The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[chow pan toon]

Digga said:

KrissKross said:

I don't come here much any more because of jj, slasher and the like. They are clearly paid to troll, mates with the admins or they would have been banned long ago. Look at the volume of posts 24/7 (do they work in the real world?) the absolute bullying of anyone who disagrees with their intellectual superiority is unhealthy.

I've come to a similar conclusion. I am not even sure some of these user accounts are actually 'manned' by the same person either - as well as their ever-present posting ability, there are curious changes in posting styles.

I am all for debate, but the blanket spambot trolling on NP&E is nothing of the sort.

Grow up.

[mx5nut]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gina...


Gina Miller has done more to preserve democracy in our country over the last few years than the entire cabinet combined, persevering despite threats and childish tabloid attacks that she's somehow trying to "sabotage the will of the people"

[Deptford Draylons]

mx5nut said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gina...


Gina Miller has done more to preserve democracy in our country over the last few years than the entire cabinet combined, persevering despite threats and childish tabloid attacks that she's somehow trying to "sabotage the will of the people"

Yeah, she's the everyday concerned citizen fighting a lack of democracy with zero intent to reverse the result.

[jjlynn27]

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

This is what you said;

Tuna said:

Forgive me though, your posting style (particularly the frequent suggestion that everyone else is a moron)

'Everyone else' is pretty self-explanatory, as much as it is demonstrably your invention.

So, once again, why did you invent that I'm calling 'everyone' moron? 'One at the time' is just exceptionally poor attempt at diversion, even if true it's most definitely not 'everyone'.

Thanks for going hunting for that quote, I'll confess I didn't check it. Certainly it was meant in the spirit that your posting style is aggressive and the impression you leave me is that you intellectually belittle people you disagree with. And you disagree with a lot of people.


So you're right, not everyone. I apologise for giving that impression.

No need to apologize, I was curious why would you do it. As for hunting; once you discover ctrl-f you'll find what you are looking for very very quickly. You don't even need to invent 'waiting for curry' excuse . It's really that fast.

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

Tuna said:

Not sure why you should be so upset about it though.

I don't think that you are stupid enough to actually believe that I'd be upset by that. So that leads to two possibilities;

a) I'm wrong about you.

Can't possibly be that, could it? That'd make me a moron.

Not really. It's not like you are going to become loafer or kriss with a k.

tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

b) You don't actually believe that but you are still saying it in order to divert from 'everyone' fiasco.

who said this while counting who said what on a NPE part of the car forum said:

On the other hand there were twice as many cases where posters claimed the other side was 'angry', 'upset' or 'frustrated' - all of them accusations by Remain supporters.

Hoist by my own petard No diversion, and no apologies either. By going back over two threads to pick out quotes, you really are leaving me with the impression you're upset. Or a bit obsessive. Or waiting for a curry to arrive. I'm not sure anyone actually cares which.

Whatever makes you feel better about the need to make up stories on a car forum, is perfectly fine by me .

tuna said:

So, now we know where we stand... have you come up with an answer to the cliff edge thing yet?

You keep going on about cliff edge thing, and I have no idea what you are on about. Something else that you made up while 'waiting for a curry'?

I do have to say that your 'counting' post was one of the saddest and most entertaining posts that I've read on NP&E. Sincere thanks for that.

[jjlynn27]

Digga said:

I've come to a similar conclusion. I am not even sure some of these user accounts are actually 'manned' by the same person either - as well as their ever-present posting ability, there are curious changes in posting styles.

I am all for debate, but the blanket spambot trolling on NP&E is nothing of the sort.

I don't usually reply to conspiracy posts, but since I respect your opinion on everything cycling, I'll make an exception. All posts under this nick are made by me. Nobody would bother to write a bot to post on a NP&E which is read by what, at the most, like 100 people? Let's be generous and call it 200.

Are you all for debate, or are you for people agreeing with your preconceptions and prejudices? You only really need to answer that question to yourself, because at the end of the day, nobody else will care one way or another in next 30 seconds.

[Murph7355]

mx5nut said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gina...


Gina Miller has done more to preserve democracy in our country over the last few years than the entire cabinet combined, persevering despite threats and childish tabloid attacks that she's somehow trying to "sabotage the will of the people"

She's either naive or stupid reading that article.

And I'm afraid her motivations are very far from clear...

[Pan Pan Pan]

Murph7355 said:

mx5nut said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gina...


Gina Miller has done more to preserve democracy in our country over the last few years than the entire cabinet combined, persevering despite threats and childish tabloid attacks that she's somehow trying to "sabotage the will of the people"

She's either naive or stupid reading that article.

And I'm afraid her motivations are very far from clear...

Where was a Gina Miller equivalent when the UK was taken into the EU without even the chance of a democratic vote on the matter, let alone a referendum followed by a legal determination as was used in 2016?

[anonymous-user]

The Sovereign Parliament decided to take the UK into the EEC. A majority of citizens then voting chose to stay in a short time after that. Then in 2016 a majority of citizens then voting chose to leave.

The Miller challenge upheld Sovereignty and democracy by affirming that Parliament took us in, so it was and is for Parliament to take us out.

There were various legal challenges about the EU long before 2016. They did not succeed.

[anonymous-user]

An example of an earlier legal challenge about the EU and sovereignty and so on. NB: Rees-Mogg pere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Secretary_of_Sta...

See also Factortame and Metric Martyrs and various others. Legal challenges are not unique to pro EU claimants.

[KrissKross]

Eddie Strohacker said:

KrissKross said:

They are clearly paid to troll, mates with the admins or they would have been banned long ago.

I'm going to stick my neck out here & suggest you might not be able to substantiate that. In a month of Sundays

Also, whining baby.

Yes, I agree with you and can take that on the chin.

[KrissKross]

chow pan toon said:

Digga said:

KrissKross said:

I don't come here much anymore because of jj, slasher and the like. They are clearly paid to troll, mates with the admins or they would have been banned long ago. Look at the volume of posts 24/7 (do they work in the real world?) the absolute bullying of anyone who disagrees with their intellectual superiority is unhealthy.

I've come to a similar conclusion. I am not even sure some of these user accounts are actually 'manned' by the same person either - as well as their ever-present posting ability, there are curious changes in posting styles.

I am all for debate, but the blanket spambot trolling on NP&E is nothing of the sort.

Grow up.

The grown-ups have all left the room.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Breadvan72 said:

The Sovereign Parliament decided to take the UK into the EEC. A majority of citizens then voting chose to stay in a short time after that. Then in 2016 a majority of citizens then voting chose to leave.

The Miller challenge upheld Sovereignty and democracy by affirming that Parliament took us in, so it was and is for Parliament to take us out.

There were various legal challenges about the EU long before 2016. They did not succeed.

Surely if it was OK for the Sovereign Parliament to take the UK into the EU, Gina Millers legal action was not required, as it should also have been equally OK for the Sovereign Parliament to take the UK out of the EU, in the same way, especially as in 2016 it had the result of a democratically held referendum to back up its action?

[anonymous-user]

You appear to have misunderstood why the action happened. The action was necessary precisely in order to ensure that Parliament made the decision. The executive was proposing to make the decision without Parliament. The action upheld the Constitutional and democratic orthodoxy by requiring Parliament to approve the Article 50 notice.

The partisan hoo hah around the case is misplaced. Far from being enemies of the people, Miller and the judiciary were defending the Constitution while the Government were trying to subvert it. Theresa May has form for that: as Home Secretary she argued that rules made by her trumped Statute. The Courts told her not so, and were attacked by the Mail for "activism", but the activist was in fact a Minister trying to place her decisions above those of Parliament.

Looking ahead, one of the negative features of the Great Repeal Bill is its extensive use of Henry VIII powers. These are not new, but the proposal is to use them on a large scale. The irony that this is being done to implement a project said to be about bringing more democracy need hardly be stated. Dominic Grieve, a sensible Tory and a learned constitutional lawyer described the Bill as an "astonishing monstrosity of a bill". I suggest that this ought to be of bipartisan concern to those who care about how we are governed.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 24th October 04:49

[mx5nut]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Surely if it was OK for the Sovereign Parliament to take the UK into the EU, Gina Millers legal action was not required, as it should also have been equally OK for the Sovereign Parliament to take the UK out of the EU, in the same way

That's exactly what her legal action ensured, yes.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Breadvan72 said:

I suggest that this ought to be of bipartisan concern to those who care about how we are governed.

Two observations: 1) Demonstrably true. 2) Fat chance.

[Murph7355]

That Theresa May left herself to a "Gina Miller" action is demonstrative of her political prowess and understanding. If the legal position was genuinely unclear she should have sought wider/better advice on the matter, but I seriously doubt would parliament would ever have voted it down. She made herself look unnecessarily weaker when I suspect she thought she was doing the opposite (time and again she does this).

The repeal bill is another example really. The powers it gives aren't we open, but why bother with the third leg of it? Getting EU laws formally on our books for expediency is the logical thing to do. But then why not just use standard practice for removing g the guff we don't need/want? That could be done as quickly as the government/parliament wanted. (And if she hadn't piss arsed around with a GE she could have got what she wanted through pretty easily anyway)

Personally I don't get too fussed about either. The Gina Miller case resulted in a symbolic vote. It wasted time and money but the outcome was the same. The repeal bill in current form is very low risk and will again result in no material differences IMO.

What both have done is add further weight to the idea that May is at best inept.

[anonymous-user]

You are over simplifying. The volume of EU legislation and case law is such that it would take a very long time to go through it all and say "we like X but we don't like Y". This is partly a result of excessive legislation by the EU (which is a thing), and partly as a result of excessive legislation and over-government generally. EU rules may only amount to about 15% of UK rules (Farage fibs notwithstanding), but, as there are too many rules both UK and EU, 15% of a lot is a lot.

Breezy suggestions that complicated things are in fact simple things don't do anyone any favours.

[anonymous-user]

PS: May had excellent advice on the challenge - from James Eadie QC*, but all clients are free to ignore advice, especially if they want to make a political point and appease/encourage the Daily Mail. Helping to foster a climate of hostility to the judiciary is useful if you plan to legislate to reduce citizen access to the Courts.



* Eadie can argue any cause, and is so good on his feet that he even got three of the Supremes onside. The general expectation was that he would get no votes, as the case was a slam dunker for the Miller team, so three was almost a win

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

You are over simplifying. The volume of EU legislation and case law is such that it would take a very long time to go through it all and say "we like X but we don't like Y". This is partly a result of excessive legislation by the EU (which is a thing), and partly as a result of excessive legislation and over-government generally. EU rules may only amount to about 15% of UK rules (Farage fibs notwithstanding), but, as there are too many rules both UK and EU, 15% of a lot is a lot.

Breezy suggestions that complicated things are in fact simple things don't do anyone any favours.

I'm not sure I said it was simple, but if you need to keep your hourly rate up by explaining the opposite that's cool with me

However, someone is going to have to go through it all with their red pen regardless of how it is finally signed off.

[anonymous-user]

I think that it's time I upped my hourly rate for posting on PH. I am thinking of doubling it. Would that be greedy?