EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Steveman]

Fortunately there's 11 of them, don't have to worry about popular opinion, have a job for life, and are likely well-respected lawyers who will individually be fine regardless of any decisions (assuming the popular press doesn't inspire any more Jo Cox style attacks by say calling them "enemies of the state")

This allows them to more easily set aside emotion and concentrate on what the law - specifically our immensely complicated constitution - tells us. They're the 3rd of the 4 boxes of liberty, and nobody wants to open the 4th.

If you really think they are impartial you're very misguided as nobody is.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm still confused why there is an issue with Parliament having oversight of the decision to activate Article 50? We elected them (and will do so again in 2020 or before) they are our Parliament and this whole thing is ensuring their Sovereignty which was a key component of the Brexit argument. So what's the problem? Isn't this what was desired? A Sovereign Parliament making decisions for Britain and the British?

 

[Steveman]

I'm still confused why there is an issue with Parliament having oversight of the decision to activate Article 50? We elected them (and will do so again in 2020 or before) they are our Parliament and this whole thing is ensuring their Sovereignty which was a key component of the Brexit argument. So what's the problem? Isn't this what was desired? A Sovereign Parliament making decisions for Britain and the British?

If you're confused you must be in a small minority.

Surely you know by now that all this rubbish about parliament having a say is simply a backdoor way to stop Brexit in it's tracks.
Farron has said it so has Calamity Clegg, they want another vote as they think they'll win a second one, it's all about being bad losers and always has been.
They have admitted that they will table amendment after amendment until it's so watered down as to be meaningless. They will demand a new referendum and we'll be back to where we were before June the 23rd as they're convinced they'll win second time round.

 

[miami]

I'm still confused why there is an issue with Parliament having oversight of the decision to activate Article 50? We elected them (and will do so again in 2020 or before) they are our Parliament and this whole thing is ensuring their Sovereignty which was a key component of the Brexit argument. So what's the problem? Isn't this what was desired? A Sovereign Parliament making decisions for Britain and the British?

Because if the government can make such a major change to the law without going through parliament, it means that in the future they can use their executive power to do even more things to take away the rights of the people?

After all they could have put a vote to parliament and passed it remarkably easy, even with the SNP, northern ireland, and lib dems voting against it.

 

[Howardh]

If you're confused you must be in a small minority.

Surely you know by now that all this rubbish about parliament having a say is simply a backdoor way to stop Brexit in it's tracks.
Farron has said it so has Calamity Clegg, they want another vote as they think they'll win a second one, it's all about being bad losers and always has been.
They have admitted that they will table amendment after amendment until it's so watered down as to be meaningless. They will demand a new referendum and we'll be back to where we were before June the 23rd as they're convinced they'll win second time round.

If they win a second one, then doesn't that make them good winners? In any case, if Brexit's so popular Brexit will win any number of referendums plus votes in Parliament. So no worries, huh??


Of course, if Brexit is so watered down, then won't we all be wanting another referendum on that it's not severe enough?

 

[Steveman]

If they win a second one, then doesn't that make them good winners? In any case, if Brexit's so popular Brexit will win any number of referendums plus votes in Parliament. So no worries, huh??


Of course, if Brexit is so watered down, then won't we all be wanting another referendum on that it's not severe enough?

So if they loose the 2nd referendum it's best of 3 is it ?

 

[miami]

If you really think they are impartial you're very misguided as nobody is.

There's 11 of them, so leanings one way or another are dampened. The personal biasness is dampend by not having to worry about their next election

 

[ainsworth74]

If you're confused you must be in a small minority.

Surely you know by now that all this rubbish about parliament having a say is simply a backdoor way to stop Brexit in it's tracks.
Farron has said it so has Calamity Clegg, they want another vote as they think they'll win a second one, it's all about being bad losers and always has been.
They have admitted that they will table amendment after amendment until it's so watered down as to be meaningless. They will demand a new referendum and we'll be back to where we were before June the 23rd as they're convinced they'll win second time round.

So Parliament can be trusted on some things but not others? Why would you want them to have more power then if they cannot be trusted to use their sovereign powers?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because if the government can make such a major change to the law without going through parliament, it means that in the future they can use their executive power to do even more things to take away the rights of the people?

Exactly! Surely we want Parliament to be sovereign and curtail the powers of the Royal Perogative to ensure that the Government of the day can't just force things through without any debate and potential remove rights from the people!?

 

[Howardh]

So if they loose the 2nd referendum it's best of 3 is it ?

You might want that second referendum to turn down a soft Brexit.

 

[simonw]

If you really think they are impartial you're very misguided as nobody is.

You are correct, nobody is completely impartial, however Judges have to come up with a reasoned argument as to why they have reached a particular conclusion and will also have to discuss this with the other judges who are hearing the case. So any bias will be difficult to hide.


As this is an appeal, it is for the government to argue and prove that the High Court reached the wrong conclusion. There is always the right of appeal to Europe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if they loose the 2nd referendum it's best of 3 is it ?

Well the second would in fact be the best of three as we had the first in 1975.

 

[anme]

If you're confused you must be in a small minority.

Surely you know by now that all this rubbish about parliament having a say is simply a backdoor way to stop Brexit in it's tracks.
Farron has said it so has Calamity Clegg, they want another vote as they think they'll win a second one, it's all about being bad losers and always has been.
They have admitted that they will table amendment after amendment until it's so watered down as to be meaningless. They will demand a new referendum and we'll be back to where we were before June the 23rd as they're convinced they'll win second time round.

I am genuinely confused about your position. If you're right, wouldn't we be better off leaving the government of the UK to Brussels rather than letting the corrupt and hated MPs in Westminster "take back control"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You might want that second referendum to turn down a soft Brexit.

Logic has no part in this discussion!

 

[miami]

Has anyone seen the 100,000 people that Farage promised were going to march?

 

[Johnuk123]

Has anyone seen the 100,000 people that Farage promised were going to march?

Keep up it was cancelled some time ago after the BNP said they were going to attend.
If the march had gone ahead you would have pointed out the BNP and said typical UKIP supporters.

 

[Howardh]

Has anyone seen the 100,000 people that Farage promised were going to march?

Dunno, but we could do with some of them at Gigg Lane...

 

[EM2]

If you're confused you must be in a small minority.

Surely you know by now that all this rubbish about parliament having a say is simply a backdoor way to stop Brexit in it's tracks.

Pretty much the first thing the judges said yesterday is that what they decide will not be whether Brexit happens or not, but simply the way it happens.
It will happen.
And according to Theresa, it's going to be a 'red, white and blue Brexit' whatever that means!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anyone seen the 100,000 people that Farage promised were going to march?

Didn't even see Farage.

 

[northwichcat]

Farron has said it so has Calamity Clegg, they want another vote as they think they'll win a second one, it's all about being bad losers and always has been.

No Farron and Clegg are providing proper opposition to a Conservative government. 63% of voters didn't vote Conservative at the last election and the public didn't get a say in what kind of Brexit deal they want if Leave won. Yet Theresa May thinks she should be able to implement whatever kind of Brexit deal she sees fit without any kind of further parliamentary votes or referendum because of an advisory referendum, which wasn't ever legally binding.

So people are calling the Lib Dems undemocratic for wanting the public to have a say in whether they are happy with the Brexit deal which the Conservatives put forward. Yes Farron and Clegg are hoping some Leave voters aren't happy about being lied to and would vote against the Brexit deal in a new referendum but the way Leave voters have reacted to the suggestion suggests they don't think the public will accept the Brexit deal that the Conservatives put forward.

 

[Howardh]

Pretty much the first thing the judges said yesterday is that what they decide will not be whether Brexit happens or not, but simply the way it happens.
It will happen.
And according to Theresa, it's going to be a 'red, white and blue Brexit' whatever that means!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Didn't even see Farage.

"Red, white and blue" Brexit MEANS "red, white and blue" Brexit, silly!!

 

[Bookd]

If the referendum had gone the other way do you suppose that Nigel Farrage (who has devoted his life to opposing the EU) would have said 'fine - I will give up.and take up golf ? Not likely - he would have come back with even more enthusiasm.

 

[miami]

"Red, white and blue" Brexit MEANS "red, white and blue" Brexit, silly!!

That an American style brexit, or a French style one?

(cue jokes about how the french flag is actually white)

 

[ainsworth74]

If the referendum had gone the other way do you suppose that Nigel Farrage (who has devoted his life to opposing the EU) would have said 'fine - I will give up.and take up golf ? Not likely - he would have come back with even more enthusiasm.

He's on the record as saying that if it was decisive remain he would have accepted it but if it was close (like this one was) then he would have continued.

 

[EM2]

Red = in debt.
White = no immigrants.
Blue = how we'll all be feeling.

 

[northwichcat]

If the referendum had gone the other way do you suppose that Nigel Farrage (who has devoted his life to opposing the EU) would have said 'fine - I will give up.and take up golf ? Not likely - he would have come back with even more enthusiasm.

Indeed. The second anything changed e.g. a new trade agreement or a new country joining the EU he would have said the circumstances have changed and the result of the previous referendum is now invalid. Just like the SNP and the Scottish Independence referendum.

 

[AlterEgo]

That an American style brexit, or a French style one?

(cue jokes about how the french flag is actually white)

What a load of absolute nonsense from May. Bluster and jingosim coupled with some jolly nationalism.

There might not be any blue on the Union Jack in a few years if things keep going as they are.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you're confused you must be in a small minority.

Surely you know by now that all this rubbish about parliament having a say is simply a backdoor way to stop Brexit in it's tracks.

But wasn't Brexit all about handing power back to Parliament??

If the referendum had gone the other way do you suppose that Nigel Farrage (who has devoted his life to opposing the EU) would have said 'fine - I will give up.and take up golf ? Not likely - he would have come back with even more enthusiasm.

He specifically said if the vote was 48% to 52% that there would be "unfinished business".

 

[Howardh]

Red = in debt.
White = no immigrants.
Blue = how we'll all be feeling.

Green = envy r/e the rest of the EU?!

Meanwhile, Brexit, it just won't stop giving.

Teresa; (a) "We won't divulge our plan so as not to show our hand"
turns to
(b) We will show our plan to Parliament because Labour have asked"

Does that mean they actually HAVE a plan, or will she be scribbling notes on the back of her shoe-box lid on the way home??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a load of absolute nonsense from May. Bluster and jingosim coupled with some jolly nationalism.

There might not be any blue on the Union Jack in a few years if things keep going as they are.

May's tactics are obviously to throw a load of words in the air and hope they come down in the right order.

How far is she off a vote of No Confidence??

 

[AlterEgo]

May's tactics are obviously to throw a load of words in the air and hope they come down in the right order.

How far is she off a vote of No Confidence??

Who knows?

Problem is, I'm not sure anyone else wants to be PM right *now*...

 

[miami]

But wasn't Brexit all about handing power back to Parliament??

You misspelled "Murdoch".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does that mean they actually HAVE a plan, or will she be scribbling notes on the back of her shoe-box lid on the way home??

I believe the plan involves an unlimited supply of cake.

How far is she off a vote of No Confidence??

Damn lib dems and their "fixed term parliament" act.

 

[NSEFAN]

You misspelled "Murdoch".

*like*

 

[EM2]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie

Liam Fox released a very revealing written statement yesterday. His department has started to do the preliminary work at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) required for when Britain leaves the EU.

Members of the WTO have things called schedules, these are basically a description of your trading relationship with the world. They list things like your tariffs and your services commitments. Britain's are currently held under an EU umbrella and they'll need to be extracted ahead of leaving.

This should be the chance to create that confident, independent, global trading nation Fox and the other Brexiters are always talking about. Finally Britain can construct a trading arrangement which suits it, not the continent.

For instance, we can get rid of the special rule on oranges, which we don't grow but have to labour under because of the Mediterranean states in the EU which do. We can prioritise the sugar cane that Tate & Lyle uses in their sugar, rather than the sugar beet which is used in Europe. We can finally create a customised trading arrangement for this country, rather than one for a continent with which we sometimes share very few economic interests. This is exactly what Brexit was all about.

Except Fox isn't going to do any of that.

"In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations." [italics added]

It is a startling admission. The UK's extracted WTO schedules will "replicate as far as possible" it's current status. So we'll keep the special rule for oranges, even though we don't grow them. We will continue to protect a sugar process designed for Europe and continue failing to protect one used by one of our major companies, despite its years of lobbying to change the system.

In short, despite all the sound and the fury, despite all the attacks against immigrants and the threats against EU citizens in the UK, despite all the Brexit votes and the Richmond rebellions and the sudden change in this country's political dynamic, the government is not aiming to change anything of any substance. Britain will keep the exact EU tariff system which Brexiters for so long said was strangling it.

Why? Because to do otherwise would be suicide. The WTO has been presented by Brexiters as a safety net, a place to go if no deal is possible with the EU. They keep on saying that they have no concern about falling back on their rules. This is because they don't know what they are.

Any member state at the WTO can trigger a trade dispute with the UK if they feel they have been unfairly treated by a change in its arrangements. And Britain is about to change its arrangement with everyone. It is a major economy extracting itself from a massive trading block. Those disputes are likely to either be resolved by sanctions or concessions on tariffs. If Britain were to lose several of them it would basically be trading under the conditions of injured foreign parties.

So instead Britain will try to rock the boat as little as possible. It will copy and paste all the EU tariffs, whether they suit us or not. It will protect produce it has no intention of making and leave many it does make without protections.

Then it will have to figure out what it'll do with tariff rate quotas, which can't be replicated like tariffs are. Quotas mean that importers pay one tariff for a set amount of a product - say 100,000 tonnes of chicken - and then another tariff for anything above that amount. But this is calculated across the EU, so when Britain takes its tariff rate quota out, it is calculating what slice of the pie it is entitled to. You can't replicate quotas, you have to calculate them.

Tariff rate quotas are so devilishly complicated that they are almost never touched. The EU still operates under quotas from two expansions ago. But Britain is pressed for time, so it will probably take the last three years' trade flows and claim that as the basis for them going forward.

This is as close to a tolerable solution as the UK is likely to find, but look at the incentives on the other side. Brazil exports 480,000 tonnes of chicken to the EU a year, of which about 40,000 goes to Britain. Let's say the British deal on these tariff quotas is unfair. They will trigger a trade dispute. Fine, that's to be expected.

But now imagine the British deal is perfectly fair. What is their incentive? They have the opportunity to open up further market access for their poultry exporters. So they may wish to trigger a trade dispute anyway. Britain will be walking a tightrope, hoping thousands of these disputes don't erupt at a uniquely vulnerable time for it economically. That makes it open to making the changes the other side demands.

This is the case not just for Brazil, but for every single country on earth which exports to the UK. Failure at the WTO level can trigger a global avalanche of trade disputes against us, just as we cut ourselves off from our largest market.

And all of this doesn't even include the EU, which is an independent actor at the WTO, as well as the representative body for 27 of its other member states. They get to present their schedules to the WTO first, because they are much larger. If they disagree with anything we've done, they have a stronger voice in winning that battle. Britain’s extracted schedules will need to be accepted by the EU for it to have any hope of making a seamless transition.

None of this will be mentioned by the Brexiters, of course. In public they puff out their chests and accuse critics of not believing in Britain and thumb their nose at their European counterparts. But in private, well away from prying eyes, they delicately and loyally replicate all of the EU's trading arrangements, just so they stand a chance of setting themselves up in a viable manner at the WTO.

 

[Barn]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie

Let's see what this actually means in practice.

"Replicate our current obligations" could well just mean that we will not impose new protectionist tariffs and quotas that aren't there now.

I haven't seen anything which suggests that we will not remove tariffs, now or in the future.