dependent in part on how Brexit plays out. Like me she inherited the family nomad genes and has spent significant time "abroad," but she's always thought of London as home. Being single & smart & resourceful she'll manage fine but she worries about the future prospects of her cousins (and their kids), none of whom share her enthusiasm for mobility.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

Yes. My comment reads cold, for which I apologize.

One of my English nieces is considering a move to Canada, dependent in part on how Brexit plays out. Like me she inherited the family nomad genes and has spent significant time "abroad," but she's always thought of London as home. Being single & smart & resourceful she'll manage fine but she worries about the future prospects of her cousins (and their kids), none of whom share her enthusiasm for mobility.

-Dave-

No apology needed, Dave; these things can only, at first quick reaction, be seen from the immediate personal perspective. My own kids/grandkids were in tears, would you believe, at the result. Especially the lawyer grandchild, who had studied Law in Paris for a year as additional part of her course, in the fair expectation that Europe would be wide open to her without the hassle of seeking out work permits and employment first.

For myself, it raises doubts of how I may survive future health emergencies. We used to have private health insurance until my wife discovered at first hand that treatment under the State was every bit as good as that for which we'd paid privately. I stopped paying it when the last premium was already € 3,600 p.a. That was eight years ago. Today, no company would dream of taking me on. A further stay in hospital woud ruin me financially and, I'm sure, see me in permanent debt. An effin' mess, of value to nobody, and born of lies, xenophobia and the ultimate excuse of blaming personal failures on others. Unfortunately, one could make it up, and sixteen million out of sixty million did! For myself, I'm already losing about fifteen percent in the value of my pension.

Rob

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Rob,

You have all my sympathy.

The whole "brexit" thing is a deeply unresponsibele  act, resulting in Britain's and breton's future hanging on negotiations with EU at conditions which are in no way defined and on which Great Britain has zero influence and with an uncertain outcome. Also, let's not forget that it started with unsuccessful negotiations to begin with.

My friends at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg say that many of their British colleagues apply for citizenship in Luxembourg to stay within the EU. But, ordinary Britishers don't have that option.

It may be a relevant question to ask which mandate the government was given by the referendum? Is it a mandate to negotiate conditions for leaving the EU or a mandate to the leave the European Economic Area?

Best regards
Erik

No apology needed, Dave; these things can only, at first quick reaction, be seen from the immediate personal perspective. My own kids/grandkids were in tears, would you believe, at the result. Especially the lawyer grandchild, who had studied Law in Paris for a year as additional part of her course, in the fair expectation that Europe would be wide open to her without the hassle of seeking out work permits and employment first.

For myself, it raises doubts of how I may survive future health emergencies. We used to have private health insurance until my wife discovered at first hand that treatment under the State was every bit as good as that for which we'd paid privately. I stopped paying it when the last pemium was already € 3,600 p.a. That was eight years ago. Today, no company would dream of taking me on. A further stay in hospital woud ruin me financially and, I'm sure, see me in permanent debt. An effin' mess, of value to nobody, and born of lies, xenophobia and the ultimate excuse of blaming personal failures on others. Unfortunately, one could make it up, and sixteen million out of sixty million did! For myself, I'm already losing about fifteen percent in the value of my pension.

Rob

[Rob C]

Hi Rob,

You have all my sympathy.

The whole "brexit" thing is a deeply unresponsibele  act, resulting in Britain's and breton's future hanging on negotiations with EU at conditions which are in no way defined and on which Great Britain has zero influence and with an uncertain outcome. Also, let's not forget that it started with unsuccessful negotiations to begin with.

My friends at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg say that many of their British colleagues apply for citizenship in Luxembourg to stay within the EU. But, ordinary Britishers don't have that option.

It may be a relevant question to ask which mandate the government was given by the referendum? Is it a mandate to negotiate conditions for leaving the EU or a mandate to the leave the European Economic Area?

Best regards
Erik

Erik, they'll lie about that too, muddy the arguments and generally make everything even worse. The irony is that May put herself forward as a 'Remain' person, but is now doing her best to annoy the other side and make it all far more difficult than it was going to be anyway.

I still cling to the straw of a Parliamentary vote that will throw the entire bill of goods out into the Thames, and drown it for good.

Rob

[Telecaster]

Unfortunately, one could make it up, and sixteen million out of sixty million did!

Making it up is, sadly, having quite a moment. I told my niece, re. her possible move to Canada, that she ought to consider other options beyond the North American continent. Early next year I plan to visit a friend & former business partner who now lives in Melbourne. Think I'll do some recon work too while I'm there.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

Making it up is, sadly, having quite a moment. I told my niece, re. her possible move to Canada, that she ought to consider other options beyond the North American continent. Early next year I plan to visit a friend & former business partner who now lives in Melbourne. Think I'll do some recon work too while I'm there.

-Dave-

It's not an easy choice to make, when you have a skill set that is marketable.

Looking back at my own life, I could have done worse than move to Rome, especially as during the 60s I had live family connections there and the language, whilst good enough at it to have few problems unless I was expected to write, was easy enough for me to have improved... it would have been academic today, anyway, but the years between Britain and now would have perhaps been more productive, and conducive to better photography. But that's wishin'.

Australia was always a good bet for Brits willing to work, and with talent to export; the only downside I can think of is that all that flies, crawls, lives in a web or swims, probably wants to kill people. That said, unlke Europe, it's an expensive long way from the UK if you want to visit relatives regularly. And then, there's the common language, and that's a great advantage.

If the new relationship betwen Britain and Europe reverts to pre-EEC days, then at least it will still be possible to work if somebody offers you a job; it was also possible to start a business, but it did often seem to entail taking on a Spanish 'partner', who may or may not have been exactly what it said on the tin. I expect the main difference will be that yes, it will be possible to work, but not as a right, and all manner of permissions will require to be obtained. That can turn you grey, and with the ill will that is being manufactured, almost a certainty.

I wish the lady luck.

Rob