Planet Rugby Forum

Silver wrote:

piquant wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way. The EU is an attempt to destroy UK democracy. The people have clearly voted to say no more to this process and they want out. These judges want to hinder the will of the voters. So whats going on?

When did the people vote to say they wanted UK law and the administration of them by UK courts removed? It does rather feel like someone should have mentioned this

I don't think anyone who interferes in a political process in this way should be beyond criticism. If they have got it right then fine. Stand up and defend their decision. But don't allow judges to hide behind their position. As if they are all knowing gods who never are influenced by their political preferences. Or other considerations.

sturginho wrote:

Silver wrote:
I don't think anyone who interferes in a political process in this way should be beyond criticism. If they have got it right then fine. Stand up and defend their decision. But don't allow judges to hide behind their position. As if they are all knowing gods who never are influenced by their political preferences. Or other considerations.

They have

Silver wrote:

piquant wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way. The EU is an attempt to destroy UK democracy. The people have clearly voted to say no more to this process and they want out. These judges want to hinder the will of the voters. So whats going on?

When did the people vote to say they wanted UK law and the administration of them by UK courts removed? It does rather feel like someone should have mentioned this

I don't think anyone who interferes in a political process in this way should be beyond criticism. If they have got it right then fine. Stand up and defend their decision. But don't allow judges to hide behind their position. As if they are all knowing gods who never are influenced by their political preferences. Or other considerations.

Silver wrote:

piquant wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way. The EU is an attempt to destroy UK democracy. The people have clearly voted to say no more to this process and they want out. These judges want to hinder the will of the voters. So whats going on?

When did the people vote to say they wanted UK law and the administration of them by UK courts removed? It does rather feel like someone should have mentioned this

I don't think anyone who interferes in a political process in this way should be beyond criticism. If they have got it right then fine. Stand up and defend their decision. But don't allow judges to hide behind their position. As if they are all knowing gods who never are influenced by their political preferences. Or other considerations.

sewa wrote:

Silver wrote:

sewa wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote: And a free GIANT map of Britain tomorrow!

What an utterly disgraceful front page. The judges are required to be independent for obvious reasons. If this an indication of the education levels of the average Brit then its no wonder even poorly educated immigrants can run rings around them

what rubbish. Judges should not be beyond criticism. Esp when they interfere in this way.

They made a judgement based upon their interpretation of the law. Its not X factor you clown, popular opinion is not their job

Dai another day wrote:From what i can gather the Judges were by no means independent.

Dai another day wrote:This is a great stain on British democracy.

Chuckles1188 wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party, and Her Majesty's Opposition. Just thought I would remind people in case his impressive disappearing act had led anyone to outright forget that he exists

Chuckles1188 wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party, and Her Majesty's Opposition. Just thought I would remind people in case his impressive disappearing act had led anyone to outright forget that he exists

theo wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party, and Her Majesty's Opposition. Just thought I would remind people in case his impressive disappearing act had led anyone to outright forget that he exists

I'm sure his spokesperson made some announcement yesterday, on his behalf, during his afternoon nap.

Dai another day wrote:The BRemoaners don't quite understand the scale of this. This is an outright attack on the will of the British people.

The British people elect personnel to represent us as members of parliament. Their job is to make tough decisions.

But when they give the British people a referendum...they are giving the power back to the people. The people chose to leave and it will be a great injustice if we don't get what we wanted - a hard Brexit.

DragsterDriver wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party, and Her Majesty's Opposition. Just thought I would remind people in case his impressive disappearing act had led anyone to outright forget that he exists

I hope when the lib dems team up with some parts of labour they can form a credible opposition- the current situation is unbelieveable.

Lord Justice Leveson referred in his report to the privileged position that the press hold in our public debate. He said that they "wield a powerful megaphone". Unsurprisingly, the press have used their powerful megaphone in the service of the interests of the men who are their effective owners.

It matters for those concerned with our democracy that 52.2% of our "free press" is controlled by just two billionaires and 77.8% is controlled by six billionaires.

The freedom the press enjoys is very much freedom for the rich and powerful. As Isaiah Berlin warned, liberty for the wolves means death to the lambs. Some regulation of the press is needed in order to protect the interests of those that are not rich and powerful.

The Press Gazette has published the results of the National Readership Survey. I have used these results - for both print and online - to draw up tables with readerships and information about owners and political orientation.

Dai another day wrote:The BRemoaners don't quite understand the scale of this. This is an outright attack on the will of the British people.

The British people elect personnel to represent us as members of parliament. Their job is to make tough decisions.

But when they give the British people a referendum...they are giving the power back to the people. The people chose to leave and it will be a great injustice if we don't get what we wanted - a hard Brexit.

Dai another day wrote:The BRemoaners don't quite understand the scale of this. This is an outright attack on the will of the British people.

The British people elect personnel to represent us as members of parliament. Their job is to make tough decisions.

But when they give the British people a referendum...they are giving the power back to the people. The people chose to leave and it will be a great injustice if we don't get what we wanted - a hard Brexit.

Chuckles1188 wrote:Meanwhile, relevant to the discussion about the print media earlier:

http://tomdlondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/1 ... l?spref=tw

Lord Justice Leveson referred in his report to the privileged position that the press hold in our public debate. He said that they "wield a powerful megaphone". Unsurprisingly, the press have used their powerful megaphone in the service of the interests of the men who are their effective owners.

It matters for those concerned with our democracy that 52.2% of our "free press" is controlled by just two billionaires and 77.8% is controlled by six billionaires.

The freedom the press enjoys is very much freedom for the rich and powerful. As Isaiah Berlin warned, liberty for the wolves means death to the lambs. Some regulation of the press is needed in order to protect the interests of those that are not rich and powerful.

The Press Gazette has published the results of the National Readership Survey. I have used these results - for both print and online - to draw up tables with readerships and information about owners and political orientation.

croyals wrote:getting rid of the Lords.

croyals wrote:Mail a disgrace. Judges did their job and both sides are overreacting to the verdict.

I see a potential win-win as I'm fairly sure the Commons will pass Art. 50 and the Lords wont, which may finally be the catalyst for getting rid of the Lords.

Dai another day wrote:The BRemoaners don't quite understand the scale of this. This is an outright attack on the will of the British people.

The British people elect personnel to represent us as members of parliament. Their job is to make tough decisions.

But when they give the British people a referendum...they are giving the power back to the people. The people chose to leave and it will be a great injustice if we don't get what we wanted - a hard Brexit.

Chuckles1188 wrote:What's weird about the "we need regulation of the press" argument is that it seems to me that we already have laws which are designed to prevent this kind of dominance through competition law. I can't claim to be a legal expert, but is it really the case that there is no way to use competition law to prevent the concentration of so much political power in such a small group of people?

Hellraiser wrote:

Dai another day wrote:The BRemoaners don't quite understand the scale of this. This is an outright attack on the will of the British people.

The British people elect personnel to represent us as members of parliament. Their job is to make tough decisions.

But when they give the British people a referendum...they are giving the power back to the people. The people chose to leave and it will be a great injustice if we don't get what we wanted - a hard Brexit.

You honestly haven't got a clue, do you.

MungoMan wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:What's weird about the "we need regulation of the press" argument is that it seems to me that we already have laws which are designed to prevent this kind of dominance through competition law. I can't claim to be a legal expert, but is it really the case that there is no way to use competition law to prevent the concentration of so much political power in such a small group of people?

Depends on the type and scope of competition law in a country.

It may deal mainly or entirely with natural monopolies and regulate to prevent a natural monopoly dampening competition in upstream or downstream markets. Clearly not something immediately applicable to newspapers, etc.

It may deal mainly or entirely with natural monopolies and regulate to prevent exercise of the monopolist's market power leading to economic inefficiencies. Ditto re newspapers etc, except as regards prices for placing ads and suchlike.

Or it may simply focus on and break up natural monopolies because fúck you.

The last-mentioned has a bit to be said for it.

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Hellraiser wrote:I'm reminded of that scene between Roper and More in A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Hellraiser wrote:I'm reminded of that scene between Roper and More in A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Is that aimed at me or the loons like Dai wanting Parliament to be cut out of the loop on the decision?

Dai another day wrote:Lords

msp. wrote:

Dai another day wrote:Lords

Depends what we replace it with.. Not sure if we need another lot of elected individuals.. An institution that is not subject to X factor public opinion has it advantages.

Hellraiser wrote:I'm reminded of that scene between Roper and More in A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Hellraiser wrote:I'm reminded of that scene between Roper and More in A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

The Sun God wrote:

Hellraiser wrote:I'm reminded of that scene between Roper and More in A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Wow.....that is powerful stuff. They don't do plays/screenplays like that anymore.

Oceanbreeze wrote:I find it weird that the court want parliament to invoke Article 50 when Parliament voted to give the people the decision in the first place through the refrendum.

Hard Brexit? Only if it’s free

A new survey shows most Britons are not willing to pursue hard Brexit if it will cost them personally. Thus far, the economic indicators post-Brexit don’t look bad. Consumer spending and investment are holding up well, despite a lower pound. But if the going gets tough, there is a two-thirds majority willing to accept current levels of EU migration to retain access to the single market.

The leading motivation for Leave voters was reducing immigration while Remain voters prioritised the economy. This hasn’t changed. According to my YouGov/Birkbeck/Policy Exchange survey data, two-thirds of British people want less immigration, including 47 percent of Remainers and over 91 percent of Leavers.

Hard Brexit is a good way to bring numbers down. However, some suggest that when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the EU will drive a hard bargain, inflicting pain on the British economy. With economists claiming entry to the single market is worth 4 percent of GDP by 2030, I asked how much the average Briton is willing to sacrifice to reduce European immigration in the event the doomsayers are right. The final deal between Britain and the EU over leaving will hinge on how much economic pain, in the form of reduced market access, Britain is prepared to absorb to restrict European immigration.

The survey, carried out by the polling firm YouGov, asked a sample of over 1500 people the following question: “Roughly 185,000 more people entered Britain last year from the EU than went the other way. Imagine there was a cost to reduce the inflow. How much would you be willing to pay to reduce the number of Europeans entering Britain?” The options ranged from “pay nothing” for no reduction to paying 5 percent of personal income to reduce numbers to zero. Each percent of income foregone reduced the influx by 35,000. The results are shown in figure 1.



Among those surveyed, and excluding those who didn’t know, 62 percent said they were unwilling to pay anything to reduce numbers, and would accept current levels of European immigration.



As figure 2 shows, even among those who said they voted to leave the European Union, 30 percent reported they would prefer the current inflow of 185,000 to paying any of their income to cut the inflow. In other words, there is a significant ‘soft’ component within the Leave vote.

On the other hand, there is a considerable core of Brexit voters willing to tighten their belts to reduce migration: over a third of Leave voters indicated they would contribute 5 percent of their income to cut European migration to zero. More than half of Brexiteers are willing to pay at least 3 percent of their income to reduce European net migration from the current 185,000 to under 80,000. The average person who voted Conservative in the 2015 General Election is willing to stump up 2.5 percent of their pay packet to reduce European immigration to half its current level.

This means that if the costs of Brexit mount in line with pessimistic predictions, most British people favour a deal that preserves market access even if this results in only limited reductions in European immigration. May’s Conservative voters will put up with more pain, but not if it costs more than 2 percent of GDP. This suggests a deal between Theresa May and her EU interlocutors based on significant market access in exchange for limited migration controls may be acceptable to the 45 per cent of voters who currently back her party. It certainly will pass muster with a majority of the electorate.

If the economy continues to hold steady, the question is moot and hard Brexit remains a strong option. But if pain is on the way after Article 50, Middle Britain will be inclined to prefer soft over hard Brexit.

Chuckles1188 wrote:What's weird about the "we need regulation of the press" argument is that it seems to me that we already have laws which are designed to prevent this kind of dominance through competition law. I can't claim to be a legal expert, but is it really the case that there is no way to use competition law to prevent the concentration of so much political power in such a small group of people? Or are regulators simply too scared of reprisals?