EU referendum are you in or out

[tufty]

If I do start a blog comparing crisps, can I use that as my sole basis to petition for Scottish citizenship when it wins independence from England?

Certainly. They'll probably make you king.

[Darkflame]

I think I read somewhere you can claim Scotish citizenship if you are a physical resident there at the time of a declaration of independence, regardless of parents.
How long you need to have been there I dont know.
Maybe you better move now to be safe

[Istar]

Government loses case on Brexit Article 50 invocation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Finally, a glimmer of sanity's light from the Summer of Darkness.

[Cloudane]

Yay! So there are limits to how far May can push her authoritarian approach to "delivering the (very vague and slim) will of the people"!

Or are there?

the prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".

So are they saying they'll even do it illegally if necessary?

[Absolute_Zero]

^ a legal appeal would be the first step.

[pogo]

There’s a Supreme Court appeal scheduled for early December. If it goes the government’s way (and it’s hard to guess whether it will, this being unprecedented in a number of ways) then things are back on track. But if this verdict stands there are few plausible options:

* A further appeal to the European Court for Human Rights. The logical next step except it typically takes much longer and the government is trying to extricate itself from that court’s jurisdiction so would not welcome it deciding the outcome.
* Let parliament have its say. That though introduces even more uncertainty. Parliament might say no, or yes but with conditions which derail negotiations.
* Try and let the people have their say another way: another referendum but this time binding, or even another election. The Tories would likely win any election held now, but that might mean Labour would be unwilling to grant them one, as it requires support of 2/3 of MPs. A further, binding, referendum would also need parliamentary approval.

If you are pro-Brexit none of those is a good option, as they all add delay and uncertainty to it happening. No wonder the pound has had its best day for weeks, as markets clearly think this increases the chance of Brexit never occurring.

[tufty]

No wonder the pound has had its best day for weeks, as markets clearly think this increases the chance of Brexit never occurring.

Sorry to break it to you, but that's been almost nothing to do with the brexit court case, and almost everything to do with the BoE's monetary policy announcement and quarterly inflation report that dropped at midday today.

It would have been lovely to have "court slaps government, markets rally", but unfortunately not.

https://www.ft.com/content/9c089ed8-a0d ... 36b35c3550

[Darkflame]

* A further appeal to the European Court for Human Rights.

wait wait.....maybe I am mixed up, but are you saying there's a possibility that May will be appealing to the court of human rights, while simultaneously arguing no one in the UK should have the right to do that?
Irony meters in a hundred mile radius would explode.

[KlaxonCow]

* A further appeal to the European Court for Human Rights.

wait wait.....maybe I am mixed up, but are you saying there's a possibility that May will be appealing to the court of human rights, while simultaneously arguing no one in the UK should have the right to do that?
Irony meters in a hundred mile radius would explode.

Unfortunately, May is possibly too ignorant to learn the implicit life lesson in that, to comprehend that this is why you defend human rights.

Tomorrow, it could be you. That's why you "do unto others as you would have done unto you" because, tomorrow, it might well be being "done unto you".

It's not about "being nice" to people - wishy washy feeeelings to "be nice" to terrorists! - it's about being correct, sensible and pragmatic.

It's like Freedom of Speech. The thing to realise, you see, is that, despite your ego telling you otherwise, sometimes you've got it wrong.

Consider the kid in the crowd who shouted "the Emperor is naked!". Though initially embarrassing to the Emperor's ego, no doubt, who ultimately benefits the most from the kid having the freedom of speech to shout that out?

The Emperor himself. Because he's in the wrong here. He believes in the lie of invisible clothes. In letting the kids speak the truth, the Emperor's eyes are opened. He not only realises that he's physically naked and can rush off to put on some clothes, it exposes to him the fact that he's also politically naked. All those advisers who told him he looked fine in his invisible clothes. All those dressers pretending to put on clothes that weren't really there. All those citizens pretending everything was fine. It exposes how he can't trust any of them.

And, reading between the lines, why can't he trust them to tell him the truth? Because the Emperor has created a tyrannical climate where - again, to preserve his ego and vanity - no-one feels they can speak openly and honestly to him. It takes a child - too young to comprehend any of this, so he just flatly says what he sees - to break the rules and tell him what's really going on.

The reason to preserve freedom of speech is to have the wisdom to allow others to say things that, yes, you might not like. Tell you that you're wrong. Propose a different world view that you find objectionable.

If you've got any brain in your head, then you welcome this. Because you could be wrong. You could be the naked Emperor but just don't realise it. You want people to tell you "you're wrong" because, sometimes, they're absolutely right to say so.

I'm keenly aware of this because I was brought up in a religious household. Went to Sunday School. And, like any kid just accepting what their parents and other adults tell them, I believed it. But, thankfully, there's the freedom of speech which allows arseholes to crudely point out objectionable things like the fact that it makes no fucking sense. Who can challenge its logic, expose that "the good book" is actually deeply immoral and, yes, I'm thankful for that freedom of speech, even though I didn't appreciate it initially, because it opened my eyes to the bullshit and lies.

How we're all vulnerable to magical thinking and cognitive biases - the ego always thinks it's right, no matter what - that we damn well do need the checks and balances of preserving the freedom of speech of even the most objectionable statements, of fair trial for the most evil of people, of preserving the rights of even the most heinous people.

We get things wrong sometimes. So have the wisdom to appreciate that you must let your faith be tested. If it's right and true, then there's nothing to fear in that test. But, if it's wrong, then it needs to be said and the person who will most benefit from that is you. You're the one living in the lie. The kid who blurted out "the Emperor is naked" is already living in the true and real world. It's not for them you preserve their freedom of speech. It's for yourself, if you've got any fucking intelligence in that skull of yours, Ms.May.

Yes, she's facing these contradictions. But if her brains could, at some point, override her nasty seething de-humanising misanthropy for people she doesn't comprehend - the poor, the wicked, etc. - then she might just realise why these contradictions arise.

She's got it wrong. The Empress is naked. She's a self-centred idiot who can't see beyond her own nose.

(But, in fairness to her, that does pretty much describe all politicians all the time and a large chunk of the public who blindly voted for Brexit. Really, "the Empire is naked" here.)

[pogo]

* A further appeal to the European Court for Human Rights.

wait wait.....maybe I am mixed up, but are you saying there's a possibility that May will be appealing to the court of human rights, while simultaneously arguing no one in the UK should have the right to do that?
Irony meters in a hundred mile radius would explode.

I think it’s more that the Supreme Court might decide it’s a matter of interpretation of European law, and so pass the case up to that court. This makes sense; Article 50 is a part of the EU’s constitution, exactly the sort of thing the ECHR often decides on. But it would be deeply frustrating for the British government, with the further delays that much slower court usually introduces.

They could just try and get it through parliament. I’ve read that most MPs will grudgingly support it, being unwilling to go against their constituents, and so the government will prevail. But many things could go wrong. The government would likely be forced to say much more than it wants about its negotiating position, in particular whether it takes a hard line in migration, or a hard line on access to markets. MPs could also insist that the final deal requires parliamentary approval.

That’s logistically quite impractical as the final deal at the end of the two year process triggered by Article 50 is not one you can reject; at that point it’s the only deal on offer. The only way for MPs to have a say in the deal is for Article 50 not to be triggered until it is agreed. But other countries are not prepared to agree any deal before Article 50 (they know they have the UK over a barrel once it is, and the clock starts ticking).

And there may be other attempts to derail it. Scottish and NI MPs could try and use the vote in their parts of the UK to get guarantees; the SNP might use it to advocate for independence, which NI might want to preserve their special relationship with Ireland.

[(o)(o)]

* A further appeal to the European Court for Human Rights.

wait wait.....maybe I am mixed up, but are you saying there's a possibility that May will be appealing to the court of human rights, while simultaneously arguing no one in the UK should have the right to do that?
Irony meters in a hundred mile radius would explode.

That the Tories attempted this, let alone to appeal against the verdict, creates a constitutional crisis.

Parliament enacts laws not government.

Theresa May cannot be allowed to bypass parliament. That's how dictatorships are formed. She's not a monarch FFS!

If there isn't nuclear armageddon (Satan 2 would obliterate not only the UK, but also a fair chunk of France and the Netherlands) I believe Gina Miller will go down in history as a hero of the people.

Now would be a good time to review Labour's record on "economic competence".

How does that 3% structural deficit look now, compared to the turmoil and havoc the Tories have created in the UK.

[merman]

The newspaper headlines were disgusting. The Sun even made a photo of Gina Miller DARKER to emphasise their racist point of view.

[Governmentyard]

No-one is going to do a damn thing about the papers, they'll carry on agitating the stupid, with impunity. Those with a sense of common decency and a care for their fellow man will continue moaning to each other about it.

Everyone is fundamentally quite satisfied with their roles in all this.

[KlaxonCow]

Parliament enacts laws not government.

To be pedantic - but it's important to pick up on this ubiquitous abuse of language, as it seems to have horribly distorted how people interpret things - Parliament is the government.

What the Cabinet represents is the executive branch of government. Parliament, collectively, is the legislative branch of government. While the courts - Supreme Court, High Court, Crown Court, etc. - represent the judicial branch of government.

It's not "the government" versus Parliament or versus the courts, as they are also branches of "the government" too.

Our Parliamentary system simply does not work that way, and even phrasing it as "the government versus Parliament" threatens to legitimise what May - and, before her, Blair and Maggie with their similarly erroneous Presidential style - is doing as if it isn't fundamentally fucked up and completely contrary to the entire point of having a Parliamentary system in the first place.

Parliament, collectively, run this country. The cabinet is only meant to be a case of MPs specialising in the management of particular aspects, because it's pragmatic to have someone specifically devoted to "transport" or "education". Dedicating their time to that particular arena. Being the "buck stops here" hub for ultimate responsibility and coordination.

The court has interpreted the law and ruled correctly. This is just not how shit is supposed to go down in our system.

[tufty]

The newspaper headlines were disgusting. The Sun even made a photo of Gina Miller DARKER to emphasise their racist point of view.

Apparently not, it was The Times that lightened the photo.

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/04/sun ... na-miller/

Yet more proof, ladies and gentlemen. Yet more proof.