Is the Brexit vote constitutional and binding?

Posted by on

The text below is to be found on Wikipedia and concerns the sovereignty of Parliament.  It is important because it could be true that a vote in both houses of Parliament could constitutionally overturn Brexit.  I am no lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, but it would seem that only Parliament created and passed the law that acceded to the EU, and only a vote by both houses can now dissolve those treaties.

“It was the view of A. V. Dicey, writing in the early twentieth century, that parliament had “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.

“There are at least three suggested sources for this sovereignty. The first is sovereignty by Act of Parliament itself. John Salmond commented that “no statute can confer this power on Parliament for this would be to assume and act on the very power that is to be conferred.” An alternative is to see sovereignty conferred by way of the repeated and unchallenged use of sovereignty through the promulgation of laws by Parliament.   The second possible source are the courts, that in enforcing all Acts of Parliament without exception, they have conferred sovereignty upon parliament.   The third alternative is the complex relationship between all parts of government, and their historical development. This is then assumed to be continuous and the basis for the future. However, if sovereignty was built up over time, “freezing” it at the current time seems to run contrary to that.

“A group of individuals cannot hold sovereignty, only the institution of parliament; determining what does and does not constitute an Act of Parliament is important. This is considered a “manner and form” requirement.   In the absence of a written constitution, it is a matter for the common law to make this determination. ”

One law firm is apparently challenging the finality of the referendum.  Were Parliament, with a Prime Minister that supported Remain in charge, to decide to ignore the vote, it would be within its constitutional  right to do so .  The reaction of the public is quite another matter.

The universe and God: ancient Greece

Posted by on

In Western philosophy, the theory of infinite worlds dates back 2500 years to the “atomists” of ancient Greece. For philosophers like Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus, the universe was composed of microscopic atoms, moving eternally in a void, colliding haphazardly with one another until they formed a vortex.

In this vortex, the heavy elements clustered together to form earth, light elements scattered far from the centre as fire, and mid-weight particles formed water and air in between them. Crucially, this void was spatially infinite. So particles elsewhere were forming vortices to create other worlds, even an infinite number of them. When these worlds died, their atoms would go on to form new worlds elsewhere.  Some of these worlds were small, some large, some lifeless, and some just like ours. But all of them were the result of random collisions in infinite space, no God required. For the atomists, “gods” were enlightened sages engaged in blissed-out contemplation. They existed, but did not create, sustain or intervene in our world.

If the atomists gave us a spatial model of the multiverse, their Stoic rivals gave us a temporal one. For the Stoics, matter is continuous. There are no atoms, no void and nothing beyond our cosmos that might form other worlds. In short, ours is the only world in the universe. The cosmos will eventually end when the sun dries up Earth and consumes it in flames, only for it to be born again. The periodic destruction and regeneration of the universe is the stand-out feature of early Stoic cosmology, a process called ekpyrosis (“out of fire”).

If the atomists pushed their gods out of the cosmos, the early Stoics pulled them all the way in. The Stoic god was the animating force of the cosmos itself: creating, sustaining, unravelling, and regenerating all things. If the atomists were effectively non-theists, then the Stoics were effectively pantheists: the world itself was what they meant by “god”.

The Atomists got it right.  They are the fathers of modern cosmology, even if no one talks today less about individual atoms, but their consituent parts.

Why we go to work

Posted by on

People find meaning in work in six main ways; which aspects people find most important depends on them and their society

AUTHENTICITY Going to work makes you feel you are accessing your “true self” – maybe that you are following a calling or can be yourself.

AGENCY You are able to make significant decisions and feel as if you “make a difference”. This taps into our desire to believe that we have free will.

SELF-WORTH Your job make you feel valuable; you are able to see milestones of achievement, no matter how small.

PURPOSE You see your work as moving you closer to a strongly held goal. The downside is that you are more likely to sacrifice pay and personal time too.

BELONGING It’s not what you do, it’s who you do it with. You belong to a special group of colleagues, even if your job seems mundane or poorly rewarded.

TRANSCENDENCE Your job is about sacrifice for a greater cause. Your meaning comes from following this, or perhaps a truly inspirational boss.  (Chris Turner/ Getty, New Scientist)

I would add the idea of CHALLENGE.   I took over a company that was on the cusp of bankruptcy . The bank gave me six months  to improve the situation or they would pull the rug.  To me it was a huge challenge: how to save 120 jobs and turn the company round, this with no prior experience whatsoever.

The other day I was talking to a young person , just about to go to university . She said she might do business studies, and I found myself giving her an impassioned plea not to do so  Business is three parts common sense, three parts relentless determination and the rest is people management.  I don’t believe it can be taught in a classroom by people who have never done it.  But when you overcome the challenge it is very rewarding.

A country in dire trouble

Posted by on

In case you haven’t noticed, the political vitriol in Britain is being stoked by straightforward lies in the press. Typical is  the Guardian, which is conducting a character assassination campaign against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

Cornyn was launching a review into the Labour party’s supposed “anti-semitism crisis” – a bogus crisis blown up  to discredit him and get him to resign.  He may not have shone as leader, especially in the Brexit campaign, and he may be inflexible, but, like Bernie in America, he is a decent, honest man.

“In his speech, (which my wife and I heard),  Corbyn said:  “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”.

“But no matter what he said, those wanting him out as Labour party leader are accusing him of comparing Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even close.

“First, even if he had said “Islamic State”, which he didn’t, that would not have meant he made a comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances based on their religious or ethnic background. He was saying it was unfair to make such assumptions of either Jews or Muslims.

“In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share) would be more unfair to Muslims than to Jews. It would suggest that some Muslims  feel an affinity with terror organisations, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state (which may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is far uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.

“But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any such comparison. He clearly referred to “various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”. A spokesman later clarified that he meant “Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza”. In other words, “various self-styled Islamic states and organisations” – just as he said in the speech.

The Guardian, whose reporters apparently didn’t even listen to the video of the speech, has an article, quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course, that he didn’t.

The Guardian later printed a correction to the second paragraph, but few people read amendments. (A precised version of part of an article by Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel, a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism).

During the Corbyn speech a Jewish member of Parliament walked out. We both simultaneously asked the question, ” What on earth was wrong with what he said?”  And we concluded that she wanted to be offended regardless of what he said.  Meanwhile the Conservative Party and enemies of Corbyn are spreading totally malicious comments about him.  When even the Guardian blatantly misrepresents someone so egregiously you know the country’s politics are in freefall.

Epicurus warned against involvement in politics, and this blog tries to simply record from time to time some of the most egregious examples of dirty tricks, dirty tricks that were a hallmark of the Brexit campaign as well as the “rid us of Corbyn” campaign.  Unfortunately, this stuff is about to affect the lives and futures of all British people, and beyond.