May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[cumgranosalum]

49 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

I do not think that parliament will, under any circumstances, consider the referendum sufficiently 'advisory' to exercise a vote to reject Brexit. It is not going to happen. Full stop. However, where parliamentary sovereignty can be exercised in practice is over the terms of Brexit.

the referendum was nonetheless advisory - I think it boils down to which the MPs fear most, the referendum or their constituents.

 

There could even be an election.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Ruling likely by early January.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/news/brexit-ruling-parliament-what-next/

 

Ironically they will probably have to used the European Court of Justice at some point.

[rockingrobin]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Ruling likely by early January.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/news/brexit-ruling-parliament-what-next/

 

 

3 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Ironically they will probably have to used the European Court of Justice at some point.

The Supreme Court will probably request a preliminary ruling on notice reversibility, which will leave the option of notice withdrawal at the end of negotations

[sandyf]

9 hours ago, happy Joe said:

 

Without wanting to hurt you still have to take in consideration the total lack of enthusiasm of European leaders for UK come back in the EU.

 

Why even bother to have a member if reluctant, participant of end of the lips for his only immediate financial benefit?

 

Furthermore the British voted leave. The referendum clearly committed the country and was not merely advisory. Europe requires democracy among its member and not easily accept that a member violates an official ballot.

 

Therefore it is likely heading towards for a status like Norway. GB should retain the advantages of the market and pay roughly the equivalent of its earlier assessment. It will have no place on the board and also lose its veto.

 

This choice ultimately will arrange all, except some extreme outgoing. But as we have seen especially in this thread, their arguments are poor and less newsworthy.

Whichever way you want to jump we should all be grateful that Teresa May has been shown the error of her ways and that she must respect the legal process.

We are all aware from the history books that mob rule can have dangerous consequences.

[fabphil]

Just get on with it, get rid of eu, stop the refugee invasion..

 

[sandyf]

30 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Ironically they will probably have to used the European Court of Justice at some point.

I doubt it.

Both TM and David Cameron were prepared to overstep their authority in the use of the prerogative power.

Many years ago Tony Benn campaigned to abolish the royal prerogative but was unsuccessful as it would have meant a bit more work for MPs. From the debate however it was clear that the prerogative should only be used if it was quite clear that was the intention of parliament, in this issue that was certainly not the case.

The appeal was an automatic response but the fact that TM is not going to make a statement in the house until Monday is a fairly good indication that some deep thinking is required.

There is every chance the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling and it will go no further. That being the case, you may well be right and that she sees an election as the only honourable way out.

[cumgranosalum]

17 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I doubt it.

Both TM and David Cameron were prepared to overstep their authority in the use of the prerogative power.

Many years ago Tony Benn campaigned to abolish the royal prerogative but was unsuccessful as it would have meant a bit more work for MPs. From the debate however it was clear that the prerogative should only be used if it was quite clear that was the intention of parliament, in this issue that was certainly not the case.

The appeal was an automatic response but the fact that TM is not going to make a statement in the house until Monday is a fairly good indication that some deep thinking is required.

There is every chance the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling and it will go no further. That being the case, you may well be right and that she sees an election as the only honourable way out.

Any appeal can result in going to the ECJ for legal opinions.....and may possibly to do so especially if other parties are involved (Scotland)

 

The government may have to go to the European Court of Justice to appeal for Brexit

 

also the chances of an early election are increased.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

21 minutes ago, fabphil said:

Just get on with it, get rid of eu, stop the refugee invasion..

 

What a magnificent comment - firstly the "invasion" isn't happening and secondly refugees are nothing to do with our membership of the EU........it's a wonderful example of the "thinking" that some Brexiteers believe to an opinion.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Any appeal can result in going to the ECJ for legal opinions.....and may possibly to do so especially if other parties are involved (Scotland)

 

The government may have to go to the European Court of Justice to appeal for Brexit

Quite possibly. A lot hinges on how the ruling is seen.

Many are of the opinion the ruling was to do with brexit but I take the view that the ruling was to do with prerogative power and parliament and brexit was just the circumstances. If that is the case then the only outcome will be that parliament is sovereign.

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite possibly. A lot hinges on how the ruling is seen.

Many are of the opinion the ruling was to do with brexit but I take the view that the ruling was to do with prerogative power and parliament and brexit was just the circumstances. If that is the case then the only outcome will be that parliament is sovereign.

Be that as it may, and without looking for specific references, surely this situation has arisen before but in less contentious circumstances?  In UK laws are generally based on prior actions and rulings, so TM might well have a team trawling through history to find prior cases

Edited November 4, 2016 by jpinx

[sandyf]

7 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Be that as it may, and without looking for specific references, surely this situation has arisen before but in less contentious circumstances?

This is how Wiki puts it, from a Select Committee report in 2004.

 

The royal prerogative has been called "a notoriously difficult concept to define adequately", but whether a particular type of prerogative power exists is a matter of common law to be decided by the courts as the final arbiter.^[1] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

[jpinx]

That's all very well, but the way it appears to work is that the PM advises and the Monarch "orders" under the powers of the Royal Prerogative.   Given that foreign policy is within the remit of the Monarch, and in this case the Monarch is advised by the PM in a certain course of action in foreign policy, it is difficult to see why the appeal was upheld.  

 

 

[cumgranosalum]

Parliamentary Sovereignty is something that Brexiteers have conveniently forgotten.

 

Clement Attlee on a  post war referendum to extend the Churchill coalition.

 

"‘I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism"

 

"Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation. However, reversing legislation approved by referendum would be unprecedented." - wiki

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Parliamentary Sovereignty is something that Brexiteers have conveniently forgotten.

 

Clement Attlee on a  post war referendum to extend the Churchill coalition.

 

"‘I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism"

 

"Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation. However, reversing legislation approved by referendum would be unprecedented." - wiki

That is a seriously smelly red-herring.  Quoting Atlee who wanted power and was not a lawmaker, but spoke thus to prevent his own rise to government from being stymied.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, jpinx said:

That's all very well, but the way it appears to work is that the PM advises and the Monarch "orders" under the powers of the Royal Prerogative.   Given that foreign policy is within the remit of the Monarch, and in this case the Monarch is advised by the PM in a certain course of action in foreign policy, it is difficult to see why the appeal was upheld.  

 

 

It was not an issue of foreign policy

 

It was an issue of withdrawal of individual rights

 

It took an act of PARLIAMENT to take us in. It requires parliament to take us out!

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It was not an issue of foreign policy

 

It was an issue of withdrawal of individual rights

 

It took an act of PARLIAMENT to take us in. It requires parliament to take us out!

 

The proposals about Brexit were very clear.  It was proposed that the whole raft of legislation which empowers EU in UK would be replaced by native UK laws immediately on Art 50 being invoked and these UK laws  would then be debated and voted on over time and away from the heat of the current "furnace". 

[cumgranosalum]

44 minutes ago, jpinx said:

That is a seriously smelly red-herring.  Quoting Atlee who wanted power and was not a lawmaker, but spoke thus to prevent his own rise to government from being stymied.

Why he did it doesn't alter the message.

[cumgranosalum]

29 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

The proposals about Brexit were very clear.  It was proposed that the whole raft of legislation which empowers EU in UK would be replaced by native UK laws immediately on Art 50 being invoked and these UK laws  would then be debated and voted on over time and away from the heat of the current "furnace". 

whatever the "proposal, it wasn't legally binding on any parliament, now or later.

[rockingrobin]

28 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

The proposals about Brexit were very clear.  It was proposed that the whole raft of legislation which empowers EU in UK would be replaced by native UK laws immediately on Art 50 being invoked and these UK laws  would then be debated and voted on over time and away from the heat of the current "furnace". 

Its not about ifs and what might happen, some laws would not have been in parliaments gift to maintain 

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

whatever the "proposal, it wasn't legally binding on any parliament, now or later.

The proposal was to put the existing EU legislation onto the UK statue books immediately, thereby maintaining the status quo while negotiations were going on between parliament and EU.  The appeal was against invoking Article 50, not removing anyones rights.   The judgement has only defined what the court thinks is not possible, but did not expand much

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

[rockingrobin]

53 minutes ago, jpinx said:

That is a seriously smelly red-herring.  Quoting Atlee who wanted power and was not a lawmaker, but spoke thus to prevent his own rise to government from being stymied.

Can you elaborate on Atlee not being a lawmaker

[Grouse]

42 minutes ago, jpinx said:

So much hype for short-term gainers who have no interest in democracy.   The FX reality is here

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=1M

 

I don't understand your point.

 

Cable has been correlated with Brexit related action for a long time now. The markets don't like Brexit obviously

[Laughing Gravy]

So this from the man who said brexit would cause a catastrophe. I hope he apolgises to the UK people for his fear mongering and false predictions., especially as he is meant to be the number one expert for the country. What a joke.

 

The remoaners think they have won the referendum again which they have not. They are just causing more unrest for the country. It has nothing to do with leaving the EU it has everything to do with not leaving the EU. This report was before the ruling from the Pro EU judges.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/economy-will-grow-twice-as-fast-next-year-bank-predicts-dtk2qx3bb

 

The Bank of England has almost doubled its economic growth forecast for 2017 after Britain defied expectations of a downturn after the Brexit vote.

 

“What did we miss?” Mark Carney, governor of the Bank, asked as he delivered its inflation report yesterday. “The [Bank] had expected consumption to grow solidly but consumption has been even stronger, with households appearing to entirely look through Brexit-related uncertainties,” he said.

 

 

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The proposal was to put the existing EU legislation onto the UK statue books immediately, thereby maintaining the status quo while negotiations were going on between parliament and EU.  The appeal was against invoking Article 50, not removing anyones rights.   The judgement has only defined what the court thinks is not possible, but did not expand much

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

No the court case was about invoking article 50 would lead to loss of rights , and this is not within the Crowns  but parliaments authority

[Grouse]

18 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So this from the man who said brexit would cause a catastrophe. I hope he apolgises to the UK people for his fear mongering and false predictions., especially as he is meant to be the number one expert for the country. What a joke.

 

The remoaners think they have won the referendum again which they have not. They are just causing more unrest for the country. It has nothing to do with leaving the EU it has everything to do with not leaving the EU. This report was before the ruling from the Pro EU judges.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/economy-will-grow-twice-as-fast-next-year-bank-predicts-dtk2qx3bb

 

The Bank of England has almost doubled its economic growth forecast for 2017 after Britain defied expectations of a downturn after the Brexit vote.

 

“What did we miss?” Mark Carney, governor of the Bank, asked as he delivered its inflation report yesterday. “The [Bank] had expected consumption to grow solidly but consumption has been even stronger, with households appearing to entirely look through Brexit-related uncertainties,” he said.

 

 

 

Did you read the entire article?

 

Anyway, good news yesterday! Looks like we'll get a sensible solution now. It would be interesting to see some opinion polls to see if there is still a majority for Brexit. I bet there won't  be ?

[kevkev1888]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Did you read the entire article?

 

Anyway, good news yesterday! Looks like we'll get a sensible solution now. It would be interesting to see some opinion polls to see if there is still a majority for Brexit. I bet there won't  be ?

 

In your dreams. You are living in denial 

[Laughing Gravy]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Did you read the entire article?

 

Anyway, good news yesterday! Looks like we'll get a sensible solution now. It would be interesting to see some opinion polls to see if there is still a majority for Brexit. I bet there won't  be ?

Yes I did, did you. Did you read my post. My point is he has backtracked on his project fear. I hope they call an election and wipe of the lefty and luvvies once and for all. Don't rely on polls, as if we did, the remain would have won by a handsome margin but they lost.

 

I don't share the good news at all. The opposite. Just stuttering the process which will only cause more damage and fuel more divide.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes I did, did you. did you read my post. My point is he has backtracked on his project fear. I hope they call an election and wipe of the lefty and luvvies once and for all. Don't rely on polls, as if we did, the remain would have won by a handsome margin but they lost.

 

I don't share the good news at all. The opposite. Just stuttering the process which will only cause more damage and fuel more divide.

 

The BoE have adjusted their FORECAST based on recent data. What would you have them do? The original expectation was that the Brexit button would be pressed immediately. It wasn't. The main thrust of the article was pain delayed. Growth still poor. Do you doubt inflation rocketing? High risk of stagflation? 

 

I and many many others are delighted that a sensible solution will prevail ?

[Grouse]

13 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

 

In your dreams. You are living in denial 

 

No, I'm absolutely serious! Once the numpty flavour of Brexiteers realise what Sterling's collapse will mean for net disposable income, more than a few will change their minds. Wait until they start booking Benidorm for their next hols!

[SgtRock]

8 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I don't share the good news at all. The opposite. Just stuttering the process which will only cause more damage and fuel more divide

 

This I agree with 100%

 

This is exactly what it will cause, further damage and more division within the UK.

 

Instead of being the spineless <deleted> that he undoubtedly is, Cameron should have invoked A50 the day after the Referendum, which everyone was expecting him to do. Not run away after throwing his teddy when he lost the vote which he was responsible for creating in the 1st place.