Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptainSwing

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

413 profile views
  1. Yes, I think that's true. If things do go pear-shaped over the next few years, people will continue to be kept in the dark - in fact positively misinformed/disinformed - as to the reasons for it.
  2. I think L00b was referring to a few years down the line, when TTIP 2 or whatever is in place. So sad to see my country throwing itself to the wolves in this way.
  3. Google tells me that York (and nowhere else that I can find) run a course of exactly that name, might be worth contacting somebody there: https://www.york.ac.uk/students/studying/manage/programmes/module-catalogue/module/PSY00053H/latest Can't find anybody called Hellewell there, but not everybody has a web presence.
  4. Yes, it would have been the House of Lords, if it had been appealed all the way up. But in its capacity as final court of appeal, "House of Lords" just meant the 12 Law Lords, who became the Supreme Court in 2009, not the whole House. The only complication would have been the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the government. His status in the HoL-as-appeal-court was never very clear - he sometimes took part, but usually didn't. Presumably he wouldn't have been allowed to take part in that case. Academic now as he's not part of the Supreme Court. It's true that the HoL has generally had a Tory bias. I forget the figures, but the number of pieces of proposed Labour legislation that have been challenged there has historically been far higher (pro rata) than the number of pieces of proposed Tory legislation. But that would have been irrelevant to its former judicial function, unless you're going to argue that the judiciary itself has a pro-Tory bias.
  5. Three weeks, apparently: https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/ I suppose there wouldn't have been much point in challenging it at the time, even if anybody had had the idea, as an election was about to happen anyway. But, yes, it would appear on the face of it that he used the prorogation to prevent the official report about Tory corruption being published before the election. At least, as the link says, it "had that effect". Didn't help him much, of course. Yes, Lord Justices Reed and Carnwath were both on the minority, dissenting, side in the original Miller case.
  6. Well anybody can make a mistake. It's what you do about it afterwards that counts.
  7. Well I don't suppose Mr Major or I meant "anarchist" in a technical sense, more in the sense of someone who just wants to destroy the current system of government. More in an Anarchy in the U.K. sense. Mr Cummings doesn't know what he wants, but he knows how to get it. Or maybe he does know what he wants, and it is indeed something very authoritarian, as you say.
  8. I've just found this article from 2016, which, using a somewhat different analysis, backs up what I said here (that growth was consistently higher before 1979 than it's been since), as well as making some interesting points about the national debt: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/03/three-centuries-data-debunks-osborne-s-economic-theories
  9. Yes, I was about to make the same point. If Leavers want to find the true enemies of democracy, they need to look a little closer to home. I think Mr Major has it about right when he calls Mr Cummings an anarchist, someone who seems to have a (psychologically?) deep-rooted animus against parliamentary democracy and its associated institutions (politically neutral civil service, independent judiciary).
  10. I don't know whether they think about it or not, and I'm not sure they'd care if they did. Remain vs. Leave has become an almost purely tribal thing. The actual pros and cons have become entirely irrelevant for (I'd say) most people. These days, the main reason people tend to give for continuing to support Brexit is "because we voted for it". Asking people to think objectively about the pros and cons is like asking an Owl to think objectively about whether the Owls are in fact better than the Blades - or, of course, vice versa.
  11. I guess another irony is that the EU tanker appears (touch wood, fingers crossed) to be slowly turning around, from "free market" policies to more human-friendly ones (Tax Avoidance Directive etc.). They've stated that the TTIP negotiations are "obsolete and no longer relevant". For Europe's sake, let's hope it stays that way. [By coincidence, the Commission's proposals for the Directive were announced less than a month before Mr Cameron announced the date of the referendum.] Though I was drawing attention to the specifically constitutional issues with TTIP: the de jure (as opposed to the current de facto) transfer of sovereignty to foreign investors; and the undermining of the rule of law due to its clandestine nature. [Or, rather, to globalised investors. Whether or not they carry a UK passport is neither here nor there. Indeed, it's these globalised investors who are the real "citizens of nowhere".]
  12. No, no way. The whole point was that prorogation wasn't passed by Parliament. Quite the reverse, it was imposed on Parliament, presumably with the intention of preventing them from passing certain laws etc. See my earlier answer. As I understand it, the only way laws can be challenged in court is if they go against human rights, and even then the court could only make a "declaration of incompatibility". Parliament should then correct the legislation, but can't be forced to. Otherwise, judicial challenges to enacted legislation are basically forbidden by the Bill of Rights - though I do wonder what would happen if Parliament passed some patently evil law. Probably we'd have worse things to worry about in that case. But as I say, I've only recently started reading up about law, so I wouldn't take this as definitive.
  13. No problem, and thanks to you for reading it with an open mind. I've never held the Tories in high regard, but even so I would never in a million years have imagined that I'd ever have cause to write that sentence. Poor old England.
  14. Promising a second referendum is taking a position, and indeed would be seen as a Remain position by many, if not all, Leavers. It's just a moderate, rather than extreme, Remain position. After all, you yourself have argued many times that there is a comfortable majority for Remain in the country, in which case why be afraid of a second referendum? This time round nobody would be unaware of what was at stake, and Remainers would (one hopes) be just as motivated to vote as Leavers this time. The surest way to guarantee that we leave is for the LibDems not to co-operate with the progressive parties at the next election. Two or more competing parties each standing on a Remain ticket might well collectively win a majority of the popular vote, but they'd be unlikely to win a majority in Parliament. Conversely, in a "Tories vs. everybody else" election, the "everybody else" could hardly be "marginalised".
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.