Jacktari Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Yes, yes. Seas boiling, skies falling, dead rising from graves etc etc. That is what Nigel was prophesying, yes indeed. Look at him (if you can stomach it) standing in front of his fake banners and racist billboard pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Those at the bottom of the ladder of the places I mentioned (and based on nothing but my own bias) if you took the 20 poorest areas in the UK, id wager the vast majority voted brexit. They arent happy with the status quo - a welfare state isnt the answer, indeed a big state isnt the answer. In 13 years of labour not much changed either. that's because new labour weren't really a big state party, not that we need a particularly big state anyway. anyway, what is the answer? the sort of free market rubbish of liam fox and his chums, that's really helped the poor of america retreating into the protectionism of trump isn't going to solve anything either what we need is an interventionist government not one which will sit back and assume "the market" will solve everything. the government should be more interventionist giving the market a sense of purpose and direction and that must include, a more equitable distribution of the wealth generated leading in investment in the areas where "the market" can't or wont invest such as new council housing. "pump priming" new markets such as renewable energy, the government makes the initial investments which encourages private investors to get involved making long term investments in the country's core infrastructure, skills and training, research and development, encouraging innovation and new ways of doing things. all those sorts of things they should be doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Wait.... so what is the answer according to you/them? Because just kicking against the system because you don't like what was provided isn't exactly constructive. Now - constructivism may well be dead, I fully accept that, but I'd like to know what the alternative is? Just vote anything down until we regressed to a state where we all hate each other because we've learned to blame whatever befalls us on the man next door? Calm down, I went with remain Ask somebody in Mansfield - it's not that far away and because 70% voted out you'll easily find someone who kicked against the system (and east mids region would have got a chunk of eu money). Is it constructive - not really. What's your answer? They've been asking similar questions across the pond - look at result there. Now blaming the EU isn't going to solve much - I guess we can go all socialist and nationalise everything if that's your bag and many of these (former?) labour strongholds may have voted with that in mind there's £350m going begging remember ;) Fortunately, if that's the right word, we've got trump who will take the spotlight away from brexit which will help, and those at the sharp end can see what will happen when you go down the route of populist politics. Much after that, I don't know. Who will we be negotiating with? Merkel? Le penn? I've just watched Jeremy Bowen wander through the ruins of Aleppo. Our lot could be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 that's because new labour weren't really a big state party, not that we need a particularly big state anyway. anyway, what is the answer? the sort of free market rubbish of liam fox and his chums, that's really helped the poor of america retreating into the protectionism of trump isn't going to solve anything either what we need is an interventionist government not one which will sit back and assume "the market" will solve everything. the government should be more interventionist giving the market a sense of purpose and direction and that must include, a more equitable distribution of the wealth generated leading in investment in the areas where "the market" can't or wont invest such as new council housing. "pump priming" new markets such as renewable energy, the government makes the initial investments which encourages private investors to get involved making long term investments in the country's core infrastructure, skills and training, research and development, encouraging innovation and new ways of doing things. all those sorts of things they should be doing Whys everyone asking me what the answer is !! I've raised a point - you've all got more qualifications than I have and are all quite capable of asking may and Hammond. Give them a tweet ;););:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Calm down, I went with remain Ask somebody in Mansfield - it's not that far away and because 70% voted out you'll easily find someone who kicked against the system (and east mids region would have got a chunk of eu money). Is it constructive - not really. What's your answer? They've been asking similar questions across the pond - look at result there. Now blaming the EU isn't going to solve much - I guess we can go all socialist and nationalise everything if that's your bag and many of these (former?) labour strongholds may have voted with that in mind there's £350m going begging remember ;) Fortunately, if that's the right word, we've got trump who will take the spotlight away from brexit which will help, and those at the sharp end can see what will happen when you go down the route of populist politics. Much after that, I don't know. Who will we be negotiating with? Merkel? Le penn? I've just watched Jeremy Bowen wander through the ruins of Aleppo. Our lot could be worse. I ran with your post to exemplify my point The answer is in education, I know it is a torrid point to put across, but, with a few notable exceptions I am yet to be convinced that the majority of brexit (and indeed Remain) voters actually understood more than the very basic slogans about what their vote meant. The country is in a habit of voting against - 'because we don't like it as it is'. But that dislike often stems from a misinterpretation of their direct surroundings. I spoke to someone recently who riled against immigration, saying they took all 'our' jobs. To the question if he knew anybody in his immediate surrounding that was unemployed his answer was: Yes, my brother in law, he is a scrounger and hasn't worked in more than two of his fifty years. A bit more asking and it turns out his son was the first in his family to attend university and at 22 already earned more than the chap himself. But hey, the country is going to the dogs apparently, have to rile against something! At least education (as in proper education) gives people like this the tools to arm themselves with information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) After Brexit there will be no room for any court to contradict parliament. There will be and there should be, otherwise you are just creating an elected dictatorship with the absolute power to do what it wants. The rule of law is important and that should apply to everyone and everyone should be equal under the law. Our system of judicial review and other things provide some protections for our citizens from such a government and if you start removing those and we become the property of the state not citizens of it. The writers of the american constitution knew what they were doing and codified the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary and put in checks and balances to prevent one becoming dominant over the other and by and large it has worked. Edited January 18, 2017 by andyofborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dillm Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I can see this going on forever especially as the terms of exit have to be approved by parliament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I can see this going on forever especially as the terms of exit have to be approved by parliament only two more years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I can see this going on forever especially as the terms of exit have to be approved by parliament No, the only thing Parliament have to approve is this governments triggering of A50, and that is basically a certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) There will be and there should be, otherwise you are just creating an elected dictatorship with the absolute power to do what it wants. The rule of law is important and that should apply to everyone and everyone should be equal under the law. Our system of judicial review and other things provide some protections for our citizens from such a government and if you start removing those and we become the property of the state not citizens of it. The writers of the american constitution knew what they were doing and codified the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary and put in checks and balances to prevent one becoming dominant over the other and by and large it has worked. That's not our system. The judges are an appointed and unaccountable dictatorship. An elected body can be removed in 5 years and bad laws changed. I agree that's it's worrying to concentrate power in one body of 650/600 representatives, a second elected chamber would be good, but splitting power with an unelected body is no solution. There are advantages to the US system, but I like our way better. ---------- Post added 19-01-2017 at 08:40 ---------- Parliament already is sovereign. It is already stated that the Supreme Court cannot overturn primary legislation. But it can on secondary legislation. No government is above the law and the Supreme Court helps assure that. The referendum is not secondary legislation. It was a referendum enacted by parliament to advise the executive whether to use its royal prerogative to activate article 50 and get us out of the EU. The high court has attempted not just to change primary legislation, but to change the constitution. If the supreme court upholds it then parliament will need to review the arrangements with regard to the high and supreme courts. We are not the USA. We do not have 3 independent branches of government. Parliament is sovereign in all things. Edited January 19, 2017 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts