This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Post EU World
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 13 Oct 21 1.45pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
At the end of this, what do the NI people themselves want. And a landmark election coming up could see the unionists defeated. The best thing that can happen for NI is for the UK and EU to depart. Well the first thing none of them want is the NI protocol. Probably only the most hard core Republican thinks it's useful. Even then they'll be smuggling in stuff for their gran.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
cryrst  The garden of England 18 Oct 21 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Brexit bad!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
kuge  Peckham 18 Oct 21 11.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Brexit bad! This was announced with a lot of metaphorical and literal flag waving as a project that counters the idea that Brexit will close the UK vehicle building industry. Ford is investing “up to” £230million in Halewood but only because it has received about £30 million of UK taxpayers funding up-front as an ‘incentive’. Rather like me saying to a business, I am thinking about spending a lot of money with you but I will need you to give me the money that I will be spending in the first few years before I start. In exchange you can say ‘Kuge’ has promised to buy a lot of stuff from me and that this demonstrates what a great business I am running. Kwasi Kwarteng is spectacularly dim so I expect that he thinks he did a brilliant deal. This project will safeguard about five hundred jobs, which is welcome but not exactly value for money at £60,000 per job. Also as the project is not due to start until 2024 there is plenty of time for it to be cancelled. When Ford closed their engine plant in Bridgend, Wales last year with the loss of 1,700 jobs they said to continue was, "economically unsustainable". Ford are investing $1 billion modernise their vehicle assembly facility in Cologne and the new all-electric E-Transit will from 2022 be made in Turkey.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
steeleye20  Croydon 18 Oct 21 12.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Foreign investment into the UK is now predicted to fall by 37% post-Brexit, a 50% increase over previous estimates, as a result of leaving the EU single market and customs union, finds a new study by UCL and LSE economists. This is actually happening, the Halewood investment offers a crumb so welcome. Reminds me of the early 70's. The UK car industry took off after EU membership, foreign manufacturers seeing us as their entry into the single market.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 19 Oct 21 1.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
"Raab threat to ‘correct’ court judgments is ‘deeply troubling’, warn legal experts" - [Link] Quote Legal experts have responded with alarm to suggestions from justice secretary Dominic Raab that he will legislate to “correct” court judgments in human rights cases that go against the government.
The former head of the government’s legal service, Jonathan Jones, branded the deputy prime minister’s proposals “muddled”, while a professor of public law at Cambridge University said they were “deeply troubling” and that they threatened to undermine basic standards of good governance.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he said that he was devising a mechanism to allow ministers to introduce ad hoc legislation to “correct” court judgments, whether passed by the ECHR in Strasbourg or by UK judges, which he regards as creating new law through “judicial legislation” rather than the decisions of elected politicians. “Where there have been judgments that – albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts – we think are wrong, the right thing is for parliament to legislate to correct them. “We also want to protect and preserve the prerogatives of parliament from being whittled away by judicial legislation, abroad or indeed at home.” As parliament is already able to legislate to correct flaws in the law, it appeared Mr Raab was trying to use a new mechanism to allow ministers to take this step without obtaining MPs’ approval, he said. Mr Raab appeared to be suggesting changes that would give the government the power to correct court decisions through secondary legislation, which does not have to be subjected to scrutiny or votes in parliament. “Ultimately, this all strikes me as part of a project to enhance executive supremacy by treating courts, whether foreign or domestic, as unwelcome interlopers.
I'm not quite sure that I like the idea of zero checks and balances where individual ministers can overrule the courts without a vote, whether passed by the ECHR in Strasbourg or by UK judges. They will of course be biased if the particular laws relate to their own powers or conduct and judges were unable to rule against them. Plus what's the point of the rule of law if ministers can each 'correct' anything they don't like. Smacks of authoritarianism surely, with all kinds of consequences unless I'm misinterpreting it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 19 Oct 21 5.49am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
"Raab threat to ‘correct’ court judgments is ‘deeply troubling’, warn legal experts" - [Link] Quote Legal experts have responded with alarm to suggestions from justice secretary Dominic Raab that he will legislate to “correct” court judgments in human rights cases that go against the government.
The former head of the government’s legal service, Jonathan Jones, branded the deputy prime minister’s proposals “muddled”, while a professor of public law at Cambridge University said they were “deeply troubling” and that they threatened to undermine basic standards of good governance.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he said that he was devising a mechanism to allow ministers to introduce ad hoc legislation to “correct” court judgments, whether passed by the ECHR in Strasbourg or by UK judges, which he regards as creating new law through “judicial legislation” rather than the decisions of elected politicians. “Where there have been judgments that – albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts – we think are wrong, the right thing is for parliament to legislate to correct them. “We also want to protect and preserve the prerogatives of parliament from being whittled away by judicial legislation, abroad or indeed at home.” As parliament is already able to legislate to correct flaws in the law, it appeared Mr Raab was trying to use a new mechanism to allow ministers to take this step without obtaining MPs’ approval, he said. Mr Raab appeared to be suggesting changes that would give the government the power to correct court decisions through secondary legislation, which does not have to be subjected to scrutiny or votes in parliament. “Ultimately, this all strikes me as part of a project to enhance executive supremacy by treating courts, whether foreign or domestic, as unwelcome interlopers.
I'm not quite sure that I like the idea of zero checks and balances where individual ministers can overrule the courts without a vote, whether passed by the ECHR in Strasbourg or by UK judges. They will of course be biased if the particular laws relate to their own powers or conduct and judges were unable to rule against them. Plus what's the point of the rule of law if ministers can each 'correct' anything they don't like. Smacks of authoritarianism surely, with all kinds of consequences unless I'm misinterpreting it?
If they propose using this to quickly overturn court decisions like an illegal immigrant's 'right to a family life' because he owned a cat.... then all well and good - anything else and, yes, it's scary. The judiciary has to remain independent, but that needs to be balanced with the need to get things right.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| BlueJay UK 19 Oct 21 6.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
If they propose using this to quickly overturn court decisions like an illegal immigrant's 'right to a family life' because he owned a cat.... then all well and good - anything else and, yes, it's scary. The judiciary has to remain independent, but that needs to be balanced with the need to get things right.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
That raised a smile, but is precisely my view too really. Where it's a decision that takes the p!ss and we know it and want to expedite the process then fair enough. It looks like the intention is to make this incredibly broad and all encompassing though. Will wait and see, but it certainly raises questions.| Matov 20 Oct 21 10.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Foreign investment into the UK is now predicted to fall by 37% post-Brexit, a 50% increase over previous estimates, as a result of leaving the EU single market and customs union, finds a new study by UCL and LSE economists. This is actually happening, the Halewood investment offers a crumb so welcome. Reminds me of the early 70's. The UK car industry took off after EU membership, foreign manufacturers seeing us as their entry into the single market.
LOL.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 20 Oct 21 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Well the first thing none of them want is the NI protocol. Probably only the most hard core Republican thinks it's useful. Even then they'll be smuggling in stuff for their gran. That would surprise me, with the protocol they the have single market.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 29 Oct 21 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
It can't get much worse with brexit, than the governments own body the ONBR revealing the economic damage will accelerate from next year and is far more harmful than any covid. Trade deals and freeports of little economic consequence. With all the other financial hits mainly excluded in the budget (6bn council tax increases announced today) one wonders how the average Brit will manage. Control of our waters not really what we envisaged you wouldn't rush to bathe in them or eat from them safely, the once prized Whitstable shell-fish industry now unsafe and relying on imports from the EU. It's all a s**t show, but then it was always going to be. One thing that would be justified, imo, is a 100%% brexit tax to be paid by the brexiteers only. Let the culprits pick up the bill.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  29 Oct 21 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
It can't get much worse with brexit, than the governments own body the ONBR revealing the economic damage will accelerate from next year and is far more harmful than any covid. Trade deals and freeports of little economic consequence. With all the other financial hits mainly excluded in the budget (6bn council tax increases announced today) one wonders how the average Brit will manage. Control of our waters not really what we envisaged you wouldn't rush to bathe in them or eat from them safely, the once prized Whitstable shell-fish industry now unsafe and relying on imports from the EU. It's all a s**t show, but then it was always going to be. One thing that would be justified, imo, is a 100%% brexit tax to be paid by the brexiteers only. Let the culprits pick up the bill.
Good plan. Will Blair supporters pay for the Gulf War?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 29 Oct 21 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
It can't get much worse with brexit, than the governments own body the ONBR revealing the economic damage will accelerate from next year and is far more harmful than any covid. Trade deals and freeports of little economic consequence. With all the other financial hits mainly excluded in the budget (6bn council tax increases announced today) one wonders how the average Brit will manage. Control of our waters not really what we envisaged you wouldn't rush to bathe in them or eat from them safely, the once prized Whitstable shell-fish industry now unsafe and relying on imports from the EU. It's all a s**t show, but then it was always going to be. One thing that would be justified, imo, is a 100%% brexit tax to be paid by the brexiteers only. Let the culprits pick up the bill.
Council tax is down to the councils. If they spent less on vanity projects and excessive staff; let alone the ones who are useless but fit certain 'requirements of numbers I'm sure the rise would be a lot smaller or even not at all. There are two sides to this and yours will clearly be negative against hmg. Labour Council rises will probably on the whole be higher.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.