Brexit - the negative thread

[RidingPie]

Inflation is up slightly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/12/uk-inflation-to-jump-to-two-year-high/

 

Which is bound to happen with the declining pound (indeed, it is pretty much the same thing).  But, the rate is still very low, so much so this story could almost be in the positive thread.

 

indeed, the rise in inflation itself won't necessarily be a bad thing. and due to sterling be so low and fuel and food prices rising it has to be expected. All that said though this is going to cause some pain as wages still haven't recovered from the last recession.

[GeordieSaint]

Article in the Times today states UK business have cancelled around £65bn in investment since the Brexit vote. 

[Griff9of13]

The last straw: Beer prices could soar by 30p a pint

(Not all brexit's fault.)

[Bearman]

The last straw: Beer prices could soar by 30p a pint

(Not all brexit's fault.)

I wonder if Tim Martin will comment on this.

[Griff9of13]

Who'd have thunk it? 'There is no plan' for Brexit, leaked memo says

[gingerjon]

Who'd have thunk it? 'There is no plan' for Brexit, leaked memo says

 

No plan, no staff, no idea of how much required and no fixed budget?

 

Brilliant.

[RidingPie]

No plan, no staff, no idea of how much required and no fixed budget?

 

Brilliant.

 

I'm sure its just their bargaining posture.... making it look like they've no plan when really every last detail has been considered!

 

I'm lying of course!

[JohnM]

"written by an un-named consultant"          

[RidingPie]

"written by an un-named consultant"          

 

Who do you think it was John? Gove again?

[Just Browny]

Who'd have thunk it? 'There is no plan' for Brexit, leaked memo says

This should surely be in the positive thread? If we had a plan, it would be leave us vulnerable to the pesky Europeans getting their hands on our 'negotiating hand'.

Far better that it is all in one person's head.

[JohnM]

Who do you think it was John? Gove again?

Just pointing out that consultants have not always been respected or believed by forum members

[RidingPie]

Just pointing out that consultants have not always been respected or believed by forum members

 

:-) along with experts of other disciplines. 

[JonM]

This should surely be in the positive thread? If we had a plan, it would be leave us vulnerable to the pesky Europeans getting their hands on our 'negotiating hand'.

 

Exactly. Perfect negotiating strategy. Even we don't know what our red lines are. 

 

For some reason though, my first reaction on seeing the 30 000 extra civil servants was to remember this Yes Minister episode.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economy_Drive

[JohnM]

:-) along with experts of other disciplines.

There are plenty of those on here, too. Though I prefer the term specialist, as that does not involve any suggestion of competence.

[Saintslass]

Article in the Times today states UK business have cancelled around £65bn in investment since the Brexit vote. 

Not quite.  Medium sized UK businesses have either cancelled or put on hold £65bn investment and 70% of those businesses would move forward with that investment upon clarification from the government of what kind of access they are looking to secure.  (I listened to an interview with the boss of the company concerned on Sky News last night)

[Griff9of13]

Not quite. Medium sized UK businesses have either cancelled or put on hold £65bn investment and 70% of those businesses would move forward with that investment upon clarification from the government of what kind of access they are looking to secure. (I listened to an interview with the boss of the company concerned on Sky News last night)

Which ever way you dress it up UK PLC is still £65bn on the year. This has had a real impact on people's lives; I'm one of them. The thing that really greats is that it is has been a complete waste and 100% avoidable. In practical terms we are no closer to being a non member of the EU today than we were on January 1st.

[Bob8]

Which ever way you dress it up UK PLC is still £65bn on the year. This has had a real impact on people's lives; I'm one of them. The thing that really greats is that it is has been a complete waste and 100% avoidable. In practical terms we are no closer to being a non member of the EU today than we were on January 1st.

I am a Remoaner.  But, while most the blame is with Leave and with people who accepted that we should not ask awkward questions of Leave, it is clear that people who voted Leave thought it would be worth it.  While Leave should have had a plan, Cameron should have also planned for the possibility that those running Leave were a bunch of useless berks and there should be a contingency plan.

[gingerjon]

I am a Remoaner.  But, while most the blame is with Leave and with people who accepted that we should not ask awkward questions of Leave, it is clear that people who voted Leave thought it would be worth it.  While Leave should have had a plan, Cameron should have also planned for the possibility that those running Leave were a bunch of useless berks and there should be a contingency plan.

 

Cameron is currently making 120k a speech (apparently).

 

I think that was always in the back of his mind as an escape route.

[Griff9of13]

I am a Remoaner. But, while most the blame is with Leave and with people who accepted that we should not ask awkward questions of Leave, it is clear that people who voted Leave thought it would be worth it. While Leave should have had a plan, Cameron should have also planned for the possibility that those running Leave were a bunch of useless berks and there should be a contingency plan.

I tend to agree. If we didn't know the impact of a leave vote or how to even begin to think about how the process of leaving would work then they shouldn't have had the vote in the first place. I squarely lay the blame for this mess at the feet of that complete and utter whimp Cameron. This lack of preparedness was one of my main reasons for voting remain - it was very clear, to me at least, this muddle would be the result. There was never even the semblance of a plan from the leave campaign.

[Griff9of13]

I am a Remoaner. But, while most the blame is with Leave and with people who accepted that we should not ask awkward questions of Leave, it is clear that people who voted Leave thought it would be worth it. While Leave should have had a plan, Cameron should have also planned for the possibility that those running Leave were a bunch of useless berks and there should be a contingency plan.

At what point does anyone take responsibility and decide the cost is too high? As has already been discussed it's already £65bn.

[Bedford Roughyed]

[Saintslass]

And yet, it appears that Merkel is giving consideration to flexibility when it comes to free movement of people. 

 

The EU will have to sing for 60 billion euro.  They've had more than their share of our money.

 

And on a previous point about the impartiality of judges, it would appear that one of them has already decided what the outcome of the Article 50 appeal will be: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

[Bob8]

And yet, it appears that Merkel is giving consideration to flexibility when it comes to free movement of people. 

 

The EU will have to sing for 60 billion euro.  They've had more than their share of our money.

 

And on a previous point about the impartiality of judges, it would appear that one of them has already decided what the outcome of the Article 50 appeal will be: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

We should find judges who have not read about Brexit in the media

[Bedford Roughyed]

nd on a previous point about the impartiality of judges, it would appear that one of them has already decided what the outcome of the Article 50 appeal will be: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

 

 

No, a judge laid out both sides of the argument.  And asked questions for the audience to consider.

[Bedford Roughyed]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf

 

Talk of European Union law brings me at long last to a case of such fundamental constitutional importance that, when it does come to the Supreme Court, we plan that all eleven of the current serving Justices shall sit on it. As is well known, the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union produced a majority of 51.9% in favour of leaving. But that referendum was not legally binding on Parliament. There is, of course, no doubt that, just as Parliament made the law which brought European Union law into the UK legal order after the UK Government had entered into the accession treaty, Parliament can unmake that law. The question is the process whereby we arrive at that result. This entails the constitutional division of responsibility and power between the Government and Parliament.

Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union provides that ‘any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements’ (article 50(1)). A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. The Council is then expected to negotiate and agree upon the arrangements for withdrawal with the Member State. These have to be agreed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, and by the European Parliament (article 50(2)). However, the Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of the entry into force of that agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification, unless the Council unanimously agrees to extend the period (article 50(3)). The issue is whether giving that notification falls within the prerogative powers of the Crown in the conduct of foreign relations or whether it falls foul of the rule that the prerogative cannot be used in such a way as to frustrate or substantially undermine an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. The argument is that the European Communities Act 1972 grants rights to individuals and others which will automatically be lost if the Treaties cease to apply. Such a result, it is said, can only be achieved by an Act of Parliament. Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple Act of Parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement for the 1972 Act.

 

The contrary argument is that the conduct of foreign affairs, including the making and unmaking of treaties with foreign powers, lies within the prerogative powers of the Crown (what you would call the executive power of the Federation). The EU Referendum Act 2015 neither expressly nor by implication required that further Parliamentary authority be given to begin the process of withdrawal. The basis on which the referendum was undertaken was that the Government would give effect to the result. Beginning the process would not change the law.

 

Just before I left to come here, a unanimous Divisional Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice to withdraw from the European Union. 34 The court held that just as making a treaty does not change the law of the land, unmaking it cannot do so, but triggering article 50 will automatically have that effect. What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our Court, so I must say no more.

 

The case raises difficult and delicate issues about the constitutional relationship between Government and Parliament. What is meant by the exercise of the executive power of the State? To what extent can it be exercised in a way which may undermine the exercise of the legislative power of the State? We do not have a written Constitution to tell us the answer. But I doubt whether many written Constitutions would tell us the answer either. Article 80 of your Constitution tells us that the executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters with respect to which the federal Parliament may make laws and the executive authority of the States extends to all matters with respect to which the State legislatures may make laws. External affairs, including treaty-making, are on the Federal list. But that looks to me as if it is dealing with the subject matter with which the Federal and State authorities respectively may deal, rather than with the relations between the Federal executive and Parliament (or for that matter between the State executives and legislatures). You will know better than I.