The Referendum changed everything on that issue. Quite simple really.
A bit like Scotland then...
sterling has reached a 31 year low against the dollar
brexitastic
There are something like 30 different official EU estimations of the UK's net contribution. That strikes me as chaotic and sends a clear signal that it's a dysfunctional arrangemnet if you cannot even track the money accurately..
It would be as logical to argue that the UK govt is dysfunctional if it cannot track its money accurately...
Cougs, the only question that the courts had/have to discuss was the issue over royal prerogative versus Act of Parliament. They were very clear that there role was not to consider Brexshit itself.But that does not relate to the simple question - the government was very clear in stating that it would implement the decision
Indeed. The courts were deciding whether or not May could take us out of the EU on her own or whether it required an Act of Parliament. It's been decided - so far at least - that it is the latter.
Ergo, what was written on the leaflet was a statement that the Government don't legally have the power to fulfil. It's about as legally binding as the the NHS bus, or Cameron's promise to see it through whatever the result.
I like this thread for the simple reason that you have to keep checking facts.
TBH, I genuinely thought you were trolling. You seem to be simultaneously against Brexit whilst being keen as mustard for us to actually "get on with it," which confuses me no end.
Either that or you're a Tory politician I suppose.
You seem to be simultaneously against Brexit whilst being keen as mustard for us to actually "get on with it," which confuses me no end.
Simple:
Remain - good
Brexit - bad
Dithering indefinitely - even worse
Indeed. The courts were deciding whether or not May could take us out of the EU on her own or whether it required an Act of Parliament. It's been decided - so far at least - that it is the latter.
Indeed.
Ergo, what was written on the leaflet was a statement that the Government don't legally have the power to fulfil. It's about as legally binding as the the NHS bus, or Cameron's promise to see it through whatever the result.
Not ergo at all. Simply incorrect factually and with the conclusion
TBH, I genuinely thought you were trolling.
Untrue, just being consistent...see below
You seem to be simultaneously against Brexit whilst being keen as mustard for us to actually "get on with it," which confuses me no end.
It shouldn't, its simple. IMO Brexshit is bad for us. But and its an important but, that view is not in the majority. We lost. Fact. We cant change that - we are not Scottish Nats - we have to accept the decision
Either that or you're a Tory politician I suppose.
No, the next simple fact is that uncertainty is bad for me professionally. "Ergo" I want this period of uncertainty to end ASAP. It is in no one's interests.
We know that there is a tension between what "we" want and what "we" can have (strictly speaking we should be the leavers/brexshiteers). That's a known, known. The known, unkown is we do not know what the resolution of this will be. For that we have to get in with negotiations. For that, we need to trigger A50 etc
You see, its not confusing at all. Its very simple.
The only confusing bit is the details - that will take at least two years to figure out. Probably more. "ergo" its time to stop fannying around and time to get on with the hard work and the rest of our lives
Sorry x-post. Mol has it (largely) the first two are IMO, the third isnt.
Lets assume the following are more likley to happen than not based upon the EU curent attitude to the Brits and WTO rules and the reality of establishing trade agreements -
1. Brexit is going to take 5 to 10 years (this allows for a Tory election win) as simply ****ing off is a fiscal nightmare.
2. An interim deal will be established (no change to status quo) for the above period.
3. A Norway style agreement reached (pay to play) at year 10
4. Poor people now really poor
5. National debt trebled
6. 10 years of flat line ecomomy (in real terms not OBR bollocks)
7. Talent pool slowly drains
8. Poorly educated unable to re skill
9. Welfare bill - massive
10. Young income tax payers in short supply
[img] 
[/img]
10 years of flat line ecomomy (in real terms not OBR bollocks)
😯
THM > that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
But and its an important but, that view is not in the majority.
... not the majority as represented by those who turned out to the referendum, I'd be bet good money that Leave is in the minority right now (and probably was on the day in actuality).
Either way, it's academic. What the people want, majority or not, is irrelevant. We don't elect MPs to do what we tell them (unless we happen to own a newspaper), we elect them to do what's best for the country.
"The people" don't understand the intricacies of international politics and global economics, most people's knowledge of our relationship with the EU they got off the side of a ****ing bus. The single biggest countrywide change most of us are likely to see in our lifetimes and Cameron reduced it to a yes / no question like it was a vote for a Big Brother eviction, the spinless pig-bothering shitwit.
We lost. Fact. We cant change that - we are not Scottish Nats - we have to accept the decision
This is where we'll have to agree to differ I'm afraid.
"ergo" its time to stop fannying around and time to get on with the hard work and the rest of our lives
If we are to go ahead with this insanity, then I'd agree that we need to "get on with" working out exactly what it is we are and aren't going to be doing or trying to do, which there doesn't seem to have been a lot of in the last six months (and really, should've been completely planned out before throwing it to the great unwashed). I'd disagree with the notion that should "get on" by rushing through everything without properly thinking about it.
meh the problem is cameron lied
[img] 
[/img]
THM > that makes sense,
Indeed 😉
... not the majority as represented by those who turned out to the referendum, I'd be bet good money that Leave is in the minority right now (and probably was on the day in actuality).
we did a bad job then, didnt we?
At the end of the day, the world will still go round. We will have lost X% of GDP over the period (you decide), but it will not be doomsday. Its shit, very shit, but not terminally so.
But the basics are not complicated - its just that our, or should I say the leavers position is logically unsound, unless we, or should I say they, pull of a miracle and achieve a bespoke "red, white and blue Brexshit*" That does make it complicated.
So the delay arguments are based on a false premise and its becoming increasingly apparent that they are driven more by a desire (understandable but unsupportable) to ignore the result
To get on with the tough stuff - the detail - we need to get through the options bit (and an agreement on the transition period). Hence, "stop fannying around"
* as an aside, when I explained the RWB Brexshit to a young tutee he responded what does RWB have to do with the UK!! So Theresa may need to re-think the metaphor for the millenials
Of course the most ridiculous thing of all is having a referendum on membership of something that (by definition and design) cannot continue to exist in its current form
The whole thing is a waste of time, money and energy - Dave's Folly
Plus 1
When considering 'delays' don't forget that UK still doesn't have the staff in place to begin negotiations with the EU, never mind the other countries we currently have trade deals and arrangements with as a member of the EU and other European institutions. I know someone who had ambassador rank before returning to the UK to try and help sort this stuff out, and, well this isn't news to any one, but we really are not ready. Those saying "get on with it" not only have to appreciate that what "it" is hasn't been worked out yet, but, more importantly, we don't have the people in place do to the getting on!
Read the HoL report linked to in this thread recently if you need it spelled out… the different possible next steps require different skill sets and people… and we're not ready for any of the options!
I have, I posted it
The £1000 charge obviously doesn't make that much sense:
But the suggestion provoked an immediate business backlash which led Downing Street to try to play down the proposal. The prime minister’s spokesman said it was not on the government’s agenda and suggested Goodwill’s remarks had been “misinterpreted” and he had simply highlighted the skills levy for non-EU migrants coming into force in April.
This Brexit stuff is Number 1 tricky
oldmanmtb, you missed 11, the Irish option, when times go bad you go abroad. I wouldn't be surprised that the picture you paint would see large numbers of the brightest emigrate.
I think I'm going to agree with THM here, lets get on with it.
At the moment we are in brexit dreamland, activate article 50 and let the nightmare begin, because what better way of shocking people into the mistake they have made than what awaits us in the next two years?
I don't expect the most mouth frothing brexiters to change their minds(distorted as they are), they want brexit at all costs, (costs we will be paying for)so why bother trying to reason with them?
We should be moving onto the next phase of fighting them.
A lot depends on whether A50 can be revoked, which seems to be unclear to me. If it can be revoked then sure let's have 2 years of mayhem and the ability to walk away from it at the end.
TMay et al are going to lose the court case (obviously, its not 1648 or that)
Gina Miller will she be remembered fondly? or in infamy?
depends what you voted ?
forgotten in 12 months
(unless you are a constitutional lawyer)
...cue Kenneth Williams.....
And THM has it again.
Edit: damn you THM. I've just found the time to open that HoL document you linked and it's 87 pages. I don't have a train ride coming up til next week so I might have to use real time not BR time to read it.
😀
I would suggest reading the v well written summary, Ch1 for the excellent summary of the different frameworks and then the summaries and the final conclusion. The last two bits are q repetitive
No more than an hour there and it's well written so easy to read
Have a glass of bubbly with it!! 😉
Boarding the Indy Ref 55/45 should have changed everthing for the SNP but they ignored it.
Gina Miller will be remembered by constitutional lawyers and law students. If there is a vote it will be passed easily. All a waste of time and her and our money really. I imagine she'll write a book
Kimbers did the UK fall apart 31 years ago when the £/$ was last at this level ? Dollar going up as markets quite liking what Trump means for business. I recall the $/£ used to be about 10:1, a ten fold depreciation over the long term doesn't seem to have hurt us too badly ?
The EU has more to lose from Brexit than the UK, the Governor of the Bank of England has said as he admitted that Britain's economy will defy his own gloomy forecasts and grow at a faster rate than expected.
Mark Carney conceded that Brexit is no longer the biggest domestic risk to Britain's economy after issuing a series of dire warnings about the consequences of a leave vote in the run up to the EU referendum.
The Bank of England is now “very likely” to improve its economic forecast next month, Mr Carney said as he said he was “surprised” that the economic slowdown that he forecast has not materialised.
Humble Pie 🙂
Also in the piece Oxford Uni's recently appointed head of Brexit Strategy says our EU membership has depressed links with American ans Canadian academics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/eu-has-lose-hard-brexit-uk-mark-carney-says/
Gina Miller will be remembered by constitutional lawyers and law students. If there is a vote it will be passed easily. All a waste of time and her and our money really. I imagine she'll write a book
So in all honesty why all the show of 2 trips to court and a massive waste of tax payers money. They could just have passed the bill easily - it's the bit that really doesn't make sense.
At this point there are lists of for and against, the logical conclusion is the numbers don't all stack up and there will be a lot of buying off, suce as I'll vote yes if we retain trade/movement and I'll vote yes if we ditch trade/movement then down to the I want a new hospital.
Given that the majority of MP's are Pro EU where do you think the desire to uphold the will of 35% of the population will come from?
Yes our ever diminishing currency is obviously a statement of our growing global importance 😉
Meanwhile The Brexit bugle cherry picking Carneys comments is hardly surprising
Hasn't Carney done a great job.
It was our money that was blown, but he took the right measures, at the right time, while our politicians where busy destroying each other's careers.
Hurrah for unelected foreigners.
They could just have passed the bill easily - it's the bit that really doesn't make sense.
Because it is not fear of losing a vote to trigger article 50 that motivates them, it is the fear of the party arguing in parliament about readyness, course of action etc… much easier to just keep spinning plates behind the scenes, than have them all dropping noisily in parliament, in front of the cameras.
Very wise words from Barack, shame we won't be getting many more from that office for a while.
@Kelvin, part of the problem really is that we can all agree there is absolutly no consensus even among the lead 4 people about what Brexit should look like, when it should happen, how it should happen and even why it should happen. Some people have some very strong views on it (Like Jambalya up there) but that is not a view shared by all the out voters or by all the people charged with delivering this.
Just remember all the films where the hero runs in with no plan and a timer running, the realistic ones end with some slow music and a bit of a montage not a cold beer.
Also in the piece Oxford Uni's recently appointed head of Brexit Strategy says our EU membership has depressed links with American ans Canadian academics.
Was that all they said Jamba, or are you doing a devil quoting scripture routine?
(I already know the answer on this one)
[i]Gina Miller will be remembered by constitutional lawyers and law students. If there is a vote it will be passed easily. All a waste of time and her and our money really.[/I]
C'mon Jamba even you must be able to see that if it was so easy they'd have just had a vote - it's not her that's wasting money, but the Govt. But since when have politicians ever cared about spending our money when it's THEIR reputation on the line...
Watched the first 40mins of Carney - amusing to see the difference between what he said - including the nuances - and what was reported that he said!
Mike - why do we need to carry on with the narrative that we don't know what we want? The issues are really very simple:
1. [b]We have voted to leave the EU [/b]and therefore we will be [b]relinquishing membership [/b]of the single market - Brexshit means Brexshit
2. Given the importance of the EU to the UK economy (and vice versa) we wish to [b]continue to have access[/b] to the single market
3. To date, there are four possible frameworks for this: EEA; CU; FTA; WTO. These extend across the trade-off spectrum that exists between liberalising trade and exercising sovereignty *
4. The government has expressed a desire to achieve a bespoke arrangment that shares characteristics from these various existing options - [b]red, white and blue Brexshit[/b]
5. Unsurprisingly the government is seeking to choose the best bits of each and minimise/avoid the worst bits - having your cake and eating it.
6. This "May" be a laudable goal but it is [b]logically inconsistent and unachievable in practice[/b]. Why? Because of the inherent trade off between liberalising trade and exercising sovereignty
7. So we need to [b]enter a period of negotiation [/b]with the EU (the other EEA members, the RoW, the WTO etc) in order to achieve a workable compromise solution. You cannot keep straddling the chasm, even in a pair of supportive leather trousers
8. Once we have an agreement on this, the real hard work begins ie, filling in all the detail
9. There is no benefit to be gained from delaying this process.
10. Present the bill, pass the vote, exercise A50 on time and [b]stop fannying around. [/b]
Err, that's it. Simple.
* Brexshiteers will continue to play down/ignore the existence of this inherent trade off. This may be deliberate or simply due to their lack of understanding. Either way, they are wrong.
THM - I'm going to disagree with 9. If we can delay a little it puts the negotiation period into the general election period which may well play havoc with the Brexies' intentions. Using democracy against referenda doncha know. 😉
That also play on your point 10.
Given the harm that uncertainty is creating already, I respectfully disagree.
@igm the BBC headline was very biased. "Oxford academic" quoted was from the old Polytechnic (ie Brookes) and NOT the world leading Oxford University, it was their Brexit officer who looked forward to the positives. Plenty of people here want to agressively put the Remain case so I'll spend my time focusing on Brexit, ie the thing actually happening
THM - I can understand that point of view.
Jamba - you're still giving a biased view of that story. I was well aware there was an Oxford Poly quote in the story, and even us non-Russell Group types can spot the difference. But the weight of the story behind your bias and your perception of BBC bias (the facts were all in the story as I recall) is that the academic community, in general, think Brexit is a very silly idea and probably harmful. Now I'm now saying academics aren't biased - but they probably have their reasons.
TMH your comment on actual bersus reported is one I endorse wholeheartedly. Increasingly I try and find the source, internet is great for that. The MSM really has a big credibility problem.
even in a pair of supportive leather trousers
🙂
You really do need the factor in the reality that Europe is standing at the edge of an economic casum staring into the abyss. You saw Carney's remarks that Brexit wasn't our biggest risk and Hammond's (?) remark that we do not want to see the EU collapse. For all their tough talk the Armageddon risks are all on their side, they already have high unemployment and its at a staggering level amongst the young. The EU bureaucrats are fighting for their very cushy lives, the European leaders have much more at stake for their populations.
Given the harm that uncertainty is creating already, I respectfully disagree.
This must be right, clarity can only start to emerge once the negotiations are in the public domain. With the other EU countries refusing to engage in public until Article 50 is triggered there is no other option.
On the matter of the legal case, it is perfectly common for the government to take cases to seek clarification of the law where their existing understanding is challenged. The result will inform their future conduct as it will make the circumstances of when prerogative powers be used clearer.
