Honey I shrunk the economy
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Honey I shrunk the economy
Exactly. Why bother tackling poverty issues, when you can just give people food that will kill them.
This one has Dublin at 20th, based on metro area GMP, surprisingly Greater Manchester isn’t too far behind.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-are-the-richest-cities-in-europe.html
Edit: think it’s GDP per capita where Dublin and Ireland are near the very top.
Last edited:
This is what they do in the US. Several methods but the big one is no access to decent grocery stores in inner cities and instead, a plethora of fast food outlets. It's cheaper to buy junk food for your family especially when there are no fresh food options available.
I like Dundee. Can't understand a word anyone over the age of 40 says though.
So do I but it is an odd place. A land untouched by modern dentistry.
Combine that with no public health service so it's still economically viable for the government to allow the poor/uneducated be sick (and eventually die).
Is it a surprise though? Look at the States. Financial powerhouse? New York. Industry? Texas. Technology? California. Government? D.C. and the reason for all of this? Natural growth.
Meanwhile companies can get cashback if they move their business out of Cambridge and go to Silicon Roundabout. London has seen the lion's share of investment for centuries whilst other areas have been left empty handed. Now it's too big to say no to when it comes to infrastructure expenditure.
Great Britain indeed. Great city all the same though.
Wouldn't trust GDP in Ireland with our dodgy corporation tax. Skews it massively.
The US is hardly the barometer given their issues. Germany is a far better example of a decentralised economy.
Judges accuse Johnson of misleading voters and the Queen
The three Scottish appeal judges who ruled Boris Johnson had unlawfully prorogued parliament have bluntly accused the prime minister of misleading voters and the Queen on his true reasons for suspending parliament.
They agree unanimously it was to prevent proper scrutiny of his Brexit strategy – and for no other reason – in their official rulings issued by the Scottish courts late on Thursday afternoon.
Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said prorogation was sought “in a clandestine manner” when Downing Street knew 75 MPs and peers were taking the government to court to block it.
No 10 also did this knowing prorogation would stymie debate about Johnson’s Brexit plans and then gave the court no clear reason to justify prorogation, as well as the five-week period Johnson got from the Queen, which they described as an “extraordinary length of time”. Carloway said:
"The circumstances demonstrate that the true reason for the prorogation is to reduce the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance, given the issues at stake.
Put shortly, prorogation was being mooted specifically as a means to stymie any further legislation regulating Brexit."
Lord Drummond Young is particularly blunt, arguing that the UK government’s failure to provide the Scottish court with any valid reasons for proroguing Westminster for five weeks supported their conclusions it was unjustified.
"If no reason is given, in the present circumstances, I am of opinion that the decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks out of the seven remaining before the United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the European Union leads inevitably to the conclusion that the reason for prorogation was to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the government. I find it impossible to see that it could serve any other rational purpose."
Lord Brodie, the third judge, said that, despite the weight courts need to give to the royal prerogative and a government’s right to use procedures to suit its purposes, this was an “egregious” case of misuse of prorogation.
"Procedural manoeuvres are the stuff of politics, whether conducted in parliament or in lesser bodies. However, when the manoeuvre is quite so blatantly designed ‘to frustrate parliament’ at such a critical juncture in the history of the United Kingdom, I consider that the court may legitimately find it to be unlawful."
(Guardian)
The three Scottish appeal judges who ruled Boris Johnson had unlawfully prorogued parliament have bluntly accused the prime minister of misleading voters and the Queen on his true reasons for suspending parliament.
They agree unanimously it was to prevent proper scrutiny of his Brexit strategy – and for no other reason – in their official rulings issued by the Scottish courts late on Thursday afternoon.
Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said prorogation was sought “in a clandestine manner” when Downing Street knew 75 MPs and peers were taking the government to court to block it.
No 10 also did this knowing prorogation would stymie debate about Johnson’s Brexit plans and then gave the court no clear reason to justify prorogation, as well as the five-week period Johnson got from the Queen, which they described as an “extraordinary length of time”. Carloway said:
"The circumstances demonstrate that the true reason for the prorogation is to reduce the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance, given the issues at stake.
Put shortly, prorogation was being mooted specifically as a means to stymie any further legislation regulating Brexit."
Lord Drummond Young is particularly blunt, arguing that the UK government’s failure to provide the Scottish court with any valid reasons for proroguing Westminster for five weeks supported their conclusions it was unjustified.
"If no reason is given, in the present circumstances, I am of opinion that the decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks out of the seven remaining before the United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the European Union leads inevitably to the conclusion that the reason for prorogation was to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the government. I find it impossible to see that it could serve any other rational purpose."
Lord Brodie, the third judge, said that, despite the weight courts need to give to the royal prerogative and a government’s right to use procedures to suit its purposes, this was an “egregious” case of misuse of prorogation.
"Procedural manoeuvres are the stuff of politics, whether conducted in parliament or in lesser bodies. However, when the manoeuvre is quite so blatantly designed ‘to frustrate parliament’ at such a critical juncture in the history of the United Kingdom, I consider that the court may legitimately find it to be unlawful."
(Guardian)
Bit of an explanation from Lord Carloway's regarding the Court of Session decision that the proroguement was illegal:
"Lord Carloway says Boris Johnson's remarks in Cabinet show he really wanted to prorogue Westminster to promote his Brexit strategy, not for party conferences or a Queen's speech - that was why it was illegal in his view"
Edit: I see @SteveJ beat me to it and did a far better job of it too
"Lord Carloway says Boris Johnson's remarks in Cabinet show he really wanted to prorogue Westminster to promote his Brexit strategy, not for party conferences or a Queen's speech - that was why it was illegal in his view"
Edit: I see @SteveJ beat me to it and did a far better job of it too
There is too much subjectivity, it would be very surprising if a supreme court confirmed it. Even though I believe that they are correct in their ruling.
The PVC packaging of the junk food is fresh though.
If the written evidence (with the Judges refused to release) confirms on record that the proroguement was to deliberately frustrate parliament over Brexit then a false representation was made to the Queen. Might that be illegal?
So what does lying to the Queen get you other than a slap on the wrist?
I suspect that the ruling will be in the government's favour, mainly because otherwise the political fallout would be enormous. I'd be very surprised if the judicial authorities want to be held responsible for the resignation of a Prime Minister.
A J Arthur from herself
A Christmas card from Dennis Skinner.
They should throw him in the Tower of London.
Agreed.
I'd bayonet him since she is my Captain-General.
The city of London is responsible for some 25% of the UK GDP.
By any standards that is a pretty amazing fact.
I would be interested in whether that is typical for a capital city although I do understand that not all capital cities are also the biggest population in that country.
The wording lead me to believe that there is no evidence, they have strong reasons to believe that the government is lying and lied to the Queen but it's a judgement call. And even then, they base part of their ruling on the idea that the PM didn't comply with the "generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities", again while I may agree with it, it's subjective.
If you ask a different group of judges you can and most likely will have a different opinion that will be as justifiable.
Swap Greater Manchester for Manchester and I'm guessing that would shoot up.
That's a fair point.
To me, the only specific thing would be the duration of the suspension.
I am sure that the government will argue that the five weeks were necessary because of the need for a Queens Speach and the party conferences.
Neither of which of course are even remotely as significant as resolving Brexit.
Paris(Iles de France) are way better, it represents 30% of France's GDP.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Sounds to me that the Scottish court is morally and subjectively against prorogued parliament but it doesn’t provide any sound legal or objective reasoning.
From what I understand, there is no legal definition for reasons or length of prorogued parliament, and it has always been implemented using precedence and ‘a common understanding’. I suspect that’s the loophole BJ Cummings have exploited, knowing they would also have the public support from their leave/noDeal base.
Unless there is a clear legal definition of the circumstances required and maximum length for a prorogued parliament, I can’t see how the Supreme Court can overrule.
Unless some superior legal minds then mine can explain?
Last edited:
I suspect a certain type of narcissist Judge would love that infamy!
But as I and a few others have written above, there seems to be a loophole which BJ Cummings have exploited.
No country in Europe seen the level of neolibralism and capitalism on steroids like the UK.
Further on, I think it is a travesty the party that has inflicted this on this country has managed to convince these areas that the problem is Europe.
More like 15% I thought, but still substantial.
It seems that many people realise this.
Yet every time an election comes around, the main focus seems to be whether the labour leader is perfect. If not, vote tory.
A penny for Nick Barbers thoughts... He's been horribly silent during this entire process, though it's obviously possible that he could be advising either side.
I'm starting to coalesce around a thought stream whereby the SC may declare the advice that BJ gave unlawful, but also say it doesn't have the power to 'unprorogue.' Still edging very slightly towards a judgement against the government.
I'm starting to coalesce around a thought stream whereby the SC may declare the advice that BJ gave unlawful, but also say it doesn't have the power to 'unprorogue.' Still edging very slightly towards a judgement against the government.
It's seemingly the same everywhere with the same type of political parties. I think that France has the perfect balance, we openly hate every single one of them and elect the one that is the least useless on election day.
His advice to the queen must have some rational basis other than 'I want to silence the voice of Parliament.' If they can prove that was/is his intent, no matter the length, the advice was rotten as it had 'improper purpose'.
There are other hurdles though. Big ones.
What is your media like? Is it as polarised as in the uk?
I checked too, it’s 22% if you just count the city or 30% if you count the whole metropolitan area.
Yeah, but we've got more sheep.
Off topic, but have you been enjoying the Melanchon/Quotidian stuff this week? It’s been making me chuckle.
