May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[onthesoi]

32 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

 

As Farage announce recently almost gleefully to some like minded supporters, if you thought 2016 was bad, 2017 is going to be a whole lot worse, so that is something to look forward to.

 

Still trying to dig ourselves out of the 2008 financial crisis we shoot ourselves in both feet and throw the shovel away. 

 

Brexit is a wider and deeper hole in the pound than the 2008 financial crisis, interesting times ahead for sure:

 

 

 

[pitrevie]

19 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Farage was not saying that with regards to the lowering pound but in relation to populism rising through Europe. There are lots of people happy with the exchange rate going down. The whole referendum is finally coming to a close, so the UK can get out. it is looking rosy for the UK, sadly to some posters on here who would be happy with an apocalyptic UK going back to the dark ages.

 

Well this man has just said that the UK did right by leaving and he will trade with the UK.  Take that one Obama.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-will-be-a-great-thing-you-were-so-smart-to-get-out-09gp9z357

Just a snippet from the article on a pay site.

 

"There is no rancour or glee in his prediction of the break-up of the EU, quite the opposite. His demeanour is warm and genial, the flame-throwing rhetoric of his rallies and press conferences replaced with showers of compliments. He describes Jean-Claude Juncker as a very fine gentleman, and says that he has great respect for Mrs Merkel.

His pessimism about the EU is rooted in his view of it as anti-jobs and anti-growth. And it springs, as so much of his world view does, from his experience as a businessman rather than any ideological preconception.

“I own a big property in Ireland, magnificent property called Doonbeg. What happened is I went for an approval to do this massive, beautiful expansion — that was when I was a developer, now I couldn’t care less about it . . . but I learnt a lot because . . . they were using environmental tricks to stop a project from being built. I found it to be a very unpleasant experience. To get the approvals from the EU would have taken years. I don’t think that’s good for a country like Ireland. So you know what I did? I said forget it, I’m not gonna build it.”

Mr Trump’s view is that Europe is dominated by Germany, and Britain was wise to extract itself: “You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany. That’s why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out.”

 

Mr Trump’s hostility to the EU has been matched by his scepticism towards another pillar of the postwar order, Nato. But the president-elect was at pains to emphasise that he is committed to the defence of Europe and the West. His concerns are, principally, that Nato had not reformed to meet the main threat that we face — Islamist terrorism — and its members had relied too heavily on America. “I said a long time ago that Nato had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. Number two the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right."

 

 I will just take one phrase which seems to sum up this drift into unreality, "it is looking rosy for the UK" . The markets think otherwise and as Thatcher often opined you cannot buck the markets.

Edited January 16, 2017 by pitrevie
Adding further comment

[Laughing Gravy]

40 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

 

 I will just take one phrase which seems to sum up this drift into unreality, "it is looking rosy for the UK" . The markets think otherwise and as Thatcher often opined you cannot buck the markets.

We will have disagree about the markets as they are manipulated by bankers, media and politicians. The fact that other countries buying UK goods are cheaper for them is not a bad thing. The markets will be fine like they were after the Trump victory. The UK is one of the worlds strongest economies so the fact that the markets are down, means little. The markets are very different from the Thatcher era. Well I guess like the other posters predicting doomsday, I will be telling you in 6 months. I told you so.

[pitrevie]

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

We will have disagree about the markets as they are manipulated by bankers, media and politicians. The fact that other countries buying UK goods are cheaper for them is not a bad thing. The markets will be fine like they were after the Trump victory. The UK is one of the worlds strongest economies so the fact that the markets are down, means little. The markets are very different from the Thatcher era. Well I guess like the other posters predicting doomsday, I will be telling you in 6 months. I told you so.

 

That is what I mean about unreality.

[sandyf]

16 hours 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.

It was you that made the the statement " There is no constitutional reason " and continually refer to previous events.

 

Yes, I did read the article and his views are in contradiction to statements made by committees during Tony Benn's attempt to have the RP abolished.

 

The judgement will be based on circumstances surrounding the case in hand.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Farage was not saying that with regards to the lowering pound but in relation to populism rising through Europe. There are lots of people happy with the exchange rate going down. The whole referendum is finally coming to a close, so the UK can get out. it is looking rosy for the UK, sadly to some posters on here who would be happy with an apocalyptic UK going back to the dark ages.

 

Well this man has just said that the UK did right by leaving and he will trade with the UK.  Take that one Obama.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-will-be-a-great-thing-you-were-so-smart-to-get-out-09gp9z357

Just a snippet from the article on a pay site.

 

"There is no rancour or glee in his prediction of the break-up of the EU, quite the opposite. His demeanour is warm and genial, the flame-throwing rhetoric of his rallies and press conferences replaced with showers of compliments. He describes Jean-Claude Juncker as a very fine gentleman, and says that he has great respect for Mrs Merkel.

His pessimism about the EU is rooted in his view of it as anti-jobs and anti-growth. And it springs, as so much of his world view does, from his experience as a businessman rather than any ideological preconception.

“I own a big property in Ireland, magnificent property called Doonbeg. What happened is I went for an approval to do this massive, beautiful expansion — that was when I was a developer, now I couldn’t care less about it . . . but I learnt a lot because . . . they were using environmental tricks to stop a project from being built. I found it to be a very unpleasant experience. To get the approvals from the EU would have taken years. I don’t think that’s good for a country like Ireland. So you know what I did? I said forget it, I’m not gonna build it.”

Mr Trump’s view is that Europe is dominated by Germany, and Britain was wise to extract itself: “You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany. That’s why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out.”

 

Mr Trump’s hostility to the EU has been matched by his scepticism towards another pillar of the postwar order, Nato. But the president-elect was at pains to emphasise that he is committed to the defence of Europe and the West. His concerns are, principally, that Nato had not reformed to meet the main threat that we face — Islamist terrorism — and its members had relied too heavily on America. “I said a long time ago that Nato had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. Number two the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right."

 

Did you have to use scissors with rounded ends to cut out that snippet?

 

It is quite astonishing that you fail to see the downside of any of this. ?

Edited January 16, 2017 by Grouse

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

For what it's worth I'm in a bar in Phuket owned by a great Irish gent who comes from Dublin. Word is that Brexit and the ensuing likely hard border WILL result in a restart of The Troubles.....?

When I visited my friend in Belfast in September, he said exactly the same thing and it had created growing support for reunification. Of course there are those that will dismiss the idea out of hand.

[Grouse]

"But, I do believe this, if they hadn’t been forced to take in all of the refugees, so many, with all the problems that it . . . entails, I think that you wouldn’t have a Brexit."

 

I tell you, this Trump guy is no fool. He's got all the facts and gets to the root of the problem immediately! I'll bet Gove (he's a bit odd) disabused him of any misunderstandings immediately.

[rockingrobin]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Correct; but it can be, and has been, used to make, amend or break international treaties, such as membership of international organisations such as the EU.

 

When the UK joined the EC back in 1972, Heath used the Royal Prerogative to sign the treaty. However, an Act of Parliament, the European Communities Act 1972, was required to bring the UK's domestic laws etc. into line with it's treaty obligations.

 

The same has happened since; the government have agreed to various EU regulations with the other member states, but an Act of Parliament has been required to bring those agreements into UK law.

 

For example the Maastricht Treaty. Major used the Royal Prerogative to sign the treaty, but it needed an Act of Parliament, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, to bring the provisions of that treaty into UK law. 

 

There is no constitutional reason why the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to break the UK's treaties with the EU by  triggering Article 50. Once an agreement has been reached with the other 27, an Act of Parliament would be required to repeal or amend those UK domestic laws which have derived from our membership of the EU so that they meet the requirements of any agreement reached.

 

For more on this, see Thomas Fairclough: Article 50 and the Royal Prerogative 

 

Of course, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with this, we will find out when they give their judgement.

The article from Thomas Fairclough centers on the 1972 ECA , and the opinion that Parliament have not actually given any domestic law rights. However he does not address the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002.

 

Treatise are not self executing , they have no standing in domestic law unless parliament wishes it so. A question , when Parliament chooses to bring a treaty into domestic law , do they not fetter the RP in relation to such treaties in a similar fashion  to how the fixed term parliament act has eliminated the RP to dissolve parliament.

 

The RP has wide powers to operate on the international plane because it doesnt have the right to make or deprive laws in the domestic sphere.Art 50 cannot be said to operate within the normal relationship between RP international treaties and parliament. If parliament wishes a treaty should not be incorporated into domestic law , then the status quo remains , no laws are changed. The use of RP to invoke art 50 pre-empts parliament. The wishes of parliament become frustrated, and its options constrained by RP. Domestic laws are changed irrespective of what parliament thinks and cannot be considered as sovereign.

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, jpinx said:

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

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.

[jpinx]

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.

Edited January 16, 2017 by jpinx

[rockingrobin]

32 minutes ago, jpinx said:

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.

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 

[jpinx]

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?

[SheungWan]

14 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Why not?

 

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

[jpinx]

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.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Did you have to use scissors with rounded ends to cut out that snippet?

 

It is quite astonishing that you fail to see the downside of any of this

If you have access to the article it is rather large and it is a snippet. I have ben listening ever since the referendum as announced of how bad it is for the UK and its economy with no real evidence. In fact it is the opposite. Just fat cat EU people going to be  getting less from the 'gravy train'. Also what exactly is the downside of leaving the EU? Please hard facts not could be, possibly or maybe's.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

When I visited my friend in Belfast in September, he said exactly the same thing and it had created growing support for reunification. Of course there are those that will dismiss the idea out of hand.

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.

[SheungWan]

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.

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Why not?

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

Edited January 16, 2017 by rockingrobin

[jpinx]

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.

[jpinx]

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 :)

Edited January 16, 2017 by jpinx

[jpinx]

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.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

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.

I believe that this has nothing to do with Brexit and more in house fighting. Just look at the resignation of M. Mcguiness last week. Anyway a different topic. I don't think that Ireland will be unified in my lifetime for many different reasons. Brexit certainly isn't one.

[rockingrobin]

11 minutes ago, jpinx said:

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.

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 

[jpinx]

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,,,,,,,,

[Laughing Gravy]

4 hours ago, pitrevie said:

 

That is what I mean about unreality.

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

[jpinx]

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!!

 

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

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,,,,,,,,

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

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

If you have access to the article it is rather large and it is a snippet. I have ben listening ever since the referendum as announced of how bad it is for the UK and its economy with no real evidence. In fact it is the opposite. Just fat cat EU people going to be  getting less from the 'gravy train'. Also what exactly is the downside of leaving the EU? Please hard facts not could be, possibly or maybe's.

 

The collapse in the value of Sterling.

 

The rise of unpleasant xenophobia in the UK

 

The reduced influence of European social values

 

England has not yet left the EU

 

Lets see how many of the undoubted problems in England are resolved by leaving.

 

Sorry you people don't understand the real effects of the collapse in Sterling. You soon will.

 

Finally, having discounted EU soft power as a force for good, I see now you are going for NATO. Have you noticed the lack of European wars for the last 70 years?

[jpinx]

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.