Brexin

Place open for new posts — threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Brexin

Post by musketjr »

anyone interested in brexit should be aware that a high court case brought against the uk government which can possibly lead to the UK remaining in Europe (explained below) begins tomorrow (13th)

summary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37576654

simple rundown of situation

- UK referendum ended up with 52% leave vote
- referendum is non binding, advisory only, nevertheless the 'political reality' dictates that it almost certainly will be followed through on
- sure enough, new PM announces that by march next year 'article 50' will be 'triggered'
- article 50 stipulates that a member state wishing to leave must take steps to do so in accordance with their own constitutional requirements
- UK constitution is, unlike most other developed countries, not codified in one document, but found in various items of legislation, and through other intangibles - rules and conventions, and there is no constitutional provision to follow in this situation
- hence the court case
- PM decided unilaterally to use 'prerogative powers' - an artefact of times when the monarch had meaningful, not nominal, power: the term refers to previously the monarch's, now the PM's (on behalf of the monarch) power to do things, such as sign international treaties
- anti-govt people's argument: that the use of the royal prerogative to strip millions of people of fundamental rights (withdrawal would entail the European Convention on Human Rights no longer being English law, although not until rescinded by domestic legislation (but in reality withdrawal would mandate legislation to that effect)) is unconstitutional, and only parliament may make such a decision
- if the court agrees, it could state that parliament has to draft and enact legislation effecting withdrawal from the EU, or vote to that effect - and a majority of MPs oppose Leave so in theory if the ball was in P's court, they could well debate and then vote against leaving. 2% is hardly a compelling mandate, from an advisory referendum blighted by dishonesty, for a change of this magnitude
- govt argument: gov made clear to the british people before (as in, a year before) and in the run up to the vote, that its result would be honoured, and any attempt to subvert the expressed will of the people cannot be allowed
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Brexin

Post by momuuu »

Democracy saved!?
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brexin

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Jerom wrote:Democracy saved!?


Perhapsh people need to be saved from their poor decision!
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

Like any true democracy, Britain's parliamentary system has checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power, even by a majority of voters.
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Dolan »

I don't think much will come out of this.

I'm more curious if Westminster will allow a 2nd indie referendum in Scotland. But maybe this is all BS and Sturgeon is just rocking the boat, hoping to get something in exchange even if a referendum does not get a green light from the UK government.
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

what happened to your avatar, dolan? stage fright? :roll:
Top quality poster.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

iNcog wrote:
musketjr wrote:anyone interested in brexit should be aware that a high court case brought against the uk government which can possibly lead to the UK remaining in Europe (explained below) begins tomorrow (13th)

summary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37576654

simple rundown of situation

- UK referendum ended up with 52% leave vote
- referendum is non binding, advisory only, nevertheless the 'political reality' dictates that it almost certainly will be followed through on
- sure enough, new PM announces that by march next year 'article 50' will be 'triggered'
- article 50 stipulates that a member state wishing to leave must take steps to do so in accordance with their own constitutional requirements
- UK constitution is, unlike most other developed countries, not codified in one document, but found in various items of legislation, and through other intangibles - rules and conventions, and there is no constitutional provision to follow in this situation
- hence the court case
- PM decided unilaterally to use 'prerogative powers' - an artefact of times when the monarch had meaningful, not nominal, power: the term refers to previously the monarch's, now the PM's (on behalf of the monarch) power to do things, such as sign international treaties
- anti-govt people's argument: that the use of the royal prerogative to strip millions of people of fundamental rights (withdrawal would entail the European Convention on Human Rights no longer being English law, although not until rescinded by domestic legislation (but in reality withdrawal would mandate legislation to that effect)) is unconstitutional, and only parliament may make such a decision
- if the court agrees, it could state that parliament has to draft and enact legislation effecting withdrawal from the EU, or vote to that effect - and a majority of MPs oppose Leave so in theory if the ball was in P's court, they could well debate and then vote against leaving. 2% is hardly a compelling mandate, from an advisory referendum blighted by dishonesty, for a change of this magnitude
- govt argument: gov made clear to the british people before (as in, a year before) and in the run up to the vote, that its result would be honoured, and any attempt to subvert the expressed will of the people cannot be allowed


yep, you study law

this case is really interesting, i'm very curious as to the outcome of the court case. however i'm surprised at the government who is arguing "the result must be honored", if anything shouldn't they be happy that they got an excuse to not engage article 50? where is their interest in leaving the EU?

they're appealing to the populist strand of politics in the hopes of winning a landslide in the next election. particularly now that the opposition is in tatters.
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Dolan »

Laurence Drake wrote:what happened to your avatar, dolan? stage fright? :roll:

I discovered Voltaire was a globalist POS. Though initially I used that avatar just because it was another version of : WTF am I reading.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Dolan »

They don't have much to hope for. Basically they're arguing parliament must have a say in the Brexit process. That the power to decide the outcome of Brexit doesn't reside solely or mainly with the government.

So, at most, this lawsuit can force the government to consult the parliament or to disclose their strategy, so that some degree of accountability would exist.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brexin

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Dolan wrote:
Laurence Drake wrote:what happened to your avatar, dolan? stage fright? :roll:

I discovered Voltaire was a globalist POS. Though initially I used that avatar just because it was another version of : WTF am I reading.


Globalization is good
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
Dolan wrote:
Laurence Drake wrote:what happened to your avatar, dolan? stage fright? :roll:

I discovered Voltaire was a globalist POS. Though initially I used that avatar just because it was another version of : WTF am I reading.


Globalization is good

h'ear h'ear :ear:
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Dolan »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
Dolan wrote:
Laurence Drake wrote:what happened to your avatar, dolan? stage fright? :roll:

I discovered Voltaire was a globalist POS. Though initially I used that avatar just because it was another version of : WTF am I reading.


Globalization is good

Regionalism is better.

Globalism promotes culture clash, terrorism, global wage arbitrage, financial speculation that is unrelated to a country's real economy (destabilising its finances based on pure speculation), weapons sales to destructive regimes, economic blackmail through energy dependence and so on and so forth.

A proof that globalism has failed is that the UN is a ridiculous institution devoid of any real power. Migration is another topic which proves globalism can be very dangerous. Displacing milions of people from one cultural area to another has a high destructive potential for the host culture and society, as we've been seeing in Germany and France.

A few thousands of refugees/migrants are manageable, a few milions can disrupt the whole society and can destabilise its cultural balance. People have their own habits in their countries, which are based on their culture. Once you mix cultures like this, you get civic indifference, as Robert D. Putnam has proved (in "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital").
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by musketjr »

iNcog wrote:this case is really interesting, i'm very curious as to the outcome of the court case. however i'm surprised at the government who is arguing "the result must be honored", if anything shouldn't they be happy that they got an excuse to not engage article 50? where is their interest in leaving the EU?


it's a great point. the answer is there is no subjective interest on the part of the PM to follow through on brexit - theresa may was actually pro EU:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... er-chance/

Cameron resigned after the referendum:

"I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I don't think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination."

if the given reason seems a bit vague, that's because it is a bit vague. but the point was that, in his view, given the result, Britain - clearly - had to go ahead and leave, and undertake complicated negotiations before doing so, in order to get the best deal possible for the country (economically, rights of british citizens living in the EU and so on). and in order for that important function to be carried out as best possible, it was appropriate for a new leader to step in specifically with that mandate.

this, then, is why theresa may is adamant about carrying Brexit through - it is/was her political platform. and the further reason is as mentioned in the OP, the political reality that the people's democratic will must be respected.

and i agree, it is a fascinating case. for all the arguments brexit have, and some of them (to me) look persuasive:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brexi ... 58851.html

the government's point that the democratic will of the people has to be respected, is also very powerful. and you can see why - even if the government would prefer, even strongly, to stay in the EU - they have taken this position and are sticking to it. the issue is fundamentally the carrying out of democracy.

there might be the strange-but-true happenstance here that theresa may, obliged as she is to forcefully push on with the Brexit agenda, would actually welcome the government losing the case
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by musketjr »

Dolan wrote:They don't have much to hope for. Basically they're arguing parliament must have a say in the Brexit process. That the power to decide the outcome of Brexit doesn't reside solely or mainly with the government.

So, at most, this lawsuit can force the government to consult the parliament or to disclose their strategy, so that some degree of accountability would exist.


if the government needs parliament to vote for Brexit, it follows that parliament can also block Brexit (by voting against)

another dimension to the case is that it's unclear whether the judiciary (the courts) have the power, constitutionally speaking, to tell the executive (the government), or indeed parliament (were it to state an Act of Parliament is necessary) what to do at all.
the government will argue, on Monday, that this matter is of the highest political importance - it is for the government to decide. the thing here is the relationship between parliament and the courts. parliament is the sovereign entity legally speaking. the job of the courts has been, and is, to construe and implement parliament's laws. so the idea of the courts instructing parliament to do something is novel in of itself.

this case really is seminal for a number of reasons

imagine this, for example: the court rules against the government, and issues an injunction against the government, prohibiting them from triggering article 50.

basically no one knows what's going to happen.

well, one thing is relatively predictable - whoever loses will appeal. and the media reports seem to have gleaned from some source that the appeal will be fast tracked to the supreme court (current case is in the high court, and normally speaking appeals would go to the court of appeal. the supreme court is one rung above the CA). and the SC hearing would be in November or December
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by iNcog »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
United States of America Papist
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 2602
Joined: Mar 29, 2015
ESO: Papist

Re: Brexin

Post by Papist »

I am opposed to the concept of Brexit, but if Britain is not going to respect the will of the people, they should stop hosting referendums. The "Remain" camp's arguments for ignoring voters are pathetic - from their efforts to invent new criteria and thresholds after the fact, to this court case.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Dolan »

Well, it's debatable, indeed, in the UK parliament is considered sovereign in relation to other powers and can choose to ignore the results of a referendum. It can do so by paying a political price for it.

Parliament voted the new cabinet in and gave them the mandate to fulfil the political will expressed by the referendum results.

The UK basically doesn't have a constitutional court like other countries have to overturn legislation adopted by parliament. The newly created supreme court is mostly a typical last-resort appelate court. The only constitutional power they have is that they can pass judgement on questions of devolved powers.

That's why I'm skeptical about any significant outcome that could block the Brexit process. Whatever the supreme court will decide can be overruled by parliament. And parliament can only stop the government from seeing the Brexit process through to completion by voting a motion of no-confidence. Which is very unlikely to happen any time soon.
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

Dolan wrote:
fightinfrenchman wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Globalization is good

Regionalism is better.

Globalism promotes culture clash, terrorism, global wage arbitrage, financial speculation that is unrelated to a country's real economy (destabilising its finances based on pure speculation), weapons sales to destructive regimes, economic blackmail through energy dependence and so on and so forth.

A proof that globalism has failed is that the UN is a ridiculous institution devoid of any real power. Migration is another topic which proves globalism can be very dangerous. Displacing milions of people from one cultural area to another has a high destructive potential for the host culture and society, as we've been seeing in Germany and France.

A few thousands of refugees/migrants are manageable, a few milions can disrupt the whole society and can destabilise its cultural balance. People have their own habits in their countries, which are based on their culture. Once you mix cultures like this, you get civic indifference, as Robert D. Putnam has proved (in "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital").

you spend too much time on 4chan
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Dolan »

you spend too much time on 4chan

I'd be wasting time if I did. There's no debate there, just Trump/Clinton/Putin shills and neonazis spewing BS all day.
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

Dolan wrote:
you spend too much time on 4chan

I'd be wasting time if I did. There's no debate there, just Trump/Clinton/Putin shills and neonazis spewing BS all day.

and there aren't shills here?
Top quality poster.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brexin

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Laurence Drake wrote:
Dolan wrote:
you spend too much time on 4chan

I'd be wasting time if I did. There's no debate there, just Trump/Clinton/Putin shills and neonazis spewing BS all day.

and there aren't shills here?


The Trump campaign may have actually paid ESOC to ban me! No confirmation but people are definitely talking about thish.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687
Joined: Dec 25, 2015

Re: Brexin

Post by Laurence Drake »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
Laurence Drake wrote:
Show hidden quotes

and there aren't shills here?


The Trump campaign may have actually paid ESOC to ban me! No confirmation but people are definitely talking about thish.

now that you mention it, I seem to recall the wikileaks released something about that a few weeks ago.
Top quality poster.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Brexin

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Laurence Drake wrote:
fightinfrenchman wrote:
Show hidden quotes


The Trump campaign may have actually paid ESOC to ban me! No confirmation but people are definitely talking about thish.

now that you mention it, I seem to recall the wikileaks released something about that a few weeks ago.


No end to the corruption!
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Great Britain oats13
Lancer
Posts: 618
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
Location: Dorsetshire

Re: Brexin

Post by oats13 »

The Houses of Parliament ARE the highest of the courts in Britain so it (the court case) can't proceed unless parliament votes against the people- then there will be a general election in which the tories will have a massive majority and clear mandate- Labour and the SNP should be careful what they wish for.

The E.U will go down as a great political folly..... all things mice and men.

All of it's honourable intentions can be met via the global market- no need for alarm.

The original European Coal Board was never cut out to become the de-facto government of Europe.
International tariffs were at 30-40% when the single market ensued and continue to fall.

Britain will have it's own seat on the WTO from 3 years hence.

It is in fact the E.U that will be shown to be protectionist and anti-global IMO.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV