Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-07-2019, 12:37 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,484
Quote:
Quoth Northern Piper:

And what makes you think that Grammie Lilibet can suddenly pull a solution out of her purse that no-one else, experienced politicians and public figures, could figure out?
The solution is easy, and plenty of people (including, I'd wager, most of Parliament) have figured it out. Repeal the Article 50, and stay in the EU. It's just that nobody has the guts to do it.
  #102  
Old 09-07-2019, 12:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
That "solution" ignores the will of the people.
  #103  
Old 09-07-2019, 12:59 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Exactly. Over half of the voters in the referendum voted for Artcle 50.

If revoking Article 50 is such an easy solution, why hasn't it been done?

The answer is that it isn't an easy solution. It's a very hard solution, guaranteed to attract a great deal of political opposition.

And the Queen has no political legitimacy to act against the will of a majority of the voters.

A determined elected politician, backed by a majority in Parliament , could do it, and take the political consequences, but not an unelected head of state, whose role is to be the comforting national grammie.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #104  
Old 09-07-2019, 01:03 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That "solution" ignores the will of the people.
The problem is the "will of the people" is not uniform. Did the Leave voters know that it could very well mean a hard border with Ireland? That it would require building a vast system of customs offices at the ports? That the £350 million per week in savings was bullshit? (In fact, it might very well cost the UK more than that in increased costs and lost business.)
  #105  
Old 09-07-2019, 01:11 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Which isn't to say the referendum was properly done.

The British people were not asked, for example, "Do you want to leave the EU even if that means breaking treaty obligations under the Good Friday accords?" They weren't asked "Do you want to leave the EU even if that means tariff and trade barriers to British goods being sold to the EU countries?" They weren't asked "Do you want to leave the EU even if that means Britons won't be able to live indefinitely in southern Spain?"

Those are all issues which have arisen since the vote, and cast some doubt, to my mind, to its validity. But even if that's so, that doesn't name revocation of the Article 50 notification an easy choice. It's a hard political choice, not one that the Queen could carry off.

ETA: Dewey Finn popped in between my posts. This post is a continuation of my comment on Ditka's.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 09-07-2019 at 01:13 PM.
  #106  
Old 09-07-2019, 02:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Would you be equally content if the Queen said "The referendum was fair and we're leaving the EU" ?

But more to the point, why ask such a fundamentally anti-democratic question? What would your reaction be if a British person asked "Couldn't the problems the US faces be resolved if you made Trump dictator, like the Roman Republic used to do in a crisis?"
The question was though if it was possible. The question of whether a GOP Senate and a GOP leaning court could effectively allow, in some ways are allowing, a dictator Trump, whether or not that is theoretically possible, is one that gets discussed. And some on that side of the aisle would say it would be a great idea.

We can intelligently discuss what does or does not prevent that. Many of us at least have some idea of how the checks and balances are set up here. Fewer of us understand how it works there.
  #107  
Old 09-07-2019, 03:09 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
The British monarchy sees its fundamental role as to ensure the continuation of responsible government in the UK.

That incidentally is about the only time the Queen will involve herself in politics.

The Palace, no doubt if past precedent is anything, actively involved behind the scenes. Strongly making their views known.

Openly taking a side will as said only me done if that is the only way to ensure the continuation of responsible Government.

Which option suggested above could be that?
  #108  
Old 09-07-2019, 04:39 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Which doesn't answer the question. I for one am not suggesting it as a course of action or one that has any chance of occurring ... but does the system (or maybe better asked as "how does the system ...") prevent it from occurring as a hypothetical other than by "past precedent"? Could they in fact just pass a Bill that started something like "Notwithstanding the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701)..."?

(Again, in America we are seeing that a president willing to ignore all past precedents, and a Court and Senate willing to allow it in service of shared beliefs, can lurch pretty far, even with a system putatively designed with preventing such as a major goal. There are some who worry that it could lurch even farther.)
  #109  
Old 09-07-2019, 04:54 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
As I understand it, something like 21 MPs were kicked out of the Conservative Party by Boris Johnson this week. Does that mean he no longer holds a voting majority?
  #110  
Old 09-07-2019, 05:09 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
As I understand it, something like 21 MPs were kicked out of the Conservative Party by Boris Johnson this week. Does that mean he no longer holds a voting majority?
He's technically 40-odd short now I think, but how the expelled members, and the others who have resigned, would vote on a confidence matter is not clear. Still, as we say in Scotland: his coat is hanging on a shoogly peg.
  #111  
Old 09-07-2019, 05:27 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
(Again, in America we are seeing that a president willing to ignore all past precedents, and a Court and Senate willing to allow it in service of shared beliefs, can lurch pretty far, even with a system putatively designed with preventing such as a major goal. There are some who worry that it could lurch even farther.)
Except nothing really similar is happening in the UK. Boris isn't flouting convention, he's just being an ass. And he's being an ass mainly because he's trying to bulldoze something extremely important without a true mandate from the people or support from Parliament. The guy is demanding a snap election to escape his mess, how is that a move toward autocracy?

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-07-2019 at 05:28 PM.
  #112  
Old 09-07-2019, 05:53 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,805
It's hard to say for certain, but I think without Russian bot farms, Brexit would have been defeated. It seems to me that the status quo should prevail unless there is a clear mandate from the people. 50% +1 isn't enough in my opinion to make such a huge decision.
  #113  
Old 09-07-2019, 05:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
How much he is flouting convention or not, or says he might, is a not my question. It's a hypothetical that in an era in which many countries, including my own, have had moves towards autocracy, is of interest to me once I read it presented by BobLibDem.
  #114  
Old 09-07-2019, 06:39 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
It's hard to say for certain, but I think without Russian bot farms, Brexit would have been defeated. It seems to me that the status quo should prevail unless there is a clear mandate from the people. 50% +1 isn't enough in my opinion to make such a huge decision.
This does seem reasonable; the referendum did fail to constitute a "clear mandate from the people," and, additionally, Russian interference has been proven.

There may be no precedent for such a situation. In such circumstances, how does making so major a change in the economic and political landscape make sense?
  #115  
Old 09-07-2019, 06:47 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The solution is easy, and plenty of people .... have figured it out. Repeal the Article 50, and stay in the EU.
Well that’d be my preferred position, but were I to have a vote in the UK I’d have been in a minority at the time when it mattered. After that it’s just Monday morning quarterbacking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
It's hard to say for certain, but I think without Russian bot farms, Brexit would have been defeated.
I don’t think that it’s given that any 2nd referendum would deliver a different result, much less a clear result.

Quote:
It seems to me that the status quo should prevail unless there is a clear mandate from the people.
Any majority represents a clear magority, unless you lose.
It’s not like these boards have been without the odd thread over the years on what constitutes a clear majority and what constitutes the will of the people in the stateside context. Psephologist, heal thyself.

If Brexit had got up 53-47 that would be a clear enough majority and yet the UK would likely be in much the same because each party is split near evenly into pro & con factions. Theresa May could barely have done better with the cards she was dealt, given the people barely supported the policy and her party barely supported the process.
  #116  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:02 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Despite the big smiley that may be the answer that begins to reduce the ignorance of those of us who do not know.
OK, well then given that Brexit might see the break up the UK with Scotland leaving the union to rejoin Europe and the hard partitioning of Ireland and potentially a civil war, the Brexit question would crudely be the equivalent to the US revoking the Declaration of Independence, with the popular vote con and the Electoral College pro.

This is an existential question.
It would be bloody hard and complicated enough if Britons were united on the question.
  #117  
Old 09-07-2019, 07:26 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Which doesn't answer the question. I for one am not suggesting it as a course of action or one that has any chance of occurring ... but does the system (or maybe better asked as "how does the system ...") prevent it from occurring as a hypothetical other than by "past precedent"? Could they in fact just pass a Bill that started something like "Notwithstanding the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701)..."?
And the technical answer to that is sure, Parliament could do that and make the Queen the absolute monarch of the UK.

Just like the technical answer is that Congress and 3/4 of the states could repeal Articles I, II and III and make Donald Trump Emperor of America, with Ivanka as heir apparent.

Both questions have as their premiss that the people of the UK and the US have given up on their centuries long fights for democracy and the rule of law.

Neither one is likely or constructive, in trying to deal with the current issues facing both countries, in my opinion.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #118  
Old 09-08-2019, 06:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
And the technical answer to that is sure, Parliament could do that and make the Queen the absolute monarch of the UK.

Just like the technical answer is that Congress and 3/4 of the states could repeal Articles I, II and III and make Donald Trump Emperor of America, with Ivanka as heir apparent.

Both questions have as their premiss that the people of the UK and the US have given up on their centuries long fights for democracy and the rule of law.

Neither one is likely or constructive, in trying to deal with the current issues facing both countries, in my opinion.
Getting closer. The answer given regarding what has to happen in the US. is far short of how far we have already seen we can be threatened by autocracy with less than those measures, but it does at least describe some of the detail of what at least officially would have to happen. At least in theory our existential nature as a representational democracy with balance of powers is protected from the whims of a simple majority of the voters or of representatives.

"Parliament could do that"? On a simple majority vote just Parliament voting alone could do that? Really?

I guess it shouldn't surprise when an action which is being described as "the equivalent to the US revoking the Declaration of Independence" is being possibly being done based on a narrow majority vote of a broad concept idea without any details.

I would have expected that actions which change the existential character and principles of a country would require more than a simple majority of votes of either voters of of representatives. My ignorance reduced.
  #119  
Old 09-10-2019, 01:06 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
"Parliament could do that"? On a simple majority vote just Parliament voting alone could do that? Really?
Parliamentary majority, plus referendum majority plus judicial review.
This isn't being done as a fit of whimsy.

It may very well be doing a dammed silly thing in a dammed silly way but we aren't talking Pride's Purge here.
  #120  
Old 09-10-2019, 01:12 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Parliamentary majority, plus referendum majority plus judicial review.
This isn't being done as a fit of whimsy.

It may very well be doing a dammed silly thing in a dammed silly way but we aren't talking Pride's Purge here.
"That" in DSeid's post isn't Brexit; it's a hypothetical Act to supersede the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement and make the queen an absolute monarch in the UK.
  #121  
Old 09-10-2019, 09:58 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
I think Boris Johnson tried to call for a snap general election for mid-October yesterday. The CNN article says he hoped to win an outright majority, but I wonder if he secretly hoped to be defeated, so that the opposition would be responsible for implementing Brexit, given that he seems to have no idea how to do so himself.

Because it seems to me that even without a majority, if he had a workable plan, he would just announce it. If it's a decent enough plan, surely enough members will support it?

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 09-10-2019 at 10:00 AM.
  #122  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:09 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post

Because it seems to me that even without a majority, if he had a workable plan, he would just announce it. If it's a decent enough plan, surely enough members will support it?
As I'm sure we all know, Boris does not have a plan. He never had a plan. There was never a plan by anyone. A plan does not exist. There. Is. No. Plan.

The only thing in Johnson's head is: "Look at me! I am Prime Minister! I am special! Everyone look at me!"
  #123  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:16 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
So what the heck is going to happen on October 31 (aside from kids dressing in costume and asking for candy)? Are they just going to ask for yet another delay? Perhaps that's how they'll handle the whole mess; just ask for delay after delay until the public just gives up on the whole idea.
  #124  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:23 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I think Boris Johnson tried to call for a snap general election for mid-October yesterday. The CNN article says he hoped to win an outright majority,
That's rather idle speculation as there was little chance that he was going to get the snap election.
  #125  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:31 AM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
So what the heck is going to happen on October 31 (aside from kids dressing in costume and asking for candy)?
Don't forget, it's also Halloween that day.
  #126  
Old 09-10-2019, 05:50 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The question seems to be: Does the voice of the people matter in the UK?
There is, strictly speaking, no such thing. Not on your side, not on mine.

What passes for the "voice of the people" now is a slim majority on a simple binary referendum, without clear specifics. And that only following massive misrepresentation by the likes of Michael Gove & some disreputable newspapermen.

Brexit is a cruel trick played on a great nation.
  #127  
Old 09-11-2019, 08:26 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
What is the significance of the Scottish Court of Session ruling that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful? Will that change anything?
  #128  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:59 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
What is the significance of the Scottish Court of Session ruling that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful? Will that change anything?
I was listening to the BBC this morning, and the commentators felt that it was a pretty big deal, and that it might lead to Johnson being forced to resign -- what they seemed to consider to be the biggest sin was "lying to the Queen" about the reasoning for the prorogation.

It's not clear if anything will happen before the Supreme Court reviews it (next week, it sounds like), though there are already calls to reconvene Parliament.
  #129  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:04 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
What is the significance of the Scottish Court of Session ruling that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful? Will that change anything?
Well, for a start it means I was wrong here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Everyone knows that a case of this magnitude is only going to be decided by the Supreme Court, but you can't just start there, you've got to work your way up. None of the lower courts are going to stick their neck out and rule against the government or the Crown, so everyone has to act out their part in the ritual before we get to the actual event. How the Supreme Court will actually rule I wouldn't like to say, mind, but nothing of great import will happen until it gets to them a week on Tuesday.
Turns out the Scottish Court was quite happy to stick its neck out. This is a big deal in some ways and not in others.

It's not, because of course the government are going to take this to the Supreme Court and they have final say. So this is not a definitive and final ruling that Johnson and co acted unlawfully.

However. It is a ruling that they acted unlawfully, and on a matter of enormous constitutional significance at that. Just by itself, that is a big deal. The summary of the ruling is very clear that the true purpose of prorogation was to stymie Parliament and that this is proven by the documents (government memos, Johnson's handwritten notes) submitted in evidence. I mean, everyone knew that the purpose of a 5-week prorogation was to stymie Parliament, but to rule to that effect rather than accept the Government's account is fairly explosive.
  #130  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:13 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
Scottish constitutional principals are separate from English ones. For some reason (as was famously pointed out in McCormick v Lord Advocate) for Union institutions, it’s English principles which prevail....
  #131  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:15 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
What is the order. Have they declared it void ab initio? Have they stayed their ruling? Have they simply made a declaration that the advise was unlawful?
  #132  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:39 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
The summary of the opinion is here

This I think is the relevant bit to answer your question:

Quote:
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.
  #133  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:42 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Scottish constitutional principals are separate from English ones. For some reason (as was famously pointed out in McCormick v Lord Advocate) for Union institutions, it’s English principles which prevail....
And, indeed, the High Court has just ruled that the prorogation was lawful.

Be a Supreme Court Justice, they said. You get to wear the robes, they said. You almost certainly won't take a starring role in the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication, they said.
  #134  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:54 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Is the prorogation itself "the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication"? Or are you referring to more broadly to Brexit with this phrase?
  #135  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:16 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
You have the judiciary in two different constituent parts of the United Kingdom saying in essence that they have differing views on the constitution. Not just interpretation, the fundamental aspect of it, like the Royal Perogrative.

I would say it’s a hell of a lot bigger than the Abidcation.

Last edited by AK84; 09-11-2019 at 11:17 AM.
  #136  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:26 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is the prorogation itself "the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication"? Or are you referring to more broadly to Brexit with this phrase?
Prorogation. Brexit - electoral fraud notwithstanding - did not create a constitutional crisis itself since Parliament did ultimately vote to invoke Article 50.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #137  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:28 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,507
More accurately they voted to give the Prime Minister the power to do so, which was exercised.
  #138  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:21 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
And, indeed, the High Court has just ruled that the prorogation was lawful.

Be a Supreme Court Justice, they said. You get to wear the robes, they said. You almost certainly won't take a starring role in the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication, they said.
To be clear, what’s occurred in English courts today is the publishing of the details of last week’s ruling against the case brought to the High Court of London by Gina Miller arguing that the prorogation of Parliament was illegal. That ruling is under appeal, and it looks like the appeal is going straight to the UK Supreme Court on Tuesday, 17 September.

I don’t understand the various court hierarchies, but three challenges against prorogation were lodged in the courts: Gina Miller’s English and Welsh challenge in the High Court of London, Joanna Cherry’s Scottish challenge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh and Raymond McCord’s Northern Irish challenge in the High Court of Belfast. The English and Scottish challenges were rejected and appealed. The Belfast ruling is due on Thursday. Presumably, regardless of the outcome, the Belfast ruling will also be challenged and appealed to the UK Supreme Court and joined into the hearing on Tuesday, 17 September. The Scottish appeal was heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session. That court’s ruling today overturned the original ruling of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. This appellate ruling is also being appealed and will be combined into Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing. The successful appeal in the Inner House of the Court of Session is significant because it means that a “higher” court has ruled against the government. However, how much significance the UK Supreme Court will recognise from each of the lower court’s rulings is impossible to say.
  #139  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:27 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,985
I swear to God this thing is going to lead to the break up of the UK and England and Wales will be surrounded by EU countries - North, South, East and West - that they have customs barriers with. It's going to be a mess.

At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if Northern Ireland ends up back in some sort of oddball union with the Republic of Ireland.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if England secedes from Planet Earth.
  #140  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:32 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Hasn't the UK been teetering on the brink of breaking up (or slowly going through the process of breaking up, depending on your perspective) for decades now?
  #141  
Old 09-11-2019, 01:54 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Side note - our gov't didn't just suspend Parliament in Canada, but dissolved it today.

Apparently it takes a lot of hot water.

__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #142  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:18 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I swear to God this thing is going to lead to the break up of the UK and England and Wales will be surrounded by EU countries - North, South, East and West - that they have customs barriers with. It's going to be a mess.

At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if Northern Ireland ends up back in some sort of oddball union with the Republic of Ireland.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if England secedes from Planet Earth.
Everything but your last sentence seems plausible. I'll bet the voting in the Scottish independence referendum would go differently today. Speaking as an outsider observing the whole thing, Brexit is clearly a mess. (Why would you do something that seems guaranteed to tank the economy?)
  #143  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
... (Why would you do something that seems guaranteed to tank the economy?)
There are some people that were convinced electing President Trump was "guaranteed to tank the economy" too. I think, thus far at least, they've been shown to be clearly wrong. Perhaps they are wrong about Brexit too.
  #144  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are some people that were convinced electing President Trump was "guaranteed to tank the economy" too. I think, thus far at least, they've been shown to be clearly wrong. Perhaps they are wrong about Brexit too.
How can you be so silly? Severing a massive trade agreement with your biggest market has direct financial implications. It's not remotely like Trump getting elected and worrying he'll be bad.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-11-2019 at 02:37 PM.
  #145  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:43 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are some people that were convinced electing President Trump was "guaranteed to tank the economy" too. I think, thus far at least, they've been shown to be clearly wrong. Perhaps they are wrong about Brexit too.
Maybe so, though I think that those are two extremely different situations.

In the case of Trump, what I remember is that the fear was that his impulsiveness and unpredictability would hurt the economy. You're right, that hasn't happened so far, though there are signs pointing to a possible slowdown (if not recession), in part because of the uncertainty he's driving on trade, particularly with China.

With Brexit, particularly if it's a no-deal Brexit, most economists (hardline Brexiteers aside) do seem to feel that it'll harm the British economy -- the debate is around how hard, and for how long.
  #146  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Maybe so, though I think that those are two extremely different situations.

In the case of Trump, what I remember is that the fear was that his impulsiveness and unpredictability would hurt the economy. You're right, that hasn't happened so far, though there are signs pointing to a possible slowdown (if not recession), in part because of the uncertainty he's driving on trade, particularly with China.

With Brexit, particularly if it's a no-deal Brexit, most economists (hardline Brexiteers aside) do seem to feel that it'll harm the British economy -- the debate is around how hard, and for how long.
I probably wouldn't quibble with the statement "most economists (hardline Brexiteers aside) do seem to feel that it'll harm the British economy". The statement I did quibble with ("seems guaranteed to tank the economy") is obviously a good bit more extremist / alarmist / hyperbolic than yours was.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-11-2019 at 02:55 PM.
  #147  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:08 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
Here's one example of how it seems guaranteed to tank the economy. As a result of Brexit, London is no longer going to be the center of Eurozone banking, so thousands of very highly compensated bankers are moving to other cities in other countries. Surely that's not a good thing?
  #148  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
I can concede "not a good thing" (at least for London) without conceding "seems guaranteed to tank the economy", can't I? You get that there's a big swath of middle ground between those two outcomes, right?
  #149  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:23 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,143
I give up. You win.
  #150  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:43 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are some people that were convinced electing President Trump was "guaranteed to tank the economy" too. I think, thus far at least, they've been shown to be clearly wrong. Perhaps they are wrong about Brexit too.
I think the jury is still out on Trump; the effects of his economic policy may not be felt for a year or two yet. But Brexit has already tanked the UK economy. The pound has lost something like 30% of its value since the referendum.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017