BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

kingstongraham

bobmcstuff wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Why should I be bothered if Gibraltar isn't British anymore? Genuine question.

I don't necessarily think anyone should. Aside from that people who want to live there want it to remain British...

If was to take a punt though, I would imagine the people who were drawn in by the "take back control" narrative, would not want to give back control of a potentially important Naval base at the entrance to the Med.

I can see why Nelson needed a base at the entrance to the Med but can't see the relevance today.

I still think that and the threat of sectarian violence in Ireland are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I say give them both back and save a few quid.

Geopolitics is more important than a lot of us suspect, I'm starting to believe.

Reading an interesting book about that at the moment - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/178396 ... MM9QKTXK9P

Is a good read. Made me more nervous about the prospect of us isolationism.

finchy

verylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

What are the terms of the deal?

They are refusing to release the details but have assured Nissan that they will be no worse off post-Brexit. You can see how much they export to the EU and the widely touted figure of 10% as the likely tariff.

A couple of points:
1. If the EU and UK both impose import tariffs on cars then what we would charge EU companies to import cars into the UK could potentially fund any cost. However there is more to it than just tariffs as mentioned above.
2. Given that Canada has just agreed the CETA deal with the EU that takes down to nil the import duty on cars, it is not entirely unreasonable to expect that the UK can cut a similar deal with the EU in this area of trade.

Interesting- I have always seen tariffs as a tax on the consumer (like VAT). I wonder if the man on the street will be so keen to stick it to Brussels when they realise they will be the ones footing the bill. It will also push inflation still higher.

we could have course put no tariffs on everything.

Clearly no tariffs is the better option. The CETA agreement shows it can be (largely) achieved - without any trade offs re: freedom of movement of people.

It's not going to happen Stevo. Canada isn't in Europe.

Don't see what location has to do with it. If the EU prepared to do that sort of deal with Canada, why not with the UK?

I really don't think Finchy is referring to geographical location, he's not that daft, it's about the relationships starting point and the direction of travel of that relationship. Canada are looking for closer ties where as we are heading the other way and trying to extricate ourselves from a lot more than trade ties.

I was mainly considering this.

Another factor to consider is that Canada already has far higher immigration rates than most EU countries (including the UK), so freedom of movement wouldn't be such a major issue for EU countries, especially as Canada allows low-skilled workers in, which the UK is looking to restrict.

narbs

narbs wrote:

High Court rules tomorrow at 10 on Article 50 case.

Well, well, well.

bobmcstuff

Interested to see what happens next.

Presumably the government has an appeal.

mrfpb

bobmcstuff wrote:

Interested to see what happens next.

Presumably the government has an appeal.

Presumably all the way to the European Court of Justice

bendertherobot

It won't get as far as the ECJ if the Supreme Court confirms this result. What will happen next is that Parliament will vote on legislation giving the Government the right to trigger it. It's that debate which is then the interesting one.

pblakeney

mrfpb wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Interested to see what happens next.

Presumably the government has an appeal.

Presumably all the way to the European Court of Justice

bobmcstuff

FT wrote:

The Lord Chief Justice, one of three senior judges hearing the case, occasionally said he was “baffled” by some of the government’s arguments

I think when a judge says that your arguments are baffling, you might be onto a losing argument...

https://www.ft.com/content/b253137a-a11 ... e238dee8e2

bendertherobot

Rather intriguingly para 94 of the judgment has a conclusion that rejects the government's case. Para 95 then goes onto consider the claimant's case. Thus clearly indicating that, had the claimant merely pleaded any old guff the government still would have lost.

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Interested to see what happens next.

Presumably the government has an appeal.

They are appealing although the summary text of the decision seemed to be pretty clear, so IMHO cannot see an appeal being successful.

bendertherobot

Clarity and legal correctness aren't necessarily the same thing. I think it is correct and, if the Government had any nous, they'd suck it up, draft the legislation and debate it. They have a majority and the will of the people yada...............

Stevo_666

bendertherobot wrote:

Clarity and legal correctness aren't necessarily the same thing. I think it is correct and, if the Government had any nous, they'd suck it up, draft the legislation and debate it. They have a majority and the will of the people yada...............

Not necessarily, true but for the sake of clarity I agree in that I think it is correct. Not clear how an appeal would succeed given the logic expressed in the decision - although not being a lawyer I did say IMHO.

There are also press rumblings about an early GE, although a vote along the lines that you say first is more likely. Then it gets interesting as would MP's effectively go with or against the wishes of constituents etc.

narbs

Intellectual colossus and representative of the poor people of Monmouth David Davies isn't happy.

https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/statu ... 0162537472

smoggysteve

bendertherobot wrote:

Clarity and legal correctness aren't necessarily the same thing. I think it is correct and, if the Government had any nous, they'd suck it up, draft the legislation and debate it. They have a majority and the will of the people yada...............

The government doesn't have a majority in this issue necessarily since both leave and remain camps were split amongst the respective parties. You would get a massive no from the SNP and welsh as already seen. Many Conservative front benchers ( Theresa May incuded) were very staunch remainers before the vote. A lot of the blatent lies gave since been exposed so who knows how the house would vote.

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

bobmcstuff

SmoggySteve wrote:

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

The government's argument is that parliament agreed to give the public the vote on the subject, and they now have the mandate to act on that vote without consulting Parliament*. Seems to me that one easy way they could have got around this would have been by designing the referendum properly so that it had an effect in law rather than being advisory, which AIUI is possible (although I'm not a lawyer obviously).

*Actually they had another argument along the lines of although A50 ultimately means repealing an Act of Parliament (normally something you can only do through Parliament), the actual act of triggering A50 doesn't actually do anything. I think that was one of the baffling arguments

bobmcstuff

narbs wrote:

Intellectual colossus and representative of the poor people of Monmouth David Davies isn't happy.

https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/statu ... 0162537472

What an idiot. They've actually said that he, as an elected MP, calls the shots.

smoggysteve

bobmcstuff wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

The government's argument is that parliament agreed to give the public the vote on the subject, and they now have the mandate to act on that vote without consulting Parliament*.

Although at the time the "government" were Labour. The person who gave this promise was then leader of the opposition David Cameron. It was not a policy it was a stunt to win votes that has ultimately backfired on him.

mrfpb

SmoggySteve wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

The government's argument is that parliament agreed to give the public the vote on the subject, and they now have the mandate to act on that vote without consulting Parliament*.

Although at the time the "government" were Labour. The person who gave this promise was then leader of the opposition David Cameron. It was not a policy it was a stunt to win votes that has ultimately backfired on him.

No, the referendum bill/act was drafted and passed by the conservative government/parliament earlier this year. What on earth do Labour have to do with it, they've not been in charge for over 6 years.

mrfpb

In other shock news, sky continues to not fall in following Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37860880

kingstongraham

mrfpb wrote:

In other shock news, sky continues to not fall in following Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37860880

"The revisions indicate that the Bank now thinks the impact of the Brexit vote will be felt later than expected."

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

In other shock news, sky continues to not fall in following Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37860880

have I been in a coma and missed Brexit? when did it happen? somebody should rush to the High Court to tell them the news

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

In other shock news, sky continues to not fall in following Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37860880

"The revisions indicate that the Bank now thinks the impact of the Brexit vote will be felt later than expected."

at least the Bank does not think that Brexit vote and Brexit are synonymous

mrfpb

Ok, sky continues to not fall in following Brexit vote

bendertherobot

SmoggySteve wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Clarity and legal correctness aren't necessarily the same thing. I think it is correct and, if the Government had any nous, they'd suck it up, draft the legislation and debate it. They have a majority and the will of the people yada...............

The government doesn't have a majority in this issue necessarily since both leave and remain camps were split amongst the respective parties. You would get a massive no from the SNP and welsh as already seen. Many Conservative front benchers ( Theresa May incuded) were very staunch remainers before the vote. A lot of the blatent lies gave since been exposed so who knows how the house would vote.

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

The theory being propounded is that, regardless of your constituency, regardless of your view as an MP, you must respect the people that don't live in your constituency. That's if your a bremoanixeter or something. As I understand it, if each "brexit" MP votes aligned with the will of their constituency (that data is, I think, available), there's still a majority of MP's to do so.

bobmcstuff

bendertherobot wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Clarity and legal correctness aren't necessarily the same thing. I think it is correct and, if the Government had any nous, they'd suck it up, draft the legislation and debate it. They have a majority and the will of the people yada...............

The government doesn't have a majority in this issue necessarily since both leave and remain camps were split amongst the respective parties. You would get a massive no from the SNP and welsh as already seen. Many Conservative front benchers ( Theresa May incuded) were very staunch remainers before the vote. A lot of the blatent lies gave since been exposed so who knows how the house would vote.

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

The theory being propounded is that, regardless of your constituency, regardless of your view as an MP, you must respect the people that don't live in your constituency. That's if your a bremoanixeter or something. As I understand it, if each "brexit" MP votes aligned with the will of their constituency (that data is, I think, available), there's still a majority of MP's to do so.

I think it would be unlikely that MPs would vote against their constituents (which would be interesting as some prominent Brexiter MPs represent Remain constituencies). But it's the principle of the matter, government should just suck it up and get on with getting it through Parliament rather than wasting more time with appeals (unless this is a deliberate ploy or something...)

narbs

bobmcstuff wrote:

narbs wrote:

Intellectual colossus and representative of the poor people of Monmouth David Davies isn't happy.

https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/statu ... 0162537472

What an idiot. They've actually said that he, as an elected MP, calls the shots.

David doesn't let mere facts get in the way of his pronouncements. He is the people's clown.

kingstongraham

The phrase that's annoying me more and more is "You can't ignore what 17 million people voted for."

Clearly they would not be saying this if the result had been 18 million to leave, 17 million to remain.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Clarity and legal correctness aren't necessarily the same thing. I think it is correct and, if the Government had any nous, they'd suck it up, draft the legislation and debate it. They have a majority and the will of the people yada...............

The government doesn't have a majority in this issue necessarily since both leave and remain camps were split amongst the respective parties. You would get a massive no from the SNP and welsh as already seen. Many Conservative front benchers ( Theresa May incuded) were very staunch remainers before the vote. A lot of the blatent lies gave since been exposed so who knows how the house would vote.

The biggest point of this particular case is not so much brexit itself, but does the PM have the power to make a decision that will effect every single person in the land and have far reaching consequences to others without needing permission from the House. She doesn't even need her own back benchers or cabinet members consent to trigger article 50. This is paramount to political omnipotency which is the most undemocratic thing possible.

The theory being propounded is that, regardless of your constituency, regardless of your view as an MP, you must respect the people that don't live in your constituency. That's if your a bremoanixeter or something. As I understand it, if each "brexit" MP votes aligned with the will of their constituency (that data is, I think, available), there's still a majority of MP's to do so.

The suggestion is that the parliamentary vote can be used to insist on Soft Brexit. Another suggestion is that we could try and force EU into prelim negotiations to agree a position which is then voted on before A50 is invoked

I know that i am biased but Parliamnent deciding what form Brexit should take seems reasonable

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

Ok, sky continues to not fall in following Brexit vote

you will never sell newspapers with such lame headings

"COLDEST WINTER IN 100 YEARS!!!" or "It may be a bit chilly at the weekend"

bompington

Surrey Commuter wrote:

COLDEST WINTER IN 100 YEARS!!!

It must be about the time of year for the Express to print the same article they do every winter, mustn't it.