Brexit matters

[biko]

The problem with a constitution is once it contains something, it is very difficult to un-contain it.

And the EUs constitution, and charter of fundaental rights are stuffed to the gunnels with vaguely worded and lofty sounding platitudes that in practice place enormous scopen in the European Court of Justices unelectednjudges to make up almost whatever they want from it.

The idea of a constitution is indeed to make removal difficult. That way essential human rights cannot be removed in a wink if some new government comes to power. It is all about safeguarding those most important values. Putting the right to gun ownership in a constitution is thus ridiculous and unfortunately the population of America doesn’t seem to want to change it...

The EU doesn’t have a constitution, that was democratically rejected by the population of at least 2 member states.

I am very glad judges are not elected.
Judges should be impartial and selected based on their capabilities. If politicians don’t want judges to make decisions they don’t like, they should just change the law. Judges cannot decide anything they like, they should test the case on the relevant law.

The EU is constitutional but it's many countries allow the police to routinely carry guns. When this happens the individual policeman become during an incident judge, jury and executioner. The individual would have to justify their actions but very little about the police on the continent is ever reported over here.

I live in a country where most policemen carry guns. But that really doesn’t lead to the doom scenario you are presenting here. They rarely use the gun and if they need to, an investigation is launched to check whether it was really needed. Also police can’t leave the scene until all bullets are found. Because there aren’t many problems you presumably won’t hear about it.

 

[najaB]

Putting the right to gun ownership in a constitution is thus ridiculous and unfortunately the population of America doesn’t seem to want to change it...

Technically it's not even in the US constitution, the constitutional amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is a very strong (and ongoing!) argument that the intention of the amendment was to stop the federal government from disbanding State militia, rather than to give individual citizens the right to own guns.

It's worth noting that the amendment doesn't mention ownership or property at all, whereas several of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights does.

 

[XAM2175]

No. Thank goodness we don't have a constitution.

Constitutions result in farces where it it is impossible to ban people from wandering around cities with guns because you need a two thirds majority.

They also transfer the power to make the law from elected representatives to an unelected caste of activist judges who make laws by creatively and egregiously interpreting the constitution in a consititutional court.

One cardinal reason I voted brexit is because it ended the situation where the UK so-called supreme court could rule on a matter interpreting the EU constitutions vague rights and Parliament were powerless to do anything about it.

I spent twenty-five years living in - and indeed I hold the citizenship of - a country with a written constitution that was passed by Parliament at Westminster. The text is contained in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), should you care to examine it.

To date I've found myself quite satisfied that said constitution - amongst other things - 1) clearly delineates the respective powers and prerogatives of the Crown, the Federal Parliament, and the State Parliaments; 2) regulates the proper operation of the Federal Parliament; 3) protects the position of the High Court of Australia as the supreme court of the Commonwealth, and clearly delineates and protects its original and appellate jurisdiction (including the interpretation of the Constitution, matters arising under international treaties, and matters arising between States); and 4) clearly sets out the methods by which the Constitution can be amended (including provisions for the holding of binding referendums).

Certainly while living in Victoria I had no concern at all that the Parliament of Victoria - and by extension the self-determination of the Victorian people - could find its powers being unilaterally abridged by the Federal Parliament in Canberra; yet here I find no such protection for the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

 

[birchesgreen]

This is the first time I've actually seen someone praise the fact we don't have a constitution (although we kind of do), usually people are really for a written one but are completely indifferent. Takes all sorts.

 

[Annetts key]

The problem with the U.K. not having a written formal constitution, is that our current system can be abused by the government currently in power.

For example, the Privy Council can in certain circumstances override both parliament and the courts (although not matters relating to the U.K.).

 

[REVUpminster]

If we had a written constitution, any government could amend it. I don't think the American constitution is set in stone or where did all the amendments come from. Common Law has stood the test of time.

 

[najaB]

If we had a written constitution, any government could amend it. I don't think the American constitution is set in stone or where did all the amendments come from.

There have been 27 amendments ratified, of which ten were proposed in the same year the constitution was adopted (the Bill of Rights) and two effectively cancel each other out (the 18th and 21st). So, in effect that leaves 15 amendments in 203 years (the last one passed in 1992).

As to any government changing a written constitution, almost all will have a process set out in stone for their amendment that is specifically designed to make it difficult to do on a whim. For example, any amendment to the US constitution has to be ratified by two-thirds of the state legislatures. This means that it is almost impossible to get new amendments ratified - the archetypical example being the (one would have thought) non-controversial Equal Rights Amendment which in a nutshell says that the Federal Government has to treat people the same irrespective of sex or gender (proposed in 1972, still not ratified) or the Congressional Apportionment Amendment which codify the number of congressional representatives (pending since 1789!)

 

[XAM2175]

If we had a written constitution, any government could amend it. I don't think the American constitution is set in stone or where did all the amendments come from. Common Law has stood the test of time.

Yes, the Common Law that absolutely cannot be amended by Parliament

 

[REVUpminster]

Yes, the Common Law that absolutely cannot be amended by Parliament

Of course it can, Parliament can change or make any law it can get a majority for. If parliament wanted to change the laws of consent to what it is in Germany or France and a host of other EU countries their would be such an outcry that it wouldn't happen. That's common law as it is at the moment.


Thursday,
The commission request Italy to raid an Astra Zeneca factory where they seized 29 million doses claiming it was secretly going to Britain. It turned out 16m was for the EU, part of the shortfall, and 13m to the Covax scheme for third world countries. Lets hope they can actually use the 16m doses.

 

[21C101]

Astra Zeneca have said that never again will theiy offer a vaccine at cost price (costing them tens of billions in revenue) due to their disgraceful treatment by the EU.

I suspect that they, and a lot of EU based pharma and other companies will be looking to relocate production to the UK to avoid having their premises raided by paramilitary police like the Caribineri for no good reason.

 

[najaB]

I suspect that they, and a lot of EU based pharma and other companies will be looking to relocate production to the UK to avoid having their premises raided by paramilitary police like the Caribineri for no good reason.

Why would they move to the UK? I would make far more sense to move to Norway, since that would allow free and easy trade into the EU as compared to the UK.

 

[notlob.divad]

Astra Zeneca have said that never again will theiy offer a vaccine at cost price (costing them tens of billions in revenue) due to their disgraceful treatment by the EU.

I suspect that they, and a lot of EU based pharma and other companies will be looking to relocate production to the UK to avoid having their premises raided by paramilitary police like the Caribineri for no good reason.

Please provide evidece of this claim

 

[REVUpminster]

The cost price claim was because the AZ share price has fallen while Pfizer Biotech has risen because of the millions they are making for their shareholders. Relocation might be more dubious as more countries want there own production facilities and not be held to ransom by others. More difficult for smaller countries with a lower customer base. One of the reasons that India is such a big producer of drugs amongst the democracies of the world.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Pfizer have fallen short on their order from the EU, although not by as much as AZ and they have been making good progress to catch up with the shortfall.
They haven‘t been singled out for criticism and have hardly been mentioned by name by the EU Commission, in these latest pronouncements.

French company Sanofi and German company CureVac have been contracted to deliver 500 million doses of vaccine to the EU, but have yet to deliver a single dose. Sanofi have failed to even produce a viable vaccine.
Why no outcry about them?

The EU have made a complete hash of it and individual member governments have come under fire in their own countries for the poor state of affairs.
Deflection and Ass covering?
Draw your own conclusions.

 

[najaB]

French company Sanofi and German company CureVac have been contracted to deliver 500 million doses of vaccine to the EU, but have yet to deliver a single dose. Sanofi have failed to even produce a viable vaccine.
Why no outcry about them?

Almost certainly it would be an "order at risk" contract, meaning that there's no penalty against the company if they're unable to provide a viable vaccine. Pfizer and AZ have produced a viable vaccine and so are probably now obligated to produce the required volume.

 

[Domh245]

Almost certainly it would be an "order at risk" contract, meaning that there's no penalty against the company if they're unable to provide a viable vaccine. Pfizer and AZ have produced a viable vaccine and so are probably now obligated to produce the required volume.

They're also "best reasonable effort" - scaling up manufacturing for something as complicated as a vaccine is far from easy, nor guaranteed. Pfizer have been able to deliver more of their contracted volume than AZ have, hence the lack of significant coverage on them

 

[Annetts key]

The EU have made a complete hash of it and individual member governments have come under fire in their own countries for the poor state of affairs.
Deflection and Ass covering?
Draw your own conclusions.

Ahh, politicians at work...
Just like our very own PPE problems last year. Warehouses full of useless out of date PPE...

 

[najaB]

Just like our very own PPE problems last year. Warehouses full of useless out of date PPE...

That was acquired at a significant mark-up over cost price, by a Tory party donor...

 

[REVUpminster]

Biotech is German, Sanofil French. No criticism allowed. Profits to be made, taxes to be collected. It's Britain and other EU members paying top prices for Phizer Biotech.

Out of date PPE was a problem of logistics that stored PPE was not used in order as it was easier to use new than old. Public Health England probably did not realise it had an expiry date. All the condoms in warehouses have probably gone past there sell by date. The NHS wastes more than it uses, but they cannot be criticised.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Ahh, politicians at work...
Just like our very own PPE problems last year. Warehouses full of useless out of date PPE...

Repeated in a few other European countries, including Germany.

Fall from Grace: Merkel's Conservatives Mired in Scandal and Incompetence

Shameless deals for medical equipment, dubious foreign contacts and corona crisis mismanagement: Angela Merkel's conservatives are in bad shape as the election campaign looms. How did they lose their way?

www.spiegel.de

Netherlands recalls 'defective' masks from China – DW – 03/29/2020

Hundreds of thousands of masks sent to Dutch hospitals have been recalled after tests showed they failed to protect the face or had defective filters. The Netherlands recently bought 1.3 million masks from China.

www.dw.com

Biotech is German, Sanofil French. No criticism allowed........

One of the many reasons for the delay in the EU placing orders for vaccines, was the wrangling going on between member states trying to secure a chunk of the business for their own Pharma companies.
Macron fought to get a slice of the action with a massive order for Sanofi, even though it was known that they'd be miles behind in the race to develop a vaccine and unlikely to be able to deliver one before the latter end of 2021.

z

 

[najaB]

Out of date PPE was a problem of logistics that stored PPE was not used in order as it was easier to use new than old.

That's not true. Much of the newly ordered PPE was not suitable for use. For example:

Some of the surgical gowns ordered from Turkey amid a row over the procurement of personal protective equipment for the NHS do not meet British safety standards, the UK government has said.

The gowns were among a batch of 400,000 sourced by ministers last month and the RAF flew out to collect them when they were not shipped on the expected date.

But it has emerged 2,400 of the 67,000 gowns that have so far arrived in the UK have failed quality checks.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52569364#

An inquiry must be held into the purchase of 50m masks that were later deemed unsuitable for use by NHS workers, Keir Starmer has said.

The £252m medical supplies contract was awarded to an investment firm in April, as ministers desperately sought to replenish the UK’s dwindling supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the height of the country’s coronavirus epidemic.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ce-masks-bought-government-cannot-be-used-nhs

I believe that in the end something like 25% of the PPE ordered was unusable.

Even if had been the case that was simply a case of using the new stock because we couldn't be bothered to get the old stock (so why was there a shortage?) then that is still an example of Government waste.

Public Health England probably did not realise it had an expiry date

Again, not true. But it if was it would bring up questions of basic competence - a Health agency that doesn't know PPE has use before dates?!

 

[BananaRepublic]

That's not true. Much of the newly ordered PPE was not suitable for use. For example:

....I believe that in the end something like 25% of the PPE ordered was unusable.

...it would bring up questions of basic competence -....

All issues that affected several of our European neighbours.
Large shipments of PPE and Test kits were all found to be faulty.
France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands all had high profile scandals.
All well documented over last year in lots of European newspapers and media outlets.

Now there's the German PPE procurement, corruption scandal.


z

 

[najaB]

All issues that affected several of our European neighbours.

I know. That's exactly my point. People are trying to make out that the UK government's handling of Covid 19 has somehow been better than EU governments and come up with ridiculous excuses for our mistakes.

The simple fact is that they've all handled it just about as badly as each other.

 

[BananaRepublic]

......The simple fact is that they've all handled it just about as badly as each other.

It has appeared to be very much the case.
On the one hand you could say none of them were properly prepared, completely underestimated the scale of the ensuing problems that would arise, reticence to act as a result and obviously having no prior experience of dealing with something this big and as bad.
Here, poor or ill judged advice from the "experts" has a big part to play. That and failings in PHE and certain sections of the Civil Service.
I find it hard to imagine any government here getting most of it right. I don't believe any government here would have got it completely right.

 

[REVUpminster]

That's not true. Much of the newly ordered PPE was not suitable for use. For example:


Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52569364#



Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ce-masks-bought-government-cannot-be-used-nhs

I believe that in the end something like 25% of the PPE ordered was unusable.

Even if had been the case that was simply a case of using the new stock because we couldn't be bothered to get the old stock (so why was there a shortage?) then that is still an example of Government waste.


Again, not true. But it if was it would bring up questions of basic competence - a Health agency that doesn't know PPE has use before dates?!

I answered a question about out of date PPE you have taken it to criticise purchased PPE. Another example of twisting comments.

 

[Annetts key]

I know. That's exactly my point. People are trying to make out that the UK government's handling of Covid 19 has somehow been better than EU governments and come up with ridiculous excuses for our mistakes.

The simple fact is that they've all handled it just about as badly as each other.

And my point was that it often does not matter where the politicians are from, they often are too busy to properly look after the mundane things, such as checking that stock rotation is being done. Or that sufficient checks and tests are done when they panic buy...

But often these very same politicians accuse their opponents of wasting tax payers money...

This is why there should be a properly designed system so that there is oversight. And I don’t mean the House of Commons parliament. Because that’s not very effective with our system of first past the post for elections of MPs. And the House of Lords is now full of Lords who have been appointed rather than elected.

It makes me laugh when brexiteers continually go on about how bad the E.U. is when our own system is a crock of steaming brown poo. And they want more power to be given to this steaming mess of a system.

The only thing that is great about the British system, is the great black hole where it should be shoved into.

And as I may have said before, the E.U. system is very far from perfect, but it is a work in progress. Even if it is slow progress. Unlike in England

I answered a question about out of date PPE you have taken it to criticise purchased PPE. Another example of twisting comments.

It doesn’t really matter, they were rubbish at both managing the emergency stock and buying new stock when they panicked and urgently needed more...

Maybe if they could remember how a real shopkeeper would run a store...

 

[najaB]

I answered a question about out of date PPE you have taken it to criticise purchased PPE. Another example of twisting comments.

Out of date, sub-standard - can't be used either way.

And in any case which is the worse use of public money: buying the right stuff and then forgetting that it's in a warehouse (not that this actually happened), or buying the wrong thing in the first place?

 

[BananaRepublic]

And my point was that it often does not matter where the politicians are from, they often are too busy to properly look after the mundane things, such as checking that stock rotation is being done. Or that sufficient checks and tests are done when they panic buy......

Politicians at the ministerial and SoS level are generally far removed from and above that level of activity.
People often talk of the Government, when it’s really the machinery of government. The layers of bureaucracy, government departments and the various tiers of civil servants.

 

[Annetts key]

Politicians at the ministerial and SoS level are generally far removed from and above that level of activity.
People often talk of the Government, when it’s really the machinery of government. The layers of bureaucracy, government departments and the various tiers of civil servants.

And the rest, but did the principals that the politicians are responsible for affect things lower down the food chain? I.e. did money come into it (just one possible example)?

 

[21C101]

At the root of this is that, since Kinnock and Delors worked together from the 80s onwards, the EU was seen as a way to finally do what the stupid English electorate would not do and put the "traditional" English ruling class (loosely described as the "Tories") firmly in its place and keep them tied down gulliver style permanently.

This would be acheived peacefully and stealthily through the supremacy of a progressive EU; for the laudible reason of preventing the "tories" repressing everyone else and would enable a progressive egalitarian republic in all but name to be imposed over time using Fabian methods, with the cherished values of european socialism welded unremovably into it's constitution, consigning the reactionary old order to the dustbin of history.

That is why tbey are so angry about Brexit. Brexit means the revolution has failed and even cardinal progressive shibboleths like the abolition of the death penalty are now considered to be at risk in the longer term. Brexit is therefore is an unmitigable disaster.