Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

In today's news we learn that Brexit Secretary David Davis is to go back to the House of Commons and ask MPs to reject the recent decision in the House of Lords to amend the enabling bill that is currently going through Parliament. Apparently guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here in law, and ensuring that our Parliament gets a meaningful vote on the outcome of the coming exit negotiations, are both bad ideas - for reasons that are not immediately clear to this observer of events. Furthermore, we are told the reason why so many senior Tories are now briefing against their own Chancellor of the Exchequer is that they fear he may just be a little less "Jihadi" in his enthusiasm to leave the EU than they are. Oh dear.

 

The press are also reporting that MPs are rather concerned that we have no "Plan B" in place, should we end up crashing out of the EU and Single Market without any acceptable exit deal being agreed with the remaining EU 27. This dangerous "dereliction of duty" being a distinct possibly many fear given the Prime Minister's uncompromising hard-line approach to the matter. On the other hand I understand that the cabinet is apparently "confident" that some kind of mutually satisfactory trade deal with the EU can be reached - why on earth they are so very sure that this can be achieved, given the extreme difficulty of the problem, is another one of those little mysteries we should probably not be asking awkward questions about.

 

Elsewhere it seems that Turkey being allowed to ever gain full EU membership is becoming a ever more distant possibility given recent events in the Netherlands and indeed Turkey - so the shameless scaremongering that a million Turks were about to descend on our shores turns out to be the utter bilge some on here said it was last June.

 

All in all just another weekend in the brave new world of Brexit Britain then ...

 

.

Edited 12 March, 2017 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[buctootim]

In today's news we learn that Brexit Secretary David Davis is to go back to the House of Commons and ask MPs to reject the recent decision in the House of Lords to amend the enabling bill that is currently going through Parliament. Apparently guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here in law, and ensuring that our Parliament gets a meaningful vote on the outcome of the coming exit negotiations, are both bad ideas - for reasons that are not immediately clear to this observer of events. Furthermore, we are told the reason why so many senior Tories are now briefing against their own Chancellor of the Exchequer is that they fear he may just be a little less "Jihadi" in his enthusiasm to leave the EU than they are. Oh dear.

 

The press are also reporting that MPs are rather concerned that we have no "Plan B" in place, should we end up crashing out of the EU and Single Market without any acceptable exit deal being agreed with the remaining EU 27. This dangerous "dereliction of duty" being a distinct possibly many fear given the Prime Minister's uncompromising hard-line approach to the matter. On the other hand I understand that the cabinet is apparently "confident" that some kind of mutually satisfactory trade deal with the EU can be reached - why on earth they are so very sure that this can be achieved, given the extreme difficulty of the problem, is another one of those little mysteries we should probably not be asking awkward questions about.

 

Elsewhere it seems that Turkey being allowed to ever gain full EU membership is becoming a ever more distant possibility given recent events in the Netherlands and indeed Turkey - so the shameless scaremongering that a million Turks were about to descend on our shores turns out to be the utter bilge some on here said it was last June.

 

All in all just another weekend in the brave new world of Brexit Britain then ...

 

.

 

They won't allow a plan B because they're terrified that if there is a choice people will prefer it to the reckless gung ho charge of plan A - with Hammond leading the 'B's

Edited 12 March, 2017 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

In today's news we learn that Brexit Secretary David Davis is to go back to the House of Commons and ask MPs to reject the recent decision in the House of Lords to amend the enabling bill that is currently going through Parliament. Apparently guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here in law, and ensuring that our Parliament gets a meaningful vote on the outcome of the coming exit negotiations, are both bad ideas - for reasons that are not immediately clear to this observer of events.

.

 

Have a read of this and inform yourself of the Constitutional legalities.

 

http://brexitcentral.com/meaningful-vote-amendment-abuse-lords-powers-legislative-garbage/

 

Feel free to argue against it from your own legal expertise, or to post links to those with the necessary expertise who put up arguments that oppose the case put by Martin Howe QC.

[Wes Tender]

They won't allow a plan B because they're terrified that if there is a choice people will prefer it to the wreckless gung ho charge of plan A - with Hammond leading the 'B's

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely plan B is to fall back on trade through WTO terms, isn't it? In any event, taking your assertion that if there was an alternative plan B, the people will prefer it, then how will they express that preference? Should we have further referenda until they get it right?

[Weston Super Saint]

They won't allow a plan B because they're terrified that if there is a choice people will prefer it to the wreckless gung ho charge of plan A - with Hammond leading the 'B's

 

There's no plan b - or c,d,e,f ad infinitum - yet, because there is no plan a. Until A50 has been triggered, there can't be a plan a put together. That will naturally happen during the two years of 'negotiation'. Only once that process has started can plan b be considered. Seems a bit mental to lambaste the government for not having a plan b right now - to put it in football terms it would be like the skates playing Yeovil in round 1 of the FA cup whilst deciding what team they are going to field in the final against Arsenal!

[shurlock]

Have a read of this and inform yourself of the Constitutional legalities.

 

http://brexitcentral.com/meaningful-vote-amendment-abuse-lords-powers-legislative-garbage/

 

Feel free to argue against it from your own legal expertise, or to post links to those with the necessary expertise who put up arguments that oppose the case put by Martin Howe QC.

 

https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/Final_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf

 

Each time you cite an opinion by Martin Howe, he (and you) end up on the wrong side of a legal decision Fortunately you're not paying him for actual advice Les. Perhaps next time you might want to pick someone who's a bit more compelling pal.

Edited 12 March, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/Final_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf

 

Each time you cite an opinion by Martin Howe, he (and you) end up on the wrong side of a legal decision Fortunately you're not paying him for actual advice Les. Perhaps next time you might want to pick someone who's a bit more compelling pal.

 

Having read the extensive views of the legal eagles linked by you, I really am utterly amazed that it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that the thrust of both sets of legal opinions are essentially based on different situations.

 

Martin Howe's piece concentrated almost exclusively on the amendments proposed by their Lordships to the short European Union (notification of withdrawal) bill.

 

Your Lawyers' piece threw in everything apart from the kitchen sink, discussing the intricasies of Article 50 and what would be entailed at the conclusion of the entire two year process.

 

As Howe didn't crystal ball gaze into the legalities of the situation at the end of the two year process beyond saying that the Great Reform Bill would be the primary legislation required to be passed by Parliament, why don't you address what he was arguing about, the amendments to the Bill that their Lordships proposed adding?

 

With luck, the proposed amendments will be rejected by the Commons on Monday and the Lords will throw in the towel and let the Bill pass into law, allowing May to trigger Article 50 within a day or two afterwards.

[shurlock]

Having read the extensive views of the legal eagles linked by you, I really am utterly amazed that it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that the thrust of both sets of legal opinions are essentially based on different situations.

 

Martin Howe's piece concentrated almost exclusively on the amendments proposed by their Lordships to the short European Union (notification of withdrawal) bill.

 

Your Lawyers' piece threw in everything apart from the kitchen sink, discussing the intricasies of Article 50 and what would be entailed at the conclusion of the entire two year process.

 

As Howe didn't crystal ball gaze into the legalities of the situation at the end of the two year process beyond saying that the Great Reform Bill would be the primary legislation required to be passed by Parliament, why don't you address what he was arguing about, the amendments to the Bill that their Lordships proposed adding?

 

With luck, the proposed amendments will be rejected by the Commons on Monday and the Lords will throw in the towel and let the Bill pass into law, allowing May to trigger Article 50 within a day or two afterwards.

 

Try reading it again Les and thinking through its significance - perhaps then you might understand why that piece of legal advice was invoked repeatedly by those members of the House of Lords who supported the second amendment.

[Wes Tender]

Try reading it again Les and thinking through its significance - perhaps then you might understand why that piece of legal advice was invoked repeatedly by those members of the House of Lords who supported the second amendment.

 

You're talking two years down the line with what the Lords sought to achieve with their second amendment, which in any event is not likely to make it into the statute book. By the time the two years are up, any number of things might have come to pass, including a General Election giving the Conservatives a majority substantial enough to bulldoze their chosen policy through Parliament.

Edited 13 March, 2017 by Wes Tender

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Have a read of this and inform yourself of the Constitutional legalities.

 

http://brexitcentral.com/meaningful-vote-amendment-abuse-lords-powers-legislative-garbage/

 

Feel free to argue against it from your own legal expertise, or to post links to those with the necessary expertise who put up arguments that oppose the case put by Martin Howe QC.

 

Well as it happens one of my relations is a Barrister, but please remind me when and where I have ever claimed to process some level of legal expertise?

[Wes Tender]

Well as it happens one of my relations is a Barrister, but please remind me when and where I have ever claimed to process (sic) some level of legal expertise?

 

Well, if he's an expert in constitutional Law, he can advise you of your response, although it will hardly be worthwhile at this late stage, as events later today might well have overtaken it, making it irrelevant.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well, if he's an expert in constitutional Law, he can advise you of your response, although it will hardly be worthwhile at this late stage, as events later today might well have overtaken it, making it irrelevant.

 

 

My dear Les "he" is a she actually - welcome to the 21st century old boy.

[ecuk268]

Good to see that the government is united on the eve of such a momentous event.

 

Liam Fox says that leaving without a deal would be "bad for Britain" while Boris says that it would be "perfectly OK". Briefings from sources within Downing Street describe Philip Hammond as "clueless about politics" while his allies call the No. 10 team "economically illiterate".

 

Maybe Labour supporters can relax a bit about Corbyn being so useless. The government seems to be doing a decent job in opposing itself.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Very much as predicted it looks like Brexit will indeed trigger a second Scottish Independence Referendum - as soon as next year possibly:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/nicola-sturgeon-could-derail-brexit-scottish-referendum-demand/

 

It is as difficult to predict the outcome of this coming referendum as it was the last I think. However, if the past is any guide then support for the SNP cause rose substantially during the course of the campaign, from what was at the time a relatively low base. Today I understand that Scottish public opinion is apparently (more or less) evenly split on the issue - which should be quite enough to worry anybody who genuinely cares about the fate of our old and remarkable nation I would have thought.

[shurlock]

You're talking two years down the line with what the Lords sought to achieve with their second amendment, which in any event is not likely to make it into the statute book. By the time the two years are up, any number of things might have come to pass, including a General Election giving the Conservatives a majority substantial enough to bulldoze their chosen policy through Parliament.

 

You're talking about politics Les - none of this is relevant from a legal perspective. It's very common for novices to confuse what is required legally with what might transpire politically.

Edited 13 March, 2017 by shurlock

[moonraker]

Very much as predicted it looks like Brexit will indeed trigger a second Scottish Independence Referendum - as soon as next year possibly:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/nicola-sturgeon-could-derail-brexit-scottish-referendum-demand/

 

It is as difficult to predict the outcome of this coming referendum as it was the last I think. However, if the past is any guide then support for the SNP cause rose substantially during the course of the campaign, from what was at the time a relatively low base. Today I understand that Scottish public opinion is apparently (more or less) evenly split on the issue - which should be quite enough to worry anybody who genuinely cares about the fate of our old and remarkable nation I would have thought.

 

And this time project fear wont work, if the Scots can have a 2nd referendum then whose to say the UK wont, politicians are oppertuinists if the tide turns they will as well. There is long way to go and if as seems likely costs to joe public keep rising and tory infighting spills onto the streets May will be done for. Leave support will dwindle until only the swivel eyed loons will be left parroting their inane chants.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

And this time project fear wont work, if the Scots can have a 2nd referendum then whose to say the UK wont, politicians are oppertuinists if the tide turns they will as well. There is long way to go and if as seems likely costs to joe public keep rising and tory infighting spills onto the streets May will be done for. Leave support will dwindle until only the swivel eyed loons will be left parroting their inane chants.

 

Well yes, even in these 'strange days' I don't really see how any Conservative and Unionist Party leader could possibly survive presiding over the destruction of the United Kingdom as we know it. But the fate of any one politician's career, or even their Party, is as nothing compared to the fate of our nation. As for the possibility of the breaking of the nation eventuality derailing the Brexit process itself - well all I can say is that nobody really knows do they?

[Wes Tender]

And this time project fear wont work, if the Scots can have a 2nd referendum then whose to say the UK wont, politicians are oppertuinists if the tide turns they will as well. There is long way to go and if as seems likely costs to joe public keep rising and tory infighting spills onto the streets May will be done for. Leave support will dwindle until only the swivel eyed loons will be left parroting their inane chants.

 

You're sounding quite the swivel eyed loon yourself. Tory infighting spills onto the streets? Soubry hand-bagging Boris, Heseltine brandishing the mace and swinging it at May?

[Guided Missile]

Dear Santa Claus,

 

Thanks for the present you bought me last Christmas. Brexit was what I was being a good boy for and all I really wanted. It was lovely to have it wrapped in David Cameron and George Osborne's resignation speeches. With these, it didn't really need a bow. It has brought about the destruction of the Labour party for the foreseeable future, which shows that Brexit is a gift that keeps giving.

 

I am writing to you early to ask if you can make the sweaties vote for Independence from the UK. I really want to see the back of the sponging Jocks. Failing that, can you make them vote against Independence from the UK. I really want to see the back of Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. If you're not sure who they look like, I've posted a photo below:

 

 

Yours hopefully,

GM

[hutch]

This is just a poorly conceived attempt by Sturgeon to transfer the right to decide if and when to have another referendum, and on what terms, from Westminster to Edinburgh, so she can try to pressurise the UK government during the negotiations next year with a threat. I don't think May is that stupid.

 

If Sturgeon comes forward with a binding proposal for a referendum on a fixed date I would expect May to agree. But that would be suicidal for Sturgeon.

[Wes Tender]

Both Lords amendments defeated by the Commons. Onwards and upwards

[Lord Duckhunter]

Both Lords amendments defeated by the Commons. Onwards and upwards

 

And now the Lords. They think it's all over, it is now ......

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hutch]

Gina Miller must be very proud tonight.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Gina Miller must be very proud tonight.

 

She should be, she's given parliamentary legitimacy to a Hard Brexit process. Both houses having a meaningful vote on having a meaningful vote & agreeing with the Governments position.

 

Referendum, then both houses , nobody can ever again complain that this isn't democratic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

She should be, she's given parliamentary legitimacy to a Hard Brexit process. Both houses having a meaningful vote on having a meaningful vote & agreeing with the Governments position.

 

Referendum, then both houses , nobody can ever again complain that this isn't democratic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What's this pony in English pal?

[Wes Tender]

What's this pony in English pal?

 

Perhaps you're too tired to comprehend it at 3.15 am. I trust that after a good sleep your brain be suitably energised to have another go, if you read it slowly.

[Johnny Bognor]

If Crankie thinks she can leave the UK and join the EU, she is deluded. All member states would have to agree to Scotland joining the EU. Spain will block it as they won't want to be seen to supporting Scotland's independence, whilst denying the Basque region theirs.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If Crankie thinks she can leave the UK and join the EU, she is deluded. All member states would have to agree to Scotland joining the EU. Spain will block it as they won't want to be seen to supporting Scotland's independence, whilst denying the Basque region theirs.

 

Do you really believe this?

 

It seems to me overwhelmingly likely that that a independent Scotland would eventually gain EU membership in the fullness of time - regardless of the Basque issue.

[Johnny Bognor]

Do you really believe this?

 

It seems to me overwhelmingly likely that that a independent Scotland would eventually gain EU membership in the fullness of time - regardless of the Basque issue.

 

I guess it depends on how confident you are that all 28 nations would agree to them joining (which is a problem in itself)... but if Spain does support Scotland, it will open a can of worms on their own doorstep.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If Serbia - a nation let's member that was at war with its neighbours not so very long ago - can be allowed to formally start the EU accession process then surely Scotland's place cannot be denied indefinitely. That is not to say that Scottish EU accession would be immediate of course.

[shurlock]

Perhaps you're too tired to comprehend it at 3.15 am. I trust that after a good sleep your brain be suitably energised to have another go, if you read it slowly.

 

Its now 10am and still no clearer, little kipper.

[shurlock]

http://voxeu.org/article/globalisation-and-brexit

 

Interesting article - reveals many of the contradictions and old wives tales at the heart of the kipper worldview.

 

Global Britain - bring it on.

 

Disclaimer: it may be too rigorous for your average evidence-challenged kipper.

[Winnersaint]

Looks like the PM is between a rock and a hard place as to who to p-i-s-s off. The Scots or the Brexit zealots?

[John B]

If Crankie thinks she can leave the UK and join the EU, she is deluded. All member states would have to agree to Scotland joining the EU. Spain will block it as they won't want to be seen to supporting Scotland's independence, whilst denying the Basque region theirs.

 

Scotland can leave the UK and get a good deal with regard to the single market without being in the EU

[Wes Tender]

Its now 10am and still no clearer, little kipper.

 

Either get some more sleep, or read it more slowly. It might penetrate eventually, little leftie.

[hutch]

Scotland can leave the UK and get a good deal with regard to the single market without being in the EU

It'll have to be much, much more than just a good deal, to compensate for leaving the UK. It will need to be the best deal that's ever been done in the history of, like, forever, to make up for the loss of income from England.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/12200495/IFS-Scotland-to-get-billions-of-English-income-tax.html

 

But I'm sure that losing £10bn a year from the UK won't stop the EU from rushing to pay Scotland to sign up.

[buctootim]

....

Edited 14 March, 2017 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

People are being too hard on the Skates. They've attracted a lead sponsor commensurate with their status in the game. £102 should be plenty

 

Did you intend this to go on the Pompey thread by any chance?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Scotland can leave the UK and get a good deal with regard to the single market without being in the EU

 

What currency would they use?

 

They would have to accept freedom of movement , so therefore there would be a hard border between England & Scotland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Did you intend this to go on the Pompey thread by any chance?

 

Phones, tsk

[Antrimsaint]

What currency would they use?

 

They would have to accept freedom of movement , so therefore there would be a hard border between England & Scotland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What, like btn Northern Ireland and the republic. You Brexit ***ts don't know the hell you've unleashed. What's worse is you don't even care.

 

Btw. where do you get off telling Scottish people whether or not they can have another referendum. Thought you were all for bringing back control and democracy.

 

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

[trousers]

where do you get off telling Scottish people whether or not they can have another referendum. Thought you were all for bringing back control and democracy.

 

The Scottish people decided in the 2014 referendum that they wanted the UK government to stay in control of non-devolved matters, such as giving permission for another referendum.

[badgerx16]

You Brexit ***ts don't know the hell you've unleashed. What's worse is you don't even care.

 

But Wes and Trident assure us we'll be soooooooo much better off without the Euro baggage to drag our economy down. Surely that isn't wishful thinking and hope triumphing over reality ?

[Guided Missile]

Btw. where do you get off telling Scottish people whether or not they can have another referendum. Thought you were all for bringing back control and democracy.

Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 is where we get off, Mick.

[Antrimsaint]

Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 is where we get off, Mick.

Mick eh?

 

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

[Antrimsaint]

Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 is where we get off, Mick.

Enjoy getting blown up again when you put the border back up

 

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

[Antrimsaint]

Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 is where we get off, Mick.

And you wonder why you're hated

 

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Edit

[shurlock]

Mick eh?

 

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

 

 

Don't worry about Trident, Les et al. They're semi-literate, born-yesterday xenophobes.

Edited 14 March, 2017 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

WE ARE GETTING A BRAND SPANKING NEW TRADE YACHT MOTHERFU CKERS.