EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Wombat]

That and the leave side of the argument wouldn't have agreed to a referendum under those terms.

Their agreement isn't required, though. It's up to the government to propose the format of the referendum, the house to pass an act of parliament (or not), and the electoral commission to examine the wording of the question for fairness. Cameron didn't even attempt to do it properly, he just went straight to the stupid "in/out" option.

 

[Geezertronic]

In 2016 the Leave option was presented as a sunny upland populated by gently grazing unicorns, and only 52% of those who voted supported it

And in 2017, MPs in Parliament overwhelmingly backed the Article 50 bill by 498 votes to 114 so if they had any concerns then they should have voted accordingly

 

[najaB]

And in 2017, MPs in Parliament overwhelmingly backed the Article 50 bill by 498 votes to 114 so if they had any concerns then they should have voted accordingly

But that was the correct and proper thing to do, since the Government had promised that they were going to actively pursue a deal that put the UK's best interests first while implementing the referendum result.

Unless I've totally failed comprehension, Section 13 of The Act specifically states that Parliament has to approve any agreement, or leaving without an agreement in place.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Brexit drives two more American financial service groups to Dublin

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-financial-service-groups-to-dublin-1.4027279

Travelers Insurance Company, the US multinational with total assets of about $103 billion, will transfer its European business to Dublin in a move to protect its services post Brexit.​

And so it continues. Project fear = project reality.

Didn't seem to make the Telegraph or Daily Mail, funny that.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the best approach to the referendum would have been to avoid holding it in the first place. If, for some ineffable reason, one feels that a referendum is utterly necessary, here's the question to ask:

"Do you want to leave the EU, or remain in the EU? If the majority votes to leave the EU we will negotiate a deal, and then we will hold a second referendum offering a choice between that deal and remaining in the EU".

But that's not what Cameron did, because he's a self-serving cretin.

This would have made a lot of sense but unfortunately wasn't thought to be possible because Article 50 had to be invoked before negotiations could start and at the time was believed to be irrevocable. Perhaps that could have been explored

before the referendum​

and revocation found to be possible then, in which case that approach could have been followed. Another symptom of the Cameron government's arrogance.

But we're now in this big hole and the priority now must be (1) stop digging, and (2) try to find a way out.

 

[Mag_seven]

Brexit drives two more American financial service groups to Dublin

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-financial-service-groups-to-dublin-1.4027279

Travelers Insurance Company, the US multinational with total assets of about $103 billion, will transfer its European business to Dublin in a move to protect its services post Brexit.​

And so it continues. Project fear = project reality.

Didn't seem to make the Telegraph or Daily Mail, funny that.

Maybe they took advice from this chap about moving stuff to Dublin:

Rees-Mogg declares himself fan of Irish investment regime

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...self-fan-of-irish-investment-regime-1.3822113

 

[dosxuk]

Their agreement isn't required, though. It's up to the government to propose the format of the referendum, the house to pass an act of parliament (or not), and the electoral commission to examine the wording of the question for fairness. Cameron didn't even attempt to do it properly, he just went straight to the stupid "in/out" option.

Which is exactly the question the leave campaigns wanted. They knew from years of in fighting over what us leaving would look like that there would be no way to win a referendum that actually spelled out what the future would look like. And while they didn't legally need to agree the question, if they hadn't agreed to it, Farage would have been out there telling everyone it was another EU stitch up and to void their ballots in a show of defiance to them. Referendums only work if both sides agree to the question.

 

[radamfi]

A lot of ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) marketed to UK consumers are based in Dublin, and are popular with private investors with Self Select ISAs due to their low cost. Being based outside the UK also means no stamp duty is payable. Normally, ISAs do not permit foreign funds and ETFs, meaning they have to be held outside of the ISA, and thus not sheltered from tax. The Dublin based ETFs are only OK at the moment because of the passporting arrangements. Anyone know if Brexit (No Deal or otherwise) affects this?

 

[nlogax]

The Dublin based ETFs are only OK at the moment because of the passporting arrangements. Anyone know if Brexit (No Deal or otherwise) affects this?

What I've read in recent independent impact reports (eg this one) is that in the event of no-deal financial passporting will halt with immediate effect.

 

[Howardh]

Comprehensively thrashed in the Supreme Court. Boris has lied to the Queen. In the past his head would be removed.

 

[DerekC]

Comprehensively thrashed in the Supreme Court. Boris has lied to the Queen. In the past his head would be removed.

Punishment a bit extreme - more practically, is he going to resign? Pigs do occasionally fly, but I much doubt it!

 

[dgl]

but I bet the Queen is right royally pissed!, and that's someone you DON'T mess with.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Punishment a bit extreme - more practically, is he going to resign? Pigs do occasionally fly, but I much doubt it!

Vote of no confidence, Corbyn caretaker, Referendum, General Election.

 

[Howardh]

but I bet the Queen is right royally pissed!, and that's someone you DON'T mess with.

"Ah, 007, I have a little task for you, would you be so kind...."

 

[dgl]

"Ah, 007, I have a little task for you, would you be so kind...."

To be met with replies of, "join the back of the queue, mate".

 

[Bletchleyite]

but I bet the Queen is right royally pissed!, and that's someone you DON'T mess with.

I would venture the possible view that based on their age and Philip's demeanour that they are probably Brexiteers, though obviously their position prevents expression of this.

 

[dgl]

I would venture the possible view that based on their age and Philip's demeanour that they are probably Brexiteers, though obviously their position prevents expression of this.

Doubt it, she is someone who lived through the second world war and saw the destruction and loss of life that ensued. Generally people born pre WWII are remainers.

 

[najaB]

I would venture the possible view that based on their age and Philip's demeanour that they are probably Brexiteers, though obviously their position prevents expression of this.

Not all older people are pro-Brexit. And given how much effort and time Her Majesty has put into The Commonwealth I doubt she's an isolationist.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Some very pointed and telling paragraphs in the judgement.

No reason let alone a good reason to do it is effectively what has been said according to BBC.

Very patriotic as it is a British court which ruled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not all older people are pro-Brexit. And given how much effort and time Her Majesty has put into The Commonwealth I doubt she's an isolationist.

Is not a common Brexiteer view that it's the Commonwealth and not the EU that we should be investing into?

 

[najaB]

Is not a common Brexiteer view that it's the Commonwealth and not the EU that we should be investing into?

Only by those who live in a fantasy world (where trade is concerned). Why would, for example, India give more favourable trading terms to the UK than China that's right on their doorstep?

As a German married to a Greek living in the UK, I think the Queen is perfectly aware of the benefits that the EU brings to the UK.

 

[Puffing Devil]

As a German married to a Greek living in the UK, I think the Queen is perfectly aware of the benefits that the EU brings to the UK.

Have they applied for settled status yet? Can't wait to see the Home Office reply to that one!

 

[StaffsWCML]

Vote of no confidence, Corbyn caretaker, Referendum, General Election.

Why on earth would we want a far left extremist terrorist sympathiser as caretaker?

If there are a caretaker it should be a moderate on not that clueless cretin. Honestly the leaders of both parties should quit after the shambles at the labour conference yesterday. Over 50% of Labour voters and 60% of voters don't think Corbyn is fit to be PM, because quite frankly he isn't.

 

[Killingworth]

As a large majority on here appear to be Remainers, how exactly are we to move forward, ensure the nation remains, and is competently led by someone in control of our futures? I'm at a loss to see a way out of this quagmire, either out or in!

There seems to be no current politician of any party, in or out of Parliament, with the stature and gravitas necessary to resolve this.

 

[najaB]

There seems to be no current politician of any party, in or out of Parliament, with the stature and gravitas necessary to resolve this.

The best option would be a caretaker government lead by, for example, Ken Clarke to (a) request a new extension (a year would be a good length); (b) have an election by the end of December; and (c) assuming that the Lib Dems don't win a majority negotiate a deal in good faith and put that deal, remaining on our current terms or leaving without a deal to the public.

 

[Bantamzen]

but I bet the Queen is right royally pissed!, and that's someone you DON'T mess with.

"Ah, 007, I have a little task for you, would you be so kind...."

BoJo might do well keeping an eye over his own shoulder, doing his own driving, avoiding grassy knolls....

Seriously though, this is massive even on the back of the political turmoil that has been 2019. There is now zero chance the PM can go on, and if he does it will be defeat after defeat for him because he has no majority, and a rapidly diminishing support base in the House. And a Brexit extension has now to be called because there is going to be a General Election one way or the other, even the chairman of the Brexit Party has reluctantly said that this is inevitable.

But most of all what must happen now is an end to the name calling, tubhumping and empty rhetoric, and for there be a serious an in depth debate on where we go with Brexit. I seriously doubt Corbyn will be able to call a vote of no confidence, win & form a provisional government. And a General Election will almost certainly return a hung Parliament if BoJo hangs on as leader & PM. So serious and frank debate is needed to sort out the mess, figure out what way forward Parliament has, and if no overall consensus can be found take the vote back to the people in a further, more in depth referendum.

Of course what will really happen is a whole different kettle of fish. Someone get some more popcorn on, this is just the beginning of Act II.....

 

[DarloRich]

These are almost uncharted waters. The following quote is by the BBC legal affairs correspondent:

Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.

It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.

The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.

And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.

That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.

This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.

Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.

Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

In any normal political atmosphere Johnson would have resigned immediately. In the professions you would be struck off for such behaviour. What will Johnson do?

PS. Worth noting the decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous.

 

[najaB]

BoJo might do well keeping an eye over his own shoulder, doing his own driving, avoiding grassy knolls.

Who was it that mentioned a being face-down in a ditch again?

 

[DarloRich]

The Palace also has a problem here: The use of the Royal Prerogative in this instance has been ruled void. That has to be unprecedented. There is no choice for the Queen but to follow the advice given by her ministers but Johnson has a lot to answer for for pushing the constitutional conventions that underpin our democracy to breaking point.

 

[krus_aragon]

The best option would be a caretaker government lead by, for example, Ken Clarke to (a) request a new extension (a year would be a good length); (b) have an election by the end of December; and (c) assuming that the Lib Dems don't win a majority negotiate a deal in good faith and put that deal, remaining on our current terms or leaving without a deal to the public.

The current law on the statute book requires the Prime Minister to request an extension to the end of January. If the EU offer a different deadline, the PM must accept it (unless Parliament declines it within two days).