Brexit

Ah well, soon be Samhain , and the Wind of Change may well see a freshness of breeze - that's ones' hope at least

 

Who is going to be the first to blame the collapse of Thomas Cook on Brexit, any takers?

 

No but we can most certainly blame that bastard Boris !!!

 

From what I've heard (by some of those who worked there) It was down to a failure to keep up with the competitive changes - in both technological and strategic developments - of the business needs.
Sad to see a tradition now passed - and - a whole lotta job losses!

 

Although to put a bit of a Brexit view on this

 

How dare you call that lovely Man Boris Johnston a Bastard Bad Vlad.
No blame can be put at lovely Boris door.

It's Bastard Corbyn we should be worried about.
What a flucking mess his Bastard party is in over Brexit.
You couldn't make it up.

Now Vlad.
Just behave and pipe down will ya!

Cheers!

 

Urinate elsewhere !!! - It was that bastard Boris's fault, - they had an opportunity to 'rescue' Thomas Cook, ajnd save all those jobs, but the bastard refused to do so !!!

 

Ugh, they had a shitty merger in 2007, default on loans for which only got written this year to the order of a billion dollars. Since 2007 of course everyone under 60 started booking their holidays online.

Governments supposed to what, increase its debt to shell out for a company no one wants to use anymore?

 

Yeah, but how is that funded though?

Added on to the airport tax at every EU airport. Every person pays an extra €10 every flight for the one time in 10 years a airline, or tour company goes under

And no doubt managed by a dozen bureaucrats that get paid €200k a year

And this time, airlines in countries outside the EU were asked to help out

 

I was talking with someone about the thread and saying that I’d hope that this thread would be a good history of this time seeing as it was started even before the referendum. But I lamented that these day it was just been filled up with post from ill informed, mean and petty leavers with nothing of substance to say and that maybe I should just shut it down.

But they said I shouldn’t that it was basically an accurate record of what this has all descended into.

That the more thoughtful leavers had either gone quiet or become remainers and a lot of the leavers that were left were just spit flecked fanatics or the wilfully ill-informed that tried to stamp down and bully anyone that they didn’t agree with into silence.

 

I’m in favour of the European Project as a historian I can see the value of bring Europe together rather than having States competing with each which did not worked out well in the past. I’ve never been a jingoistical nationalist or looked back on Britain’s imperial past with pride or joy for me it was only built through the backbreaking exploitation of a majority of Britain people and others and in many case their deaths. There are many in the UK that looked to the past with pink tinted glasses and to the future with fear, they see the world and their country changing and they don’t like it and so wish for isolation and to push back the tie. There have been unscrupulous politicians that have exploited those fears and prejudices to gain power, but it seems to me that if you don’t adapt to the flow of history you doom yourself to a bitter stagnation.

And it is better to be part of a team than trying to go it alone. However brilliant an individual football player is they cannot win a match on their own and as Pascal Lamy a former director of the World Trade Organisation has said putting it in footballing terms leaving the EU would be like going from the Premier league to the fourth division overnight.

There are those on the right that think the EU is too socialist and want to leave (whatever the cost) so they can set up a neoliberal utopia and on the hard left there are those that think the EU is too neoliberal and want to leave (whatever the cost) so they can set up a socialist utopia. To me they are both peddling a fantasy, a unicorn, and when examined neither idea stands up well to criticism. I’d rather be realistic and although I have criticisms of the EU, weighting up the social and economic advantages (that have been discussed in this thread) of been in I’d take that over been outside.

 

As people reading this thread will see the leavers do not really have any great arguments – and these days seem to just spend their time in sneering, sniping and futile point scoring.

They have a general viewpoint which is Brexit but everything they have put up as reasons for that stance has fallen flat when looked at, all of them.

For example one argument put up by leavers is that the EU has changed that it was once only about trade and now covers other things which the UK didn’t sign up for.

Well I explained on page one of this thread that that wasn’t true, that anyone looking into it would know that the UK was signing up to the ‘European project’ and ‘ever closer union’ That the whole idea of the European project was for ‘ever closer union’ “It is found in the Preamble to the 1957 treaty that set up what became the EU [and] on at least six occasions the UK has signed up to it (firstly in becoming a member, and then agreeing to subsequent treaty changes)”

The thing is that the argument that the EU has changed from just been about trade’ it is still been presented by leavers.

The thing is that leavers put up specific arguments to support their general viewpoint but these don’t stand up to scrutiny you would thing that after two or three of these specific arguments collapsed any rational person would begin to question if the general viewpoint was any good.

But not so with many leavers it seems - they just begin to recycling arguments that have already been covered and already shown to be unsound.

So around and around we go

Or they stop saying anything of any worth all together and fall back on stupid asides.

 

The Supreme Court has spoken Johnson was acting unlawfully and the forced suspension of Parliament is at an end, in fact by court ruling it never happened.

Parliament beings sitting again tommorrow

This is a great day for Parliamentary sovereignty against those that would wish to curtail it – it just seems rather ironic that it was leavers that talked so much about wanting to protect a fictional Parliamentary sovereignty that were the very ones that tried to curtail it in reality.

 

You just had your Supreme Court overule your head of state

Sovereignty means supreme authority.

Seems its your supreme court, not your parliament or head of state that has sovereignty

And I think you are going to have some fun with that in the coming months

 

Just to make it clear the UK Supreme Court did not overrule our head of state it reaffirmed Parliamentary sovereignty over the executive.

To explain it simply - We have an executive judicial and legislative branches of government the legislative branch is Parliament and it is supreme, it makes the laws and oversees the executive.

The monarch is head of state but purely ceremonial in nature it cannot act in any political sense independently

So again the UK Supreme Court did not overrule our head of state, to repeat -we have a constitutional monarch who cannot take independent political action, the Queen acts in accordance with what she is instructed to do by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister of the UK is supposed to be the person that has a majority of supporters in Parliament (the confidence of Parliament) Boris Johnson who is current named Prime Minister (First Lord of the treasury) does not have a majority in or the confidence of Parliament but instructed the Queen to prorogue Parliament, which she did – she could not do it without instruction and she can’t refuse to do it without acting in a political manner.

The Supreme Court has decided that Johnson acted incorrectly in asking the Queen to grant the prorogation because he was doing it to stop Parliament from overseeing the executive.

In doing so the court was reaffirming Parliamentary sovereignty

I think that once back the MP’s should make sure that any future prorogation have to pass a vote in Parliament.

 

For our international readers;

Because everyone else will hear "Supreme Court" and naturally assume its been around for centuries

UK Supreme Court is only ten years old and the UK doesnt have a constitution

I will say that again for our American readers

UK doesnt have a constitution

So yeah thats exactly what just happened

Their Supreme court just overuled their head of state and decided they are in charge of everything

Might take them all 6 months to realise what just actually happened

But this is the start of a little constitutional merry go round, not the end

 

The actual wording of the ruling

 

The Supreme Court did not overrule the head of state

The UK does not have a written constitution but it does have a constitution based on laws and conventions*. Anyone thinking otherwise does not know much about the UK’s political system.

It was the breaking of one of those conventions - an abuse of power - that was judged illegal by the Supreme Court.

The power to prorogue Parliament was in the Prime Ministers hands out of tradition and convention because it was presumed he wouldn’t abuse that power and no other Prime Minister has.

Basically the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) was using the power to try and stop oversight and checks on itself, the executive.

As John Major a previous Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party has put it – if what Boris did was allowed to stand then basically it meant that the executive could close down Parliament and rule without it through dictate.

In any constitution there are things that could be done but by convention wouldn’t or shouldn’t be done - Trump is pushing that envelope in the US.

Over here the courts were used to turn what was a ‘could be done but shouldn’t be done’ into a ‘can’t be done’, if anything it showed that our unwritten constitution is working

Anyone that supports the Executive and Boris in this is basically saying they would be happy with that Executive having near dictatorial powers.

*Britain's unwritten constitution