EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[swj99]

Forgetting the remain/leave argument for a second. It's an interesting concept that parliament can "take over" and act against the law of the land as it stands at that time.

Lets all hope that it doesn't happen in the future and the action they take is something we disagree with.

I'm not so sure they can act against the law as such. I hope I'll be forgiven for using a cliche, but it's use seems relevant here if I say, 'it is what it is,' and what I mean is the legislation says we leave on Friday, so it could be argued that as of the Friday deadline, in the absence of a repeal of the EU withdrawal act or an SI to change the leaving date, we cease to be a member of the EU.

I don't see what point you're making, Parliament can do what it wants, because it is sovereign. In this case, it is perfectly entitled to repeal the EU withdrawal Act!

In theory it can, but obviously it would need to obtain enough votes to get this through parliament.

My view is that parliament and MPs are there to carry out the wishes of the people. I'd use Tony Blair as an example of where I believe that failed to happen to a satisfactory extent, possibly more so towards the end of his tenure. If you were to use a solicitor as a comparison, and imagine if you instructed a solictor to pursue a particular outcome for you. On the basis of your choosing that solicitor and his agreeing to take your instructions, you became a client. All goes well for a while, but then you notice he's not acting according to your wishes or instructions anymore, so you challenge him. Instead of apologising and asking what he needs to do in order to put things right, he argues and tries to force his own agenda and wishes on you. Which brings me back to Blair, because I got the impression he was acting like that solicitor, with the bit between his teeth. I've actually used solicitors who've behaved like that, and I've dispensed with their services. As an electorate, we are entitled to do the same thing with politicians who fail to act in a way we consider to be in accordance with our wishes, or interests.

Due to the way Article 50 works we are in an unusual situation that if nothing is done, the outcome will be a no-deal, which Parliament has voted against by a large majority.

Exactly. But it's interesting how the media seems to be playing this down somewhat, considering it's the default position.

Today it was denied that 11 ministers would replace TM as PM.

Lol. One tory prime minister is bad enough. Surely we don't need 11. Do me a favour, it would be like the worst acid trip ever.

 

[Jonny]

I don't see what point you're making, Parliament can do what it wants, because it is sovereign. In this case, it is perfectly entitled to repeal the EU withdrawal Act!

Technically, it is the combination of Parliament and the Government (there is overlap in personnel, as the Head of Government is an MP) that allocates parliamentary time to an act and then implements it if passed. Each acts as a brake on the other, a kind of mutual veto. An analogy for an unchecked Parliament would be a motor vehicle with no brakes (and equally dangerous for that matter).

In theory it can, but obviously it would need to obtain enough votes to get this through parliament.

Many MPs would be at risk of losing either their seat or, in the case of many Conservatives, their party ticket for the next election. They are also smart enough to know that it could be career-ending, especially outside the big cities.

(Ticket is in a very broad sense - as in the right to represent a particular political party.)

 

[Groningen]

Maybe i said the wrong thing. Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times spoke to 11 ministers and said that she should resign at once. Lidington, Gove or Hunt were the likely replacements..

 

[Jonny]

And just when you thought the nastiness was one-way...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...comes-latest-brexiteer-receive-death-threats/

Andrea Leadsom becomes latest Brexiteer to receive death threats from anonymous trolls

Cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom has become the latest Brexiteer to receive death threats from an unnamed source using the pseudonym “the real 48 percent”.

The leader of the House of Commons described the chilling message, sent to her in the post, as “despicable”, adding that the author was a “coward”.

The letter, which was posted on Twitter on Monday, read: “If you attempt to take away part of someone’s identity, there are consequences.

“We have watched as you have led us to the edge of the abyss. We will watch no longer. You have taken lives on our side. Now we will take lives on yours.

“We are coming for you - THE REAL 48 PER CENT”.

On Monday, a spokesman for Mrs Leadsom had reported the incident...

(remainder behind paywall)

Is that Real in the same sense as Real IRA?

Also a lesson in how pernicious identity politics is, at the best of times.

 

[Giugiaro]

Take into consideration that the colour on both images correspond to different percentages of constituents.

Petition for a No Deal Brexit on the 29th of March, at 00:16, 25/03/2019

 

[Giugiaro]

Petition for Revoking article 50 after the past week's debates, at 00:17, 25/03/2019

​

 

[furnessvale]

I don't see what point you're making, Parliament can do what it wants, because it is sovereign. In this case, it is perfectly entitled to repeal the EU withdrawal Act!

In theory it can, but obviously it would need to obtain enough votes to get this through parliament.

The only way potential legislation can be brought to a vote is if every MP has said his piece OR a guillotine is applied. The only body that can impose a guillotine is government. Therefore, without the consent of government any potential legislation can be "talked out".

THIS is what I mean when I question the term "parliament taking over".

 

[Jonny]

Meanwhile, in other news:

https://news.sky.com/story/next-could-see-15m-no-deal-tariff-boost-11671438
Next says £15m no-deal tariff boost could mean cheaper clothes

Brexit-supporting boss Lord Wolfson said there was no evidence that Brexit uncertainty was affecting clothes-buying habits.
Fashion retailer Next says a no-deal Brexit could save it up to £15m thanks to lower tariffs and that it would pass on "modest" savings to shoppers.
The fashion retailer also said consumers appeared "numb" to the latest debates around Britain's departure from the EU and there was no evidence that uncertainty around it was affecting their shopping habits in the sector.
Next made the comments as it reported a 0.4% fall in pre-tax profits to £722.9m for the year to January - which it said was in line with guidance - despite total sales growing by 2.6% to £4.22bn.
It comes as other retailers from Marks & Spencer to Bonmarche complain of gloomy high street conditions while the wider economy stutters, and business groups sound the alarm over the potential impact of a cliff-edge departure from the European Union.
But setting out his view of the year ahead, Brexit-supporting Next chief executive Lord Wolfson pointed to the potential benefit from a plan to slash the majority of tariffs on imports to zero if there is no deal.
He said: "In the (seemingly unlikely) event that these provisional rates are introduced in the near future, we estimate that there would be a net reduction in the tariffs we pay of around £12m to £15m.
"In the medium term, our intention would be to pass on cost price improvements to customers, in the form of better pricing.

That's one for the doom merchants. Are we free to attribute increased clothing costs to a failure to leave the European Union?

 

[Starmill]

Meanwhile, in other news:


That's one for the doom merchants. Are we free to attribute increased clothing costs to a failure to leave the European Union?

What? Nobody denies that the common external tarrifs applied on clothes make clothes bought from outside the single market more expensive. Of course they do - that's literally the whole point, and we've all agreed what level to set them at.

The tarrifs are partly there to protect manufacturers of clothing in the UK and the rest of the single market. Slashing them is great news if you want 10p off your £2 t-shirt bought from Bangladesh. Less good if you're a British tailor.

 

[edwin_m]

The only trouble is of course is a large amount of brexiteers seem to favour no deal. I don’t think the political system will want to accommodate no deal in a second vote and so even if a May’s Deal type Brexit wins, it’ll just lay the groundwork to an even cleaner break later on.

If the Tory leadership goes to a vote it's hard to see how it wouldn't elect someone far more Euroskeptic than May, with the big risk that they will try to tear up whatever is agreed and opt for something harder. That would bring us right back into conflict between government and Parliament.

I'm not so sure they can act against the law as such. I hope I'll be forgiven for using a cliche, but it's use seems relevant here if I say, 'it is what it is,' and what I mean is the legislation says we leave on Friday, so it could be argued that as of the Friday deadline, in the absence of a repeal of the EU withdrawal act or an SI to change the leaving date, we cease to be a member of the EU.

...

Exactly. But it's interesting how the media seems to be playing this down somewhat, considering it's the default position.

Indeed. Whatever happens this week the March 29 date needs taking out of British law. I think they may be waiting for some clarity on what date should replace it, but they probably won't get that in time so will have to pick an arbitrary date and amend it again later. Unless it's equally easy to take the date out entirely.

My view is that parliament and MPs are there to carry out the wishes of the people. I'd use Tony Blair as an example of where I believe that failed to happen to a satisfactory extent, possibly more so towards the end of his tenure. If you were to use a solicitor as a comparison, and imagine if you instructed a solictor to pursue a particular outcome for you. On the basis of your choosing that solicitor and his agreeing to take your instructions, you became a client. All goes well for a while, but then you notice he's not acting according to your wishes or instructions anymore, so you challenge him. Instead of apologising and asking what he needs to do in order to put things right, he argues and tries to force his own agenda and wishes on you. Which brings me back to Blair, because I got the impression he was acting like that solicitor, with the bit between his teeth. I've actually used solicitors who've behaved like that, and I've dispensed with their services. As an electorate, we are entitled to do the same thing with politicians who fail to act in a way we consider to be in accordance with our wishes, or interests.

If you intended to persue a course of action that wasn't in your own best interests, such as a lawsuit you had little hope of winning and could land you with heavy costs, then a good solicitor ought to use their knowledge of the law to advise you of this.

Blair is an interesting one. To my mind his insistence on going against the will of the people on Iraq has much more in common with the Brexiters persisting with the idea in the face of all the facts, than it does with the more moderate factions trying to get a softer deal and put whatever is decided by Parliament to another referendum. As national mistakes go Brexit comes nowhere near Iraq in terms of human lives, but it probably surpasses it in terms of economic damage to the UK. But both are failures of rational judgment in favour of emotion-based decision making, with the facts being made up to suit the conclusion. While I agree with Blair on Brexit, he is so discredited by Iraq that whatever he says is probably counter-productive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Meanwhile, in other news:


That's one for the doom merchants. Are we free to attribute increased clothing costs to a failure to leave the European Union?

Might be a good idea to (a) read what you're posting properly, and (b) apply a bit of basic economics to what you're claiming before posting.

In terms of reading properly, notice the bit I've bolded:

But setting out his view of the year ahead, Brexit-supporting Next chief executive Lord Wolfson pointed to the potential benefit from a plan to slash the majority of tariffs on imports to zero if there is no deal.
He said: "In the (seemingly unlikely) event that these provisional rates are introduced in the near future, we estimate that there would be a net reduction in the tariffs we pay of around £12m to £15m.
"In the medium term, our intention would be to pass on cost price improvements to customers, in the form of better pricing.

Lord Wolfson is not saying that cost cutting is an inevitable result of Brexit. He's saying it's what would happen IF the Government reduced import tariffs to zero. Effectively removing tariffs is a possibility that the Government are considering as a way to mitigate some of the economic damage that a no-deal Brexit would do. It's by no means a certainty that it would happen.

In terms of basic economics: He's fairly obviously not taken into account any impact from the inevitable fall in the £ that would accompany a no-deal Brexit, which would cause prices to rise (although it would help exporters). And of course, there are all the other implications associated with reducing tariffs to zero - most obviously that makes it much harder for UK firms to compete with ultra-low-wage economies, and will therefore tend to move us in the direction of a low-wage, low-skilled economy. That's probably not something that many people want.

And of course, while it's certainly worth listening to business leaders' views on how Brexit might impact their companies, Lord Wolfson very clearly holds a minority view that is not shared by most of the business community.

 

[dosxuk]

If the Tory leadership goes to a vote it's hard to see how it wouldn't elect someone far more Euroskeptic than May, with the big risk that they will try to tear up whatever is agreed and opt for something harder. That would bring us right back into conflict between government and Parliament.

Their (a harder brexit supporting leader) biggest issue would be getting the Tory party itself to unite behind them. It could well cause a significant number to abandon them for the TIG-ers and mean the, now hard brexit / no deal supporting, rump of the party don't have enough MPs to form a workable government.

May has only managed to keep them together this long by being completely two-faced and telling the different groups that she's really only their side not the others.

 

[SteveP29]

Another thing that is wrong is that little old lady from Germany who thinks it is OK to tell people off for crossing a road on a red man, because they are setting a bad example to children. I would be like "so what", probably followed by a few choice insults, if anyone challenged me for that.

So somebody trying to help you is the devil incarnate and deserves choice language?

(something that has disappointed many women who have met me)

Aye right, I doubt that very much, they probably all ran a mile ages before that subject came up since they asked if you were going to Majorca for your summer holiday and you reeled off this tirade of crap that you've been posting here.

You've hit the nail on the head as to why I don't travel in the EU in the first place, probably among a load of other silly laws waiting to ambush the unwary. If I don't sef foot in a country, then laws that can only possibly apply to those physically present there cannot apply to me.

Little Englander alert!!

I was thinking of so-called 'digital goods' which are a whole different ballgame.

Aye right, move the goalposts when you've been called out on it

So basically, because the rest of the world isn't like England we should have no involvement in it?

It's that little Englander thing again

 

[DarloRich]

You've hit the nail on the head as to why I don't travel in the EU in the first place, probably among a load of other silly laws waiting to ambush the unwary. If I don't sef foot in a country, then laws that can only possibly apply to those physically present there cannot apply to me.

that sounds very similar to the USA. Are the laws in the USA designed to "ambush the unwary". You cant be serious with your posts. Perhaps this is a very intricate parody.

 

[SteveP29]

When I received the notification of compulsory change to water meters

Well, if there's less than 3 people in your house, you'll benefit from being on a meter, as you'll pay for your consumption, not on the rateable value of your house.

And just because you're on a meter, it doesn't mean you are restricted to the amount you can use, you won't be rationed, as said above, it just calculates how much you've used, not how much you're entitled to

 

[DarloRich]

The thing I find really worrying about Brexit is how stupidity and ignorance are not challenged. Instead they are seemingly encouraged. We were a country that prized education and self improvement but now we seem to cherish narrow minded, intolerant, ill educated, thinking. It is very worrying for the future direction of our nation and populace.

 

[furnessvale]

The thing I find really worrying about Brexit is how stupidity and ignorance are not challenged. Instead they are seemingly encouraged. We were a country that prized education and self improvement but now we seem to cherish narrow minded, intolerant, ill educated, thinking. It is very worrying for the future direction of our nation and populace.

I've felt the same about why people voted to remain for a long time but I bow to your eloquent description of them.

 

[DarloRich]

I've felt the same about why people voted to remain for a long time but I bow to your eloquent description of them.

Did I suggest a side? The lack of critical thought in many areas is worrying. Brexit is merely the most obvious manifestation.

 

[nlogax]

but now we seem to cherish narrow minded, intolerant, ill educated, thinking

..which we now lovingly dress up as 'patriotism'.

 

[furnessvale]

Did I suggest a side? The lack of critical thought in many areas is worrying. Brexit is merely the most obvious manifestation.

In which case, replacing the word "Brexit" with something else would be appropriate.

I suggest "A desire to remain within the EU" would be more appropriate.

 

[Howardh]

Well, if there's less than 3 people in your house, you'll benefit from being on a meter, as you'll pay for your consumption, not on the rateable value of your house.

And just because you're on a meter, it doesn't mean you are restricted to the amount you can use, you won't be rationed, as said above, it just calculates how much you've used, not how much you're entitled to

Completely off-topic of course, but when I started to look after mum and dad in their home (and took Power of Atourney) that means three adults, and the water bill (in2014) was based on the rates and came to £1040 annually. I made a calculation that even with heavy use we would be better metered (and watched in case of leaks) and changed to a meter, and United Utilities said if it was more expensive we could return to a ratable value.
Last years bill, with a meter, was £420 (accepting that dad passed away early) and with rates it would have been over £1100.

 

[edwin_m]

Their (a harder brexit supporting leader) biggest issue would be getting the Tory party itself to unite behind them. It could well cause a significant number to abandon them for the TIG-ers and mean the, now hard brexit / no deal supporting, rump of the party don't have enough MPs to form a workable government.

That's quite possible although I have my doubts the "Brexit Elite" would actually realise that. And of course the result could be a Corbyn government.

May has only managed to keep them together this long by being completely two-faced and telling the different groups that she's really only their side not the others.

I'd say rather that she has pandered to the right and assumed the left of the party will be too nice to kick up a fuss. We're now getting to no more Mr Nice Guy!

 

[Jonny]

What? Nobody denies that the common external tarrifs applied on clothes make clothes bought from outside the single market more expensive. Of course they do - that's literally the whole point, and we've all agreed what level to set them at.

The tarrifs are partly there to protect manufacturers of clothing in the UK and the rest of the single market. Slashing them is great news if you want 10p off your £2 t-shirt bought from Bangladesh. Less good if you're a British tailor.

So what you're saying is that you're OK with increasing prices for the least-well-off to protect those who are actually better off than them; most tailors are aiming at a different market segment anyway. In fact, that is one of the effects of EU tariffs - to make things harder for the least well-off.

 

[Puffing Devil]

So what you're saying is that you're OK with increasing prices for the least-well-off to protect those who are actually better off than them; most tailors are aiming at a different market segment anyway. In fact, that is one of the effects of EU tariffs - to make things harder for the least well-off.

Swap "British Tailor" for "British Clothing Worker" that are not able to compete with the cheaper imports and will no longer have a job. Is that OK so long as you have cheaper clothes?

 

[DarloRich]

In which case, replacing the word "Brexit" with something else would be appropriate.

I suggest "A desire to remain within the EU" would be more appropriate.

Ok - that is your view - mine is the lunacy is mainly exhibited by , but not confined to, the leave side. The entire argument seems to be based on misunderstood facts, silly slogans and ingerlund style patriotic fantasies

 

[Jonny]

So somebody trying to help you is the devil incarnate and deserves choice language?

Let's assume that there was no traffic coming (or a safe gap if the traffic lights were not there), which is what I was assuming when I posted. Then she is hardly being helpful, just awkward. I'm not a parent and I really want to see children kept well away from me.

Aye right, I doubt that very much, they probably all ran a mile ages before that subject came up since they asked if you were going to Majorca for your summer holiday and you reeled off this tirade of crap that you've been posting here.

I have never got the point of air travel for pure leisure purposes... at least not in economy class. In fact I prefer surface travel, ideally rail, for inter-regional and/or journeys. That plus geography means that I rarely bother to leave the UK; quite frankly before any laws have come into play I have already decided that it's not worth the bother.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have never got the point of air travel for pure leisure purposes... at least not in economy class

It's something to put up with because it's quick.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not a parent and I really want to see children kept well away from me.

As a grown adult, you should still recognise that your behaviour sets an example to children who see you, and you should still act accordingly. Waiting for 30 seconds at a pedestrian crossing isn't asking the earth.

 

[Jonny]

Swap "British Tailor" for "British Clothing Worker" that are not able to compete with the cheaper imports and will no longer have a job. Is that OK so long as you have cheaper clothes?

It's not just about me, it's about everyone else having cheaper clothes. Let me slip you a little secret from academic economics - the gains from protecting jobs are always less than the cost savings. Also, what about someone who is optimally employed but can only afford a £2 T-shirt?

PS If they made a product that was better then the cheap t-shirt could ever be, and people were willing to pay a premium for it, then their job would be safe.

 

[DarloRich]

That plus geography means that I rarely bother to leave the UK; quite frankly before any laws have come into play I have already decided that it's not worth the bother.

really? I am out.