Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Craig B]

The Anglo-Saxon world is not handling the end of its ascendancy well.

In respect of the UK, that is what is fascinating me most about Brexit. The Empire symbolically ended sixty years ago - to the very month, November 1956 - when Uncle Sam told the UK and France that they were not permitted to chastise Egypt for some naughtiness or other.

Even after that time, the U.K. behaved like a substantial world power, and was somehow accorded some of the dignity of that status. But now! Treated with contempt by the members of the small European powers club, more or less. Exhibiting immense gratitude to receive favours from China! And even showing signs of falling apart into its constituent pieces, which will make it a group of countries resembling Scandinavia or the Baltic Republics. Are we to laugh or weep? Weep, perhaps, as Wordsworth did over the deceased Venetian Republic

... when even the Shade
Of that which once was great, is pass'd away.​

But something in me still wants to laugh, I must admit.

 

[CapelDodger]

In respect of the UK, that is what is fascinating me most about Brexit. The Empire symbolically ended sixty years ago - to the very month, November 1956 - when Uncle Sam told the UK and France that they were not permitted to chastise Egypt for some naughtiness or other.

I really did think we'd got through the transition, and indeed we had before the ridiculous notion of a referendum became the actual policy of that worthless sack of crap Cameron.

I still cling to the hope that it won't actually happen.

 

[wobs]

I really did think we'd got through the transition, and indeed we had before the ridiculous notion of a referendum became the actual policy of that worthless sack of crap Cameron.

I still cling to the hope that it won't actually happen.

How can we stop it?

 

[CapelDodger]

How can we stop it?

Parliament can stop it. After all, Parliament is sovereign, not the people and not the government. Much is unclear about the British Constitution, but that much is certain.

Regarding the British Constitution

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rticle-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

A supreme court judge has raised the prospect that Theresa May would have to comprehensively replace existing EU legislation before the government can even begin Brexit in a move that could seriously delay the process.

In a speech that angered leave campaigners, Lady Hale said that the supreme court judges could go further than simply forcing May to publish a short piece of legislation to approve the triggering of article 50.

Speaking to law students in Kuala Lumpur, the deputy president of the court said that next month’s court case raised “difficult and delicate issues” about the relationship between government and parliament.

That's caused a bit of a fuss, as one would expect.

 

[CapelDodger]

Britain probably leaving EU customs union, says Boris Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-leaving-eu-customs-union-says-boris-johnson

Britain is probably leaving the EU customs union, Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has claimed, despite Whitehall warnings that it could seriously harm the economy.

The cabinet minister made the revelation in an interview with a Czech newspaper, despite Theresa May’s insistence that her government will not be providing a running commentary on Brexit.

According to the interview, which was reported in Czech, Johnson said: “Probably we will need to leave the customs union, but this is a question which will be dealt with in the negotiations.”

May is still not running a tight ship, it seems.

A leaked cabinet paper revealed by the Guardian last month showed that ministers have been warned that pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.

The issue has caused a split among ministers, with Liam Fox, the trade secretary, pushing for the UK to leave because membership of the customs union prevents the negotiation of independent trade deals with non-EU countries.

On the other side, Philip Hammond, the chancellor, and his allies have concerns about the impact of leaving on the economy.

May is running a leaky ship, though, and not a happy one.

 

[Craig B]

Britain probably leaving EU customs union, says Boris Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-leaving-eu-customs-union-says-boris-johnson

May is still not running a tight ship, it seems.

May is running a leaky ship, though, and not a happy one.

Boris is a head job.

“Everybody now has it in their head that every human being has some fundamental God-given right to move wherever they want. It’s not true. That was never the case. That was never a founding principle of the EU. Total myth,” he said.

"There is every reason to be positive. Donald Trump is a dealmaker, he is a guy who believes firmly in values that I believe in too – freedom and democracy. As far as I understand he is in many aspects a liberal guy from New York,” he said.​

This administration is becoming like the later Roman Empire, when it was ruled by my favourite Emperor, Elagabalus, the inventor of the whoopee cushion.

 

[Aber]

I saw that this morning; the UK government is now frantically denying any status for the memo.

According to Deloitte:

A spokesperson for the company said: “This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences. It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department, and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall. This work was conducted without access to No 10 or input from any other government departments.”

 

[Tolls]

Liam emailed me yesterday to say I ought to be doing more to open up trade abroad or something.

I think they're a little desperate if they think that's any sort of solution.

 

[wobs]

Parliament can stop it. After all, Parliament is sovereign, not the people and not the government. Much is unclear about the British Constitution, but that much is certain.

But given that Labour has announced they won't block it, I don't currently hold much hope.

 

[ceptimus]

Parliament can stop it. After all, Parliament is sovereign, not the people and not the government. Much is unclear about the British Constitution, but that much is certain.

When parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, do you think parliament is then justified in ignoring the referendum outcome?

 

[Henri McPhee]

I have never really understood the logic behind the theory that the airlines had to be privatized while the taxpayer then had to pay for a third runway for Heathrow, and the railways had to be privatized, while the taxpayer then paid for the losses in business of Railtrack, and this new High speed rail link. Make the private sector cough up for it I say. Meanwhile the prisons are understaffed and the NHS is on the verge of bankruptcy, and libraries are closing, or having their opening hours reduced, and disabled single mothers are having their social security reduced, and the number of houses built each year has fallen drastically, particularly in the public sector. I don't know if Brexit will make any difference.

 

[McHrozni]

I have never really understood the logic behind the theory that the airlines had to be privatized while the taxpayer then had to pay for a third runway for Heathrow, and the railways had to be privatized, while the taxpayer then paid for the losses in business of Railtrack, and this new High speed rail link. Make the private sector cough up for it I say. Meanwhile the prisons are understaffed and the NHS is on the verge of bankruptcy, and libraries are closing, or having their opening hours reduced, and disabled single mothers are having their social security reduced, and the number of houses built each year has fallen drastically, particularly in the public sector. I don't know if Brexit will make any difference.

It will make quite a bit of difference in these matter. They'll get notably worse, due to lower tax receipts and higher costs.

McHrozni

 

[Andy_Ross]

When parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, do you think parliament is then justified in ignoring the referendum outcome?

Depends on the terms, is the result binding or advisory?

 

[Tolls]

When parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, do you think parliament is then justified in ignoring the referendum outcome?

If the government cannot (or refuse to) come up with a plan that doesn't involve crippling the economy, then yes.

 

[wobs]

If the government cannot (or refuse to) come up with a plan that doesn't involve crippling the economy, then yes.

^^ This.
We have an array of evidence that the Government does not know what its doing. Labour should be on their backs about this, but where are they? Willing to push Article 50 through. Insane.

 

[ceptimus]

So your answers are basically, 'Yes - parliament should ignore the result of a yes/no referendum that parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold.'

Not very democratic are you?

 

[CapelDodger]

When parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, do you think parliament is then justified in ignoring the referendum outcome?

Yes, according to my interpretation of "non-binding".

 

[Aepervius]

So your answers are basically, 'Yes - parliament should ignore the result of a yes/no referendum that parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold.'

Not very democratic are you?

Note that he said : if there is no plan. He did not say : not at all. And he is right. If there is no plan it makes no sense to abid to a result of referendum.

if you want to accuse somebody of undermining democracy and the result of the referendum, then accuse the right people : May and her ilk which up to now have shown no plan up to snuff, and the rest of the brexiter.

In other word : look into a mirror (at least for those for brexit in charge). Next time have a plan before voting for something.

ETA: and in addition as said above : referendum are advisory and non binding.
You can ignore advice fully legally.

 

[abaddon]

So your answers are basically, 'Yes - parliament should ignore the result of a yes/no referendum that parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold.'

Not very democratic are you?

Those are the rules in the UK. What you are saying is that the UK is not very democratic. And you would be correct. The referendum in the UK was advisory, not binding. Parliament is thus free to ignore the result should they so choose. Anyone is entitled to have an opinion on whether parliament should or should not do so.

You, on the other hand are proposing ex nihilo that the referendum be converted from advisory to binding, that parliament be emasculated by not being allowed to vote on it and that holding any contrary opinion be banned.

How democratic of you.

 

[CapelDodger]

So your answers are basically, 'Yes - parliament should ignore the result of a yes/no referendum that parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold.'

Not very democratic are you?

Not according to your interpretation of democracy, apparently. And I really don't care.