May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[sandyf]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

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. 

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.

[jpinx]

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.

[jpinx]

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,,,,,,,,

[Grouse]

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.....?

[7by7]

5 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.

 

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

Quote

The wording of the referendum was discussed by Parliament and modified by agreement and therefore gave approval to the question ‘Stay in the EU or leave the EU’ as surely if there had been a Parliamentary vote in the House.
It is ‘inappropriate’ to claim that Parliament did not approve that the referendum should take place and accept any result arising. No motion was raised to challenge the enactment or consequences of a leave vote, or for that matter a remain vote. In short Parliament agreed that the question of EU membership should be delegated to the electorate on a simple yes or no basis.

 

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.

[SaintLouisBlues]

16 minutes 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.....?

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

[jpinx]

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

[jpinx]

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

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, jpinx said:

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

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

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, jpinx said:

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

What they think is "entertaining" ...

[jpinx]

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,,,,

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

What they think is "entertaining" ...

It's entertaining if it sells more beer

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, jpinx said:

It's entertaining if it sells more beer

That's arguable. I'd be drinking to drown out the rubbish being spoken

[jpinx]

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.

[Grouse]

38 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

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

 

I hope you're correct. This guy is in electrical power distribution. The bar is for his wife. I think there is sufficient risk to at least consider. 

[Grouse]

Take my advice. Listen to everyone's stories and apply your own filters. Rejecting everything out of hand is unwise....

[rockingrobin]

1 hour 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 restriction on the RP to alter domestic law is in the Bill of Rights and a fundamental principle,

[rockingrobin]

1 hour 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.

Whilst the referendum act was going through parliament, D  Liddington expressly stated the referendum was advisory , when debating an amendment to propose the action to be taken after.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

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.

 

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

[jpinx]

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?

[SheungWan]

1 hour 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.

 

I guess they are not one of those derided experts the Hard Brexiteers get so agitated about. Unfortunately there is a deliberate confusion between the decision of the referendum and the form and process of the withdrawal which is the responsibility of parliament. It should be noted that now that the Hard Brexiteers have lamentably failed in their arguments wanting to explicitly bypass parliament, now they have pulled back to an equally bogus 'intention of parliament'. Either way they still grasp the pig's ear of Royal Prerogative. Better luck guys with putting the lipstick on the pig but its a thankless task.

[rockingrobin]

22 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

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

 

11 minutes ago, jpinx said:

So - how does one "measure" the intent?

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 

 

[jpinx]

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

[AlexRich]

On Tuesday May will outline her Brexit plan ... the £ falling is an indication of the rumour that it will be the hardest of hard Brexit ... market reaction will be interesting. Not great if you are converting £ to Baht. 

[Grouse]

Cable below 1.20 ?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/6037-british-pound-to-be-rocked-monday-by-latest-brexit-revelations/amp?client=safari

 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Grouse

[onthesoi]

Sterling falls below $1.20 ahead of May’s Brexit speech

It's truly amazing that people voted for the tories because of their promises to fix the economy, reduce debt and immigration, to mend broken Britain and make it great again!  ...& here we are, the pound in the shitter, almost zero growth predicted, almost 0% interest rates,  debt mountain and immigration continue to rise.....& still the head dalek wants to go ahead with brexit, even though the pound is getting gang raped in the currency markets every time she mentions or lurches towards a hard brexit. 

[SheungWan]

9 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

 

Beg away. Another failed attempt to supplant the authority of Parliament with Royal Prerogative to provide us with some amusement.

[pitrevie]

2 hours ago, onthesoi said:

Sterling falls below $1.20 ahead of May’s Brexit speech

It's truly amazing that people voted for the tories because of their promises to fix the economy, reduce debt and immigration, to mend broken Britain and make it great again!  ...& here we are, the pound in the shitter, almost zero growth predicted, almost 0% interest rates,  debt mountain and immigration continue to rise.....& still the head dalek wants to go ahead with brexit, even though the pound is getting gang raped in the currency markets every time she mentions or lurches towards a hard brexit. 

 

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. 

[Laughing Gravy]

15 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. 

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."

[Laughing Gravy]

Just now, 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 post 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."