Bob Horner

To be fair Nick did say "alternative" captain Pugwash - I quite agree that the rude name quoted by me was an urban myth

Yep , Seaman Staines etcetc

These so called internet "laws" seem a complete load of bollocks! They are simply short hand for shutting down a debate by automatically rubbishing your opponent by quoting a "law" that someone made up . Isn't it trite and a bit shitty? Quoting the laws should then of itself become a "law" as to when internet debate is cut short by some smart arse who quotes a "law". It reminds me of the way kids make up "laws" in the playground - eg "he who smelt it dealt it"!! Ooh dear, looks I've come over all bad boy with my use of anglo saxon type phrasing. There should be a law that predicts at what point in a thread a middle aged Yorkshireman starts using foul language.....

John I have some sympathy in what you say, but unfortunately what is leads to is an intelligentsia who believe their views and opinions hold sway over universal suffrage. I'm afraid the logical conclusion is we are back to the good old days of only those with a "stake in society" deciding the good of the nation. I find that abhorrent and intolerant. The thing is, many "right thinking" people in their day did things believing they were right based on the mores or intellectual understaning of the time. Whether they were correct in hindsight is another matter. Your own profession (as you admitted yourself) did not cover itself in glory when the NHS was founded and were at odds with the majority of the populace. A more well educated bunch of idiots would be hard to find (I speak historically of course)!! And for the record, in my experience, I see more vitriol from the remain side than I do from the leave side. I don't think that's controversial at all and it is a consequence of being faced with a situation in which you have lost the popular argument. I am not surprised, given they way it was conducted. However, there we are. As someone once said with humility, resignation and a sense of loser consent "Well the people have spoken - the bastards"!! Bob PS I don't think right wing politicians/newspapers have a monopoly on manipulating the media (although I grant you Tony Blair is possibly to the right of Johnson)!

Agreed. I've watched this thread and others over Brexit and generally resisted posting as at some points it had got too personal and I don't really relish a slanging match. Robust argument fine but I'm sorry to say that a lot of Nick's comments go unopposed because he seems pretty horrible to those who suggest that he may not entirely correct in his opinions - either of people or the EU. He has strong views and believes he is right. Opening this to the wider world, there is a certain amount of comment re Brexit that borders on the obsessive which comes mainly from remainers because, understandably, they feel the vote went against them and can't in anyway understand how or why the British public could be so moronic and they feel powerless to oppose it. All I can say, from my limited experience, that up here in the North, the views of remainers are far more nuanced. There are a great many who voted remain who are also appalled at the fact we have not left. What I think many people who are certain of their support for the EU do not grasp is that an awful lot of people who voted remain have no great liking for the EU- indeed some detested it but, on balance, decided to vote for the status quo because they feared what may happen to their mortgages, jobs etc. They did not do it out a conviction that the EU was overall a force for good. These people are now changing their view because of the actions of MPs, some remain enthusiasts and a belief in loser consent. Shouting ever more loudly at them because you feel they are moronic just makes the bloody minded "plucky Brit" less keen to bow down under the EU boot. My last sentence deliberately uses colourful language because these are the images that are being employed. I think you see this on Question Time now most weeks. There is a frustration with the remain supporting MPs (and the establishment as they see it) that the democratic will of the people has not been enacted. The labour position is met with open laughter and MPs saying what an odious crook Boris is are met with anger for playing the man not the issue. "Right thinking" people can go on all they like about Boris, the constitutional effect of a referendum vs representative democracy and call those who voted leave anything from a pig to a dog but, to the general public, it sort of sounds like they are merely obfuscating bad losers who just cannot accept they can't get what they want. Bob

Please lets keep this civil. Peter is not an idiot. He has a view and its no more or less valid than any pro remain view. I see some quite strident posts that are pro remain and questionanle but I wouldnt describe them as bullshit. No wonder we are where we are. When it gets this tribal people tend to believe what suits there world view. Bob

Its funny that a thread that tried to address the issues around the decision of the Supreme court and its constitutional signficance ends with general mud throwing and partisan insult throwing. Rather like Parliament really! These days we seem so partisan that we cant discuss anything with good humour and an element of self awareness of our own prejudices and views. I uphold anyone's right to use colourful language and I do like to see people being passionate about the their beliefs but using colourful language to,make a point is one thing - simply using it to insult is quite another. I love robust debate and argument but modern debate seems to want to demonise and/or insult the speaker rather than address the arguments put forward. We quickly focus on the devisive, emotive bits (eg public schools) and not the constitutional issues that my example tried to shed light on. Bob .

Hi John i think it’s me you are arguing with and not Chris! I think it was me wot started the public school hare running bob

I’m not surprised that the Human Rights Act will make the abolition of private schools impossible but that in itself highlights the issue of courts curtailing something that the people may vote for. There are parallels between the creation of the NHS where the state appropriated private assets for the public good and Labour’s school plans. I wonder if the many doctors who opposed it at the time could have been successful in blocking it if the Human Rights Act had been in existence at the time? Bob

Hi John The supreme court setting aside the actions of a democratically elected government is where it all ends when it begins to act in the politcal sphere. That is the role of the US supreme court for what is in conflict with the constitution (question what happens when social mores change and the ancient constitution defends something which is now seen as socially and morally indefensible like slavery - answer you change it by amendment but whose view of what is socially or morally desirable do you entrench for the next 200 years?). Removing assets from individuals by act of parliament and appropriating them to the state may fall within that sphere. You have not commented on my thoughts about a proroguement after a parliamentary vote or an act of parliament? What does the court do then? Would it be a good thing to strike down the act of parliament and how, based on zero precedent and no written rules, does it do it?! Do you think it desirable that an unelected foreign court can override our government, parliament and our supreme court? How does that fit in with democracy? In some ways you could argue that the ECJ started as a trade arbitration service and ended up as a means of enforcing and interpreting and expanding the EU. They ruled that some directives (not regulations) have direct effect even though they are not enacted by national parliaments - in this way governments can be held to account and our courts sidelined. That is how courts cede power and sidestep sovereign institutions. It is also the case that any law passed by a uk parliament is null and void if it conflicts with EU law. I find this difficult to accept as being at odds with our established constitution and, given the democratic deficit in the Eu, a bit worrying! In my view you either have full democratic integration or none at all above a close trade deal. The idea that the current constitutional settlement with the Eu is sustainable is about as far fetched as saying the euro is built on soumd economic and monetary principles!! To my mind these issues arent about who is better or worse off financially. They are about fundamental issues of personal liberty and democratic representation. They also illustrate why using a referendum which conflicts with two views of democracy - direct and representative - isnt always a good idea!! We are too flippant and partisan about something that is more important than most of us realise. Bob

I think we need to think through the implications of this rather than rejoicing if this particular decision supports our postion in frustrating brexit or not. For the record, I think they got what they deserved but 2 wrongs dont make a right. Once the judges claim competence in this area where does it end? It has been argued by some on this forum previously that a written constituion and a supreme court clipping the wings of the executive a la USA is something fine and noble - but it doesnt work too well in the US as their views and judgments tend to reflect the political bias of the judges' appointment. The US supreme court famously ruled in favour of slavery in the 1850s. (and helped ignite the flames of civil war- what else can you do when the highest court in the land tells you your passionate beliefs are illegal and no democratic decision of the people can overturn this?). What if a UK supreme court didnt like the redistributuve idea of abolishing public schools and transferrring their assets to the state, depriving individuals of property and basic human rights.......All sorts of things voted on can be put beyond the people or even parliament. In our current constitution, in theory Parliament could still legislate to overturn the Supreme court - even with regard to prorogation. This is an interesting point. What would the court say if a majority in the House of Commons voted to prorogue in this case? What if they even legilslated to say that the executive could prorogue parliament as often and for as long as it wished? Would parliament still be sovereign or would the court stike it down? The thing is, the Supreme court did what courts sometimes do but should not - they make up the law rather than following precedent. Lord Denning was famous for it but back the day, when the House of Lords was simply the highest court in the land, he was slapped down (the regret of the court was expressed but precednet must be followed). Although sometimes legslation followed to remedy an obvious injustice. Finally I welcome this constitutional focus. Tony Blair's government in creating the supreme court thought politically and not legally or historically and (as with devolution) didnt really think it through very well in its desire to tear up history and nod towards a republic. At least now we are grappling and debating these issues head on. In my veiw brexit is about sovereignty. The ECJ currently rules over our supreme court and parliamentary sovereignty by virtue of the European Communuties Act 1972 and various decisions of the ECJ and its purposive judgments. We rejoice when our supreme court holds our executive to account but do we eqaully rejoice when the ECJ overrules our executive, parliament and supreme court. (as it often has)....? Well of course we do, as long as we agree with their aims...and there's the rub!! Bob

Parliament is above any law - that is the point of parliamentary sovereignty. MPs have to obey the law as set down by parliament. Parliament derives its power from the people who elect their MPs to pass laws that they wish them to pass - or that’s the theory anyway. It cannot be said that parliament has to obey he law. It works within the constitution. This is where the court has stepped and it’s a very tricky place to be. Interestingly the only people who can tell Parliament what to do are the judges of the ECJ who are above Parliament and the Supreme Court (though technically only where they have competence under the Treaty - although they decide whether they have competence!) Bob

Yes, but I know a midwife who refuses to do overtime because she doesnt want to pay 40% tax. Its called fiscal drag and its evident in so many areas of the tax system. The higher rate of tax does start too early - perhaps you could argue the highest earners should pay more - but an earlier thread came to an abrupt end when I set out just how much someone on £150k per annum takes home. So how much do you earn before you tax people more?. Personally I would amalgamate Nic and tax rates and apply them to everyone including pensioners. That is politically impossible though because pensioners vote and young people don't. It always strikes me as odd that my final salary pensioner of a father- in - law can sit on the bus for free watching a young mother struggling to get her and the kids on a bus when she pays for transport and, even though earning a fraction of his pension, she pays 12% more in tax than him!! To be fair he finds it odd too but wouldnt thank you for making pay another £4000 a year in tax!! Bob

Oh come on you lot! How people will bend to justify their own view! Yes, it was a labour government (no real winnowing there but glad to be called a tease!) but the surprise to me was that it was Gordon Brown and not Tony Blair (they were funded by a prominent private equity chap at one point (I think it was Ronald Cohen but may be wrong) and cynically that was given as the reason for the tax breaks for the mega wealthy re short term investments). No doubt that's why the Tories continue with them to this day. Taper relief was introduced in 1998 (with laudable aims initially to reward long term ownership - but did benefit the mega rich far more than the merely well off (ish). However it accelerated dramatically in 2002 when it took just 2 years to get an effective 10% rate on business assets for top rate payers - again, this continues today. I wouldn't say that was at the "rump" of the labour government. John, I love the way you spin ER as tax break for starting a company! That was have stuck in your craw! It reduced the overall tax down to miniscule amounts to the very rich. Its all a question of degree. Personally I agree with the idea that there should be tax breaks for taking financial risk - although you seemed less kindly disposed to entrepreneurs in a previous thread where you remarked " your clients who foolishly invest and lose money - that is the tax on stupidity!" Tax breaks, I suppose you would argue, should only go to the successful? Winner takes all - hardly the founding principles of the Guardian! That business tax break was already there under the old retirement relief that gave a far more modest amount to those who were (in comparison to multimillionaires) not that well off. A far fairer system. Under retirement relief the first £250k was free of CGT of 40%. The next £750,000 was taxed at 20% and the rest at 40%. Thus, now if a entrepreneur sells for £10m he pays £1,000,000. He would have paid, £3,750,000 under the retirement old rules. Tax policy, under labour and conservatives has been a complete hash (don't even mention industrial policy or pensions). I'm not in favour, for instance, of farmers selling land to developers for millions and only paying 10% tax on the gain whilst utter chaos is created with traffic, local services etc. They get the money and the community pays the price. That break was there under new labour and still there now - only more prominent due to asset price inflation. Then there was the London property development profits throughout the 90s and up to a couple of years ago (may be a bit longer) that escaped UK tax entirely by the perfectly legal method (stopped under Osborne) of simply routing them through an offshore company in a tax haven.... appalling incompetence under labour and then under the Tories for quite a while. Don't get me started on the attack on the low paid self employed in terms of NIC under Gordon Brown.... Also the bit about, "oh they explained it was funded by "trade - ugh..." so that's ok! It probably is but telling people what youre up to doesn't necessarily make it ok. Tax policy and industrial policy under both has been shocking but no one understands it well enough to point this out - or rather no one is allowed to explain it on the media as its not about personalities and, as a nation we have the attention span of a particularly wayward 2 year old, and its a bit hard to understand..... Both parties get away with murder at Budget time. This really began under new labour when the budget was not revealed in the speech but buried in the numerous HMRC press releases only to be fully understood once the favourable press coverage had moved on. Of course at least labour were cute enough not to let it unravel in 5 mins unlike the Tories (pasty tax, NIC on higher earning self employed etc). Although of course Gordon Brown disastrous 2p headline cut in basic rate without telling anyone of the abolition of the 10p rate making the very lowest paid worse off was right up there - but only when labour had run out of steam (he got away with a similar scam on the low paid self employed in the early years of new labour). The Tory increase in NIC on the self employed was a sensible and fair adjustment but howled down for some reason (I assume because a lot of journo's are free lance and thus self employed!). Otherwise, with a few exceptions they have largely carried on where labour left off (though the increase in the personal allowance - urged by lib dems - has made a real impact at the bottom - along with minimum wage (labour) - I don't think they have been given enough credit for that - mainly due to Ed Milliband bleating about "tax breaks for millionaires" etc - whilst famously varying his father's will to save on IHT - definitely a millionaire's tax break - but perfectly common and legitimate at that). That is just a flavour of the issues out there which are never debated because its much more interesting to focus on discord, political back biting and staying safe and warm in our own world view...... Sorry, ranted on too long. Better get back to serving my corporate masters to assist them in pressing the faces of the poor onto the capitalist grind wheel....no rest for the truly wicked.. Bob

Mmm well reading that article as a tax accountant I agree I cant find anything illegal about what was done -indeed its legit tax avoidance. However, that's just the kind of tax advice that many would find distasteful if it wasnt all done in a "good cause" ie the continued existance of the Guardian! Similarly the idea its supported by a commercial enterprise means its not really a not for profit organisation. Personally I dont care, but I think the article smacks of protesting too much. We all get into trouble when ultimately our high ideals have to be paid for!! My Guardian reading friends are often shocked when I explain who invented the 10% Entrepreneurs relief rate and the substantial shareholding exemption for holding companies buying and selling interests in subsidiaries (and participating interests). These breaks made some rich people even richer and promoted a short term, and to my mind distasteful attitute to leveraging, profit taking excessivie fees and shafting employees..... Bob