The economic consequences of Brexit
Poll: The economic consequences of Brexit
Total Members Polled: 732
Discussion
Trophy Husband said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Trophy Husband said:
If and when it goes to the Supreme Court and all of the evidence stacks up against leaving the EU, what then? Surely, the most senior judges in the land have a duty to protect the subjects of this nation from themselves.
It's been, judgement expected by the end of the month.Judges don't protect the people, they just interpret the law as it stands.
Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
Trophy Husband said:
Surely, the most senior judges in the land have a duty to protect the subjects of this nation from themselves.
No that is not the role of judges at all. And who is to judge what represents "protecting them from themselves"? As an example - Let's say we live in an old house. The plumbing is a bit s
t and sometimes the light does not work and the drains get blocked, but the house is in a nice place and we've been here for 40 years so we know how to deal with it's issues as we understand them. One day I tell you that we have to leave the house now. You look out of the window and see deep snow, so you say "No, it's warm and dry in here. We will be cold and may get wet if we go outside. I don't want to follow your instructions in case I get a cold or the flu and I get stuck outside so that I die of hypothermia" In isolation it's not an unreasonable position for you to have, until you realise that the weight of snow on the roof means that the house is about to collapse, causing all inside to be crushed to death, and that moreover, outside is a short walk to a better, newer place where the plumbing works, the electrics are safe and the roof looks like it is designed to really withstand the weather. In fact the people already there are waving to us to come and join them with the promise of more opportunities than we can possibly imagine if only we can get off our arses, brave a few minutes of cold and make the effort to get to the new place.... Still wanna stay in that death trap house?
jsf said:
The case documents have been published and posted on here previously, if you care you look them up.
Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
If you are asking me. I really do not know. It would certainly take some bottle to do so. Unfortunately, in my opinion, politics has got in the way. Would an MP go against his constituency that voted him/her in? Not likely. But that's the problem. Even if all of the evidence points to leaving being the most dreadful mistake ever, MP's will want to retain the support of their constituency for obvious reasons ie. their own position. Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
Trophy Husband said:
If you are asking me. I really do not know. It would certainly take some bottle to do so. Unfortunately, in my opinion, politics has got in the way. Would an MP go against his constituency that voted him/her in? Not likely. But that's the problem. Even if all of the evidence points to leaving being the most dreadful mistake ever, MP's will want to retain the support of their constituency for obvious reasons ie. their own position.
It doesn't. HTHTrophy Husband said:
jsf said:
The case documents have been published and posted on here previously, if you care you look them up.
Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
If you are asking me. I really do not know. It would certainly take some bottle to do so. Unfortunately, in my opinion, politics has got in the way. Would an MP go against his constituency that voted him/her in? Not likely. But that's the problem. Even if all of the evidence points to leaving being the most dreadful mistake ever, MP's will want to retain the support of their constituency for obvious reasons ie. their own position. Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
"...if all the evidence..."
All the evidence does not and nor will ever agree on one side or the other. The government gave its argument, the various leave groups gave theirs. The public made their decision.
Any MP who goes against their constituency is in effect anti-democratic.
Your viewpoint is at risk of ending up where Labour are today; "We did not get our message across" = "our voters don't like our policies but they're wrong and we're right and we'll keep shouting it at them until they understand".
Trophy Husband said:
jsf said:
The case documents have been published and posted on here previously, if you care you look them up.
Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
If you are asking me. I really do not know. It would certainly take some bottle to do so. Unfortunately, in my opinion, politics has got in the way. Would an MP go against his constituency that voted him/her in? Not likely. But that's the problem. Even if all of the evidence points to leaving being the most dreadful mistake ever, MP's will want to retain the support of their constituency for obvious reasons ie. their own position. Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question?
Do you think the MP's will vote to not enact Art50 should the government lose their case in court?
The bare bones of the matter are the MP's voted 6-1 to sort this issue out by holding a referendum, they decided they were not best placed to answer the issue themselves, so to now not carry out the consequences of that abdication of power would be politically toxic. It could trigger mass protest/riot at a level not seen in this country before.
With regards to the court case, the people who brought the case are trying to subvert democracy, they don't care about the constitutional issue, which is the query they are using. Even if they win the case, they will lose the end game.
Nice earner though....
South Korea, a small country on the other side of the world, outside of the single market trading only slightly less with the EU than we do now…
http://order-order.com/2016/10/25/south-koreas-sec...
http://order-order.com/2016/10/25/south-koreas-sec...
jsf said:
Mrr T said:
jsf said:
May has been clear, the goal is to get the best deal for the UK and the EU to enable free trade in goods and services whilst retaining control over our boarders and whilst not having the ECJ have jurisdiction over UK law.
That by definition means we cant continue to be members of the single market, because to be a member you have to allow the ECJ be the top court. That is why when May discusses this she talks about access to the single market.
That is not hard Brexit, that is not soft Brexit, both are stupid terms with a multitude of possible meanings.
So government policy it to have a UK/EU treaty which gives the UK every thing it wants but nothing it does not want.That by definition means we cant continue to be members of the single market, because to be a member you have to allow the ECJ be the top court. That is why when May discusses this she talks about access to the single market.
That is not hard Brexit, that is not soft Brexit, both are stupid terms with a multitude of possible meanings.
I can see a small snag.
The government position is to get the best deal they can for the UK and the EU, using the legal framework they have to work under.
They will have red lines in the negotiation process, they will also have areas where more flexibility will be allowed.
If the EU and the UK agree to the red lines, we will have a deal, if they don't, we wont.
Lets consider:
1. The UK currently has full access to the single market the only way to replicate that via a treaty might itself take 5 years to agree. The Swiss treaty took 7 years.
2. The EU has to date only allowed full access to the SM with the 4 freedoms.
3. The EU negotiations involve 27 countries. Governments will change in most of those countries during the 2 years. For this reason negotiations will be very slow with the possibility a country may change its mind on things that have already been agreed,
4. Leaving the EU with no agreement would be a disaster for the UK economy. To quote Richard North this "is not something any responsible person would want to consider".
5. The negotiations can last up to 2 years and unless agreement is reached any extension requires EU majority approval.
The fact is the government is now in an impossible position. The rEU has refused any pre Art 50 discussions. Therefore when they trigger Art 50 they have to get a deal since the alternative is an economic disaster. However, to get a deal some of the redlines may not be achievable which will sell very badly to the swivel eyed lunatic wing of the party. I can see this all ending up a complete mess.
sidicks said:
Trophy Husband said:
If you are asking me. I really do not know. It would certainly take some bottle to do so. Unfortunately, in my opinion, politics has got in the way. Would an MP go against his constituency that voted him/her in? Not likely. But that's the problem. Even if all of the evidence points to leaving being the most dreadful mistake ever, MP's will want to retain the support of their constituency for obvious reasons ie. their own position.
It doesn't. HTHMrr T said:
What I find difficult is that you do not seem to understand the complexity of what you are suggesting.
Lets consider:
1. The UK currently has full access to the single market the only way to replicate that via a treaty might itself take 5 years to agree. The Swiss treaty took 7 years.
Not from this direction - we are already part of the single market therefore we are negotiating in a totally different direction (do nothing and we are still part of the single market)Lets consider:
1. The UK currently has full access to the single market the only way to replicate that via a treaty might itself take 5 years to agree. The Swiss treaty took 7 years.
Mrr T said:
2. The EU has to date only allowed full access to the SM with the 4 freedoms.
Which have been suspended during the immigrant crisis, The French security crisis etc. Again though we are already in the SM - if we introduced controls prior to Article 50 the EU would tie itself in knots.Mrr T said:
3. The EU negotiations involve 27 countries. Governments will change in most of those countries during the 2 years. For this reason negotiations will be very slow with the possibility a country may change its mind on things that have already been agreed,
Invloves 28 member states - the UK is a full member still 
Mrr T said:
4. Leaving the EU with no agreement would be a disaster for the UK economy. To quote Richard North this "is not something any responsible person would want to consider".
Agreed but something we need to put on the table as part of the negotiations.Mrr T said:
5. The negotiations can last up to 2 years and unless agreement is reached any extension requires EU majority approval.
Never been done before though given the Eu ability to bend the rules when required I suspect this is not a hard and fast rule.Mrr T said:
The fact is the government is now in an impossible position. The rEU has refused any pre Art 50 discussions. Therefore when they trigger Art 50 they have to get a deal since the alternative is an economic disaster. However, to get a deal some of the redlines may not be achievable which will sell very badly to the swivel eyed lunatic wing of the party. I can see this all ending up a complete mess.
A UK economic disaster would not be good for the EU either - the German motor industry would not be supportive of any risk to a very important market for them. Sensible heads will rule the day though the rhetoric will make many an headline in the coming months.
Mrr T said:
What I find difficult is that you do not seem to understand the complexity of what you are suggesting.
Lets consider:
1. The UK currently has full access to the single market the only way to replicate that via a treaty might itself take 5 years to agree. The Swiss treaty took 7 years.
Exactly!Lets consider:
1. The UK currently has full access to the single market the only way to replicate that via a treaty might itself take 5 years to agree. The Swiss treaty took 7 years.
So why waste our time.
Mrr T said:
2. The EU has to date only allowed full access to the SM with the 4 freedoms.
Same answer as point 1.Mrr T said:
3. The EU negotiations involve 27 countries. Governments will change in most of those countries during the 2 years. For this reason negotiations will be very slow with the possibility a country may change its mind on things that have already been agreed,
Same answer as point 1.4. Leaving the EU with no agreement would be a disaster for the UK economy. To quote Richard North this "is not something any responsible person would want to consider".
Mrr T said:
5. The negotiations can last up to 2 years and unless agreement is reached any extension requires EU majority approval.
I don't think that anyone wants to see an extension.Mrr T said:
The fact is the government is now in an impossible position. The rEU has refused any pre Art 50 discussions. Therefore when they trigger Art 50 they have to get a deal since the alternative is an economic disaster. However, to get a deal some of the redlines may not be achievable which will sell very badly to the swivel eyed lunatic wing of the party. I can see this all ending up a complete mess.
I will repeat the plan.141 days from today we invoke Article 50.
730 days later we Leave.
Meanwhile, there will be much wailing, gnashing of teeth and reality denial.
EU-Chile agreement stats
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/...
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/...
EU said:
Since 2004, EU exports of services to Chile have increased by 138 % while imports have increased by 94 %. In 2012 the EU exported around EUR 3.2 billion worth of services to Chile, with an annual average growth rate of 14 %. In 2012 almost half of these were transportation services (EUR 1.3 billion) followed by insurance and other business services.
In the same year the EU imported EUR 1.6 billion worth of services from Chile, of which transportation also represented just over half at EUR 0.9 billion followed by communication and other financial services and business and personal travel.
No services without FMOL, errr........In the same year the EU imported EUR 1.6 billion worth of services from Chile, of which transportation also represented just over half at EUR 0.9 billion followed by communication and other financial services and business and personal travel.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff