Brexit Referendum Superthread

Calina

Article 50 judgement at 10 am in the morning.

This is worth a rea on the question of appeal versus legislation.

https://m.facebook.com/JoshuaRozenbergQC/posts/219029521852305

demfad

djpbarry wrote: »

They must surely have assured Nissan that they will at least remain (or aim to remain) within the customs union. Any kind of sweetheart deal would surely be pursued by other businesses.

Yes, here's the Minsiter's quote re Brexit:

In our negotiations to leave the EU we will emphasise the very strong common ground there is especially in the automotive sector between ourselves and other EU member states in ensuring that trade between us can be free and unencumbered by impediments.

A good deal for the UK can also be a good deal for other member states, and that is how we will approach the negotiations. Whatever the outcome we are determined to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the most competitive locations in the world for automotive and other advanced manufacturing.

The bolded bit implies that if the outcome is not a de facto custome Union arrangement then (the UK Govt.) is determined that competitievness will be maintained some other way (sweet heart deal).
The sweet heart deal is unsustainable for teh reasons you outlined. Nick Clegg warned that this line would require collossal amounts of money with drawbacks ive outlined above.
The EU knows that the UK needs a customs Union for that industry. A FTA is not enough. The EU is not likely to go down that route to accommodate the UK. There are no economic reasons for it. When it boils down to real negotiation the UK wont be able to insist on this to accommodate the UK's political aspiration of curbing immigration.
Under an FTA Europe will lose more but that will only be realised 9 years from now realistically. I would wager if things go down that line then the EU will be 'firewalled' against the Brexit impact at that time.

There has to be an interim deal made between leaving the EU and any subsequent Trading arrangement. The customs Union may have been guaranteed for the interim. That would allow Nissan to safely announce the producation of two cars in Sunderland.

Sam Russell

demfad wrote: »

Yes, here's the Minsiter's quote re Brexit:

In our negotiations to leave the EU we will emphasise the very strong common ground there is especially in the automotive sector between ourselves and other EU member states in ensuring that trade between us can be free and unencumbered by impediments.

A good deal for the UK can also be a good deal for other member states, and that is how we will approach the negotiations. Whatever the outcome we are determined to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the most competitive locations in the world for automotive and other advanced manufacturing.

The bolded bit implies that if the outcome is not a de facto custome Union arrangement then (the UK Govt.) is determined that competitievness will be maintained some other way (sweet heart deal).
The sweet heart deal is unsustainable for teh reasons you outlined. Nick Clegg warned that this line would require collossal amounts of money with drawbacks ive outlined above.
The EU knows that the UK needs a customs Union for that industry. A FTA is not enough. The EU is not likely to go down that route to accommodate the UK. There are no economic reasons for it. When it boils down to real negotiation the UK wont be able to insist on this to accommodate the UK's political aspiration of curbing immigration.
Under an FTA Europe will lose more but that will only be realised 9 years from now realistically. I would wager if things go down that line then the EU will be 'firewalled' against the Brexit impact at that time.

There has to be an interim deal made between leaving the EU and any subsequent Trading arrangement. The customs Union may have been guaranteed for the interim. That would allow Nissan to safely announce the producation of two cars in Sunderland.

Of course, Britain was a major force in Automotive engineering before with well known marques as Rover, British Leyland, Austin (with there landmark model the Maestro), Morris ( with their Mini now completely remodelled by BMW), Jaguar and Land Rover, now owned by an Indian company.

Yes I can see them becoming a new force in Automotive manufacturing. [Whatever did happen to British Leyland or Rover?]

Good luck with that.

djpbarry

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes I can see them becoming a new force in Automotive manufacturing. [Whatever did happen to British Leyland or Rover?]

British Leyland became Rover, which then became (Jaguar) Land Rover, which is now owned by Tata. I believe BMW and Paccar also own bits of what was BL.

Sam Russell

djpbarry wrote: »

British Leyland became Rover, which then became (Jaguar) Land Rover, which is now owned by Tata. I believe BMW and Paccar also own bits of what was BL.

No British Leyland went bust and was rescued by the British Government and rebranded by them as Rover. I am not too sure of the history, but I think Rover was sold to British Aerospace for £10 - yes - ten pounds. It was then sold onto BMW who sold it onto another crowd and went bust again and was then partly sold onto TATA, an Indian company. Ford got part of it at some point - not sure as the bits going bust resulted in another vulture getting involved.

Overall, not a happy history to build a world leading automotive industry.

whatstherush

UK Gov lost A50 case, triggering of A50 will have to by vote in the commons.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/794118335369805824

Could be appealed to Supreme court though.

Bit more detail
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/794119223064793088

robinph

Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

At least until they have an appeal and change things round again so that they don't.

ancapailldorcha

Thank goodness for that!

robinph

The guy who wrote Article 50 only envisioned it being used in the case of a coup happening in some country and as a way of the EU getting shot of that country that was then not playing ball anymore:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

alastair

Sam Russell wrote: »

No British Leyland went bust and was rescued by the British Government and rebranded by them as Rover. I am not too sure of the history, but I think Rover was sold to British Aerospace for £10 - yes - ten pounds. It was then sold onto BMW who sold it onto another crowd and went bust again and was then partly sold onto TATA, an Indian company. Ford got part of it at some point - not sure as the bits going bust resulted in another vulture getting involved.

Overall, not a happy history to build a world leading automotive industry.

BL wasn't rescued by the government. It was sold off piecemeal to various private buyers, and then the leftovers to BAE as Rover Group (for £150 million, not £10). So the whole operation was privatised in chunks.

Rover Group was then sold to BMW (or 80% of it - Honda held the other 20%) for £800 million. Ford bought Jaguar, after a period of Jag operating independently after privatisation from BL, and then sold it to Tata. BMW didn't sell anything to Tata, but sold Rover to Ford, who then sold Rover to Tata, and MG to the Chinese.

Jan_de_Bakker

Yay!!
let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.
Seems a country just can't say no to the EU.

Jan_de_Bakker

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Yay!!
let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.
Seems a country just can't say no to the EU.

The UK courts have ruled on UK laws and determined that the Sovereignty of Parliament must be respected and The Parliament is required to enact legislation (this bit not clear actually - might not require a Bill) to invoke Article 50.

The UK is not, nor has it ever been a direct-democracy. If anything, anyone looking to subvert Parliament in order to trigger A50 could be accused of seeking an un-democratic act!

The narrative that the EU has anything to do with this 'speedbump' for Brexit is also patently false.

Chips Lovell

Nothing has been annulled. And the EU hasn't forced Britain to do anything. It was its own high court that made the decision.

A Dub in Glasgo

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Yay!!
let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.
Seems a country just can't say no to the EU.

It would be useful if you read and understand what today's announcement actually is rather than what you have read on the UKIP website

ambro25

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.

If that is in reference to today's High Court decision, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to expand on your logic a bit. Or maybe expand you mind/knowledge some more.

The lynchpin of democracy in the United Kingdom is the sovereignty of its Parliament, and that goes back a few centuries.

The Tories campaigned in the GE 2015 and one of their pledges was "if you elect us, we'll give a referendum about the EU". Another pledge by Cameron in context was "I'll campaign to stay in". They got a majority vote at the GE, the most MPs at Parliament, and formed a government. All democratically.

Cameron next did what it said on the tin, and the government put forward a motion about the referendum, which was debated in Parliament and eventually crystallised as the European Union Referendum Act 2015, then approved by majority vote in Parliament, passed through the Lords and given Royal Assent. All standard centuries-old UK legislative procedure.

Electoral promise met, here's your referendum, with all the democratic bells and whistles, and extra cream and a cherry on top.

Now, have you bothered to even glance at the EURA 2015?

It is consultative only ('non-binding') and entirely silent about mandates, powers, consequences, etc. of the referendum outcome: all the EURA 2015 does, is say "there is going to be referendum on 23 June 2016, this is the question, these are the conditions of eligibility for voting <etc.>" Here, have a read, as Acts go it's quite short. You'll have to bear in mind that referenda is quite a rare beast in UK legislative terms, but its consultative character was never in dispute pre-enactment or pre-refendum.

And there's nothing in there whatsoever, even implied by however much stretching of the imagination, about "come June 24, if the ayes have it, then this happens; if the noes have it, then that happens". Nada. A perfectly normal state of affairs, since it was consultative.

What should then happen, according to standard UK constitutional practice and democratic principles (since the referendum was consultative - did I mention that yet? :pac:), would be for the government to propose policy reflecting the voting outcome to (sovereign) Parliament, and Parliament to debate and eventually enact relevant decision/legislation.

Following what, the campaigning goes on in anger, with levels of propaganda, rethoric, misrepresentation and outright lying on both sides that would have made Goebbels proud, and voters exercise their democratic right to vote, and the Brexit have it. All still perfectly democratic so far. If somewhat shameful in its factuality.

But then, that's not what happened. Cameron fell on his sword instantly, and in the ensuing vacuum kerfuffle, not the least helped by the state of the "opposition" (ho-hum), May gets to be PM, and then sets about putting in an article 50 letter and taking the UK out of the EU on a hard Brexit pathway, visiting untold hardship on the country's economy and socio-economic fabric, and accessorily stripping all 60-odd millions British citizens of their EU citizenship - all that all without so much as a look in from Parliament. Alright, maybe a sly peek come end April 2019.

Now you tell me where the democratic deficit is:

In May doing what she's done since on/around June 24 until today, basically acting unilaterally and in secrecy, keeping even most of her government in the dark and, to all intents and purposes, winging it in a highly authoritarian style, all the while shunning Parliament?

Or in the independent judiciary reminding her of what she's supposed to be doing as the head of the British government, and running her policy through Parliamentary overview and approval?

Jan_de_Bakker

Parliament will not approve article 50. (we all know this, so let's not pretend otherwise)

So yes It's been annulled.

Calina

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Parliament will not approve article 50. (we all know this, so let's not pretend otherwise)

So yes It's been annulled.

You cannot say this with any certainty and to claim it is just wrong. In any case, May has a majority and the Tory party has a whip system. Where there may be a glitch is with the House of Lords.

What today's decision has done is to force the government to act in compliance with existing law in the UK. Alowing the government to break the law is profoundly undemocratic.

Brexit supporters are terrified of democracy.

Jan_de_Bakker

Calina wrote: »

You cannot say this with any certainty and to claim it is just wrong. In any case, May has a majority and the Tory party has a whip system. Where there may be a glitch is with the House of Lords.

OK, let's hope I'm wrong so ...

Calina wrote: »

What today's decision has done is to force the government to act in compliance with existing law in the UK. Alowing the government to break the law is profoundly undemocratic.

Brexit supporters are terrified of democracy.

You mean remainers surely ?
Weren't they the ones protesting on the streets against the referendum result ?

FrancieBrady

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

OK, let's hope I'm wrong so ...




You mean remainers surely ?
Weren't they the ones protesting on the streets against the referendum result ?

If parliment votes on the principled opinion of it's members as we know them, then it will vote not to invoke Art 50.

That will mean Brexiters will have to accept British sovereignty, because that is what they wanted, a return to British sovereignty.

This is going to be hilarious to watch.

ancapailldorcha

I don't think we can take it as a given that Article 50 won't be invoked. I suspect a lot of MPs will abide by the referendum result. However, I take hope from the fact that now the terms can be discussed properly and a decision can be made on what type of Brexit the UK wants. I'm crossing my fingers for the EEA option.

Calina

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

OK, let's hope I'm wrong so ...




You mean remainers surely ?
Weren't they the ones protesting on the streets against the referendum result ?

No, I mean brexit supporters. Their reaction to the government being compelled to comply with the law has been broadly negative.

Chips Lovell

FT Alphaville has an interesting piece by a QC who reckons the supreme court could refer one question to the European Court in Luxembourg: the issue of whether an Article 50 notfication could be withdrawn. It is kind of ironic to see the British needing a European Court to arbitrate on at least part of this squabble.

On the question of what MPs may actually do should the appeal fail:

There would in the Commons be – and I think, rightly – little or no enthusiasm for rejecting it. More likely is that MPs would impose conditions on the triggering of Article 50. And they would be right to do so as it cannot sensibly be argued that the referendum answered the fundamental question of what Brexit means.

Jim2007

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Yay!!
let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.
Seems a country just can't say no to the EU.

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Yay!!
let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.
Seems a country just can't say no to the EU.

Oh dear, someone is not with the program! A few hints to get you started:
- This decision restored the democratic process in the UK
- The referendum was consultative and non binding
- Noting to do with the EU, constitutional law is a matter for the UK judiciary, unless an EU law needs to be interpreted, which it did not.
Now go read the decision, it might make more sense .

devnull

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Yay!!
let's celebrate the death of democracy - absolute madness.

I'm not pro/against Brexit but to effectively annul something after it was democratically voted for is scary indeed.
Seems a country just can't say no to the EU.

I'm very curious as to if people in the UK know what dictatorship means, because a lot of them seem to have got it mixed up with the word democracy and continue to allow themselves to allow themselves to be brainwashed by some media outlets and the likes of UKIP to the point where it's starting to feel like they are happy to belong to a cult.

Today's judgement was not about stopping brexit from happening, it was about making sure the directly elected representatives of the population of the United Kingdom have a say on it and it is not dictated to the people of the country and Parliament by someone who wishes to act like a dictator by having things all her own way without anyone having to vote for it. If a Prime Minster can pick and choose what matters do and do not need a vote, then is there any point of having elected representatives at all if they are not allowed a say?

The irony is the far right are the ones who are behaving like dictators, essentially they spent the whole referendum arguing that the problems with being part of Europe are that Europe tells their courts what to do and the courts should be able to make their own judgement and at the end of the day their own Parliament should be able to make and approve and vote on laws instead of being dictated to by others, now they are making a perverse argument that actually the courts should not be allowed to over-rule the government since one person should be able to dictate the terms without involving the government.

Then you have the red herring of people trying to "cancel brexit" which is simply a red herring, to my knowledge very little of the brexit opposing politicians have even backed up this view, they accept the UK will leave but they want to have a say in how it happens to stand up for their constituents and have votes and bills like they do for any other matter,, there is no problem in this, infact this was one of the key arguments for leaving the European Union, that the countries courts would not be over-ruled and the fact that the Parliament would have more control.

Then the most ironic?

You have the small matter of the person who is attempting to dictate everything on her terms. An unelected Prime Minister who is acting like a dictator, but oddly the British Public and the 52 percent are arguing for just the kind of person they claim to be opposed to, someone who dictates the rules to their subordinates, someone who ignores the wishes of elected representatives and ignores the courts when it sees fit.

Am I alone in thinking it's somewhat weird that they are full of praise for Theresa May doing exactly this, but if anyone in Europe did the same think they would moan like hell that their own Parliament did not get a say and that the European Courts were deciding things and they were taking power away from British Judges and British Politicians.

You then read the attitudes towards Russia in the UK and Syria and the fact that many people in the Brexit camp are huge fans of Putin, and you see that years of bull**** being printed by the Express and the Daily Mail has meant that the UK has got to the point where they are completely unable to make rational decisions and are believing any of the crap that is fed to them, because it's in the paper right, so it must be right surely?

The funniest thing of all this is the brexiters view of "bitter remoaners" which is hillarious. Watching social media any time a story saying brexit had a bad effect on the country, some industry, prices went up etc, the brextiers are arguing that it's scaremongering, it would have happened anyway, the politicians are trying to punish us by making this happen deliberately, the media are upset by the fact that brexit won and are now throwing their toys out of the pram, and everything is either fabricated, made up and they should shut up and accept the result and that is all there is to it.

However should it be the other way and it's a positive article about brexit, it is automatically true, and certain that the country made the right decision and Nigel Farage has restored the democracy of the country and the country has been fine the past 40 years so it will continue to be without the help of the EU (How does that work? The last 40 years the country was in the EU, so how does the past 40 years prove that the country will be fine out of it?, bizzare argument).

But remember, on the night of the result Nigel Farage said if there was only a few percentage points in it, there would have to be another vote and this is not finished, not by a long shot. He has a very interesting view of democracy, which is very similar to that of Donald Trump.

The place the British find themselves in now is the following attitude from the elite.

If something goes our way, nobody else gets a say, sit down, and shut up and do what we tell you. What we say goes and nobody has a right to over-rule us regardless of what the constitution says, we are in power and you will do as your told no matter what and we reserve the right to interept anything any way we want/

OR

If something doesn't go our way, it is disgrace, they are trying to tell us what to do and they have no right to dictate anything to us, this is unfair democracy, it is an insult, the British people voted to leave the EU, therefore they have no further say, we are in control and no court, elected rep or otherwise can change that.

The whole thing is pathetic. The power has gone to May's head and if Parliament are not allowed a say in such things, what is the point in having them there. But this leads to a much bigger and much scarier question for those who live in the UK and are able to see the wood from the trees about the true intention of leaving the EU.

Are the UK leaving the EU to set up a true dictatorship led nation. Essentially, leaving the EU could lay the foundations for the UK Prime Minister and government to do what they please, without any structure to stop them, bypassing Parliament and not being answerable to the courts. This is a very scary proposition, and if I was a British citizen, I'd be hoping this decision is forced to be upheld,

The power that would be gained by the Government, this episode has shown, will be in the long run very bad for the people of the United Kingdom. It will allow a dictatorship to grow and prosper and nobody to stand up for the people. That's why the Parliament must remain sovereign and the courts must be allowed to rule in these debates. If that doesn't happen, democracy becomes dead, and dictatorship is born.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

We all know the EU has arrangements but if freedom of movement isn't included the UK will not get the access to trade etc. that it is looking for, nowhere near it.

You're confusing freedom of movement with a customs union. I'm not going through the difference once again, it has been stated clearly in this thread many times.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If parliment votes on the principled opinion of it's members as we know them, then it will vote not to invoke Art 50.

No serious person believes that Parliament is going to fly in the face of the referendum result, and block the invocation of Article 50.

Today's judgment simply means Parliament will influence the procedure, or delay it (which is unlikely, because of the extra uncertainty a delay would create).

That's all subject to the assumption that the Supreme Court won't overturn the decision of the High Court.

There seems to be a contradiction between the Court's decision today, and the same Court's decision last week, in that spectacularly bonkers Northern Ireland case. There is an inconsistency there which will be teased out before the Supreme Court.

robinph

devnull wrote: »

.... An unelected Prime Minister ...

That line keeps on being trotted out when a new PM takes over when there hasn't been a general election at the same time, like with Brown being the previous one, and it's completely irrelevant. The PM of the UK is never voted on by the whole country, the population is voting for their local MP and then those MP's select from amongst themselves who will be PM. Only the people of one constituency get to vote for the person who then happens to be PM, and they are still not voting for the PM, merely their own MP.

Otherwise in agreement with what you said.

Lemming

robinph wrote: »

That line keeps on being trotted out when a new PM takes over when there hasn't been a general election at the same time, like with Brown being the previous one, and it's completely irrelevant. The PM of the UK is never voted on by the whole country, the population is voting for their local MP and then those MP's select from amongst themselves who will be PM. Only the people of one constituency get to vote for the person who then happens to be PM, and they are still not voting for the PM, merely their own MP.

Otherwise in agreement with what you said.

On a point of note: she [May] wasn't even elected to the position of leader of the Tories (and ergo the current Prime Minister) from amongst her own peers; in so much as going to the final vote between candidates at any rate. May was elected by default because Loathsome stepped down from the race before the final vote was cast.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

That line keeps on being trotted out when a new PM takes over when there hasn't been a general election at the same time, like with Brown being the previous one, and it's completely irrelevant. The PM of the UK is never voted on by the whole country, the population is voting for their local MP and then those MP's select from amongst themselves who will be PM. Only the people of one constituency get to vote for the person who then happens to be PM, and they are still not voting for the PM, merely their own MP.

Otherwise in agreement with what you said.

There was never any vote for PM. Not even amongst the select few that usually choose a PM by the Tory rules.

The race was abruptly ended, and someone who had earned enough votes to be entitled to take part in that final vote to be PM was all that was left, and took over the role.

devnull

robinph wrote: »

That line keeps on being trotted out when a new PM takes over when there hasn't been a general election at the same time, like with Brown being the previous one, and it's completely irrelevant. The PM of the UK is never voted on by the whole country, the population is voting for their local MP and then those MP's select from amongst themselves who will be PM. Only the people of one constituency get to vote for the person who then happens to be PM, and they are still not voting for the PM, merely their own MP.

Personally it doesn't bother me at all, but it was more a tongue in cheek dig at some of the Brexiters, since some of the very same people who are supporting Theresa May are the very same people who were moaning about Gordon Brown being unelected, but that in general sums their attitude up.

If they don't get their own way, it's dictatorship.
If they do get their own way it's democracy.

Today I've saw some hilarious posts on other forums and social media about how the people who took this to court and the people who voted to remain are acting like dictators and are trying to prevent democracy and Theresa May should be allowed to make all of the decisions on her own as per democracy without being dictated to by large groups of people.

I honestly am starting to worry about what they teach Brits at school in regards as to what the words mean, since many of them don't seem to know. The bit where they used one person in combination with the word democracy and groups of people with the word dictatorship is what made me smile the most.

But the whole thing is laughable. If they want full Sovereignty they have to accept that sometimes it won't go their way and it may mean the people they want to have more control may disagree with them, if they don't like that and won't respect that essentially what they appear to be looking for is a dictatorship style system.

KingBrian2

This situation could be very tricky for the financial industry in Britain.