Luxor4u

The government has finally realised that the EU referendum result isn’t legally binding

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/19/the-gover ... g-6200644/

About time too!

But it seems the PM is still determined to activate Clause 50 of the Treaty....despite having no definite knowledge of the outcome. It will be a leap into the unknown, whether you are optimistic or pessimistic about the consequences. Her view that the decision is hers under "royal prerogative" is being challenged.

A prominent law firm is taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/ju ... ay-lawyers

Whether the leaving process can be stopped/reversed within the 2 year time frame is also being debated.

What an unholy mess...all because Cameron wanted to spike the guns of a tiddly segment of the opposition (UKIP).

The uncertainty now arising is a significant factor in the slide of sterling against the dollar.

Those who use this argument to support their own case that it will be illegal are forgetting that Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson had a referendum on Britain’s membership (the last national referendum this country has had) to stay in the European Community. As he also used the 'Royal Prerogative' (as Teresa May intends to do) to implement the result of his 1975 referendum and he did not have it debated in Parliament either, then you could also argue that by the same criteria we are not actually in the EU at all because that decision to stay in would also have been illegal.

Even the original decision to enact the 'European Communities Bill' that took us in was done through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons by Ted Heath's Government, that also breached the constitutional convention which requires prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate, so even though we do not have a written constitution as such, the very conventions that everyone are now calling into question were previously ignored when we joined in the first place, the 'remoaners' cannot have it both ways.

The question as to whether the PM's proposed enactment of Clause 50 without a parliamentary vote is legal is (at least this is my interpretation) to be decided in court.

Would not this be the proper course?

Opinions amongst the public are clearly divided, Surely a judgement by the highest authority in the land is the right way to resolve the argument?

I don't understand "Hard" Brexit, "Soft" Brexit, is there just a normal Brexit one with a soft center?

newcastle wrote:The question as to whether the PM's proposed enactment of Clause 50 without a parliamentary vote is legal is (at least this is my interpretation) to be decided in court.

Would not this be the proper course?

Opinions amongst the public are clearly divided, Surely a judgement by the highest authority in the land is the right way to resolve the argument?

I would agree in principle that the legality of the situation should be clarified, but should it prove to be a requirement in law as some are claiming that certain protocols must be observed in order for ‘Brexit’ and the implementation of article 50 to be legitimate, then we must also use the same criteria to judge the original actions upon which we were taken into this organisation in the first place and the subsequent referendum to remain in order to test their legitimacy also. It could well open a can of worms as it could be challenged that we are not actually in the EU at all because the original decision to join was also illegal when using the same criteria.

carrie wrote:I don't understand "Hard" Brexit, "Soft" Brexit, is there just a normal Brexit one with a soft center?

Carrie, the basic differences are that a ‘soft’ Brexit would require us to remain in the free trade agreement. However the rest of the EU and especially Junkers and Tusk are not going to let us do that without the inclusion of free movement of people. It is obvious that the UK will not agree to this and therefore a ‘hard’ Brexit will ensue which requires much more negotiations and probably a falling back onto WTA tariffs for all our trade with Europe, no big deal as we already trade with the rest of the world on this basis. Basically there is and will continue to be a stalemate between the two sides, the UK will not concede free movement and the EU will not want us to be seen as getting an easy ride as they know that many more countries are standing in the wings and watching what happens.

Horus wrote:

newcastle wrote:The question as to whether the PM's proposed enactment of Clause 50 without a parliamentary vote is legal is (at least this is my interpretation) to be decided in court.

Would not this be the proper course?

Opinions amongst the public are clearly divided, Surely a judgement by the highest authority in the land is the right way to resolve the argument?

I would agree in principle that the legality of the situation should be clarified, but should it prove to be a requirement in law as some are claiming that certain protocols must be observed in order for ‘Brexit’ and the implementation of article 50 to be legitimate, then we must also use the same criteria to judge the original actions upon which we were taken into this organisation in the first place and the subsequent referendum to remain in order to test their legitimacy also. It could well open a can of worms as it could be challenged that we are not actually in the EU at all because the original decision to join was also illegal when using the same criteria.

Can of worms? So be it.

You've probably read the opinion of Vernon Coleman :

"Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn't actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid."

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

If the matter ever gets to court (which I doubt) it will be an interesting test of the extent of the Royal Prerogative , on which I append the following interesting discussion :

This piece seeks to address only one question: does Parliament or the Government have the power to decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU and through the notifying of the European Council of such a decision trigger the two year time limited formal withdrawal negotiations? Nick Barber, Tom Hickman, and Jeff King have argued valiantly that it will be Parliament who has to “pull the Article 50 trigger”. This piece will analyse their arguments and suggest that, contrary to their conclusions, it is the Government, under the Royal Prerogative, that has legal authority to start the Article 50 process.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07 ... erogative/

Whatever the outcome, and assuming Clause 50 is enacted, presumably it is parliament who will be at least allowed to consider, and vote, on the minutiae of whatever needs to be done subsequently.

Horus wrote:

carrie wrote:I don't understand "Hard" Brexit, "Soft" Brexit, is there just a normal Brexit one with a soft center?

Carrie, the basic differences are that a ‘soft’ Brexit would require us to remain in the free trade agreement. However the rest of the EU and especially Junkers and Tusk are not going to let us do that without the inclusion of free movement of people. It is obvious that the UK will not agree to this and therefore a ‘hard’ Brexit will ensue which requires much more negotiations and probably a falling back onto WTA tariffs for all our trade with Europe, no big deal as we already trade with the rest of the world on this basis. Basically there is and will continue to be a stalemate between the two sides, the UK will not concede free movement and the EU will not want us to be seen as getting an easy ride as they know that many more countries are standing in the wings and watching what happens.

Mmmmm......I rather think it would be a VERY big deal! Falling back on WTA tariffs alone would, according to (much maligned by some, I know!) Government figures, cost us 66 billion GBP per annum.

P.S. This is NOT an invitation for an argument over competing economic statistics...spare me! Let's - perhaps - agree that a purely WTA type scenario would not, in the long term, be ideal

However, and as a brexiter you'd surely agree, the HOPE is that our excellent negotiating skills will achieve a much better deal than basic WTA tariffs

Well if it takes as long to sort out this as the runway at Heathrow we will never leave.

newcastle wrote:

Horus wrote:

carrie wrote:I don't understand "Hard" Brexit, "Soft" Brexit, is there just a normal Brexit one with a soft center?

Carrie, the basic differences are that a ‘soft’ Brexit would require us to remain in the free trade agreement. However the rest of the EU and especially Junkers and Tusk are not going to let us do that without the inclusion of free movement of people. It is obvious that the UK will not agree to this and therefore a ‘hard’ Brexit will ensue which requires much more negotiations and probably a falling back onto WTA tariffs for all our trade with Europe, no big deal as we already trade with the rest of the world on this basis. Basically there is and will continue to be a stalemate between the two sides, the UK will not concede free movement and the EU will not want us to be seen as getting an easy ride as they know that many more countries are standing in the wings and watching what happens.

Mmmmm......I rather think it would be a VERY big deal! Falling back on WTA tariffs alone would, according to (much maligned by some, I know!) Government figures, cost us 66 billion GBP per annum.

P.S. This is NOT an invitation for an argument over competing economic statistics...spare me! Let's - perhaps - agree that a purely WTA type scenario would not, in the long term, be ideal

However, and as a brexiter you'd surely agree, the HOPE is that our excellent negotiating skills will achieve a much better deal than basic WTA tariffs

I would broadly agree, I only mention the WTA rules as a counter to all the panic generated about tariffs, inasmuch as the rest of the world trades under these rules where nothing better exists. This WTA tariff would affect the rest of the EU’s trade with ourselves just as harshly as it may impact upon the UK, so the common sense thing would be for the EU to settle our exit on as amicable terms as possible, anything less would be pure vindictiveness and spite at our leaving the club. However with the current bunch of bureaucrats running the show and their vested interest in seeing the UK suffer for our temerity in leaving their club, then I would not hold my breath on that coming to pass. The pettiness will no doubt continue until such a point as the rest of the EU realise that it is a two edged sword and bad trade deals affect both parties eventually.

I do know of Vernon Coleman, (he of a myriad of book titles) but I think that many others besides he have muted the legality of our original terms of entry into the EU. However this eventually turns out it is inevitable that we will extricate ourselves from the EU, the ground swell is so great that it would be political suicide for any party in power to renege on the referendum result. On a more practical level it is better that we just get on with it and end all the uncertainty and speculation, if left to Parliamentary debate it will last longer than the Chilcott Enquiry and the new Heathrow runway proposal, heaven forbid.

So where did all that British Bulldog Spirit dissipate to ?
Wev'e become grey europe and the money men still made money.

They will find an excuse, trust me i'm a Dr.
It's about time we stood alone once again alone and upright never forget your an Englishman!
with a bit of welsh,scots & irish thrown in for good measure.
Once we were an Island no more I'm afraid..Oh! well "time & tides wait for noman...or nowomen.. ..

Newcastle says: "the HOPE is that our excellent negotiating skills will achieve a much better deal than basic WTA tariff"

What skills. The Foreign Office hasn't done a trade deal in decades. The trade negotiating skills left a generation ago and the UK government is now out in Australia and NZ trying to recruit trade negotiators from the legion we have employed for decades.

In any event expect the simplest trade deal with a single country to take five years - much longer with India and a multilateral will take ages. No one has done a deal in two years.

The next Commonwealth summit should be interesting with the UK trying to punt a multinational trade deal with Commonwealth countries. My bet is there will be no takers. Reason, never negotiate with a desperate man with a deadline - let him swing for a bit longer. You will get a better deal after Brexit has happened. The UK is in the unenviable position of having no trade deal after two years, highly protected industries like agriculture and steel, a manufacturing sector vulnerable to Chinese competition, no where outside Europe to sell its god awful cars and a bride line which knows it can drive a hard bargain. The fear and loathing in Whitehall must be palpable.

Over and above all of this don't bet on the 'special relationship'. Even if Clinton is elected she will struggle to sell the Pacific multilateral, that has taken ages to get Obama's approval, let alone stir up the natives with a new unpopular trade deal with the UK. As well why would a leading financial power, US, want to help its main competitor in the international finance game and, as the world knows, Clinton has big debts on Wall Street and a weaker City of London means a stronger Wall Street. If I was a NY banker I would be poaching talent in London now.

The UK leaves in two years at which time its very unlikely there will be any alternate deals, or for years later.

Anyone for a quick free trade deal with a similarly desperate Russia? Are there any other desperadoes around who also face a two year deadline?

A collapsing pound might be the only good trading prospect. George Soros is still alive to advise on how to short the pound and the IMF is still there, as in the 1970's, to bail the UK out of insolvency. This is not as crazy as it sounds. The WTO rules generally prohibit tariffs above 10%, although there are lots of other tricks to keep goods out, and a good hefty devaluation might keep UK goods competitive in Europe after Brexit - until or unless the pound strengthens.

I put HOPE in capitals for a reason Hafiz

In referring to our "excellent" negotiating skills I was being facetious. I suspect Horus realised this, knowing me for someone not entirely in favour of the referendum outcome, for this (lack of negotiators) and many other reasons....hence the at the end of the sentence

We need a "facetious " emoticon.....I could make good use of it

I come down on the side of Dr Who, we are made of sterner stuff, yes it will be rough for a few years, but we have had that before and survived, we WILL do it again.

Altogether now "Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britain’s never never never shall be slaves”
Good job there are a few true Brits left to counter the nay sayers, doubters and sneering subjects of our ex colonies.

Horus wrote:I come down on the side of Dr Who, we are made of sterner stuff, yes it will be rough for a few years, but we have had that before and survived, we WILL do it again.

Altogether now "Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britain’s never never never shall be slaves”
Good job there are a few true Brits left to counter the nay sayers, doubters and sneering subjects of our ex colonies.

You forgot to add :

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if Britain and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

God Save the Queen

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o’erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O’erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill’d with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call’d fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

Horus – nice sentiment and rhetoric but not really an argument or plan or are you suggesting that Harry should be king and the Asiatic (certainly from Asia Minor – possibly from Egypt) Saint George will return and save England. Appeals to God probably won’t elicit much response because the Church of England doesn’t really believe in him and I’m sure God has a pretty dim view of its worldly ways and flaccid complacency.

In any case, as you know, the war in Henry IV was not between Britain and France but between England and France with Scotland on the French side, so maybe the quote is prophetic. Scotland has almost half a millennium of siding with the continent against England when it suited it and it suits it now – if only to screw a better subsidy deal out of London.

Maybe Boris has a plan (he will be partly responsible for the trade deals but has not been sighted in Aus. or NZ) or the vile Farage might be available to assist when he finishes helping Trump. Maybe Trump could help with his undoubted negotiating skills, his Scots background and need for work.

Newcastle – your Churchill quote – you left something out – the reference to “Empire and Commonwealth”. So easy to forget the little things.

If its to be a Shakespeare fest then lets include an anti-Brexit quote and a homily to compassion for refugees from a minor play – ‘Sir Thomas More’. Sorry its long but worth reading because not often quoted - at least not by Brexiteers.

‘‘Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an aged man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another….
Say now the king
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whether would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbour? go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, any where that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the claimants
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? this is the strangers case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity.’

Some background. The play The Book of Sir Thomas More contains a series of scenes covering the events of the May Day riots of 1517. Immigrants from Lombardy in Northern Italy are being threatened by Londoners who accuse them of taking jobs and money from the locals, and want them to be deported back to where they came from. The same arguments were being put forward at the time the play was written, with respect to Huguenot migrants. The play was never completed and exists in manuscript form in the British Library. In a series of speeches certainly written by Shakespeare, Thomas More makes the argument for the humane treatment of those forced to seek asylum by being expelled from their home land.

Here is Sir Ian McKellen delivering it in the senatorian growling tones of someone who knows a bit about being on the outside of complaisant England:

Hafiz, send a copy to OUR government please!

A nice Shakespearian quote from Hafiz, but the context is wrong. Thomas More was making his speech castigating those who wanted to expel people from this country and to link it to a Brexit vote is false. I do not recall anyone advocating that people should be forcefully expelled from the UK, rather that the number of people coming in should be controlled, the two are not the same. To imply that over half the population is racist because they voted to leave the EU is again another falsehood and typical of the twisted logic of those who attempt to justify their own stance and who cannot accept a majority vote. But as WI requested he should send a copy to his own government in Australia, not exactly renowned for having an easy immigration policy when it comes to the rest of the world and its own indigenous Aboriginal population can hardly be held up as an example of how to treat minority groups and too much time has passed to once again blame it all on colonial rule which is the usual fall-back option.
So to use another quote: Matthew 7:5
“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.