Another anti Brexit court case bites the dust. <img class="lazy-fallback" src="https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/912587_1.jpg" alt="Brexit Article 50 never triggered court case refused constitution" title="Brexit Article 50 never triggered court case refused constitution"> 'It’s TOO LATE!’ Judge refuses anti-Brexit court case claiming Art 50 was NEVER triggered
Another rather alarming case in which a court is not independent of politics. It is not within the realm of a High Court Judge's responsibilities to say that a political proceeding is ''Ongoing and should not be challenged at this stage'' - his job is only that of interpreting the judicial side. Nor is it appropriate for the government to be 'inviting' a High Court to dismiss a case as ''totally without merit''. This is not the independence of the judiciary which we expect in a democratic country.
The UK public have deservedly very little confidence in Labour's ability to manage the economy. This is due to historic financial cock ups whereby the Tories are elected to rescue a dire situation. Your figures are well skewed by the record deficit Labour left in 2010. Although there was a worldwide financial crisis in 2008 Labour failed to be prudent with the finances prior to this period. Labour also saddled the country with the majority of the unaffordable PPI schemes currently draining the government's coffers. The bad days of industrial strife will certainly reappear if Corbyn and McDonnell ever get near power.
Utter tosh, there is no challenge to the independence of the judiciary and the government, as with any other plaintiff, has the right to request the judge to throw out the case without merit. Because that is exactly what it is - it's just toy throwing. Oh how ironic that the Miller Case has set a precedent that all these others are now be judged against. I hope they keep bringing them and waste their time and money
I am sorry Cologne but you are a victim of fake statistics. Of course as time goes by with inflation, figures get inflated so comparing the 1960s and 2010s does not work. Labour screwed the economy in 2008 - 2010 leaving an annual deficit of approx £150b. ( I know there was a world wide crisis but Brown made the UK a basket case). If the Tories had not come to power and the debt had continued at that rate the national debt would now be almost twice what it is. Instead they have reduced the deficit annually - not as fast as alone they would have due to the LibDem coalition. Even so the pips have squeaked and everyone bemoans the cuts. Think how much worse they would have been had the Tories actually eliminated the annual deficit. Then you would have had austerity - as Ireland did. Instead it has only come down therefore the overall national debt has risen. Labour want it both ways - criticise the Tories for running a deficit but also criticising them for cutting spend. Every Labour government since the 1960s has left office in financial crisis. Only the Blair government which promised -and did - keep to Tory economics kept solvent. I prefer Labour policies - everyone does - they are nice and spend lots of money on such good causes. But if you cannot afford them they are the cause of misery to follow. You must be naïve or young Col if you do not know of days lost to strikes caused by unions. They would of course hit Tory administrations more but do not pretend that Labour and their sympathisers were not the root cause. As for unemployment the same facts emerge. Tories inherit basket case economies and sort them out. You can love Labour as much as you like but on economics they are rubbish - and the general population - whose gut feel is rarely wrong - know it and vote Tory in a crisis and Labour when things settle down so they can have some good things back.
I would repeat it is not within the jurisdiction of a judge to comment on political affairs - as in ''Ongoing and should not be challenged at this stage'', when referring to the Brexit negotiations. The role of a judge is to interpret and administer law - nothing else.
Would you like it to decline? Cut an extra £50 billion per year from government spend then. Where are you going to make the cuts? Health, Social Care, education, defence? The national debt will always rise until we run an annual surplus. Thanks to Labour the interest on debt amounts to more than is spent on the NHS. I can give anyone who needs it a course on basic economics and accounting if they would like.
and to decide when he can or cannot bring a ruling. Or do you know more law than our judges? I assume you have expertise in legal and constitutional law then? If he says he is unable to rule on an ongoing case I accept his knowledge.
There does seem to be a lot of common sense tonight. I must say this board has improved somewhat since the king returned. I also like the spear like comments from W-Y picking up on posted clangers. The threads are a lot more balanced without the clique domination. Keep it up boys.
My statistics come from the House of Commons Library Leo. Based on the last 70 years, the Tories have been in power for 42 years, and Labour for 28. Total net borrowing by the Tories amounts to 961.8 Billion pounds compared to 488.1 Billion by Labour. The average being 22.9 Billion per year under Tory governments and 17.4 Billion per year under Labour. These are based on original prices. Adjusted to 2014 prices the average is 33.5 Billion per year for the Tories and 26.8 Billion for Labour. The Tories will, no doubt, say that these figures have become distorted by the last 8 years (clearing up Labour's mess, and so on) yet if we delete those 8 years entirely - again based on 2014 prices, then the Tory average is 20.6 Billion per year and for Labour 17.8 Billion. It is a fact - Labour has borrowed less, however you wish to calculate it. It is also true that Labour has repaid national debt more often, and in more real terms than the Tories have. Total repayments by Labour amount to 108.8 Billion, by the Tories 19.9 Billion. In fact the Tories have only paid back national debt in one in every ten years in office. So the Tories borrow more, and pay back less.....fact. Are you bored with figures by now, I am. So I will not go onto days lost through strike action etc. etc. Labour really should be more active in defending their economic record. And no, I am not young Leo
He is perfectly entitled to decide when he can bring in a ruling, but he is not entitled to make comments on the politics of the day........it is this which raises the question of his being influenced.
I have watched with a degree of pleasure the reasoned arguments over the Brexit bill in the House of Lords. Compared to the Commons it is a place of sense with speakers addressing the real issues that the bill has thrown up. Comparing Steve Baker a government minister who denied he said what I had clearly heard him say, with dozens of there Lordships, made me certain that our democracy is far safer in the hands of the second chamber. Former government ministers from all parties who clearly knew what they were talking about, showed just how the public have been conned. Every trade deal signed will give away some degree of sovereignty, and as the UK will only be a small country in the future, it will have to give up more if it hopes to agree deals with much larger countries. That is the way it has always worked, and nothing will change. We are going through all this to get back to where we are at present, with a deal of some sort with the EU that will be worse than the one we have at present.
You have discounted the benefit of not being part of the lurch towards an EU superstate which the public of many member states would also vote against given the choice. The EU is a protectionist organisation which will be under pressure from the US once the UK leaves. Trump is right in highlighting the present unfair tariffs in US / EU trading in motor vehicles, expect some fireworks from him. Trump is also correct in highlighting Germany's manipulation using a dysfunctional EU in keeping its trading currency undervalued.
I understand that a big Tory promise was to reduce the deficit... but it has increased year on year...
You have not quite twigged what I said. If the UK wishes to do a deal of some type with Trump, it will involve passing on some of our sovereignty to the US. Seeing as this was a major argument for some to leave the EU, an organisation that we already have relationships with, one that we helped to to form, then what is the advantage. All you are arguing for is that we choose who to give our sovereignty to.
Statistics do not stand alone Col. They get interpreted. You seem to miss the point. Put simply - if A inherits something good and then messes it up and B inherits the mess and corrects it - the stats will show the reverse of the truth. This is what you are looking at. Had Labour stayed in power running a deficit at £150b per year and increasing the total debt would be about a trillion more than it is now. I have a first class degree in stats so I know the truth of lies, damned lies and statistics. Labour simply wreck economies. They borrow and spend too much and leave theTories to sort it out.
The deficit has reduced year on year. You are confusing it with the total national debt. An easy mistake.
