May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[sandyf]

11 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Supreme Court vote decision scheduled for January 24. So, one week to go before we have a new list of Enemies Of The People.

Quite, many are still under the illusion it is just to do with Gina Miller, this judgement could very easily turn nasty.

 

The question of Northern Ireland is particularly contentious – after the Supreme Court heard evidence that Stormont is responsible for some border issues.

The need for full consent would plunge the United Kingdom into a full-blown constitutional crisis, as well as potentially sink the Prime Minister’s exit timetable completely.

In addition, the Supreme Court may also make a ruling on whether Article 50 – and, therefore, Brexit itself – could later be stopped, if Parliament chose to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/supreme-court-uk-brexit-judgement-article-50-theresa-may-a7533466.html

[SheungWan]

31 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite, many are still under the illusion it is just to do with Gina Miller, this judgement could very easily turn nasty.

 

The question of Northern Ireland is particularly contentious – after the Supreme Court heard evidence that Stormont is responsible for some border issues.

The need for full consent would plunge the United Kingdom into a full-blown constitutional crisis, as well as potentially sink the Prime Minister’s exit timetable completely.

In addition, the Supreme Court may also make a ruling on whether Article 50 – and, therefore, Brexit itself – could later be stopped, if Parliament chose to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/supreme-court-uk-brexit-judgement-article-50-theresa-may-a7533466.html

 

The Supreme Court is not making a ruling as to whether Article 50 or Brexit can be stopped. That might be a concomitant outcome wished for by some remainers and feared by brexiteers but it is not the point of law(s) being considered by the Court. What the Court is essentially considering is whether the process of withdrawal from the EU signaled by Article 50 stays within the prerogative of Parliament or may be bypassed by the Government using Royal Prerogative. Rather than waiting around for an anticipated second defeat in the courts and resulting loss of authority Theresa May has in practice conceded by saying the Government will now go through Parliament with all its associated messiness and risks. This is probably the right thing to do, given where we are now.

[Orac]

 
The Supreme Court is not making a ruling as to whether Article 50 or Brexit can be stopped. That might be a concomitant outcome wished for by some remainers and feared by brexiteers but it is not the point of law(s) being considered by the Court. What the Court is essentially considering is whether the process of withdrawal from the EU signaled by Article 50 stays within the prerogative of Parliament or may be bypassed by the Government using Royal Prerogative. Rather than waiting around for an anticipated second defeat in the courts and resulting loss of authority Theresa May has in practice conceded by saying the Government will now go through Parliament with all its associated messiness and risks. This is probably the right thing to do, given where we are now.

There will be a bit more to it than that since a ruling in favour of parliament having to trigger Art 50 will also have implications regarding approval of any deal reached.

At the moment TM/govt is only saying that parliament will get a vote on whether any deal agreed with the EU should be accepted with the alternative being leaving the EU without one. Should the Supreme Court rule that Art 50 is the remit of parliament to invoke it is not a big leap to also say that parliament should also have the right to revoke Art 50 during the 2 year negotiation period should it be confirmed that it is revokable and this option should be on the table in a future debate/vote.

[jpinx]

35 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

There will be a bit more to it than that since a ruling in favour of parliament having to trigger Art 50 will also have implications regarding approval of any deal reached.

At the moment TM/govt is only saying that parliament will get a vote on whether any deal agreed with the EU should be accepted with the alternative being leaving the EU without one. Should the Supreme Court rule that Art 50 is the remit of parliament to invoke it is not a big leap to also say that parliament should also have the right to revoke Art 50 during the 2 year negotiation period should it be confirmed that it is revokable and this option should be on the table in a future debate/vote.

This is true -- it is going to be interesting to see how wide the compass of the ruling will be, either way it goes.  One can not escape the fact that Art50 - of itself - is merely a "notice to quit", and prompts the start of negotiations.  The result of the negotiations will require a debate and vote before becoming UK law, so it's been difficult to see how the high court could rule against RP being used in the first place.  But given the highly politicised nature of the action - who knows what way it'll go.

[rockingrobin]

54 minutes ago, jpinx said:

This is true -- it is going to be interesting to see how wide the compass of the ruling will be, either way it goes.  One can not escape the fact that Art50 - of itself - is merely a "notice to quit", and prompts the start of negotiations.  The result of the negotiations will require a debate and vote before becoming UK law, so it's been difficult to see how the high court could rule against RP being used in the first place.  But given the highly politicised nature of the action - who knows what way it'll go.

The parliamentary debate and vote on final agreement will be via s20 of CRAG, which is not binding

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The parliamentary debate and vote on final agreement will be via s20 of CRAG, which is not binding

Since when is a vote by MP's not binding?  Still clutching at straws are you?  And no reply to my comment to you in the other thread?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/964149-uk-likely-to-have-“clean-break”-with-eu/?do=findComment&comment=11534343

 

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Since when is a vote by MP's not binding?  Still clutching at straws are you?  And no reply to my comment to you in the other thread?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/964149-uk-likely-to-have-“clean-break”-with-eu/?do=findComment&comment=11534343

 

This link may provide some guidance

https://secondreading.uk/brexit/brexit-and-parliament-deal-or-no-deal/

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

This link may provide some guidance

https://secondreading.uk/brexit/brexit-and-parliament-deal-or-no-deal/

What is your point?

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What is your point?

Parliament is presented with a fait accompli , no commitment to a full Act of Parliament to approve the final deal

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Parliament is presented with a fait accompli , no commitment to a full Act of Parliament to approve the final deal

Maybe you need to refresh your memory of how EU law is incorporated into UK law, and with that understanding you might be able to see how MP's will get to vote on every single item of EU law that is being changed. 

 

Would you like to come up to date and stop having so many threads on the same topic?  We're here now......

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/964236-may’s-brexit-europe-responds/?do=findComment&comment=11537243

I confess to the new forum format is a real PITA and with so many threads on basically the same topic it's too easy to miss things on the older threads.  In spite of our differences - I enjoy our exchanges, and those with many others too  :)

 

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Maybe you need to refresh your memory of how EU law is incorporated into UK law, and with that understanding you might be able to see how MP's will get to vote on every single item of EU law that is being changed. 

Your assertion is that after months/years of negotiation MPs will be able to determine clause by clause the elements they approve? What happens if they don't approve a handful? The Europeans will have based their final position as "take it or leave it", not "cherry pick the bits you like"

[rockingrobin]

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Maybe you need to refresh your memory of how EU law is incorporated into UK law, and with that understanding you might be able to see how MP's will get to vote on every single item of EU law that is being changed. 

 

Would you like to come up to date and stop having so many threads on the same topic?  We're here now......

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/964236-may’s-brexit-europe-responds/?do=findComment&comment=11537243

I confess to the new forum format is a real PITA and with so many threads on basically the same topic it's too easy to miss things on the older threads.  In spite of our differences - I enjoy our exchanges, and those with many others too  :)

 

I fail to see the comparison.

If the UK parliament does not ratify any EU laws, then nothing changes in the UKs domestic sphere, the status quo remains. The same cannot be said for Art 50, if UK parliament rejects the final deal , the treaties and subsequent domestic law, changes in UK 

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I fail to see the comparison.

If the UK parliament does not ratify any EU laws, then nothing changes in the UKs domestic sphere, the status quo remains. The same cannot be said for Art 50, if UK parliament rejects the final deal , the treaties and subsequent domestic law, changes in UK 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/964236-may’s-brexit-europe-responds/?do=findComment&comment=11537786

 

[jpinx]

33 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Your assertion is that after months/years of negotiation MPs will be able to determine clause by clause the elements they approve? What happens if they don't approve a handful? The Europeans will have based their final position as "take it or leave it", not "cherry pick the bits you like"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/964236-may’s-brexit-europe-responds/?do=findComment&comment=11537786

 

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, Orac said:

 

 

There will be a bit more to it than that since a ruling in favour of parliament having to trigger Art 50 will also have implications regarding approval of any deal reached.

At the moment TM/govt is only saying that parliament will get a vote on whether any deal agreed with the EU should be accepted with the alternative being leaving the EU without one. Should the Supreme Court rule that Art 50 is the remit of parliament to invoke it is not a big leap to also say that parliament should also have the right to revoke Art 50 during the 2 year negotiation period should it be confirmed that it is revokable and this option should be on the table in a future debate/vote.

 

 

That is the way I read the wording. If I remember right the author said the intention was that it could be withdrawn, it is the UK government that has stated it is irrevocable and it is unlikely the EU would disagree.

[SheungWan]

14 hours ago, jpinx said:

This is true -- it is going to be interesting to see how wide the compass of the ruling will be, either way it goes.  One can not escape the fact that Art50 - of itself - is merely a "notice to quit", and prompts the start of negotiations.  The result of the negotiations will require a debate and vote before becoming UK law, so it's been difficult to see how the high court could rule against RP being used in the first place.  But given the highly politicised nature of the action - who knows what way it'll go.

 

There is nothing in the above to justify defence of Royal Prerogative other than the author's inability to understand the High Court Ruling. Slipping in a 'merely' this or 'merely' that doesn't quite cut it. Let us state yet again that triggering Article 50 is the start of a process. It is not a stand-alone announcement and nor is it essentially about negotiations. It is about the process of withdrawal which encompasses a myriad of activities, of which negotiations are a part. Lastly, the 'highly politicised' reference is just another thinly disguised attempt to undermine the legal process. The Supreme Court as did the High Court are making decisions based on points of law. The Supreme Court decision as was the High Court decision will not be an arbitrary pig in a poke even though some hard brexiteers seem already to be out of the starting gate and painting it as such in anticipation of defeat for Royal Prerogative. Its a dead parrot guys, but don't let that stop you.

Edited January 19, 2017 by SheungWan

[bkkcanuck8]

20 hours ago, Orac said:

There will be a bit more to it than that since a ruling in favour of parliament having to trigger Art 50 will also have implications regarding approval of any deal reached.

At the moment TM/govt is only saying that parliament will get a vote on whether any deal agreed with the EU should be accepted with the alternative being leaving the EU without one. Should the Supreme Court rule that Art 50 is the remit of parliament to invoke it is not a big leap to also say that parliament should also have the right to revoke Art 50 during the 2 year negotiation period should it be confirmed that it is revokable and this option should be on the table in a future debate/vote.

 

 

 

Actually it is a huge leap.  Article 50 process is existing law.  Parliamentary approval required to invoke article 50 binds the country to the Article 50 process that has been invoked.  No part of the law allows for un-invoking the law without unanimous agreement from all members of the EU.

 

There are three possible outcomes.

1. An agreement is reached on the exit - and what future relationship will exist between the UK and Europe (maximum 2 years to come to an agreement) which may need parliamentary approval to enact.

2. The members of the UK and EU unanimously agree to extend negotiations. (or to reverse course) - this may of course require parliamentary approval.

3. Failing the above, the default is that the UK is OUT of the union period (The approval of invoking article 50 makes this law of the land already)

 

Article 50

Quote

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

It is essentially a Humpty-Dumpty situation....   once broken, you just cannot put back the pieces and pretend it did not happen.

Edited January 19, 2017 by bkkcanuck8

[jpinx]

7 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

There is nothing in the above to justify defence of Royal Prerogative other than the author's inability to understand the High Court Ruling. Slipping in a 'merely' this or 'merely' that doesn't quite cut it. Let us state yet again that triggering Article 50 is the start of a process. It is not a stand-alone announcement and nor is it essentially about negotiations. It is about the process of withdrawal which encompasses a myriad of activities, of which negotiations are a part. Lastly, the 'highly politicised' reference is just another thinly disguised attempt to undermine the legal process. The Supreme Court as did the High Court are making decisions based on points of law. The Supreme Court decision as was the High Court decision will not be an arbitrary pig in a poke even though some hard brexiteers seem already to be out of the starting gate and painting it as such in anticipation of defeat for Royal Prerogative. Its a dead parrot guys, but don't let that stop you.

 

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Actually it is a huge leap.  Article 50 process is existing law.  Parliamentary approval required to invoke article 50 binds the country to the Article 50 process that has been invoked.  No part of the law allows for un-invoking the law without unanimous agreement from all members of the EU.

 

There are three possible outcomes.

1. An agreement is reached on the exit - and what future relationship will exist between the UK and Europe (maximum 2 years to come to an agreement) which may need parliamentary approval to enact.

2. The members of the UK and EU unanimously agree to extend negotiations. (or to reverse course) - this may of course require parliamentary approval.

3. Failing the above, the default is that the UK is OUT of the union period (The approval of invoking article 50 makes this law of the land already)

 

Article 50

 

It is essentially a Humpty-Dumpty situation....   once broken, you just cannot put back the pieces and pretend it did not happen.

 

 

[jimmybkk]

On 19/01/2017 at 8:38 AM, sandyf said:

So you agree the referendum was fundamentally flawed and the result to say the least, dubious.

 

Yup. Don't think it was right for the govt. to spend £9m on leaflets advocating a remain vote...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

 

Also don't think it was right that an "unexplained glitch" causing the voter registration website to be offline for less than 2 hours resulted in a 48-hour extension to the voter registration deadline - doesn't quite add up, right...?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/eu-referendum-decision-to-extend-voter-registration-deadline-cou/

 

No doubt you agree...

[SheungWan]

12 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

 

 

So not a foreign treaty but a foreign treaty matter. There's the first stretch. The second stretch is the nebulous 'allowed in such cases'. The third stretch is the 'it is appropriate here also'. If this was the standard of logic employed by the government, no wonder they lost at the High Court and have signaled defeat ahead of the Supreme Court Decision. But hey, don't let us stop the forum hard brexiteer kamikaze pilots going down in flames regardless. Not that they are expecting a win. Just gearing up to denounce the Supreme Court as Enemies Of The People.

Edited January 20, 2017 by SheungWan

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, SheungWan said:

So not a foreign treaty but a foreign treaty matter. There's the first stretch. The second stretch is the nebulous 'allowed in such cases'. The third stretch is the 'it is appropriate here also'. If this was the standard of logic employed by the government, no wonder they lost at the High Court and have signaled defeat ahead of the Supreme Court Decision. But hey, don't let us stop the forum hard brexiteer kamikaze pilots going down in flames regardless. Not that they are expecting a win. Just gearing up to denounce the Supreme Court as Enemies Of The People.

 

I'd stick to interpretations of currency movement if I were you mate. Monologues don't work at all well on internet discussion forums. Have you thought about starting a blog?

[AlexRich]

10pm UK or 5am Thailand ... ? Who posts at this hour KH? You don't care about the GBP fall because your not directly affected by it, being based in the UK. 

[onthesoi]

24 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'd stick to interpretations of currency movement if I were you mate. Monologues don't work at all well on internet discussion forums. Have you thought about starting a blog?

 

You've obviously experienced a nasty shock being confronted by a whole paragraph of unfamiliar words.  You should go and have a lie down in a dark room.

[SaintLouisBlues]

8 hours ago, SheungWan said:

kamikaze pilots going down in flames

I think you must watch different war movies than the rest of us. The only time a kamikaze pilot would be going down in flames is when their plane had been shot and was on fire. Otherwise their aim was to crash into their target and cause its destruction (and coincidentally their own)

[ilostmypassword]

Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn says UK investment to be 're-evaluated' if Theresa May delivers poor Brexit deal

 

The boss of Nissan Carlos Ghosn has admitted that the car giant's UK investments will be "re-evaluated" if Theresa May delivers a bad Brexit deal, despite last October's high-profile commitment by the firm to build its next Qashqai and X-Trail model at its Sunderland plant.

Nissan's decision - which followed mysterious assurances from the Government about the firm's future terms of trade with Europe - was hailed as a much-needed vote of confidence in post-Brexit vote Britain and a welcome guarantee of thousands of jobs in the North East.

 

 

But speaking to reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos today Mr Ghosn made it clear that the French firm's commitment was still conditional and that if the shape of the final Brexit deal is detrimental to Nissan's competitiveness it could yet pull out of UK operations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nissan-boss-carlos-ghosn-admits-uk-investment-will-be-reviewed-a7537586.html

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn says UK investment to be 're-evaluated' if Theresa May delivers poor Brexit deal

 

The boss of Nissan Carlos Ghosn has admitted that the car giant's UK investments will be "re-evaluated" if Theresa May delivers a bad Brexit deal, despite last October's high-profile commitment by the firm to build its next Qashqai and X-Trail model at its Sunderland plant.

Nissan's decision - which followed mysterious assurances from the Government about the firm's future terms of trade with Europe - was hailed as a much-needed vote of confidence in post-Brexit vote Britain and a welcome guarantee of thousands of jobs in the North East.

 

 

But speaking to reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos today Mr Ghosn made it clear that the French firm's commitment was still conditional and that if the shape of the final Brexit deal is detrimental to Nissan's competitiveness it could yet pull out of UK operations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nissan-boss-carlos-ghosn-admits-uk-investment-will-be-reviewed-a7537586.html

 

If.....so many ifs.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

If.....so many ifs.

Having trouble counting up to 2? And it's really just  one, since the second conditional sentence means exactly the same as the first.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

 

Yup. Don't think it was right for the govt. to spend £9m on leaflets advocating a remain vote...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35980571

 

Also don't think it was right that an "unexplained glitch" causing the voter registration website to be offline for less than 2 hours resulted in a 48-hour extension to the voter registration deadline - doesn't quite add up, right...?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/eu-referendum-decision-to-extend-voter-registration-deadline-cou/

 

No doubt you agree...

Totally and the result should have been declared invalid.

[sandyf]

During her speech TM said she would be looking into the 'rights' of EU citizens in the UK, she conveniently forgot to mention their safety.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-uk-government-theresa-may-prepared-spike-hate-crime-supreme-court-ruling-article-50-a7535911.html

[7by7]

15 hours ago, AlexRich said:

10pm UK or 5am Thailand ... ? Who posts at this hour KH? You don't care about the GBP fall because your not directly affected by it, being based in the UK. 

 

Those of us who live in the UK are directly affected by a fall in the pound.

 

A weak pound means imported goods are more expensive.

 

The UK imports more than half it's food. These imports will became more expensive leading to price rises in the shops.

 

The rise in fuel prices will mean a rise in the cost of transporting goods, imported or not, to the shops; leading to a rise in prices.

 

I'm old enough to remember this: 19 November 1967: Harold Wilson’s ‘pound in your pocket’ little white lie

Quote

.......on 19 November, he (Wilson) went on radio and television to reassure consumers that devaluation “does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued”. It didn’t take an economist, however, to tell you that that was nonsense.

“That broadcast will long be remembered for that sentence”, crowed Conservative MP and future prime minister Ted Heath in Parliament. “It will be remembered as the most dishonest statement ever made.”

Wilson had fibbed. The ‘pound in your pocket’ is, of course, the same pound that is used to import food and other things from abroad. Prices were going to have to rise.