Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

The main winner from today's ruling is the reinforcement of parliament sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.

 

Les, Baldrick, Trident and others will surely agree.

 

Of course, the matter is a complicated one and not clear cut, as otherwise the decision of the Supreme Court would have been unanimous.

 

This article from a Constitutional specialist discusses the legal implications and concludes that the Article 50 decision should be taken by Royal Prerogative, i.e. by the Government, because

 

We are party to the European Union because of the Royal Prerogative, and we will leave the European Union because of the Royal Prerogative.

 

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/08/thomas-fairclough-article-50-and-the-royal-prerogative/

 

But whatever the decision, it won't derail Brexit, as all the government needs to do, is circumvent the legal apparatus by bringing a bill before Parliament calling for the triggering of Article 50 and that will be supported by a fairly substantial majority. Despite Minor Fart's Lib Dumbs and Wee Krankie's SNP opposition, there won't be many Labour MPs voting against it, as they aren't up for political oblivion in a General Election. The House of Lords will also take the decision to support it, or there will be massive electoral support for measures to be taken to seriously curtail their powers, or even to abolish the House of Lords.

[Guided Missile]

I for one have no problem with it, as you say, it sets a dangerous precedent if it went the other way. If parliament doesn't respect the will of the people, however, then that's a different matter. I'll be opening cans of pedigree chum, as the dogs of war need to be fed before they are unleashed.

This court case is a very minor apostrophe in the story of the UK exiting the EU. The next paragraph will be written on Friday, when a joint announcement will be made regarding a bilateral trade deal with the US, together with passporting rights for UK financial institutions. These will be introduced into law within 3 months of the EU exit. What this will do is provide an immense level of strength to Mays hand in the upcoming Brexit negotiations. The US has stated that it is only interested in bilateral trade deals with nation states, leaving the EU in the sh!tter when it comes to their much vaunted capability of doing trade deals.

 

The EU is so f***ed...

[hutch]

The main winner from today's ruling is the reinforcement of parliament sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.

 

Les, Baldrick, Trident and others will surely agree.

It was certainly an interesting, and overdue, review involving all three of the branches holding the separated powers.

 

I shall enjoy spending at least a week laughing at Nicola Sturgeon throwing her toys out of her pram.

[shurlock]

This court case is a very minor apostrophe in the story of the UK exiting the EU. The next paragraph will be written on Friday, when a joint announcement will be made regarding a bilateral trade deal with the US, together with passporting rights for UK financial institutions. These will be introduced into law within 3 months of the EU exit. What this will do is provide an immense level of strength to Mays hand in the upcoming Brexit negotiations. The US has stated that it is only interested in bilateral trade deals with nation states, leaving the EU in the sh!tter when it comes to their much vaunted capability of doing trade deals.

 

The EU is so f***ed...

 

 

Well done Trident

[John B]

Of course, the matter is a complicated one and not clear cut, as otherwise the decision of the Supreme Court would have been unanimous.

 

This article from a Constitutional specialist discusses the legal implications and concludes that the Article 50 decision should be taken by Royal Prerogative, i.e. by the Government, because

 

 

 

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/08/thomas-fairclough-article-50-and-the-royal-prerogative/

 

But whatever the decision, it won't derail Brexit, as all the government needs to do, is circumvent the legal apparatus by bringing a bill before Parliament calling for the triggering of Article 50 and that will be supported by a fairly substantial majority. Despite Minor Fart's Lib Dumbs and Wee Krankie's SNP opposition, there won't be many Labour MPs voting against it, as they aren't up for political oblivion in a General Election. The House of Lords will also take the decision to support it, or there will be massive electoral support for measures to be taken to seriously curtail their powers, or even to abolish the House of Lords.

 

If Mrs May had not appealed the case Article 50 could have been passed probably

 

Dont you think it is a good idea for us to have the best Brexit as nobody who voted leave had an idea of all the ramifications that would be entailed.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

This court case is a very minor apostrophe in the story of the UK exiting the EU. The next paragraph will be written on Friday, when a joint announcement will be made regarding a bilateral trade deal with the US, together with passporting rights for UK financial institutions. These will be introduced into law within 3 months of the EU exit. What this will do is provide an immense level of strength to Mays hand in the upcoming Brexit negotiations. The US has stated that it is only interested in bilateral trade deals with nation states, leaving the EU in the sh!tter when it comes to their much vaunted capability of doing trade deals.

 

The EU is so f***ed...

 

It is rather interesting that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would both like to see the end of the EU. With enemies like that I can't help but think that the EU must be doing something right. As for our replacing the Single Market with a new trade deal with the US, I understand the fundamental problem with this idea is that even if we DOUBLED our trade with N America - which won't happen of course - this still would not equal the amount of trade we currently do with Europe.

 

So who is 'f***ed then?

Edited 24 January, 2017 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Weston Super Saint]

If Mrs May had not appealed the case Article 50 could have been passed probably

 

Dont you think it is a good idea for us to have the best Brexit as nobody who voted leave had an idea of all the ramifications that would be entailed.

 

I may be completely wrong on this - and please do feel free to correct me if that's the case - but doesn't today's ruling just mean that Parliament has to agree to the triggering of Article 50?

 

Also, is Article 50 just the vehicle with which we signal our intent to leave the EU? The way I understand it, is that we trigger Article 50 and then have two years before we leave the EU - this is not negotiable - however, we then negotiate how our relationship will look during those two years and implement when the sand timer runs out.

 

Not sure, but I don't believe Parliament is then entitled to another vote after the triggering of Article 50 as their 'duty' is concluded once they trigger the Article... Therefore, even though Parliament will give the go ahead to leave the EU it won't get a say on what the relationship looks like when then happens.

 

This is how I see it, but could be wrong. I'm assuming that if that's wrong and Parliament gets another vote, then things could look very bad if what is on the table is not agreed when the sand timer runs out - presumably if that were to happen, then we would still be booted out of the EU but without any agreement on what the relationship should be, which would be pretty bad!

[Lord Duckhunter]

A badly drafted referendum bill caused this issue. More incompetence from head remainer Cameron. I'd also question the House of Lords, isn't it their job to scrutinise legislation and pick up on poorly drafted bills?

 

Good news for Nuttall in Stoke IMO . Despite it not making much of a difference to the triggering of A50 labour will be getting themselves in a mess & certain of their remaniacs will be given air time.

 

Although it's dawning on the remainiacs that this won't make a blind bit of difference, especially as Krankie lost her only decent card today, they still won't accept the result. I fully expect a challenge on whether A50 is reversible. May intends to put her deal to parliament with a no vote meaning out on WTO rules, whereas they want staying in on the table. They'll be a court case on that IMO. A50 was drafted to be a 2 year period and you're out regardless of s deal or not. I'm sure the remoaners lawyers will be scanning the small print for a get out

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 24 January, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[Wes Tender]

It is rather interesting that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would both like to see the end of the EU. With enemies like that I can't help but think that the EU must be doing something right. As for our replacing the Single Market with a new trade deal with the US, I understand the fundamental problem with this idea is that even if we DOUBLED our trade with N America - which won't happen of course - this still would not equal the amount of trade we currently do with Europe.

 

So who is 'f***ed then?

 

 

When making comparisons between the potential trade with the USA and that which we do with the EU, anybody with any common sense would accept that the trade we will do with the EU post Brexit, will not cease. It therefore becomes the case that the new trade deals that we organise with the USA and other major trading nations around the World, will merely have to replace any trade we lose with the EU, and if it exceeds it, we will be ahead of the game, will we not?

 

Our Brexit weakens the EU, but our ability to trade freely with whomever we want to strengthens us. So the EU is f***ed, whether by other member states following us out of the door, or when the Euro collapses.

[Wes Tender]

If Mrs May had not appealed the case Article 50 could have been passed probably

 

Dont you think it is a good idea for us to have the best Brexit as nobody who voted leave had an idea of all the ramifications that would be entailed.

 

The Government obviously thought that their legal case was sound and certainly there were good arguments as to why the Royal Prerogative should have been acceptable, especially as it was used to allow previous Governments to sign up for loss of our sovereignty with EU treaties. But this is just a little hiccup and won't derail the triggering of Article 50 by the end of March. It would have been interesting to speculate on what the situation would have been had Cameron triggered it immediately following the referendum result, or even May immediately following her election as PM, which I believe preceded this legal challenge. But the time taken to make arrangements to employ the specialist advisers and negotiators needed following Article 50 was a good thing.

 

Naturally we will pursue the best deal that we can. But insinuating that nobody voting to leave the EU had any idea of all of the ramifications entailed is absolute rubbish. The negative ramifications were churned out daily ad nauseum by project fear and the positives were laid out by the leave campaign. Or are you suggesting that anybody who voted to leave must have been too thick to understand what the consequences were either way and incapable of making an informed decision on them?

[Johnny Bognor]

When making comparisons between the potential trade with the USA and that which we do with the EU, anybody with any common sense would accept that the trade we will do with the EU post Brexit, will not cease. It therefore becomes the case that the new trade deals that we organise with the USA and other major trading nations around the World, will merely have to replace any trade we lose with the EU, and if it exceeds it, we will be ahead of the game, will we not?

 

Our Brexit weakens the EU, but our ability to trade freely with whomever we want to strengthens us. So the EU is f***ed, whether by other member states following us out of the door, or when the Euro collapses.

 

Indeed. According to these bods, our share of exports to the EU haven't increased since joining the Common Market, so why would they fall away to zero afterwards...

http://www.eu-facts.org.uk/sceptics-handbook/an-overview-of-uk-export-growth-since-1960/

[Guided Missile]

It is rather interesting that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would both like to see the end of the EU. With enemies like that I can't help but think that the EU must be doing something right. As for our replacing the Single Market with a new trade deal with the US, I understand the fundamental problem with this idea is that even if we DOUBLED our trade with N America - which won't happen of course - this still would not equal the amount of trade we currently do with Europe.

 

So who is 'f***ed then?

I posted that the EU is f***ed, not Europe....

[st alex]

What would increased trade with the US actually mean? What would we be buying/selling with them? Presumably their cars are too big for our roads and their cheese is no good. Would ipods be cheaper?

[badgerx16]

Would ipods be cheaper?

 

Wouldn't we need a trade agreement with China for them ?

[badgerx16]

I may be completely wrong on this - and please do feel free to correct me if that's the case - but doesn't today's ruling just mean that Parliament has to agree to the triggering of Article 50?

Correct

 

Also, is Article 50 just the vehicle with which we signal our intent to leave the EU? The way I understand it, is that we trigger Article 50 and then have two years before we leave the EU - this is not negotiable - however, we then negotiate how our relationship will look during those two years and implement when the sand timer runs out.

Correct

 

Not sure, but I don't believe Parliament is then entitled to another vote after the triggering of Article 50 as their 'duty' is concluded once they trigger the Article... Therefore, even though Parliament will give the go ahead to leave the EU it won't get a say on what the relationship looks like when then happens.

 

This is how I see it, but could be wrong. I'm assuming that if that's wrong and Parliament gets another vote, then things could look very bad if what is on the table is not agreed when the sand timer runs out - presumably if that were to happen, then we would still be booted out of the EU but without any agreement on what the relationship should be, which would be pretty bad!

I think the ramifiction from today is that Parliament now has to vote on the details and acceptability of our exit plans, and the outcome of the negotiations with the EU. The PM and her coven cannot do it without scrutiny.

[adrian lord]

Today is a pyrrhic victory for Miller and her sponsors.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

I think the ramifiction from today is that Parliament now has to vote on the details and acceptability of our exit plans, and the outcome of the negotiations with the EU. The PM and her coven cannot do it without scrutiny.

 

 

Within a few days she'll just put a very simple and short bill in front of parliament . It will be drafted in such a way that amendments will be pretty impossible to insert. This bill will basically give parliamentary approval to trigger A50. At the end of the process she will give parliament 2 choices, leave with her deal or leave with no deal. Anybody who thinks this particular court decision will make a blind but of difference is deluded. The major battle looming is whether once triggered A50 is reversible. All the remoaners have left to cling on to is A50 being reversible and then somehow public opinion changing. Pretty unlikely, but it's their only option left , a Hail Mary in overtime . If A50 is irreversible , and once triggered you leave after 2 years, it's game over for the remoaners.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 24 January, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

Correct

 

 

Correct

 

 

I think the ramifiction from today is that Parliament now has to vote on the details and acceptability of our exit plans, and the outcome of the negotiations with the EU. The PM and her coven cannot do it without scrutiny.

 

So the government do a deal with the EU and Parliament decide it's unacceptable there will be no deal and we will leave under WTO rules - the remainers worst case scenario.

 

I just don't get what having a bunch of MPs openly debating what an acceptable deal would be ahead of negotiations is going to achieve, other than let the EU hardliners know exactly what they must say to ensure the UK gets no deal.

 

From what I can see, these idiots who took this thing to court have just made hard Brexit a nailed on certainty.

Edited 24 January, 2017 by aintforever

[so22saint]

Within a few days she'll just put a very simple and short bill in front of parliament . It will be drafted in such a way that amendments will be pretty impossible to insert. This bill will basically give parliamentary approval to trigger A50. At the end of the process she will give parliament 2 choices, leave with her deal or leave with no deal. Anybody who thinks this particular court decision will make a blind but of difference is deluded. The major battle looming is whether once triggered A50 is reversible. All the remoaners have left to cling on to is A50 being reversible and then somehow public opinion changing. Pretty unlikely, but it's their only option left , a Hail Mary in overtime . If A50 is irreversible , and once triggered you leave after 2 years, it's game over for the remoaners.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Are you Ian Duncan-Smith? This sounds almost exactly like his speech on Radio 4 this evening

[Lord Duckhunter]

Are you Ian Duncan-Smith? This sounds almost exactly like his speech on Radio 4 this evening

 

It's pretty obvious when you think about it. Personally I always thought May would try & fanny it and would use this ruling to water down Brexit . Once she accepted we will be leaving the single market it can't really go any other way

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adrian lord]

I thought Miller's performances today were repellent. The thin veneer of sophistication, elegance and high ideals fell away dramatically, to reveal the bitterness and arrogance and self-importance that underpinned her legal campaign, and indeed pervades the mentality of many vociferous Remainers.

[badgerx16]

From what I can see, these idiots who took this thing to court have just made hard Brexit a nailed on certainty.

Given that all 27 remaining EU members have to agree the deal, other than a 'hard' brexit what alternative might there be ? They each would have their own idea of what an acceptable 'soft' arrangement might be.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I thought Miller's performances today were repellent. The thin veneer of sophistication, elegance and high ideals fell away dramatically, to reveal the bitterness and arrogance and self-importance that underpinned her legal campaign, and indeed pervades the mentality of many vociferous Remainers.

 

My issue with her and most of the remoaners is their pathetic attempts to try & claim that they "respect" the result, but just want to ensure its done right blah blah blah. Of course Nigel Farage et al , wouldn't change their position and wouldn't have given up fighting for a leave vote. But they would come straight out with it. They would want to change the British people's minds and force another vote. The remainiacs don't say " we want the British people to change their minds and will set about trying to do that". They wrap it up in pony about the process and the law. They don't respect the result . They're just trying to delay it in the hope that the economy tanks and the British people blame Brexit. I'd have some respect for this Miller bird if she told the truth and was straight . She doesn't respect the vote , she will do everything possible to reverse it and this court case isn't about clarifying the law, it's just a delaying tactic . Problem is, it's backfired a bit. A50 will be triggered, but now it'll have the legitimacy of parliamentary approval, with the added bonus of ****ing on Krankies fireworks. It would have been much better tactically had they left it and stirred up the grievance that May went ahead and triggered it without consulting parliament. They could have eat away at its legitimacy for 2 years, with Krankie banging on about a vote in the devolved legislature . Parliament voting for A50 gives May a little bit more cover when the going gets tough.Krankies defeat can also be thrown back in her face every time she pipes up that it's somehow unconstitutional .Salmonds performance on newsnight was laughable . Claimed that Scots were being treated differently . The dragons den mush pointed out that one Scotsman's vote was equal to one Englishman's vote , what's the difference? It was also pointed out that the UK parliament will have a vote for the MP representing every Englishman and every Scotsman. Salmond arguement would have had way more weight if a PM representing an English constituency had triggered A50 off her own back. Judges ruling that it's a reserved issue ,and unanimously at that, is a big blow to the Sweatys .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 25 January, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

[hutch]

I think the ramifiction from today is that Parliament now has to vote on the details and acceptability of our exit plans, and the outcome of the negotiations with the EU. The PM and her coven cannot do it without scrutiny.

Hardly. Here's what the judgement actually says about that...

 

It is also worth emphasising that this case has nothing to do with issues such as the wisdom of the decision to withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the timetable or arrangements for withdrawal, or the details of any future relationship with the European Union. Those are all political issues which are matters for ministers and Parliament to resolve. They are not issues which are appropriate for resolution by judges

[John B]

I thought Miller's performances today were repellent. The thin veneer of sophistication, elegance and high ideals fell away dramatically, to reveal the bitterness and arrogance and self-importance that underpinned her legal campaign, and indeed pervades the mentality of many vociferous Remainers.

 

Most people dont want the Government to pass laws without scrutiny by Parliament that is acting as a dictatorship the Referendum Bill was badly formulated by a weak and arrogant PM who assumed that the UK would stay in the EU.

 

Nothing was in the Bill relating to what events would happen after a Leave vote as it was only advisory and the result could have been ignored but the ruling from the Supreme Court sets out what should happen next.

 

Only a fool would allow a government to do what ever it wanted to do with Brexit because it is the most important event to be discussed in Parliament since the Second World War and is going to take a long time a lot of money and a lot of debate to make certain that people like you and me have the same standard of living with decent jobs that we have had in the recent past.

 

Although in likelihood the standard of living after Brexit is going to less than it would have been if we had not left the EU but with luck now that Parliament is involved it is not going to be bad as described by George Osborne and David Cameron in Project Fear

 

If there had been no court action and Brexit was passed on Royal Prerogative Governments could pass other controversial legislation without the scrutiny of Parliament

 

Brexit is going to happen but the final settlement needs to be agreed by Parliament to be in the best interest of the country and its people and not in the best interests of the right wing of the Tory Party many of which want to cut the rights of the British worker in order to give more profit to their donors.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

When making comparisons between the potential trade with the USA and that which we do with the EU, anybody with any common sense would accept that the trade we will do with the EU post Brexit, will not cease. It therefore becomes the case that the new trade deals that we organise with the USA and other major trading nations around the World, will merely have to replace any trade we lose with the EU, and if it exceeds it, we will be ahead of the game, will we not?

 

Our Brexit weakens the EU, but our ability to trade freely with whomever we want to strengthens us. So the EU is f***ed, whether by other member states following us out of the door, or when the Euro collapses.

 

Of course trade with mainland Europe will continue after we leave the EU in 2019 - I have never even attempted to deny that and this is indeed quite obvious. Should however that cross channel trade become subject to 3 or 4% tariff regime - as has been speculated - then this commerce will be damaged to some extent - this too is equally obvious. As trade with the EU Single Market represents almost half of our entire exports, then any substantive reduction here will be extremely difficult to compensate for via (say) a 10% increase in trade with the US. Geography counts when it comes to exporting and George Osborne was correct (for once) when he said that any new trade deals we strike should not come at the expense of our existing commerce.

 

As for this much heralded trade deal with the US, we should remember that it is not in the 'gift' of Donald Trump to simply grant this to the UK via some Presidential Decree - Congress has to authorise it and hence the time scale to pass this deal remains unknown - five years or ten? Much the same could be said about the details of this prospective arrangement - before becoming too overenthusiastic about it I think I'll wait to see what terms the USA will offer us - the devil is always to be found in the detail is he not? What if the price of a deal is that we have to open up and privatise large parts of the NHS to please US heath care providers intent on making money out of the British people? That is a very real possibility by the way.

 

For that matter did not Trump state loud and clear last week that his guiding principle is that everything he does is compliant with an uncompromising AMERICA FIRST philosophy? Therefore, it would seem that any deal we strike with the US is highly likely to be designed primarily with THEIR interests in mind. History shows us that it is naive in the extreme to believe that the US interest is always exactly the same thing as ours.

[Guided Missile]

For anyone interested, here's the lowdown on Gina Miller, the person who seeks to provide the British Government legal advice on the way we exit the EU:

 

She studied law at the Polytechnic of East London but left without completing her finals. She gained a degree in marketing, and an MSc in human resource management at the University of London.

 

She isn't just a legal expert, because her and her third husband run a very successful "investment management company", SCM Private LLP.

 

SCM Private LLP

Statement of Comprehensive Income

Year ended 30 April 2016

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]2016[/TD]

[TD]2015[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Turnover[/TD]

[TD]£ 285,251[/TD]

[TD]£ 301,682[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Cost of sales[/TD]

[TD]£ 68,859[/TD]

[TD]£ 135,410[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Gross profit[/TD]

[TD]£ 216,392[/TD]

[TD]£ 166,272[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Administrative expenses[/TD]

[TD]£ 423,756[/TD]

[TD]£ 607,012[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Operating loss[/TD]

[TD]£ (207,364)[/TD]

[TD]£ (440,740)[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

I think the government should sign her up, immediately, to provide advice on negotiating the best trade deal for the UK. I, for one, will be hanging on her every word regarding managing my investments.

 

On second thoughts, I'd work on snagging a more financially successful 4th husband, love. It's the only way you'll make any money. This publicity stunt is only going to bring you grief....

[Wes Tender]

Most people dont want the Government to pass laws without scrutiny by Parliament that is acting as a dictatorship the Referendum Bill was badly formulated by a weak and arrogant PM who assumed that the UK would stay in the EU.

 

Nothing was in the Bill relating to what events would happen after a Leave vote as it was only advisory and the result could have been ignored but the ruling from the Supreme Court sets out what should happen next.

 

Only a fool would allow a government to do what ever it wanted to do with Brexit because it is the most important event to be discussed in Parliament since the Second World War and is going to take a long time a lot of money and a lot of debate to make certain that people like you and me have the same standard of living with decent jobs that we have had in the recent past.

 

Although in likelihood the standard of living after Brexit is going to less than it would have been if we had not left the EU but with luck now that Parliament is involved it is not going to be bad as described by George Osborne and David Cameron in Project Fear

 

If there had been no court action and Brexit was passed on Royal Prerogative Governments could pass other controversial legislation without the scrutiny of Parliament

 

Brexit is going to happen but the final settlement needs to be agreed by Parliament to be in the best interest of the country and its people and not in the best interests of the right wing of the Tory Party many of which want to cut the rights of the British worker in order to give more profit to their donors.

 

Your post is all over the place. A referendum decision is the polar opposite to a dictatorship. Are you saying that people don't want their democratically elected government to act on their decision in a referendum?

 

During the campaign, it was made abundantly clear that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the single market. The referendum was not advisory. The Prime Minister and the government had made it crystal clear that the decision of the electorate would be acted on. Had it been ignored, there would be riots in the streets.

 

Was the decision to leave the EU a more important one than the decision to join? That is open to debate. All very well bleating about democracy when the electorate are given a choice now, but if you wish to be consistent, perhaps you will kindly agree that there really ought to have been referenda to endorse every subsequent treaty after the Treaty of Rome that compromised our national sovereignty.

 

There isn't a likelihood that the standard of living will fall post Brexit. There is a possibility, but equally there is also a possibility that it will rise. Cameron and Osborne made their positions untenable through their shrill warnings of dire consequences. Osborne in particular was made to look a fool with his statement that a post Brexit vote would necessitate an emergency Budget shortly afterwards. None of the economists' forecasts of doom that would immediately follow a decision to leave the EU have come to pass, apart from the fall in the overvalued pound, which has brought some positive benefits to our exporters, inward investment and the tourist industry.

 

The Royal Prerogative was deemed to be adequate when successive governments signed away our sovereignty in the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, and three Supreme Court Judges deemed it justifiable in the matter of us triggering Article 50. Do you not consider those actions to have been controversial?

 

I'm pleased that you accept that Brexit is going to happen, but amused by your final parting shot implying that the government might not pursue the best possible outcome of the negotiations in the best interests of the country. Ironic really that the Labour Party which is supposed to represent the British worker, is split down the middle, the workers voting to leave the EU and the Champagne Socialist Metropolitan elite wishing to stay in. I gather from your remarks that you are a Labour voter, and if so, it must really irk you that half of the Party voted to leave the EU.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

^^ As attempts at 'character assassination' go this is an especially poor effort.

[Guided Missile]

^^ As attempts at 'character assassination' go this is an especially poor effort.

Her own words do a better job, I must admit:

 

On the night of the EU referendum Gina Miller slept for 36 minutes. “I know, because my husband gave me this watch that tracks my sleep,” she says, waving a slim wrist bearing an elegant Withings watch. Her husband and business partner, Alan Miller, went to sleep, but she sat in bed beside him in their south London home watching television. At 4am she was “physically sick” as she tried to take in what the UK had voted for. By breakfast, however, Ms Miller’s brain was clunking into gear. When her 11-year-old son heard the news, he said: “But you’re going to do something, Mummy, you always do.” “And I said, ‘I’m not promising anything, but I will talk to some lawyers’.”

“Physically sick?” I know how you feel, love. I bet that quote will resonate with the voters outside London.

[Weston Super Saint]

Geography counts when it comes to exporting and George Osborne was correct (for once) when he said that any new trade deals we strike should not come at the expense of our existing commerce.

 

Can you quantify that bit for me?

 

I was watching a program on the Diesel engine the other day and how it has permeated pretty much every supply chain in the world by about 95%. They were discussing the merits of huge container ships and the fact that the diesel engines that run them are now super efficient. As a result they stated that it is now cheaper to import goods half way round the world from China than it is to deliver from your local shops.

 

I guess with the exception of ultra perishable goods where time is a crucial factor, geography isn't such a significant factor, especially given the economies of scale when using 'mega' container ships....

[shurlock]

Of course trade with mainland Europe will continue after we leave the EU in 2019 - I have never even attempted to deny that and this is indeed quite obvious. Should however that cross channel trade become subject to 3 or 4% tariff regime - as has been speculated - then this commerce will be damaged to some extent - this too is equally obvious. As trade with the EU Single Market represents almost half of our entire exports, then any substantive reduction here will be extremely difficult to compensate for via (say) a 10% increase in trade with the US. Geography counts when it comes to exporting and George Osborne was correct (for once) when he said that any new trade deals we strike should not come at the expense of our existing commerce.

 

As for this much heralded trade deal with the US, we should remember that it is not in the 'gift' of Donald Trump to simply grant this to the UK via some Presidential Decree - Congress has to authorise it and hence the time scale to pass this deal remains unknown - five years or ten? Much the same could be said about the details of this prospective arrangement - before becoming too overenthusiastic about it I think I'll wait to see what terms the USA will offer us - the devil is always to be found in the detail is he not? What if the price of a deal is that we have to open up and privatise large parts of the NHS to please US heath care providers intent on making money out of the British people? That is a very real possibility by the way.

 

For that matter did not Trump state loud and clear last week that his guiding principle is that everything he does is compliant with an uncompromising AMERICA FIRST philosophy? Therefore, it would seem that any deal we strike with the US is highly likely to be designed primarily with THEIR interests in mind. History shows us that it is naive in the extreme to believe that the US interest is always exactly the same thing as ours.

 

You're focussing too much on tariffs -as opposed to nontariff barriers which are more relevant for the UK's predominantly service-sector based economy. For what it's worth, US tariffs (weighted average applied to all products) are very low (and zero for many products), so talk about eliminating tariffs may make for good politics -and the chumps will lap it up- but it won't move the dial.

[shurlock]

Can you quantify that bit for me?

 

I was watching a program on the Diesel engine the other day and how it has permeated pretty much every supply chain in the world by about 95%. They were discussing the merits of huge container ships and the fact that the diesel engines that run them are now super efficient. As a result they stated that it is now cheaper to import goods half way round the world from China than it is to deliver from your local shops.

 

I guess with the exception of ultra perishable goods where time is a crucial factor, geography isn't such a significant factor, especially given the economies of scale when using 'mega' container ships....

 

That's not borne out by any serious academic evidence. Propensity to trade is heavily determined by geography (whether understood in narrow spatial terms or cultural, administrative or economic similarity). It's a fact of life, even in services where a lot of work can be digitised and effectively sent or outsourced cost-free.

Edited 25 January, 2017 by shurlock

[OldNick]

Brexit is going to happen but the final settlement needs to be agreed by Parliament to be in the best interest of the country and its people and not in the best interests of the right wing of the Tory Party many of which want to cut the rights of the British worker in order to give more profit to their donors.

So am I right in thinking that our ngotiators have to go to 27 countries agree a deal, then come back and let politicians pick it all apart and then we have to go back and get agreement from 27 countries??? I wish us all luck with that. We may as well just pull the plug and go straight to the Tariffs as it is just all too long winded to get that done in 2 years. As Im fairly sure that after Article 50 you have 2 years and if it is not agreed you have to go to the Tariff system

[Wes Tender]

That's not borne out by any serious academic evidence. Propensity to trade is heavily determined by geography (whether understood in narrow spatial terms or cultural, administrative or economic similarity). It's a fact of life, even in services where a lot of work can be digitised and effectively sent or outsourced cost-free.

 

Decided to drop the snide flat Earth bit, I see.

[shurlock]

Decided to drop the snide flat Earth bit, I see.

 

It's not particularly snide - it's actually a reference to Thomas Friedman's book "the world is flat" which popularised thinking about the death of distance due to containerisation, miniaturisation and the Internet. Keep up Les

[adrian lord]

My issue with her and most of the remoaners is their pathetic attempts to try & claim that they "respect" the result, but just want to ensure its done right blah blah blah. Of course Nigel Farage et al , wouldn't change their position and wouldn't have given up fighting for a leave vote. But they would come straight out with it. They would want to change the British people's minds and force another vote. The remainiacs don't say " we want the British people to change their minds and will set about trying to do that". They wrap it up in pony about the process and the law. They don't respect the result . They're just trying to delay it in the hope that the economy tanks and the British people blame Brexit. I'd have some respect for this Miller bird if she told the truth and was straight . She doesn't respect the vote , she will do everything possible to reverse it and this court case isn't about clarifying the law, it's just a delaying tactic . Problem is, it's backfired a bit. A50 will be triggered, but now it'll have the legitimacy of parliamentary approval, with the added bonus of ****ing on Krankies fireworks. It would have been much better tactically had they left it and stirred up the grievance that May went ahead and triggered it without consulting parliament. They could have eat away at its legitimacy for 2 years, with Krankie banging on about a vote in the devolved legislature . Parliament voting for A50 gives May a little bit more cover when the going gets tough.Krankies defeat can also be thrown back in her face every time she pipes up that it's somehow unconstitutional .Salmonds performance on newsnight was laughable . Claimed that Scots were being treated differently . The dragons den mush pointed out that one Scotsman's vote was equal to one Englishman's vote , what's the difference? It was also pointed out that the UK parliament will have a vote for the MP representing every Englishman and every Scotsman. Salmond arguement would have had way more weight if a PM representing an English constituency had triggered A50 off her own back. Judges ruling that it's a reserved issue ,and unanimously at that, is a big blow to the Sweatys .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sums it up well.

[Wes Tender]

It's not particularly snide - it's actually a reference to Thomas Friedman's book "the world is flat" which popularised thinking about the death of distance due to containerisation, miniaturisation and the Internet. Keep up Les

 

I doubt that many if any on here would have heard of it, and taken your remarks as I did. But for whatever reason, you decided to drop it from your post anyway.

[Weston Super Saint]

That's not borne out by any serious academic evidence. Propensity to trade is heavily determined by geography (whether understood in narrow spatial terms or cultural, administrative or economic similarity). It's a fact of life, even in services where a lot of work can be digitised and effectively sent or outsourced cost-free.

 

So, just to be clear, you dismissed my argument stating that there is no 'serious academic evidence' for it and replaced it with your own argument which is apparently a 'fact of life'!

 

Any reason why the same exacting academic standards are not applied to your own arguments?

[John B]

As usual your post is nonsense and inaccurate and appears to be based on raw emotion and little intellectual understanding

 

During the campaign, it was not made abundantly clear that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the single market.

 

Although Boris Johnson said UK will 'still have access to single market’ despite Brexit

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html

 

The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

 

There is the likelihood that the standard of living will fall post Brexit as the increase in inflation indicates with today Heineken and Carlsberg follow makers of Carling and Budweiser in hiking cost of their beers in face of weak pound you may not drink but I do

 

I agree that Cameron and Osborne made their positions untenable through their shrill warnings of dire consequences but that was a continuation of the failed austerity policy which thanks to Brexit has changed slightly.

 

Economists' did not forecast of doom they forecasted that the fall in the pound would lead to inflation interest rises and loss of jobs which is happening

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/25/brexit-economy-weak-pound-inflation-jobs-market

 

By the way where is all that money for the NHS another Brexit lie

 

“I have never used the £350million figure myself because I don’t accept it,” say Jeremy Hunt

 

The Tory Party does not always do what is best for the country it usually does what is best for the Tory Party for instance it only had the Refendum to appease its right wing

 

We now have a PM who is so desperate to hold on to an unelected position she is being dominated by failures with axes to grind.

 

Duncan Smith the most pathetic Tory leader in history who believes anything he thinks is right and is untruthful

 

Liam Fox whose expenses claims and morals are dubious to say the least,

 

David Davies who failed his leadership campaign. And has been sulking ever since

 

Not forgetting Boris who'd sell his grandmother for a top job.

 

It's no wonder this lot don't want scrutiny!

 

I think Parliament should ensure this Brexit doesn't end up in the country falling to utter ****, and be given the chance to see and hear of any deal and vote on whether it would work or not, and you just want full balls-to-the wall 'yes Theresa i'm your gimp and you can do whatever you like and I won't say a word about it' mentality?

[buctootim]

For anyone interested, here's the lowdown on Gina Miller, the person who seeks to provide the British Government legal advice on the way we exit the EU:

 

 

 

She isn't just a legal expert, because her and her third husband run a very successful "investment management company", SCM Private LLP.

 

SCM Private LLP

Statement of Comprehensive Income

Year ended 30 April 2016

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]2016[/TD]

[TD]2015[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Turnover[/TD]

[TD]£ 285,251[/TD]

[TD]£ 301,682[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Cost of sales[/TD]

[TD]£ 68,859[/TD]

[TD]£ 135,410[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Gross profit[/TD]

[TD]£ 216,392[/TD]

[TD]£ 166,272[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Administrative expenses[/TD]

[TD]£ 423,756[/TD]

[TD]£ 607,012[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Operating loss[/TD]

[TD]£ (207,364)[/TD]

[TD]£ (440,740)[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

I think the government should sign her up, immediately, to provide advice on negotiating the best trade deal for the UK. I, for one, will be hanging on her every word regarding managing my investments.

 

On second thoughts, I'd work on snagging a more financially successful 4th husband, love. It's the only way you'll make any money. This publicity stunt is only going to bring you grief....

 

You really are utterly crap at this stuff aren't you? She doesn't need to be a legal whizz because guess what? you can hire people who are and take their advice. Awesome huh? How do you pay for that advice? using the £30m pile your husband made at New Star and Henderson.

[buctootim]

Hardly. Here's what the judgement actually says about that...

 

It is also worth emphasising that this case has nothing to do with issues such as the wisdom of the decision to withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the timetable or arrangements for withdrawal, or the details of any future relationship with the European Union. Those are all political issues which are matters for ministers and Parliament to resolve. They are not issues which are appropriate for resolution by judges

 

 

 

The case / judgement was never about the court itself having a view on those things but it was about ensuring Parliament had a view.

Edited 25 January, 2017 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Can you quantify that bit for me?

 

I was watching a program on the Diesel engine the other day and how it has permeated pretty much every supply chain in the world by about 95%. They were discussing the merits of huge container ships and the fact that the diesel engines that run them are now super efficient. As a result they stated that it is now cheaper to import goods half way round the world from China than it is to deliver from your local shops.

 

I guess with the exception of ultra perishable goods where time is a crucial factor, geography isn't such a significant factor, especially given the economies of scale when using 'mega' container ships....

 

Well thanks to that wonder of the modern age Wikipedia, here be a list of nations and their largest international trading partners: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_leading_trade_partners

 

Yes there are some strange exceptions to the rule - Burkina Faso exporting to Switzerland for example - but by and large nations trade most heavily with their neighbours. It is surely no surprise that Canada imports and exports lot with the United States, or that Namibia and South Africa are linked so closely. With such a huge Single Market on our 'doorstep' the fact that our largest trading partners are the rest of the EU is easily understandable I think.

 

Dig the data out and I'd be surprised if this UK/Europe trade situation did not date back to the end of the British Empire in the 1950's, if not before.

[shurlock]

So, just to be clear, you dismissed my argument stating that there is no 'serious academic evidence' for it and replaced it with your own argument which is apparently a 'fact of life'!

 

Any reason why the same exacting academic standards are not applied to your own arguments?

 

This is a good, if in places technical summary of the literature: as I say it is one of the most robust findings in economics.

 

http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2013/wp2013-26.pdf

[buctootim]

Isnt it both? People prefer to trade with their neighbours for all kinds of reasons. When you share a language, have shorter supply chains, quicker delivery and similar legal structures you take a lot of risk and variability out of the equation. However importing in bulk from China or some other sweatshop is cheap and for some things prices trumps all.

[shurlock]

Well thanks to that wonder of the modern age Wikipedia, here be a list of nations and their largest international trading partners: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_leading_trade_partners

 

Yes there are some strange exceptions to the rule - Burkina Faso exporting to Switzerland for example - but by and large nations trade most heavily with their neighbours. It is surely no surprise that Canada imports and exports lot with the United States, or that Namibia and South Africa are linked so closely. With such a huge Single Market on our 'doorstep' the fact that our largest trading partners are the rest of the EU is easily understandable I think.

 

Dig the data out and I'd be surprised if this UK/Europe trade situation did not date back to the end of the British Empire in the 1950's, if not before.

 

You rightly note that United States and Canada are each others largest trading partners; however, what is most striking about Canada-US trade is not how large, but how small it is versus the level of trade within the two countries.

 

Studies find that there is as much as 10 to 20 times less trade between two places if they are on opposite sides of the Canadian-US border than if they are on the same side of the border -everything else being equal.

 

All this despite the fact that the US and Canada share many economic, linguistic and cultural similarities, that nearly 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border and the two countries have signed numerous trade agreements, culminating in NAFTA. Home bias in trade has been described as one of the "six major puzzles in international macroeconomics". Geography and history matter - contrary to what the Brexit clowns think.

Edited 25 January, 2017 by shurlock

[buctootim]

Investment in UK car industry slowing. I wonder why that is?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38740144

[Wes Tender]

As usual your post is nonsense and inaccurate and appears to be based on raw emotion and little intellectual understanding

 

During the campaign, it was not made abundantly clear that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the single market.

 

Although Boris Johnson said UK will 'still have access to single market’ despite Brexit

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html

 

The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

 

There is the likelihood that the standard of living will fall post Brexit as the increase in inflation indicates with today Heineken and Carlsberg follow makers of Carling and Budweiser in hiking cost of their beers in face of weak pound you may not drink but I do

 

I agree that Cameron and Osborne made their positions untenable through their shrill warnings of dire consequences but that was a continuation of the failed austerity policy which thanks to Brexit has changed slightly.

 

Economists' did not forecast of doom they forecasted that the fall in the pound would lead to inflation interest rises and loss of jobs which is happening

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/25/brexit-economy-weak-pound-inflation-jobs-market

 

By the way where is all that money for the NHS another Brexit lie

 

“I have never used the £350million figure myself because I don’t accept it,” say Jeremy Hunt

 

The Tory Party does not always do what is best for the country it usually does what is best for the Tory Party for instance it only had the Refendum to appease its right wing

 

We now have a PM who is so desperate to hold on to an unelected position she is being dominated by failures with axes to grind.

 

Duncan Smith the most pathetic Tory leader in history who believes anything he thinks is right and is untruthful

 

Liam Fox whose expenses claims and morals are dubious to say the least,

 

David Davies who failed his leadership campaign. And has been sulking ever since

 

Not forgetting Boris who'd sell his grandmother for a top job.

 

It's no wonder this lot don't want scrutiny!

 

I think Parliament should ensure this Brexit doesn't end up in the country falling to utter ****, and be given the chance to see and hear of any deal and vote on whether it would work or not, and you just want full balls-to-the wall 'yes Theresa i'm your gimp and you can do whatever you like and I won't say a word about it' mentality?

 

I assume that this little diatribe is aimed at me, judging by the points made.

 

I really have to laugh at your assertion that my post was based on raw emotion and little intellectual understanding and then you dish up the response that you do, redolent of raw emotion and hardly a model of towering intellectuality.

 

You obviously missed prominent leaders of either side stating categorically that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Gove and others all said it.

 

 

So Boris said that we would have access to the single market. I think that you really do need to do some research here, as access to the single market is an entirely different matter to membership of it, and it appears to have confused you. As has been said recently in this debate, even North Korea can have access to the single market.

 

I read the fullfact opinion also on whether the referendum decision was binding on the Government and argue that Cameron having stated in a message to every voter on the electoral register that the government would abide by the decision of the referendum vote, there was obviously a moral obligation that they put in hand the apparatus to commence our departure from the EU. As I said, if they refused to do so, there would riots in the streets.

 

I see that you choose to ignore the bulk of the forecasts of doom and gloom that were churned out on a daily basis by many economists, financial organisations, the treasury, the Chancellor, business bodies, etc, of the immediate consequences of a vote to leave. Employment and house prices have not fallen, inward investment has not been curtailed, economic growth has continued. But I note that you are suffering because your imported beer is costing a few pennies more and maybe you are a Marmite consumer too, and if so, you have my sympathy. Your life must be unbearable.

 

Why has the NHS not received any of the £350 million yet? Simple really. We haven't left the EU yet, so we are still paying it.

 

The government didn't promise the referendum to appease its right wing. It did it to prevent the party losing seats to UKIP, much as Labour will in their traditional heartlands in 2020.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, the raw emotion bit, the bile that you vent towards the Tory Party, then it must really grate on you that there is no credible opposition. If you are indeed a Labour voter, then which branch of the party do you support? The former Blairites, or the Corbynistas? The workers who want to leave the EU, or the Metropolitan elite who want to remain in?

[JackFrost]

The chap tipped to be Trump's ambassador to the EU reckons the Euro is 18 months away from a complete collapse

[Weston Super Saint]

Well thanks to that wonder of the modern age Wikipedia, here be a list of nations and their largest international trading partners: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_leading_trade_partners

With such a huge Single Market on our 'doorstep' the fact that our largest trading partners are the rest of the EU is easily understandable I think.

 

Dig the data out and I'd be surprised if this UK/Europe trade situation did not date back to the end of the British Empire in the 1950's, if not before.

 

I'm not entirely sure why you are surprised that the EU is our largest trading partner since we have not been allowed to arrange our own trade deals outside of the EU since we've been a member!

 

Just imagine who our largest trade partner could potentially have been if we HAD been allowed to set up our own trade deals...