Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders. Boris, May and Judgement Day

990 replies

RedToothBrush · 20/01/2017 13:49

Well its finally here. The day America changes forever. Good luck planet earth.

Our day of reckoning is beckoning too.

Tuesday is Supreme Court Judgement Day.

At 9.30 Lord Nueberger and the other ten justices will convene and he will read out their judgement.

Contrary to some suggestions this does not mean the decision is necessarily unanimous. It is normal for the Supreme Court to do this.

Nueberger will read any disagreements out as part of the judgment.
Their ruling will be far reaching in its importance however it goes.

A victory for the government will mean a50 can be triggered as and when Theresa May likes. That could be Tuesday afternoon in theory.

If it’s a victory for the claimants then things get much more complicated. It depends on how far the justices go.

It could rule that parliament need to vote on a50.

It could rule that the Great Repeal Act must be passed before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that the Scottish and NI Assemblies must agree to a50 being invoked.

It could rule that the Good Friday Agreement must be resolved before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that issues over acquired rights must be resolved before invoking a50.

It could draw other conclusions that we have not thought of.

A strong victory for the claimants could seriously hamper May’s plans for Brexit. Which is exactly why she has laid out her vision and has prepared the battle lines ready for her next round of blame laying.

None of this will be because the government has been short sighted.

If there is a strong victory, remember that May could have avoided the situation by accepting the High Court’s ruling in December that she needed Parliament’s consent to trigger a50. Anything more that makes triggering a50 more difficult is her sole responsibility and she had the power to avoid. Much of the right wing press will tell you differently.

We've heard so much about Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit. We should also talk of Democratic and Undemocratic Brexit. How Brexit is managed and how we conduct ourselves is arguably as important to the future as economics. It is right to oppose Undemocratic Brexit. It is important to make that distinction and all the principles that fall under that concept. What opposition there is need to get their shit together on this principle. Using patriotism to stifle this wholly wrong and unhealthy. Saying Brexit must happen no matter what, regardless of how bad it is and regardless of the cost is wrong.

Make the case for democracy. Keep talking about it. Talk about where it is failing and what we must do to strengthen it, not undermine it.

Here lies Labour's policy on Brexit. "We support Democratic Brexit which is the will of the people. This is how we define this. This is what is needed economic and socially." You can find the necessary slogans from this and start defining it outward from that. So far they have failed to capture this sentiment concisely into a soundbite that people can start to develop and push a left wing liberal agenda on their own terms from. Their PR is shocking and they are incoherent. May owned Corbyn at PMQ earlier this week on these grounds. This is not because they have been misrepresented by the press or been the victim of biased media. Its because they have been shit and have failed to set their own agenda and instead are dancing to everyone else's.

Here’s hoping that democracy will win through the challenges of the next few years. Democracy is about elections and referendums, but it is also so much more. It is about on going debate and the freedom of this debate, freedom of the press, a range of political parties and points of view, the independent judiciary, the right to oppose the state, freedom to exercise your legal rights, freedom of speech, an understanding of equality and an understanding and above all else - respect for of all of the above. It does not bode well that much of the right wing press and right wing politicians are telling us differently.

So much hope about our futures now rests with Angela Merkel one way or another.

Meanwhile Corbyn could face a major rebellion over a50 if he pursues a three line whip rather than a free vote. 60 - 80 Labour MPs are threatening not to tow the party line with shadow cabinet resignations potentially also on the cards.

Brace yourselves the roller coaster is just about to hit a one big drop.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Peregrina · 22/01/2017 20:04

If you report a rape to a medical professional and the rapist has on-going access to you and your children (including an unborn child) it will NOT remain confidential but will be reported to Children's Social Care as a child protection issue..

I had not realised that.

Peregrina · 22/01/2017 20:08

The whole issue of tax credits is flawed. The Government shouldn't be bailing out firms who don't pay a fair wage. A worker should be worthy of his or her hire. But that's all a debate for a different thread.

woman12345 · 22/01/2017 20:13

Child protection is a massive surveillance system, already in place in this country. Peregina. No one can argue with the need to protect the vulnerable, but it is a tort duty of care liability for any number of public service professionals, and has a very very broad remit. It's on some other threads about forced adoptions.
childprotectionresource.online/category/negligence-and-misfeasance/

TheSmurfsAreHere · 22/01/2017 20:45

If a bunch of teenagers and mums with pushchairs can stop most of the west end for 4hours while on the march, when god knows we have other things we need to get on with, why the fuck can't everyone grow some and challenge both of them

YY to that.
Why such an apathy for a lot of subjects, incl Brexit.
But when we talk about TM, no one moves a finger. Or when we talk about this rule on rape etc...

SemiPermanent · 22/01/2017 20:46

But rape is a legal, not a medical definition, isn't it? What jurisdiction should a GP have over the status of a criminal offence?

It's completely separate to reporting a rape in this context.

It's because child tax credits are being limited to first 2 children only, so by that definition, any subsequently born children you would not be entitled to child tax credits.

If you became pregnant as a result of rape - whether you report the rape to police or not - you can divulge it to the GP & they will write something to whoever to authorise the extra payments.

If you are in an abusive relationship whereby you are 'kept pregnant', then when the relationship ends if you needed to rely on tax credits etc then you can divulge the fact that you were made to keep having children to the GP, who will sign whatever it is that will authorise the extra payments.

There are no time limits to this.

It's a work around for the fact that the child tax credits are being limited to 2 children only.

It's not ideal by any means, but it's at least acknowledging that some women had no actual choice in having more than two children.

SemiPermanent · 22/01/2017 20:50

The whole issue of tax credits is flawed. The Government shouldn't be bailing out firms who don't pay a fair wage

This particular issue is nothing to do with working tax credits - it's child tax credits, which you get per child if you are not working or on a very low income.

For eg I get child tax credits following my divorce, as my income is very low as I am on ESA (support group) as I cannot work.
I do not get working tax credits at all as I don't work.

TheSmurfsAreHere · 22/01/2017 20:54

Re the rape stuff.

What will be classified as rape?
I mean. So you have 3dcs with your partner, the last one wasn't unplanned. Your partner leaves you and ... oh yes, you can go and see your GP and tell them that it was marital rape??
Really?
On the other side, you have been raped as a teenager and got pregnant. The perpetrator has been convinced and is prison. You get married and have DC but you can only have one. Have another with the man you love, the one you are building you life with and ... you can't any help at all.

Finally, one last comment. Trying to stop people from having large families will mean the natality rate will drop.
The population is aging and we already are moving towards a population that is decreasing (with all the issues it creates).
The only reason why it isn't happening atm is because ... immigrants tend to have a higher natality rate than British people. But we are currently trying to reduce those/send them back home.
So the only impact I can see from that policy is that people will have less children. We will have less immigrants in the country and less people willing to have several children.
Well end up in the same situation than Germany where they NEED immigrants if they don't want to see their population reduce, (the you can't pay pensions, the NHS etc...)
I'm a bit at loss at the reason why that rule has been passed.... yes I know it's all about having a go at all these people who just have children to stay on benefits for as long as possible

Also worth remembering, the rule will have gone past the Parliament and the Lords. None of which would have raised any issue about it?
Why hasn't there been some resistance in the public about it? (If I remember well this is a legacy from DC no?)

RedToothBrush · 22/01/2017 20:55

A bill to withdraw the US from the United Nations has been submitted to Congress as the 'American Sovereignty Restoration Act'.

The UN would also be forced to move its HQ.

An announcement has been made to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is also apparently on the cards.

The UN's purpose is to keep the peace. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem is inflammatory to say the least. Some might go so far as to call it an aggressive move.

Trump has pretty much implied he wants war as it is.

He is NUTS. Totally NUTS.

All he needs is an excuse. Any terrorist attack...

Where the hell does that leave NATO? Do we want to stay in if he's going to pull shit like this? Surely he's just going to use it to pull members in to any fight he picks?

And:

www.itv.com/news/2017-01-22/breaking-police-officer-in-northern-ireland-has-been-injured-in-a-terrorist-shooting/
Breaking: Police officer in Northern Ireland has been injured in a 'terrorist' shooting

McGuiness pulls the pull on the NI Assembly, Adams says pulling NI out of the EU would be a hostile action and would destroy the GFA and now this.

I don't know what to say apart from The Peace is Over. God help us all.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 22/01/2017 21:02

An announcement has been made to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is also apparently on the cards.

That makes no sense.

Apparently an announcement is on the cards. Not the announcement has been made.

OP posts:
SemiPermanent · 22/01/2017 21:09

Also worth remembering, the rule will have gone past the Parliament and the Lords. None of which would have raised any issue about it?
Why hasn't there been some resistance in the public about it? (If I remember well this is a legacy from DC no?)

Did you actually bother to read the article that was linked?
It's all in there.

From the article:

"...In the summer Budget of 20155^, the then Chancellor announced that families with more than two children would no longer be able to claim child tax credit on third and subsequent children. Those changes come into force in Aprill^.
The Government said some women should be exempt from the proposals, including those who have suffered rape, and ran a consultation on the measures..."

TuckersBadLuck · 22/01/2017 21:10

A bill to withdraw the US from the United Nations has been submitted to Congress as the 'American Sovereignty Restoration Act'.

WHAT?? Shock

SaltyMyDear · 22/01/2017 21:10

They've also asked to be removed from the WHO!!!!!!!

Ok. Now, I'm really scared.

SemiPermanent · 22/01/2017 21:11

The UN???!!!

Wow.

woman12345 · 22/01/2017 21:14

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said this week that President-elect Donald Trump should withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations.
Palin's idea?

SemiPermanent · 22/01/2017 21:16

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr193/text

The text of the 'American Sovereignty Restoration Act 2017'

It was introduced at the beginning of January, proposed by Alabama Representative Mike Rogers, with 6 co-sponsors.

woman12345 · 22/01/2017 21:17

^Trump White House 'At Very Beginning Stages of Even Discussing' Embassy Move to Jerusalem
Aides say no announcement of embassy move is imminent. 'Prattle and nonsense' by politicians to blame for White House statement, senior Israeli diplomat says^.
read more: www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.766813
Hope so.

TuckersBadLuck · 22/01/2017 21:19

OK, so it seems it's not official US Government policy (yest!) and it's been tried before anyway.

TuckersBadLuck · 22/01/2017 21:19

*yet

TuckersBadLuck · 22/01/2017 21:24

In the wake of Brexit, Alabama congressman wants U.S. to exit U.N.

What was that about Brexit and WW3?

Peregrina · 22/01/2017 21:29

Moving UN headquarters from NY shouldn't be too much of a problem - I gather they have never paid their rent anyway.

RedToothBrush · 22/01/2017 21:34

Adam Wagner ‏*@AdamWagner1*

On checks and balances:

  1. They are annoying. They slow governments down. They can stop the majority quickly getting what it wants. BUT
  2. See Trump. This is why democratic systems designed to be slow, often unwieldy, power shared between executive, legislature and courts.
  3. Those who designed US system, and wrote the European Convention on Human Rights had seen tyranny up close and personal. They understood.
  4. They understood that tyranny is a natural response to the over-concentration of power. So checks and balances. So early warning systems.
  5. Trump, Brexit, rise of populism - these are stress tests on our democratic systems. But to pass, people need to STAND UP for the system.
  6. This is the time to stand up for human rights, constitutional rights, civil rights - whatever you want to call checks and balance.

If the Supreme Court Ruling goes the way of the claimants on Tuesday: SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.

OP posts:
woman12345 · 22/01/2017 21:36

^United States withdrawal from the United Nations refers to various proposals for the United States to terminate its membership in the United Nations, where it is one of the founding members and one of the five Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These proposals are often motivated by a perceived threat to U.S. sovereignty, or concerns that the U.N. is a potential world government.

Alabama congressman Mike Rogers has called to leave the UN in the wake of the brexit vote by the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union. Utah state representative Don Bush, has claimed that many programs by the supranational entity have violated the US Constitution, such as the implementation of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea Treaty, both of which the United States does not currently endorse.

A sign advocating America's withdrawal produced by the John Birch Society
Opposition to the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations, has existed from the time of formation. The John Birch Society, an anti-communist group founded in 1958, was opposed to US involvement from the society's beginning. From an early date they had bumper stickers with the slogan "Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.!" Another withdrawal advocate at the time was the National Review, which once editorialized that the UN should be "liquidated".
Public opinion
According to the polling organization Rasmussen Reports, in the year 2004 a minority of 44% of United States Citizens had a favorable view of the United Nations. This number continued to decline steadily, and two years later in 2006 that number had fallen to 31%. As of 2006, 26% of Americans say "the U.S. should not be involved" with the United Nations, with a moderate majority of 57% supporting remaining a member.[5] The 2006 poll surveyed 1000 adults. A 2008 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that 39% find it "very important" and 21% "not important" to strengthen the U.N. In 2013, a Media and Public Opinion Research Group poll found that 38% of Americans would like less involvement with the UN. Some ranking leaders of the United Nations have suggested that the United States government has been projecting a negative image of the UN, although this allegation is denied by the US. m Few observers expect the "U.S. out of U.N." movement to result in the US actually withdrawing for the foreseeable future. (!)

In 1997 legislation H.R.1146 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas under the label "American Sovereignty Restoration Act". In addition to withdrawal, the bill also proposed expelling the United Nations Headquarters from its territory within the City of New York and no longer providing the large plurality of funds which the US contributes to the UN annually^.

Peregrina · 22/01/2017 21:47

I really can't see the UN ever becoming a world government. If anything, I think we will see China as the undisputed world leader.The way Trump is carrying on, I think I could just see the US breaking up.

woman12345 · 22/01/2017 21:52

LA and Chicago are certainly going their own way Peregrina .
This has been brewing in US for nearly 100 years, right back to when you had George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Huey Long (left wing but demagogue) and Ross Perot, (many Trump voters were still sore at Perot's defeat 1993?) They have built up a head of steam for this sort of govt. The polling shows, that he's acting on,yet again a populist and popular cause.
Doesn't help, sorry, but looked at historically, you can see where it's come from, and how it's been mediated in the past. US is a country which regards itself as independent and self sufficient, that's some of the 'logic' here.
But I know it looks grim.