Brexit

[Jeremy Roussak]

I agree the referendum doesn't "legally" count, but most politicians have said to respect the vote from it. Unless the government wins the last appeal it will indeed take an act of parliament to be able to notify the EU under article 50. My advice to the government would be to just get on with it and stop dragging their feet.

That's less than entirely clear. It will take a decision, but whether a full Act is required was not the subject of discussion.

Jeremy

[pegelli]

That's less than entirely clear. It will take a decision, but whether a full Act is required was not the subject of discussion.

Jeremy

I think we're splitting hairs here, but I agree with you. That's why I wrote act and not Act 

[Rob C]

Hence my marital anecdote. Except no sex to make up. Then again, one side will end up screwed anyway 

Well that's new: I'd never thought of sex in terms of dog biscuits before...

Rob

[eronald]

Well that's new: I'd never thought of sex in terms of dog biscuits before...

Rob

Not very reflective, are you?
I'm sure more than half the world's population understands there is an analogy.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

More than that, I would suggest that the government needs a mandate from the parliament and that mandate would contain directives for negotiation.

But, the issue is complicated as it seems that invocation of article 50 is irreversible. This interpretation was significant for the decision at the high court. My understanding is that invocation of article 50 is a one way ticket for negotiations where Britains position may be very weak.

Passing "brexit" trough parliament may be a very good thing. It may give all parties some time to calm down and find and evaluate options. Something constructive may come out of it.

Best regards
Erik

Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.

I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.

In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice

[eronald]

Erik,

 You assume that a UK Tory party beholden to the banking community can negotiate a deal which the rest of the country outside London can live with. But the Tories cannot negotiate - precisely because in the negotiation the other party can obtain whatever it wants as long as it grants the banks passporting. So leave will really need to mean leave - or a deal that is very very bad for anyone not in the financial industry.

Edmund

Hi,

More than that, I would suggest that the government needs a mandate from the parliament and that mandate would contain directives for negotiation.

But, the issue is complicated as it seems that invocation of article 50 is irreversible. This interpretation was significant for the decision at the high court. My understanding is that invocation of article 50 is a one way ticket for negotiations where Britains position may be very weak.

Passing "brexit" trough parliament may be a very good thing. It may give all parties some time to calm down and find and evaluate options. Something constructive may come out of it.

Best regards
Erik

[Rob C]

Not very reflective, are you?
I'm sure more than half the world's population understands there is an analogy.

Edmund

Never knew a Ms. Pavlov(a) on personal terms. Known a lot of dogs, though, and a least they were honest citizens, even if they peed on the lawn and made it grow greener than where they did not pee on the lawn. Owning a lawn teaches one a lot about the lesser-known values of canine pee. Not a lot about dog biscuits, though.

;-)

Rob

[Rob C]

Erik,

You assume that a UK Tory party beholden to the banking community can negotiate a deal which the rest of the country outside London can live with. But the Tories cannot negotiate - precisely because in the negotiation the other party can obtain whatever it wants as long as it grants the banks passporting. So leave will really need to mean leave - or a deal that is very very bad for anyone not in the financial industry.

Edmund

Ah Edmund, the eternal protesting student!

Get real: The City is the biggest earner we have in the UK; the rest of Europe is already wooing every banker, wanker and shark for their business. Why, because it likes them? Nope because of the wealth they bring flooding in. What London has is gravitas, history and expertise. Unfortunately, expertise is the part that does the work; it can be bribed to go just about anywhere. Make it difficult for it to operate, and it will do exactly that: vanish next door.

What exists outside London, and I presume London, to you, means the world of money, has always existed exactly where it finds itself today. Much of it, especially northwards into the industrial belts, made its way via industries that originated there and eventually died either naturally as they became redundant through new inventions, or through left-wing sabotage coupled with the work ethic that still existed in many countries that took over from the UK producers. You cannot beat the reality of low-wage economies outquoting everything that an established 1st world country can offer in the marketplace.

As to why you believe that a deal good for the City will automatically be bad for the rest of Britain is beyond me: I think everything that's bad for the City is going to be a million times as bad for the rest. Don't forget: the City (as in its people) can move at any time it chooses; that's why it's being wooed!. The rest of the population could, but under Brexit will no longer be able so to do just because it feels like it. Again, the wheat and the chaff: the wheat will always be sought after and offered jobs, regardless of nationality.

[eronald]

Rob,

 At the heart of things stand the issues of regulation on services and financial products, tariffs on physical products and movement restrictions for workers. Think of these as compartments in a ship's hold - they are the safeguards which tie down the containers, separate the holds, and stop all the cargo from shifting in the same direction at once. The bankers and computer geeks are now in a fast industry that wants direct global access - no time to dole out backhanders to individual governments in various countries - so they want direct market access everywhere, guaranteed by treaty and no threat of prosecution anywhere. The bankers also love, love, love volatility. Industry is more conservative, as tariffs tend to protect their home markets while restricting exports. Also big industries have long lead times on products and factories and they enjoy stability.  As for free movement of workers, people in the UK seem to be rather set against free movement of workers, as they prefer a closed shop. Workers also hate cycles of boom and bust.

The problem that has arisen in the UK is that the benefits for the finance industry have been "purchased" in negotiations in exchange for concessions on the other fronts. And it is the concessions on the other fronts which -rightly or wrongly - the citizenry has found unpalatable, in a referendum which should -by government description- not have been anywhere close.

Sorry to repeat myself as a protesting student, but my impression is that thanks to "negotiations" and treaties all the computer profits are made in Silicon Valley, all the financial profits are made in London and NY and everything else is made in China. And btw, student protest has a long and honorable tradition, since the children of power can speak truth to power without being mowed down


Edmund

Ah Edmund, the eternal protesting student!

Get real: The City is the biggest earner we have in the UK; the rest of Europe is already wooing every banker, wanker and shark for their business. Why, because it likes them? Nope because of the wealth they bring flooding in. What London has is gravitas, history and expertise. Unfortunately, expertise is the part that does the work; it can be bribed to go just about anywhere. Make it difficult for it to operate, and it will do exactly that: vanish next door.

What exists outside London, and I presume London, to you, means the world of money, has always existed exactly where it finds itself today. Much of it, especially northwards into the industrial belts, made its way via industries that originated there and eventually died either naturally as they became redundant through new inventions, or through left-wing sabotage coupled with the work ethic that still existed in many countries that took over from the UK producers. You cannot beat the reality of low-wage economies outquoting everything that an established 1st world country can offer in the marketplace.

As to why you believe that a deal good for the City will automatically be bad for the rest of Britain is beyond me: I think everything that's bad for the City is going to be a million times as bad for the rest. Don't forget: the City (as in its people) can move at any time it chooses; that's why it's being wooed!. The rest of the population could, but under Brexit will no longer be able so to do just because it feels like it. Again, the wheat and the chaff: the wheat will always be sought after and offered jobs, regardless of nationality.

[eronald]

If someone finds an open link to today's Torygraph opinion piece ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/why-i-will-not-allow-the-british-peoples-vote-for-brexit-to-be-s/

[Manoli]

If someone finds an open link to today's Torygraph opinion piece ...

Strange that her first 'piece' to the people should be hidden behind a paywall, particularly after such contentious reporting. But then seeing as her first meeting with a press baron following her 'election' was a tête-à-tête lunch with Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail, I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised.

Reuters has paraphrased it - anaemic at best.

And an excellent Observer editorial on the high court ruling on Brexit and parliament.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/high-court-ruling-brexit-not-sabotaging-parliamentary-democracy-best-deal-britain?platform=hootsuite

[Chairman Bill]

If someone finds an open link to today's Torygraph opinion piece ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/why-i-will-not-allow-the-british-peoples-vote-for-brexit-to-be-s/

May, up on her hind legs, spouting bollox. So no change there then. She has no idea what Brexit will mean, beyond our no longer being in the EU. Poxy Foxy, Boris & David Davies haven't got a clue either. Fox seems to think that he can negotiate from a position of strength. What planet is that man on? Davies would struggle to distinguish arse from elbow, and Boris doesn't believe in Brexit anyway, he just said he did to bolster his bid to replace Cameron. The fact is, the EU will want to make our eyes water, and who can blame 'em? After all the shit they've put up with from the Tories, and Farage's shenanigans in the European Parliament, it's payback time, and of course they know that they could potentially shift the work of the City of London to Frankfurt, which would be a major success for the EU, and a major catastrophe for us. Hold tight, folks, the ride is going to get bumpy.

[Manoli]

/*off-topic

The phrase "come to heel" is used to indicate that a master has controlled an unruly dog. It would not be used other than with the intention of giving offence. It is wildly inappropriate in this context.

Jeremy,

The etymology may well be, but languages evolve.  There are numerous other references online, though the SOED is not.  Now, I have no intention of engaging in another 'handbags at dawn' exchange with you over a relative irrelevance and your own sententious interpretation. If you still have an issue with contemporary usage, I respectfully suggest you refer it to CUP and the OED, amongst others.
-
come to heel:
If a person or organization comes to heel, they agree to obey, usually because they have been forcefully persuaded to do so.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/come-to-heel
-
To stop behaving in a way that annoys someone in authority and to start obeying their orders
' A few government rebels refused to come to heel and had to be expelled from the party.'
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bring+to+heel
-

It may be that English is not your first language.

Ignoring the xenophobic undertone, not only is English my first language but, judging by the above, my command of it may well be somewhat more extensive than yours.  And, to save you asking, I am equally fluent in another four.  I'm in Milan next week so that should also save you puzzling over my time stamps. Finally, if you're going to resort to thinly disguised put-downs, do try to be original – that's at least the third time you've used the same line.

Manoli

/*back-on-topic

[MarkJohnson]

Strange that her first 'piece' to the people should be hidden behind a paywall, particularly after such contentious reporting.

You just have to register without payment details to get a free read of that. Main message is she's off to India, where she sees big opportunities for UK: "the partnership of the century" are concluding words.

[Manoli]

Yet another reason she doesn't want to put it to parliament ..

[jfirneno]

Yet another reason she doesn't want to put it to parliament ..

Isn't it interesting that the only poll, either before, during or after the referendum to show that people wanted to leave the EU was the referendum.  In other words, the other ones are rigged.  Is it so hard to just admit the fact that the majority of British people don't like being dictated to by a government that's not accountable to them?

[Chairman Bill]

In other words, the other ones are rigged? Do you know what a logical argument looks like? Here's a clue; it doesn't look like your post.

[jfirneno]

In other words, the other ones are rigged? Do you know what a logical argument looks like? Here's a clue; it doesn't look like your post.

Then why don't you explain the fact that the polls consistently say one thing and the actual vote says another?  You don't like the word rigged?  How about selection bias?  But recognizing the full-throated and one sided partisanship of the industry presenting the polls it's kind of difficult to not make the connection between the discrepancy in results of the polls and the result that the pollsters desire.  Sometimes it's best to admit the truth.  In this case that truth is that a small majority of the British people don't want to belong to the EU.

[eronald]

Then why don't you explain the fact that the polls consistently say one thing and the actual vote says another?  You don't like the word rigged?  How about selection bias?  But recognizing the full-throated and one sided partisanship of the industry presenting the polls it's kind of difficult to not make the connection between the discrepancy in results of the polls and the result that the pollsters desire.  Sometimes it's best to admit the truth.  In this case that truth is that a small majority of the British people don't want to belong to the EU.

Yes, there is clearly something wrong with the poll process, and we should be smart enough not to resort to dubious numerical evidence in friendly arguments. Think of it as not using a bad autofocus system
 
Edmund

[Chairman Bill]

All the polls show figures that are within their margin of error. Margin of error doesn't mean 'rigged'. Look it up.

As for the claim that a majority of the people don't want to be in the EU, you have no evidence to support such a claim. A majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. That's all the referendum showed. Everyone who has turned 18 since June, didn't get included in that referendum, but we know that over 75% of younger voters had a preference for Remain. Quite a few old people have died since June, and a hard winter will see a good many more die too. They overwhelmingly voted for Brexit. Simple changing demographics move the figures inexorably in favour of Remain. It also doesn't account for those who didn't vote at all, nor those who've since changed their minds - they might now have an opinion on the whole thing, rather different from the one they had in June. A good number of people seem a tad pissed off that there won't be an extra £350 million going into the NHS, having been led to believe that would be an outcome from Brexit.