jpinx

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Maybe the general view was flawed. Many years ago Thailand converted most of their foreign reserves into USD and the rise in the dollar has benefited the baht. Pity the UK did not take a leaf out of their book.

 

The UK national debt is basically out of control and those invested in the pound are getting nervous. Every time TM mentions greater separation all the markets see is greater expense and more debt, not what they want to see.

The local economy will thrive in the short term as the lower pound will make exports more competitive provided they are not using imported materials. It will only last so long as the weaker pound will drive up prices generally and fuel demands for wage increases forcing a rise in export prices and reducing competitiveness.  It is a vicious circle and will cause many to suffer.

Maybe you could compare the Debt/GDP relationship across a spectrum of EU and major world nations.?

How long is it since the referendum?  How long is "short-term". There is no "vicious circle" here, which would imply that we've been here before, which we haven't.

22 minutes ago, sandyf said:

As I expected, there will always be those that fail to recognise the relationship between brexit and other major issues.

The NHS is in crisis and we are all perfectly aware it is not the result of brexit, but attempts to resolve the issue are going to be severely curtailed by brexit.

 

Why?

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I was referring to the people of Ireland as a whole, there will be no agreement per se. There are two borders between the north and south of Ireland, a UK border and the border of the Republic. When the UK leaves the EU, TM will be free to what she likes with the UK border but the Republic border will become an EU external border.

Three months ago the  European Border and Coast Guard Agency  came into being and the only way that border can remain a 'soft border' is if the UK remains in the single market and customs union.

 

 "Today is a milestone in the history of European border management. From now onwards, the external EU border of one Member State is the external border of all Member States – both legally and operationally. "

http://reliefweb.int/report/world/securing-europes-external-borders-launch-european-border-and-coast-guard-agency

 

It is quite possible that Eurotunnel will be faced with a similar problem. Currently both borders are on the French side and if there is complete separation I cannot see that arrangement being allowed to continue.

Hence the mutterings about re-unification - it would solve that mess.  There must be other places where the EU border is awkwardly placed?

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Not to speak for Pitrevie - Post #2793 by ShuengWan should give you a hint. Not all economy markers have been good.

I only saw him quote the US$ / GBP£ rate and the FTSE>  HArdly a broad-based sample of markers....

2 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

 

I am not an economist so I wouldn't even try. What is very obvious to me is that if your economy is on solid ground you don't normally see your currency heading for the basement. The markets make their own judgement of an economy and what is the likely outcome and the markets thus far are taking the view that following the Brexit announcement the pound should go lower and every time May opens her mouth to express a view it goes lower still. I will go with Thatcher on this, "you cannot buck the markets"

That only worked short-term for Thatcher, then the bubble burst.  What's happening now is the divorce from the EU is making all the traders nervous, but it is making the UK working public happy. Feed that into the financial computer and see what will be predicted.  Or is that too obvious?

2 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

 

Agreed its called reality. But be of good cheer apparently our economy is powering ahead just ignore the pound going towards the basement.

Instead of being dismissive - why don't you try to explain how the economy markers are so good, but the pound is so weak -- all at the same time?

As always -- constructive facts please

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Clause 2 of Art 50 

' 

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.'

 

Does this mean the negotiations can be concluded before a final deal is in place

So for example could we say , No customs union, no SM, X- amount for liabilities, we would like to conduct a FTA to be negotated, and a transitional deal of 2 years to enable orderly exit. If the EU agree , would that satisfy clause 2 and UK withdrawal complete

Good question, but this is all uncharted waters.  No country has left before (apart from Greenland) so there's no precedent.  The vote to leave was made with all this in mind, and thereby demonstrates the willingness of the people to be lead by the evolving process.  It's no wonder the EU hate UK now - we're breaking the ground and paving the way for other countries to leave.

3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes it is all doom and gloom.

 

"Business activity across England and Wales hit an 18-month high at the end of last year in a further sign that the economy has so far shrugged off the effect of the Brexit vote.

Lloyds Bank’s regional purchasing managers’ index for December showed “strong and accelerated growth”, the lender said, led by the east of England, the southwest and the west Midlands.

Companies reported rising order books and employment growth, pointing to a promising start to 2017, Lloyds said in a survey styled as the “leading economic health check” for the regions.

England’s PMI rose to 57.2 from 55.8 in November, well above the recent low of 47.4 in July recorded after the vote to leave the European Union.

Wales, where the majority of voters plumped for Brexit, scored 57.4, outperforming the UK average for the seventh month running. Any reading above 50 signifies a growth in activity."

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/business-activity-at-18-month-high-as-firms-shrug-off-brexit-qrmdrsck2

Excellent!!  Now I'm waiting for the contorted connections to the falling pound, rising dollar, etc, etc attempts to refute the obvious!!

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

A parliamentary vote is not a given and T May in Decembers Liaison committee meeting would not commit to a vote in parliament.

If the RP is the correct route, then there is no necessity for parliament involvement. The gov. could simply leave the deal on the international plane 

There will be votes - if only to repeal whatever acts need to be binned, and constructing the new ones to fill any gaps - but basically I agree.  The sadness is that what should have been a referendum quickly followed by action, has become mired in these challenges because the instigator didn't have the courage to fulfill his "promises".  If Camoron had invoked Art50 the day after the result, we'd be out by now,,,,,,,,

53 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

They have been saying things like this and the troubles starting again for the last few years. Nothing to do with brexit just some using the excuse again. This needs a complete new thread to discuss but as TM has already said, there will be no borders for Ireland.

Look at the support the troubles got from USA, and before that, from Germany - you think that is going to happen again.?  Without that, there would have been a unified ireland long ago.  Ulster people are not against re-unification as long as it is done properly -- many of them have properties and/or business in the south already.

19 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Notwithstanding the noble but unfortunately vain efforts of forum Hard Brexiteers to save the government's case for applying Royal Prerogative to Article 50, Theresa May's team will no doubt have been obliged to consider contingency planning in the event of Supreme Court loss. Lack of confidence in holding things together through Parliament is the only reason for going for RP, so what she says tomorrow is likely offering a pathway through the SC loss ahead of that decision.

 

You still have not answered the question. Why can the RP not be used for invoking Art50 ?

Please contribute facts - not opinions :)

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

If parliament disagree with the final deal it cannot maintain the status qou, and has no control of domestic laws in this matter

Obviously.  But what happens is that the deal has to be amended to suit what the MP's want.  Has to be said that the deal will be discussed at length prior to any vote, so that there's little chance of sending the negotiators back to brussels with their tails between their legs.

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

If having the same question answered clearly several times doesn't work, obtuseness is always an option.

There has not been any "clear answer" or there'd not be a case in front of the supreme court.  What's your answer?  I am looking for constructive, factual commentary from the  Remainers side of the fence.

14 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

There is difference between Art 50 and International treaty.

The government can make any treaty it wants , however it has no standing in domestic law until parliament incorporates into the domestic sphere if parliament wishes.

If parliament dont incorporate a treaty into the domestic sphere , there is no change to domestic laws, the status quo remains. This cant be said for Art 50 

Why not?

8 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Tony Benn attempted to have the RP abolished, but failed. MP's were never going to vote for something that would increase their workload. The RP has been used as a political shortcut in routine matters, to allow the use in major decisions creates a dangerous precedent.

Was the Maastricht treaty not agreed by RP?  .  Agreeing a treaty is only part of the process anyway, there then has to be laws written to enact the treaty and those are subject to full debate and a vote. Art50 can be treated in the same way, with full debate on the terms of departure as and when they become known.

9 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

 

Parliament was told the referendum was advisory.

Parliament is sovereign and trumps RP, statutes enacted by parliament cannot be set aside other than  by parliament or acting on their wishes.

When enacting 1972 ECA parliament introduced a constitutional statute, and as such as to be repealed by express language 

 

That begs the question of why the RP was used on prior occasions.  The intent on those occasions was not more obvious

13 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

Is you daughter currently in Thailand?

It would not matter. If she presents an out of date passport for renewal, the passport office has no need to know what travelling she has been doing.  Giving offices too much information can create issues when the official is unsure what to do with it   

10 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

The 'obvious intent of parliament' is a fake pass but 3/10 for effort.

So - how does one "measure" the intent?

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Did you read the article I linked to?

 

It's author, Thomas Fairclough, would disagree with you; and, with respect, I suspect he knows far more about these matters than you and I. Certainly me.

 

As for the 'clear intention of Parliament,' from the comments on the article by another highly qualified and respected lawyer; Michael Wilkinson

 

In short, the clear intention of Parliament was to leave the decision up to the electorate.

 

Of course, as you can see from the comments, and other articles by equally eminent lawyers, not everyone agrees.

 

So, as I said, we will have to await the judgement of the Supreme Court.

The way people like to obstruct the obvious intent of parliament, government, the electorate, etc, etc, is clear indication of a refusal to accept democracy.  It is a pleasure to see TM forging ahead in spite of all, taking it all in her stride.

3 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

What they think is "entertaining" ...

It's entertaining if it sells more beer

2 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

And you've only just found out that politicians' promises are worthless?

I merely point it out clearly to those who believe every word they hear,,,,,,      

In the same way as the EU was full of promises until the referendum called them in,,,,

1 minute ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Probably worth nothing. How many bar room bores with opinions have you encountered in your long life?

It's in a bar-owners interests to provide entertaining conversation

43 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is the here and now, but even if the courts rule that Article 50 will have no impact on the devolved administration agreements, the problems do not go away.

 

EU funding for the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement are major obstacles and the Irish,collectively speaking, are never going to agree to a border.

 

During the Scottish independence referendum the Tory party promised Scotland if they voted NO they would be guaranteed a voice in Europe, Nicola Sturgeon is not going to let that be pushed to one side.

Was that a promise made by the same moron who promised to enact the result of the EU referendum?  It would appear that promises mean NOTHING

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Bit of an arbitrary statement, by anyone. The UK constitution is unwritten so by default any dispute on constitutional matters can only be resolved by the courts.

It is also an unwritten rule in respect of the RP that it can only be used when it is the clear intention of parliament, so any previous occurrence is irrelevant, the PM overstepped the mark this time round.

The way UK gets along without a written constitution allows for all kinds of arguments for and against the various positions held, all of which can be aired in court.  This means that anything that has not ben argued in court is open to interpretation until challenged.  This is where the process gets bogged down in the morass of conflicting legal arguments.  Another thing that has - afaik - not been tested, is an appeal against a supreme court ruling being taken to the EU court and thereby causing the interpretation of UK law to be decided by the EU.  Anyone know of any instances of this, because it is looming large now,,,,,,,,

26 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is the here and now, but even if the courts rule that Article 50 will have no impact on the devolved administration agreements, the problems do not go away.

 

EU funding for the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement are major obstacles and the Irish,collectively speaking, are never going to agree to a border.

 

During the Scottish independence referendum the Tory party promised Scotland if they voted NO they would be guaranteed a voice in Europe, Nicola Sturgeon is not going to let that be pushed to one side.

The Irish issue is not so much "agreeing to a border"  -- it's more about "agreeing to not have a border" ...  but you are right --  sadly the northern Irish are too deeply entrenched in their views.