Theresa May warned of risk of constitutional crisis over Brexit deal

[elgordo38]

On 10/24/2016 at 6:38 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

You are right. It's actually somewhere between being courteous and seen to be reasonable and pandering to the self important egos of some leaders. Sturgeon rants, demands, threatens and claims things like she could veto Brexit (even suggesting May told her so), that Scotland would be welcome to stay in the EU (even though Tusk and other EU leaders made it clear that isn't the case) and ignores the fact more Scots voted to remain part of the UK than remain in EU. But that's her one agenda, and she she won't give up being as divisive as possible to try and further her one goal which is Scottish independence at any cost. 

 

The real issue is May's continued assertion she can simply use the Royal, really government, Prerogative rather than subject the referendum result to parliament for debating and approval or rejection.

 

She knows parliament are likely to over turn the referendum result, which would bring her short lived government down as there would be massive calls for a general election. An election fought on EU membership would split the Tories beyond repair. She will do anything to try to avoid either.

 

Most law experts commentating on the on-going trial challenging the government's right to by pass parliament see it as a serious threat to the UK's parliamentary process and further erosion of parliamentary powers. 

 

This is already a constitutional crisis whatever happens now. All brought about by the arrogant Cameron and his cronies who never dreamed they'd loose. Badly thought out process left to simple majority winner takes all and no plan what so ever for implementing a leave decision. Now those same Tories, plus or minus one or two, are trying to circumvent parliament to protect their own political party and their governments life span. 

 

Sturgeon isn't interested in the UK - she wants to destroy it and can't be trusted. The Welsh and Northern Irish leaders seem less self important and media seeking.  The Tories simply want to rule and now aren't even bothered about parliamentary process.

 

It really is a shambles with the lunatics running the asylum. 

 

 

Are you saying that after the EU breaks up those fat f (bleeps) in Brussels will have to get a real job?

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, elgordo38 said:

Are you saying that after the EU breaks up those fat f (bleeps) in Brussels will have to get a real job?

 

Coming from el Gordo that's amusing!

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

I'm not quite sure how you see Parliament should play a part in the negotiations? 

Given that there are 600 odd MP'S,  (some very odd) who probably between them field several dozens of widely differing approaches.

 

Parliaments role will be to debate, and approve or otherwise the results of the negotiations. 

 

Now within the UK the population of England is significantly greater than the combined populations of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.  Therefore it is inevitable that England will probably have the greatest influence in shaping the post Brexit UK. That of course would be just as true if Parliament was doing the negotiating.

 

I suppose that the only way round it would be to dissolve the Union and allow each country to " do it's own thing". I'm not particularly averse,  but of course then the complaint would be that England was taking the lions share of everything! 

Personally, I find it hard to imagine how an agreement satisfactory to both the UK and the EU can be reached.

 

In which case, WTO rules will be applied once the negotiating period has ended?  If this happens, then presumably Parliament wouldn't have a vote on the 'final terms' as it would already be too late?

 

Its possible that over the coming months the EU will give up on further integration/other 'expansionist' policies and to a certain extent the open borders policy - to increase their chance of survival in their own countries' general elections.

 

Would the UK decide that this is the 'deal' they are looking for to 1) put to parliament and 2) be likely to be accepted by voters?

 

It wouldn't address the cost and waste of the EU, but as most MPs made it v clear that they were quite happy previously (even though even the EU is now realising that many voters in contributing countries aren't happy, and the EU may therefore be looking at change), I'm pretty sure it would be enough for parliamentary approval.

 

More on topic - IF (and its a big 'if') the UK ends up leaving the EU with only WTO rules in place - presumably Scotland, N Ireland and even possibly Wales then have to decide whether to leave the 'UK'.  Presumably they could only do this if the EU decides to allow them to join?  Which seems a bit unlikely to me as having lost one of the main contributors to the EU budget (which would cause problems to EU finances), why would they want to take on new countries that would be 'receivers' rather than contributors?

[JAG]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Personally, I find it hard to imagine how an agreement satisfactory to both the UK and the EU can be reached.

 

In which case, WTO rules will be applied once the negotiating period has ended?  If this happens, then presumably Parliament wouldn't have a vote on the 'final terms' as it would already be too late?

 

Its possible that over the coming months the EU will give up on further integration/other 'expansionist' policies and to a certain extent the open borders policy - to increase their chance of survival in their own countries' general elections.

 

Would the UK decide that this is the 'deal' they are looking for to 1) put to parliament and 2) be likely to be accepted by voters?

 

It wouldn't address the cost and waste of the EU, but as most MPs made it v clear that they were quite happy previously (even though even the EU is now realising that many voters in contributing countries aren't happy, and the EU may therefore be looking at change), I'm pretty sure it would be enough for parliamentary approval.

 

More on topic - IF (and its a big 'if') the UK ends up leaving the EU with only WTO rules in place - presumably Scotland, N Ireland and even possibly Wales then have to decide whether to leave the 'UK'.  Presumably they could only do this if the EU decides to allow them to join?  Which seems a bit unlikely to me as having lost one of the main contributors to the EU budget (which would cause problems to EU finances), why would they want to take on new countries that would be 'receivers' rather than contributors?

I rather agree, I doubt, looking at the precedent set by the apparent demise of the trade agreement with Canada, that any meaningful agreement could be reached. Whatever is the outcome of the negotiations someone will block it. So yes, we will probably end up using the WTO rules.

 

Perhaps that may be a small price to pay for being released from the shackles of the sclerotic protectionism of the EU,  as it clings to its doomed currency union.

 

I read somewhere recently that if (when) the Euro fails it could plunge Europe into a 1930s style depression,  in which case WTO rules might be rather good.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

Brexit means Brexit ..unless you are Theresa May, in which case, according to this link, it means seriously damaging the country....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/exclusive-leaked-recording-shows-what-theresa-may-really-thinks-about-brexit?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=196486&subid=11137&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

isn't that tantamount to Treason?

 

 

May answered economic questions put to her by bankers; shocking!!!!!!

 

May is not the only person who believes Brexit will damage the UK overall; that the advantages of remaining outweigh the disadvantages; that the disadvantages of Brexit outweigh the advantages. If she believed otherwise she would have been on the Leave side!

 

 I would imagine that all those who voted to Remain, as I did, agree with her. If we didn't we would have voted to leave!

 

However, she has stated that, like the majority of those of us who voted to remain,  she has accepted the referendum result.

 

I fail to see how campaigning for the Remain side before the referendum followed by accepting the referendum result and trying to get the best possible post Brexit deal for the UK is treason!

 

 

 

 

 

[Xircal]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

There's more....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bank-of-england-mark-carney-theresa-may-attack-monetary-policy-tory-conference-speech-a7380016.html

 

Gordon Brown did the right thing when he gave the BoE independence freeing it from political control back in 1997. May can grumble all she wants but the bank will put the interests of the country first, not her government. 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

1 minute ago, Xircal said:

 

Gordon Brown did the right thing when he gave the BoE independence freeing it from political control back in 1997. May can grumble all she wants but the bank will put the interests of the country first, not her government. 

 

What Brown didn't do was see that the BoE ensured British banks kept to a strict lending policy. The consequences were dire, and the toothless SEC (or whatever it was called) was just an administration department there to generate income through form filling, not to ensure financial stability.

 

[Xircal]

7 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

What Brown didn't do was see that the BoE ensured British banks kept to a strict lending policy. The consequences were dire, and the toothless SEC (or whatever it was called) was just an administration department there to generate income through form filling, not to ensure financial stability.

 

 

It's not the BoE's job to supervise British banks and their lending policy.

 

Quote

Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the Bank of England's responsibilities are summarised as contributing "to the maintenance of the stability of the financial system as a whole". The FSA's powers and responsibilities stem from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and the FSA has the responsibility of authorising and supervising individual banks. HM Treasury has responsibility for the institutional structure of the financial regulatory system, and the legislation behind it.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/874/87405.htm

 

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

15 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

It's not the BoE's job to supervise British banks and their lending policy.

 

 

Errr... who was in charge of the Treasury???

[Xircal]

9 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Errr... who was in charge of the Treasury???

 

When?

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

1997 to 2007, and as PM for 3 years he was still responsible, although Darling was chancellor, until the election in 2010.

Read your own post. Brown/Balls and Darling with Bliars help were a disaster.

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

1997 to 2007, and as PM for 3 years he was still responsible, although Darling was chancellor, until the election in 2010.

Read your own post. Brown/Balls and Darling with Bliars help were a disaster.

 

What has that got to do with the BoE's independence from political control?

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 10/27/2016 at 2:09 AM, Xircal said:

 

What has that got to do with the BoE's independence from political control?

It looks like we are at cross purposes. You seem to think Brown did us a favour by making the BoE independent. I am making the point Brown was incompetent and allowed the whole banking system to crash while he announced: "No more boom and bust!".

[Xircal]

14 minutes ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

It looks like we are at cross purposes. You seem to think Brown did us a favour by making the BoE independent. I am making the point Brown was incompetent and allowed the whole banking system to crash while he announced: "No more boom and bust!".

 

Brown may or may not have been incompetent but the fact remains that making the BoE independent was a good move in my opinion. You'll no doubt disagree with me but that's your prerogative.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

6 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

Brown may or may not have been incompetent but the fact remains that making the BoE independent was a good move in my opinion. You'll no doubt disagree with me but that's your prerogative.

"May or may not have been incompetent" are you kidding? Compared to what he should have done making the BoE independent is insignificant.

 

[Xircal]

2 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

"May or may not have been incompetent" are you kidding? Compared to what he should have done making the BoE independent is insignificant.

 

 

That's beside the point. But we're straying off topic here so let's just agree to disagree like gentlemen shall we?

[Grouse]

Brown was NOT responsible for the 2008 global banking meltdown. He did save the UK with real time action. It may not have been perfect but it worked

 

He WAS a prawn selling our gold though ?

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Xircal : as I said earlier " It looks like we are at cross purposes" so we should drop it.

Grouse : He was not only a prawn selling the gold, he could have done something but didn't in 2006-7. In the end the tax payers bailed out the banks (not Brown) and I believe none were brought to book.

Enough.