Is Boris sh*tting himself?

[Granfondo]

Kermit power said:

When did I say that it wasn't?

The actual dollar amount is pretty irrelevant, as these things are always measured in percentages anyway. The headlines will be "3% retraction in the economy" or "5% drop in exports to the EU".

It's also beside the point. I notice that you've decided not to comment on the fact that we only buy 16% of the EU's exports, but they buy 45% of ours?

How does your last statement work out monetary wise?

[Sam All]

mwstewart said:

At least someone is being decisive. Regardless of what Cameron thinks he should or shouldn't do at the noment he and his party are completely letting down the country they should be serving.

Absolutely. Also the Leave folks should be providing leadership and a message of great hope , and dispel doubts.

Do think BJ is too immersed with being a Leader, than leading.

[4x4Tyke]

AJL308 said:

405dogvan said:

Not sure we've had this one yet???

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-ba...

WAY over my paygrade and out of my bullst alarm range but these people seem to believe that the PM cannot unilaterally activate Article 50 without some sort of Parliamentary approval!?

Which I cannot imagine they could get??

Of course piddling things like law didn't stop us invading another country so leaving the EU is ezsauce?

Very interesting article. I don't know from what angle you argue against that, to be honest.

Agreed, tough to follow all the details. Received wisdom is that only Parliament has the authority to ratify a treaty, therefore given nothing trumps Parliament, only they can revoke it by invoking Article 50.

[Kermit power]

Granfondo said:

Kermit power said:

When did I say that it wasn't?

The actual dollar amount is pretty irrelevant, as these things are always measured in percentages anyway. The headlines will be "3% retraction in the economy" or "5% drop in exports to the EU".

It's also beside the point. I notice that you've decided not to comment on the fact that we only buy 16% of the EU's exports, but they buy 45% of ours?

How does your last statement work out monetary wise?

From memory, we have something like 4-6 times more to lose per capita than EU residents. I worked it out a while ago, and haven't got the time to do so again now, as my wife just put dinner in front of me, but it's something in that order of magnitude.

[AJL308]

4x4Tyke said:

AJL308 said:

405dogvan said:

Not sure we've had this one yet???

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-ba...

WAY over my paygrade and out of my bullst alarm range but these people seem to believe that the PM cannot unilaterally activate Article 50 without some sort of Parliamentary approval!?

Which I cannot imagine they could get??

Of course piddling things like law didn't stop us invading another country so leaving the EU is ezsauce?

Very interesting article. I don't know from what angle you argue against that, to be honest.

Agreed, tough to follow all the details. Received wisdom is that only Parliament has the authority to ratify a treaty, therefore given nothing trumps Parliament, only they can revoke it by invoking Article 50.

I think that what they are saying is that the Government can indeed commit the UK to Treaties through use of the Royal Prerogative but not if that contradicts Statute or removes peoples statutory rights.

The European Communities Act and the rights which people derive from it is a Statute enacted by Parliament. The RP cannot be used to override that. If the RP were used to action art.50 then it could not be be legally effective as, one way or another, the end result is that the UK would leave the EU and the European Communities Act would cease to have its power.

The reasoning behind this is logical because Parliament is the Sovereign power, not the Monarch. Hence, there is no legal method to undermine, reduce or nullify anything done by Parliament. Purportedly using Art.50 without an Act of Parliament allowing or instructing it is Ultra-Vires and has no force.

If a PM 'invokes' Art.50 without an Act of Parliament then the EU could tell him that it they can't accept it as it had not been done in a manner which is compliant with the first paragraph of Art.50.

Edited by AJL308 on Monday 27th June 20:33

[vonuber]

AJL308 said:

I think that what they are saying is that the Government can indeed commit the UK to Treaties through use of the Royal Prerogative but not if that contradicts Statute or removes peoples statutory rights.

The European Communities Act and the rights which people derive from it is a Statute enacted by Parliament. The RP cannot be used to override that. If the RP were used to action art.50 then it could not be be legally effective as, one way or another, the end result is that the UK would leave the EU and the European Communities Act would cease to have its power.

The reasoning behind this is logical because Parliament is the Sovereign power, not the Monarch. Hence, there is no legal method to undermine, reduce or nullify anything done by Parliament. Purportedly using Art.50 without an Act of Parliament allowing or instructing it is Ultra-Vires and has no force.

So when Cameron said he would inact Article 50, what he should have said was 'I'll put it to the commons to vote'.

[Tuna]

Kermit power said:

From memory, we have something like 4-6 times more to lose per capita than EU residents. I worked it out a while ago, and haven't got the time to do so again now, as my wife just put dinner in front of me, but it's something in that order of magnitude.

Except that we are richer if we import more than we export. It's counter intuitive, but read this article and you get the idea:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/ten-ve...

Adam Smith Institute said:

In fact it is imports that make a nation richer. By importing goods that are cheaper than those they can produce themselves, nations have cash to spare as well as the goods. This makes them wealthier than if they were self-dependent.

Britain has long imported more than it exports, yet it remains as one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

It also actually benefits us not to penalise or impose tariffs on imports, because that prevents us from getting cheaper stuff from the rest of the world. If the EU wants to put tariffs on our exports (and therefore make the stuff that they want to buy more expensive), then they're harming themselves more than they're harming us. The point to realise is that if a foreign nation goes overseas to buy something it's because it's cheaper from abroad. Making it more expensive means they've hurt themselves.

[Einion Yrth]

It's been a while since any government governed with more than 50% of votes cast. This referendum yielded 52% of votes cast for leave. It's more solid than pretty much any law enacted by parliament in living memory.

[don4l]

Kermit power said:

don4l said:

Well, if you cannot see that $100Bn is bigger than $46Bn, then I cannot help. By your own figures, Germany gains $54Bn.

When did I say that it wasn't?

The actual dollar amount is pretty irrelevant, as these things are always measured in percentages anyway. The headlines will be "3% retraction in the economy" or "5% drop in exports to the EU".

It's also beside the point. I notice that you've decided not to comment on the fact that we only buy 16% of the EU's exports, but they buy 45% of ours?

I'm at a loss for words.

You admit that Germany makes a profit out of us. We make a loss.

Yet you cannot see that Germany wins with the current arrangement.

I'll make a suggestion.

Go to your local corner shop.

Buy something.

This might represent 5% of your weekly spend, but it will only represent 0.001% of the shopkeepers takings.

Does the shopkeeper want your business?

[Kermit power]

Tuna said:

Kermit power said:

From memory, we have something like 4-6 times more to lose per capita than EU residents. I worked it out a while ago, and haven't got the time to do so again now, as my wife just put dinner in front of me, but it's something in that order of magnitude.

Except that we are richer if we import more than we export. It's counter intuitive, but read this article and you get the idea:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/ten-ve...

Adam Smith Institute said:

In fact it is imports that make a nation richer. By importing goods that are cheaper than those they can produce themselves, nations have cash to spare as well as the goods. This makes them wealthier than if they were self-dependent.

Britain has long imported more than it exports, yet it remains as one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

It also actually benefits us not to penalise or impose tariffs on imports, because that prevents us from getting cheaper stuff from the rest of the world. If the EU wants to put tariffs on our exports (and therefore make the stuff that they want to buy more expensive), then they're harming themselves more than they're harming us. The point to realise is that if a foreign nation goes overseas to buy something it's because it's cheaper from abroad. Making it more expensive means they've hurt themselves.

That's not quite all it says though, is it....

Adam Smith Institute said:

Of course these imports have to be paid for, and exports make that possible. We export to gain the wherewithal to enrich ourselves through imports. It need not be manufactured goods we export. It can be services such as insurance, skills such as design, or the returns on our own overseas investments.

As I read it, it's just saying that you make money by choosing the right things to import and export, which is perfectly logical, but not particularly pertinent.

The other big problem with it is that it assumes standard market conditions apply, and there's no guarantee of that here.

Why do the other European nations want to see us gone asap? Partly because they hate the uncertainty markets are currently experiencing, but also partly because they fear the risk of exit contagion spreading to other member states.

I would expect that for the latter element, they're going to be figuring out a balancing act. Give us too good a deal, and everyone else thinks "I'll have some of that!", and also leaves. Too harsh, and it drags everything out further, leading to lots more uncertainty.

[V8RX7]

don4l said:

Kermit power said:

don4l said:

Well, if you cannot see that $100Bn is bigger than $46Bn, then I cannot help. By your own figures, Germany gains $54Bn.

When did I say that it wasn't?

The actual dollar amount is pretty irrelevant, as these things are always measured in percentages anyway. The headlines will be "3% retraction in the economy" or "5% drop in exports to the EU".

It's also beside the point. I notice that you've decided not to comment on the fact that we only buy 16% of the EU's exports, but they buy 45% of ours?

I'm at a loss for words.

You admit that Germany makes a profit out of us. We make a loss.

Yet you cannot see that Germany wins with the current arrangement.

I'll make a suggestion.

Go to your local corner shop.

Buy something.

This might represent 5% of your weekly spend, but it will only represent 0.001% of the shopkeepers takings.

Does the shopkeeper want your business?

Whilst I initially agreed with you Don I think Kermit is correct.

If we stop trading with Germany we both lose 10% of our trade.

If everyone loses 10% of their income it tends to be the poorest who suffer most despite losing the lesser amount.

[EnglishTony]

Is Boris sh*tting himself?

With laughter perhaps.

[Kermit power]

don4l said:

Kermit power said:

don4l said:

Well, if you cannot see that $100Bn is bigger than $46Bn, then I cannot help. By your own figures, Germany gains $54Bn.

When did I say that it wasn't?

The actual dollar amount is pretty irrelevant, as these things are always measured in percentages anyway. The headlines will be "3% retraction in the economy" or "5% drop in exports to the EU".

It's also beside the point. I notice that you've decided not to comment on the fact that we only buy 16% of the EU's exports, but they buy 45% of ours?

I'm at a loss for words.

You admit that Germany makes a profit out of us. We make a loss.

Yet you cannot see that Germany wins with the current arrangement.

I'll make a suggestion.

Go to your local corner shop.

Buy something.

This might represent 5% of your weekly spend, but it will only represent 0.001% of the shopkeepers takings.

Does the shopkeeper want your business?

OK, I'll make it really, really simple for you.

We have a population of around 65 million. The rest of the EU has a population of around 440 million.

In April 2016, we exported £12Bn to the EU, and imported £19Bn from them.

If there was an absolutely cataclysmic breakdown in relations between us, to the point where absolutely all trade between us ceased, it would cost this country £184 per capita per month. It would cost the citizens of the EU £43 per capita per month.

Who has the upper hand in the negotiations?

[anonymous-user]

EnglishTony said:

Is Boris sh*tting himself?

With laughter perhaps.

I'd say crying. He was finished the moment Caneron resigned rather than invoke the Brexit. If he's not PM he'll be a laughing stock. If he is & invokes article 50 he'll be at the helm of the biggest disaster.

[FredClogs]

don4l said:

Kermit power said:

don4l said:

Well, if you cannot see that $100Bn is bigger than $46Bn, then I cannot help. By your own figures, Germany gains $54Bn.

When did I say that it wasn't?

The actual dollar amount is pretty irrelevant, as these things are always measured in percentages anyway. The headlines will be "3% retraction in the economy" or "5% drop in exports to the EU".

It's also beside the point. I notice that you've decided not to comment on the fact that we only buy 16% of the EU's exports, but they buy 45% of ours?

I'm at a loss for words.

You admit that Germany makes a profit out of us. We make a loss.

Yet you cannot see that Germany wins with the current arrangement.

I'll make a suggestion.

Go to your local corner shop.

Buy something.

This might represent 5% of your weekly spend, but it will only represent 0.001% of the shopkeepers takings.

Does the shopkeeper want your business?

Want, yes. Need, no.

[V8RX7]

Kermit power said:

We have a population of around 65 million. The rest of the EU has a population of around 440 million.

In April 2016, we exported £12Bn to the EU, and imported £19Bn from them.

If there was an absolutely cataclysmic breakdown in relations between us, to the point where absolutely all trade between us ceased, it would cost this country £184 per capita per month. It would cost the citizens of the EU £43 per capita per month.

Who has the upper hand in the negotiations?

Which countries are net contributors to the EU - they are the ones who are going to have to make up most of the £8.5BN shortfall and their trade with us is what counts IMO they will push the net beneficiaries into line.

However you also have to bear in mind that there are plenty of other places we are now free to deal with so if the deal stinks we will soon trade elsewhere.

Also dragging our heels for 2 years will hurt them as has been shown already.

[rs1952]

Jimboka said:

EnglishTony said:

Is Boris sh*tting himself?

With laughter perhaps.

I'd say crying. He was finished the moment Caneron resigned rather than invoke the Brexit. If he's not PM he'll be a laughing stock. If he is & invokes article 50 he'll be at the helm of the biggest disaster.

Its getting more interesting by the minute:

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

"Boris for PM. The man who oversaw the breakup of the United Kingdom"

He would certainly go down in history

[Tuna]

Kermit power said:

Why do the other European nations want to see us gone asap? Partly because they hate the uncertainty markets are currently experiencing, but also partly because they fear the risk of exit contagion spreading to other member states.

I would expect that for the latter element, they're going to be figuring out a balancing act. Give us too good a deal, and everyone else thinks "I'll have some of that!", and also leaves. Too harsh, and it drags everything out further, leading to lots more uncertainty.

For sure, but if they use the commonly held logic of taxing our exports to them (when we already export more to the rest of the world and growing, even before trade talks), then their economy will suffer more than ours. Ultimately we benefit from being open to trade, as do they. There's a lot of sabre rattling and doom saying going on, but the reason Europe has held together as long as it has is that the nations need each others' support. Not political control.

[lostkiwi]

Tuna said:

Kermit power said:

Why do the other European nations want to see us gone asap? Partly because they hate the uncertainty markets are currently experiencing, but also partly because they fear the risk of exit contagion spreading to other member states.

I would expect that for the latter element, they're going to be figuring out a balancing act. Give us too good a deal, and everyone else thinks "I'll have some of that!", and also leaves. Too harsh, and it drags everything out further, leading to lots more uncertainty.

For sure, but if they use the commonly held logic of taxing our exports to them (when we already export more to the rest of the world and growing, even before trade talks), then their economy will suffer more than ours. Ultimately we benefit from being open to trade, as do they. There's a lot of sabre rattling and doom saying going on, but the reason Europe has held together as long as it has is that the nations need each others' support. Not political control.

No it won't. Their economy is so large our exports to them are pretty inconsequential in terms of value.
Look at the figures for EU exports then subtract the UK. Now figure out how much we can hurt them. Just a bee sting at best.
Forget looking at percentages - they aren't as meaningful as actual monetary values.

[lostkiwi]

rs1952 said:

Jimboka said:

EnglishTony said:

Is Boris sh*tting himself?

With laughter perhaps.

I'd say crying. He was finished the moment Caneron resigned rather than invoke the Brexit. If he's not PM he'll be a laughing stock. If he is & invokes article 50 he'll be at the helm of the biggest disaster.

Its getting more interesting by the minute:

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

"Boris for PM. The man who oversaw the breakup of the United Kingdom"

He would certainly go down in history

All this. The tory leadership is truly poisonous right now