Brexit Referendum Superthread

whatstherush

Patser wrote: »

Sterling in the news big time today, all down to a computer glitch that caused a headline grabbing slump but has still highlighted that Sterling is just slipping lower and lower each month.

This will be very bad news for the likes of Dundalk shop owners, I can see Newry traffic jams nit seen for the last 7 years cone Christmas. Also terrible news for any Irish businesses that focus on the UK market, farmers especially.

And there's very little silver lining for the UK either. Yippee for Newry and their manufacturering but that pales compared to their trade deficit ballooning, probable inflation and other sneaky losses (remember that NATO thing where they've to pay in dollars)

And article 50 has still to be triggered let alone Brexit decided.

Apt line in the FT this morning
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/784306259805679616

Thomas_...

The Brit expats are suing Mr Juncker.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37586587

British expats living in the EU are suing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker over his order to prevent informal Brexit discussions.
...
The non-profit association Fair Deal for Expats has issued a legal challenge against Mr Juncker at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The group alleges that his "presidential order" concerning Brexit discussions is an "unlawful gagging order" which "must be annulled immediately".
...

I don´t see any chance for them to get anything out of it for themselves. Another aspect for the Brexiteers not caring about fellow citizens living abroad, as usual, nobody gives a damn about expats anyway. I anticipate that the expats will lose the case and have to wait until there is clearity in due course of the negotiations and more so about what turns out from it for them.

The filed complaint is just useless.

Bob24

Thomas_... wrote: »

The Brit expats are suing Mr Juncker.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37586587



I don´t see any chance for them to get anything out of it for themselves. Another aspect for the Brexiteers not caring about fellow citizens living abroad, as usual, nobody gives a damn about expats anyway. I anticipate that the expats will lose the case and have to wait until there is clearity in due course of the negotiations and more so about what turns out from it for them.

The filed complaint is just useless.

Useless lawsuit indeed, especially since I am convinced there will be preparatory discussions (they might even have started already). They will just not be made public and nothing binding will obviously be signed. I wouldn't be surprised if both the EC and the UK had already each picked an experienced but discrete diplomat and asked them to regularly meet in a secrete country house house at a quite location, to informally start discussing real business and practical consequences without raising attention.

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

Useless lawsuit indeed, especially since I am convinced there will be preparatory discussions (they might even have started already). They will just not be made public and nothing binding will obviously be signed. I wouldn't be surprised if both the EC and the UK had already each picked an experienced but discrete diplomat and asked them to regularly meet in a secrete country house house at a quite location, to informally start discussing real business and practical consequences without raising attention.

A useless lawsuit it is, but I wouldn´t miss the Thing that goes along with it which is the expressed frustration by British expats for being left in limbo until the UK-EU-Exit is negotiated. But I also see it that way that they´re suing the wrong one, they should put the blame on their follow citizens back home in the UK who voted for the Brexit without giving a thought about the expats. In particular, the blame is on Farage and his UKIP in the first place, cos without them, there had never been a Brexit Referendum in the UK (probably).

Sam Russell

The ex-pats real problem is the drop in the value of the UK pound which has a devastating effect on people trying to manage on a fixed income like a pension. It is particularly frustrating if they now find they cannot cash in the main asset - their home.

Brexit could also negatively affect their financial position if they are subject to higher medical cost and compulsory medical insurance and possibly higher taxes.

Suing anyone over their unenviable position is silly and most likely just to end up costing them legal costs. I would think Juncker is the wrong party to be sued as he has no authority in the matter - and the real cause of their woes is the British Government. The talks can start the day after Article 50 is invoked - the timing of which is a matter for the British Government alone.

May God help them.

Bob24

Thomas_... wrote: »

A useless lawsuit it is, but I wouldn´t miss the Thing that goes along with it which is the expressed frustration by British expats for being left in limbo until the UK-EU-Exit is negotiated. But I also see it that way that they´re suing the wrong one, they should put the blame on their follow citizens back home in the UK who voted for the Brexit without giving a thought about the expats. In particular, the blame is on Farage and his UKIP in the first place, cos without them, there had never been a Brexit Referendum in the UK (probably).

At the end of the day the situation is simple: a majority of British voters have voted in a certain way (which some people agree with and others don't, but which is the decision) and the British government is going to honour that decision. The government obviously has a duty to support its citizens living abroad but if it has to make choices it is also has to defend the British people as a whole before the interest of a specific group. As you said if British expats are not happy they should talk to their fellow citizens and their governement.

So whether they like it or not, both British citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK have became pawns in the negotiations (the first group is a bargaining chip for the UE/EC and the second one a bargaining chip for the UK).

Even when official discussions start, I doubt either the EU or the UK will clarify how these people will be treated in the early stages, as both will want to keep their options open and not give the other side what it wants too early. But at the end of the day, unless negotiators go completely nuts I am pretty sure a solution will be found for both groups to stay where they are (it really is in everyone's interest).

It is also important to note that most European countries (UK included) offer a path to citizenship after roughly 5 years in the country. So many people will have this as a backup solution anyway (only those who have moved after 2013/2014 might not have reached the 5 years by the time the UK leaves).

Thomas_...

Thomas_... wrote: »

The Brit expats are suing Mr Juncker.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37586587

I don´t see any chance for them to get anything out of it for themselves. Another aspect for the Brexiteers not caring about fellow citizens living abroad, as usual, nobody gives a damn about expats anyway. I anticipate that the expats will lose the case and have to wait until there is clearity in due course of the negotiations and more so about what turns out from it for them.

The filed complaint is just useless.

Ah for Jesus's sake. That's a contender for the most ridiculous legal action of the year, easily up there with the SDLP et al. swaggering into the High Court in Northern Ireland claiming that their beloved province has a constitutional right to veto Brexit.

brevity

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

Leading foreign academics acting as expert advisers to the UK government have been told they will not be asked to contribute to any government analysis and reports on Brexit because they are not British nationals.

“It is utterly baffling that the government is turning down expert, independent advice on Brexit simply because someone is from another country,” said Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ EU spokesman. “This is yet more evidence of the Conservatives’ alarming embrace of petty chauvinism over rational policymaking.”

Sara Hagemann, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics who specialises in EU policymaking processes, EU treaty matters, the role of national parliaments and the consequences of EU enlargements, said she had been told her services would not be required. Hagemann tweeted on Thursday:

https://twitter.com/sarahagemann/status/784000018290270208

Baffling.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah for Jesus's sake. That's a contender for the most ridiculous legal action of the year, easily up there with the SDLP et al. swaggering into the High Court in Northern Ireland claiming that their beloved province has a constitutional right to veto Brexit.

Well, actually the Good Friday Agreement might be interpreted to say the 'The People of NI must be consulted before any material change in the status of NI'. Leaving the EU would certainly fall under this and NI voted against it.

So they have an arguable case.

Sam Russell

brevity wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

Leading foreign academics acting as expert advisers to the UK government have been told they will not be asked to contribute to any government analysis and reports on Brexit because they are not British nationals.

“It is utterly baffling that the government is turning down expert, independent advice on Brexit simply because someone is from another country,” said Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ EU spokesman. “This is yet more evidence of the Conservatives’ alarming embrace of petty chauvinism over rational policymaking.”

Sara Hagemann, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics who specialises in EU policymaking processes, EU treaty matters, the role of national parliaments and the consequences of EU enlargements, said she had been told her services would not be required. Hagemann tweeted on Thursday:

https://twitter.com/sarahagemann/status/784000018290270208

Baffling.

Brexiteers do not want to hear from experts. That is after all what they campaigned on - No Experts.

brevity

brevity wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

Leading foreign academics acting as expert advisers to the UK government have been told they will not be asked to contribute to any government analysis and reports on Brexit because they are not British nationals.

“It is utterly baffling that the government is turning down expert, independent advice on Brexit simply because someone is from another country,” said Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ EU spokesman. “This is yet more evidence of the Conservatives’ alarming embrace of petty chauvinism over rational policymaking.”

Sara Hagemann, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics who specialises in EU policymaking processes, EU treaty matters, the role of national parliaments and the consequences of EU enlargements, said she had been told her services would not be required. Hagemann tweeted on Thursday:

https://twitter.com/sarahagemann/status/784000018290270208

Baffling.

Indeed. What went on at the recent Tory conference reminds me of the loons that were the Federation of Conservative Students in the 1980s.

Sam Russell

Deleted

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, actually the Good Friday Agreement might be interpreted to say the 'The People of NI must be consulted before any material change in the status of NI'. Leaving the EU would certainly fall under this and NI voted against it.

It might in my arse.

As one constitutional lawyer recently put it, the British Parliament can probably do whatever it likes as long as it does it clearly.

To suggest that the Parliament, which is sovereign, is bound by the GFA or overruled by its most unhinged statelet, is preposterous. Bizarre litigation.

Bob24

brevity wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

Leading foreign academics acting as expert advisers to the UK government have been told they will not be asked to contribute to any government analysis and reports on Brexit because they are not British nationals.

“It is utterly baffling that the government is turning down expert, independent advice on Brexit simply because someone is from another country,” said Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ EU spokesman. “This is yet more evidence of the Conservatives’ alarming embrace of petty chauvinism over rational policymaking.”

Sara Hagemann, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics who specialises in EU policymaking processes, EU treaty matters, the role of national parliaments and the consequences of EU enlargements, said she had been told her services would not be required. Hagemann tweeted on Thursday:

https://twitter.com/sarahagemann/status/784000018290270208

Baffling.

Is the British government stupidly ignoring useful and safe technical advice, or is a person with an oversized ego or a record of leaking information frustrated for not being consulted and finding excuses to complain? Difficult to tell for sure with what we have ...

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Is the British government stupidly ignoring useful and safe technical advice, or is a person with an oversized ego or a record of leaking information frustrated for not being consulted and finding excuses to complain? Difficult to tell for sure with what we have ...

In fairness, she and other colleagues have apparently been specifically informed that they do not qualify for the work, on account of their foreign nationalities.

On the one hand, I can sympathise with the British government. Nobody would have expected President Ronald Reagan to take policy advice from citizens of the U.S.S.R. on foreign and trade policy.

On the other hand, it's ludicrous to approach these experts and admit what you're doing, and I can think of some instances where it might be appropriate to take their advice on a case-by-case basis, such as how best to negotiate passporting for financial services, or how to regulate complex financial services activities. It's stupid to think there will inevitably be a conflict of interest, notwithstanding my Cold War allusion.

Bob24

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness, she and other colleagues have apparently been specifically informed that they do not qualify for the work, on account of their foreign nationalities.

On the one hand, I can sympathise with the British government. Nobody would have expected President Ronald Reagan to take policy advice from citizens of the U.S.S.R. on foreign and trade policy.

On the other hand, it's ludicrous to approach these experts and admit what you're doing, and I can think of some instances where it might be appropriate to take their advice on a case-by-case basis, such as how best to negotiate passporting for financial services, or how to regulate complex financial services activities. It's stupid to think there will inevitably be a conflict of interest, notwithstanding my Cold War allusion.

I think saying any foreign national can't be involved in the process whatsoever would definitely be stupid.

But then the Guardian article only says "it is understood that" and doesn't mention any official confirmation, so we don't even know if it is correct and what exactly has been said.

Also none of us know what might be behind the decision if it has indeed been made. It is for example possible that in certain cases submissions require access to restricted information and secret services have warned of possible leaks.

I'm not saying the British governement is right or wrong here, just that we don't have enough information to make any conclusion either way.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

I think saying any foreign national can't be involved in the process whatsoever would definitely be stupid.

But then the Guardian article only says "it is understood that" and doesn't mention any official confirmation.

"It is understood" is journo-speak for "do you really think we're going to name our sources?" and "they're saying this, and presumably not lying".

No academic is going to risk their reputation by inventing an easily-disproven lie, and nobody is denying the claim either. To say "we don't have enough information either way" is clearly disingenuous.

I think Brexit is the most amusing news item that has ever happened in my lifetime, because (and this isn't directed at you necessarily) the level of denial by both sides is surreal.

Sometimes when these Brexiteers, in particular, defend the impossible, I like to imagine a postmodern performance of Macbeth, featuring a shiny-toothed PR guy in a gold blazer skipping down the steps of Dunsinane to tell the Press, "Lord Macbeth is very tired. Those men carrying bushes are here to do some landscaping."

Bob24

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

"It is understood" is journo-speak for "do you really think we're going to name our sources?" and "they're saying this, and presumably not lying".

I don't know - it could also mean "don't tell us we gave incorrect information if things turn out to be different from what we said and we missed part of the facts".

Nody

Bob24 wrote: »

I think saying any foreign national can't be involved in the process whatsoever would definitely be stupid.

It is understood up to nine LSE academics specialising in EU affairs have been briefing the Foreign Office on Brexit issues, but the school was informed by a senior FCO official that submissions from non-UK citizens would no longer be accepted. Notes were subsequently sent to those in the group telling them of the instruction.

One of the group is understood to be a dual national, with citizenship of both the UK and another EU member state.

So they have been doing so previously but because they don't only hold a UK citizenship they can't submit information.

Also none of us know what might be behind the decision if it has indeed been made. It is for example possible that in certain cases submissions require access to restricted information and secret services have warned of possible leaks.

Except that this has already been called out as complete and utter BS as per below.

The Foreign Office was said to be concerned about the risk of sensitive material being exposed as article 50 negotiations over Britain’s exit from the EU – and subsequent talks on its future trade and other relations with the bloc – start to get under way.

But Steve Peers, a professor of EU law at the University of Essex who has advised the government, said it should be “perfectly possible to get useful input from some of the best-qualified people in the country” without anything sensitive being revealed.

But it gets better

Separately, the Guardian has learned that another Danish national, who did not want to be identified, was approached by a private recruitment firm for a Foreign Office post for which she was well qualified, but informed after several conversations that only British citizens would be eligible.

So the government has actually started full on discrimination which is blatantly illegal but fully in line with their own beliefs that they know better than anyone else. No experts indeed...

I'm not saying the British governement is right or wrong here, just that we don't have enough information to make any conclusion either way.

We have a government who've gone on record to constantly be more right wing than UK IP; multiple independent sources confirming the issues and confirmation that the information leak is BS while these experts were good enough previously. Sorry but when it walks like a duck, sound like a duck and tastes like a duck you should probably call it a duck... Welcome UK to your lost decade on behalf of all foreigner workers (since foreign people have an actual higher employment rate than British).

Lemming

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It might in my arse.

As one constitutional lawyer recently put it, the British Parliament can probably do whatever it likes as long as it does it clearly.

To suggest that the Parliament, which is sovereign, is bound by the GFA or overruled by its most unhinged statelet, is preposterous. Bizarre litigation.

The most important words in that entire sentence have been highlighted.

But to roll with said lawyer's opinion for a moment; yes indeed Westminster can do what it likes, but there would be consequences for the union if they were to ride roughshod over the regional assemblies, devolution be damned, which they seem somewhat intent on doing.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

The most important words in that entire sentence have been highlighted.

Probably, in that context, means that the UK Supreme Court could theoretically usurp stare decisis and the constitutional order of the State, but nobody is expecting that to happen. I would love someone to explain, using legal evidence, how exactly the sovereign power can be vetoed by a provincial assembly.

there would be consequences for the union if they were to ride roughshod over the regional assemblies, devolution be damned.

Sure, there would be a great stink, but that's nothing to do with the point that these are madcap legal challenges.

K-9

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, actually the Good Friday Agreement might be interpreted to say the 'The People of NI must be consulted before any material change in the status of NI'. Leaving the EU would certainly fall under this and NI voted against it.

So they have an arguable case.

The odd one is that the GFA grants N.I. citizens the right to Irish and EU passports.

Ignoring the GFA isn't impossible/illegal or even unlikely for the Sovereign.

Without consequences though? I think not.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, actually the Good Friday Agreement might be interpreted to say the 'The People of NI must be consulted before any material change in the status of NI'. Leaving the EU would certainly fall under this and NI voted against it.

So they have an arguable case.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It might in my arse.

As one constitutional lawyer recently put it, the British Parliament can probably do whatever it likes as long as it does it clearly.

To suggest that the Parliament, which is sovereign, is bound by the GFA or overruled by its most unhinged statelet, is preposterous. Bizarre litigation.

But the Tories are saying they do not need a Westminster vote - that they can proceed with executive orders.

Now I do not consider that the case being taken will win, just they have an arguable case.

After all, the judge can decide that there is no case, or that there is a requirement for a Westminster vote, or that the whole question must be put to the NI population expressly, or pass the question to the British Supreme Court for guidance.

I think the first option most likely. I would imagine the Judge deciding otherwise would not be popular with his betters.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the Tories are saying they do not need a Westminster vote - that they can proceed with executive orders.

Possibly they can. The British Parliament delegates some duties to the Government and its members by convention. It certainly does not equip the provincial assemblies with a veto over Parliament on foreign policy!

Now I do not consider that the case being taken will win, just they have an arguable case.

What do you mean 'arguable'? That a man can articulate his jaws and say words that are themselves intelligible, but a legal nonsense? If so, it's arguable.

If you mean that the outcome of the action is not yet obvious, that's wrong. This is nothing more than a political statement of objection. I tried my best to follow the proceedings on Twitter, it was all very surreal by the sounds of it!

I think the first option most likely. I would imagine the Judge deciding otherwise would not be popular with his betters.

It's nothing to do with popularity. There's no logical basis to it. It's literally as mental as the idea of Roscommon County Council going into the High Court in Dublin and trying to usurp the Gay Marriage amendment to the Constitution. It's one of the eye-popping moments of Brexit for me, so far. Very entertaining.

BoatMad

To suggest that the Parliament, which is sovereign, is bound by the GFA

The GFS is an international treaty , as such the UK is not in the habit of randomly dis-avowing agreements, it , itself signed.

Hence for all practical purposes, within a modern law abiding state, the GFA binds with Ireland and the UK to the commitments so outlined.

for example , the Uk could leave the EU tomorrow , and disavow any treaties in so doing , yet it abides by its obligations under the current EU treaties and is exiting in the prescribed manner

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

The GFS is an international treaty , as such the UK is not in the habit of randomly dis-avowing agreements, it , itself signed.

Hence for all practical purposes, within a modern law abiding state, the GFA binds with Ireland and the UK to the commitments so outlined.

I don't see the point you're making.

Brexit was that pretty random disavowal of an international agreement. The choice of the British Government is clear. There is no doubt about it. The GFA does not equip Ulster to veto Brexit.

At one point when he was on his feet last Tuesday, Ronan Lavery (QC for the bandwagon of local politicians) was apparently so short of legal argument that he began invoking Niemoller's "First they came for the socialists..." in front of what must have been a cringing High Court judge.

The QC for the Government was reported as saying "This ship has sailed", which I think sums up the whole bizarre affair rather nicely.

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Possibly they can. The British Parliament delegates some duties to the Government and its members by convention. It certainly does not equip the provincial assemblies with a veto over Parliament on foreign policy!

It is not the regional assembly but the GFA - an international agreement accepted by Referendum by the populations of Ireland and NI, and guaranteed by the UK and Irish Governments..

What do you mean 'arguable'? That a man can articulate his jaws and say words that are themselves intelligible, but a legal nonsense? If so, it's arguable.

'Arguable' is the term that a legal case has sufficient merit to warrant a court hearing. It is a very low bar, and all but the daftest cases can pass such a test.

If you mean that the outcome of the action is not yet obvious, that's wrong. This is nothing more than a political statement of objection. I tried my best to follow the proceedings on Twitter, it was all very surreal by the sounds of it!

It's nothing to do with popularity. There's no logical basis to it. It's literally as mental as the idea of Roscommon County Council going into the High Court in Dublin and trying to usurp the Gay Marriage amendment to the Constitution. It's one of the eye-popping moments of Brexit for me, so far. Very entertaining.

Look, it takes a very brave judge to fly in the face of the Westminster Government so it is unlikely that this judge will. However, there is a case before him and he must hear it.

It is most unlikely that he will decide any decision but that which is expected.

oppenheimer1

Nody wrote: »

But it gets better
So the government has actually started full on discrimination which is blatantly illegal but fully in line with their own beliefs that they know better than anyone else. No experts indeed...

While I find it distasteful its certainly not illegal. You are allowed to prevent foreign citizens from undertaking work where they have to interact with sensitive intelligence of national importance. For example Non-UK citizens are not permitted to work for GCHQ.

Lemming

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

While I find it distasteful its certainly not illegal. You are allowed to prevent foreign citizens from undertaking work where they have to interact with sensitive intelligence of national importance. For example Non-UK citizens are not permitted to work for GCHQ.

Poor example. GCHQ activities are subject to the official secrets act. Brexit is not. A leak would be embarassing and deeply unfortunate, but warranting charges of treason it would not. So what they [the government] are now apparently doing is out-and-out illegal.