Author Topic: Brexit has well and truly begun!  (Read 285212 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #90 on: November 17, 2016, 07:15:38 PM »
I did expect it. we are entering a new phase in our countries history. Early days yet.

...and now within the court system.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #91 on: November 17, 2016, 07:35:01 PM »
...and now within the court system.

A minor set back...
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #92 on: November 17, 2016, 07:39:17 PM »
A minor set back...

Perhaps you should ask Teresa May, after all, she is an expert in UK Law. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #93 on: November 17, 2016, 08:22:45 PM »
Perhaps you should ask Teresa May, after all, she is an expert in UK Law. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

Laws can challenged.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #94 on: November 17, 2016, 09:33:30 PM »
Laws can challenged.

Let's see what the Supreme Court says about this.

I can't post a link right now as regards this, but I will tomorrow, and if correct in it's contents, it could well put a major dampener on May's plans.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #95 on: November 17, 2016, 10:08:25 PM »
Let's see what the Supreme Court says about this.

I can't post a link right now as regards this, but I will tomorrow, and if correct in it's contents, it could well put a major dampener on May's plans.

It is worth remebering the UK public did not vOte for the EU in its form, we voted for a common market. so there is no valid mandate to force us to stay in really. Also, what are the Europeans going to do if we refuse to give benefits to all and sundry... Kill us? hahaha

It is also worth remebring that Ireland voted no against EU and it was deleted to be re done for the only out come the EU would accept.  They didn't vote for the people who made those laws.. you couldn't make it up .
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #96 on: November 17, 2016, 10:10:37 PM »
It is worth remebering the UK public did not vOte for the EU in its form, we voted for a common market. so there is no valid mandate to force us to stay in really. Also, what are the Europeans going to do if we refuse to give benefits to all and sundry... Kill us? hahaha

It is also worth remebring that Ireland voted no against EU and it was deleted to be re done for the only out come the EU would accept.  They didn't vote for the people who made those laws.. you couldn't make it up .


Wait for the link tomorrow.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #97 on: November 18, 2016, 07:39:35 AM »
' Supreme court judge hints at legal hitch that could seriously delay Brexit '

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

A supreme court judge has raised the prospect that Theresa May would have to comprehensively replace existing EU legislation before the government could even begin Brexit, in a move that could seriously delay the process.

In a speech that angered leave campaigners, Lady Hale said the supreme court judges could go further than simply forcing May to publish a short piece of legislation to approve the triggering of article 50.

The deputy president of the court said that next month’s case – in which the supreme court will hear the government’s appeal against a high court ruling that MPs must approve the triggering of article 50 – raised “difficult and delicate issues” about the relationship between government and parliament.

“Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple act of parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act,” she said in comments to law students in Kuala Lumpur that were published online on Tuesday. The European Communities Act 1972 took the UK into the then European Economic Community.

Hale set out the arguments on both sides of what is expected to be the most constitutionally significant case ever heard by the supreme court. She told the students that while 51.9% of the British electorate had voted to leave the EU, “that referendum was not legally binding on parliament”.

She put forward the argument that the government was likely to make, saying it would suggest: “The basis on which the referendum was undertaken was that the government would give effect to the result. Beginning the process would not change the law.”

The comments come amid reports that the government has prepared a short three-line bill aimed at helping May stick to her March deadline for triggering article 50 if the supreme court ruled that was necessary. Ministers are said to have drawn up short legislation that would be difficult to amend.

Hale is one of 11 judges due to hear the case at the supreme court, which comes after the high court ruling immediately triggered a backlash from some politicians and rightwing media. The Daily Mail described the judges as “enemies of the people”.

The former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith said Hale had pro-EU views and warned that it was not the job of judges to tell parliament what to do. Duncan Smith said: “This is a very big step. If they were to do this it’s a constitutional crisis. What the judges will decide on at the supreme court is whether or not the government can use its executive powers to trigger article 5

“It is not their job to tell parliament … how they should go about that business, that’s for parliament to decide.”

He said “the individual concerned” had always opposed Britain leaving the EU, and said that he did not believe that would be a majority view in the supreme court.

The Conservative MP Dominic Raab said: “If judges dip their toes in political waters by making speeches outside the courtroom, they are asking to get splashed back.”

Raab did not question whether the comments suggested which way Hale would sway but argued that she simply should not have made any public comments. “I’m all for democratic debate. But you can’t have it both ways. If such a senior judge muses in public about a pending supreme court judgment, the judiciary can hardly scream blue murder if politicians, the media or public respond,” he said.

After the outcry over the high court ruling, the prime minister was told to calm the “mob”, with the former attorney general Dominic Grieve saying the coverage “started to make one think that one was living in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe”.

Other Brexit supporters also lashed out at Hale’s lecture. Sir Bill Cash, a Tory MP and chairman of the European scrutiny committee, said: “I am astounded that a justice of the supreme court would venture into this territory before hearing the evidence of the case. It appears completely contrary to the proper relationship between the courts and parliament for her to suggest what parliament should do.”

A supreme court spokesman said that Hale was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students as part of a wider lecture on constitutional law, and it was proper for judges to set out arguments in high-profile cases to help public understanding of the issues involved in an even-handed way.

“One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for parliament to be able to lawfully trigger article 50, if the government loses its appeal,” the spokesman said. “A number of politicians have raised the same question. Though it was not dealt with explicitly in the high court judgment, it is not a new issue. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”



stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #98 on: November 25, 2016, 06:27:08 PM »
'Boris Johnson is a clown who has united the EU against Britain'

Britain can be proud of itself. Once again, it had already shown the world the way. In propelling Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage to triumph on 23 June, it demonstrated well before 8 November that Donald Trump was nothing new.

In fact foolishness, vulgarity, inconsistency and irresponsibility seem actually to be British inventions that have been painstakingly copied – once more – by the Americans.

The age of such drab characters as Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron is over. No more, it appears, must we suffer leaders equipped with a brain and a sense of the common interest. The hour of the political clown has come.

In a few short weeks, Boris Johnson, the former journalist – for whom facts were never an obstacle likely to get in the way of a good story – has succeeded in squandering what little sympathy and understanding was left in Europe for a Great Britain embroiled in the mess of this referendum.

It is quite some diplomatic achievement to have succeeded in uniting, as never before, the 27 remaining members of the European Union – including Germany and the Netherlands – who are all now firmly together in deciding to do the UK no favours whatsoever.

It will be a “hard Brexit” not because that is what Theresa May wants, but because her future ex-partners consider they have no choice faced with a Great Britain so resolutely indecisive.

 There are liars and then there’s Boris Johnson and Michael Gove

Johnson has deeply annoyed his continental partners by displaying, firstly, his complete ignorance of the union (perhaps not altogether surprising if you knew him as a “journalist” in Brussels, as I did). According to his very personal interpretation of the European treaties, it is “bollocks” to say that the four fundamental freedoms (free movement of people, goods, services and capital) are inseparable.

“Everybody now has it in their head that every human being has some fundamental God-given right to move wherever they want,” he said earlier this month.

For Johnson, here there can of course be a “dynamic trade relationship and we will take back control of our borders, but we remain an open and welcoming society”.

Yet the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, warned him very clearly as early as September. “We’ll happily send Her Majesty’s foreign minister a copy of the Lisbon treaty,” he said. “He can then read about the fact that there’s a certain connection between the single market and the four freedoms. At a pinch, I can talk about it in English.”

Schäuble reiterated on 18 November that there “will be no à la carte menu. There is only the whole menu or none.” His Dutch colleague Jeroen Dijsselbloem, meanwhile, hammered the message home: Johnson is spouting stuff that is “intellectually impossible” and “politically unachievable”.

 
Nevertheless, Johnson repeats his mantra ad infinitum: he is right, and the others are all wrong. The problem, however, is that at the end of the day it is the others who will decide. And if you want something from someone, it is generally wiser to avoid telling them they are an idiot.

But the foreign secretary adds clumsiness to ignorance. Johnson – who has, remember, written a biography of Winston Churchill – does not seem to grasp that it takes a mind with a rare degree of finesse to be able to combine humour and diplomacy.

His quip that the Italians would sell less prosecco to Britain if the UK was not able to stay in the single market not only created a diplomatic incident, but underlined the obvious weakness of the British argument: if the EU risks losing access to a market of 64 million Brits, Britain will lose access to a market of 440 million Europeans.


Stay out of EU affairs, leading MEP tells British government
 
And last but not least, Johnson, who himself raised the spectre of hordes of Turkish citizens arriving in the UK if it stayed in the union, now steps up as as the most ardent defender there is of Ankara joining the EU – even if it reintroduces the death penalty.

“I can no longer respect this,” raged the normally placid Manfred Weber, leader of the conservative EPP group in the European parliament. “When you want to leave a club, you have no say anymore in the long-term future of this club.”

A famous French screenwriter Michel Audiard coined a phrase in the early 1960s that applies perfectly to Johnson: “Les cons, ça ose tout, c’est même à ça qu’on les reconnaît.” This means, roughly: “Fools” (to choose a relatively inoffensive rendering) “will try anything – that’s how you know they’re fools.”

The foreign secretary, who like Trump is no fan of beating about the bush, will pardon my familiarity. Or perhaps not.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/25/boris-johnson-clown-eu-britain-foreign-secretary

I see one of the comments summed it up to a tee................

'Brexshitte'. with an extra 't' and 'e'  added.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2016, 06:30:58 PM by stephen25000 »

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #99 on: November 26, 2016, 01:42:27 PM »
' Supreme court judge hints at legal hitch that could seriously delay Brexit '

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

A supreme court judge has raised the prospect that Theresa May would have to comprehensively replace existing EU legislation before the government could even begin Brexit, in a move that could seriously delay the process.

In a speech that angered leave campaigners, Lady Hale said the supreme court judges could go further than simply forcing May to publish a short piece of legislation to approve the triggering of article 50.

The deputy president of the court said that next month’s case – in which the supreme court will hear the government’s appeal against a high court ruling that MPs must approve the triggering of article 50 – raised “difficult and delicate issues” about the relationship between government and parliament.

“Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple act of parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement of the 1972 act,” she said in comments to law students in Kuala Lumpur that were published online on Tuesday. The European Communities Act 1972 took the UK into the then European Economic Community.

Hale set out the arguments on both sides of what is expected to be the most constitutionally significant case ever heard by the supreme court. She told the students that while 51.9% of the British electorate had voted to leave the EU, “that referendum was not legally binding on parliament”.

She put forward the argument that the government was likely to make, saying it would suggest: “The basis on which the referendum was undertaken was that the government would give effect to the result. Beginning the process would not change the law.”

The comments come amid reports that the government has prepared a short three-line bill aimed at helping May stick to her March deadline for triggering article 50 if the supreme court ruled that was necessary. Ministers are said to have drawn up short legislation that would be difficult to amend.

Hale is one of 11 judges due to hear the case at the supreme court, which comes after the high court ruling immediately triggered a backlash from some politicians and rightwing media. The Daily Mail described the judges as “enemies of the people”.

The former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith said Hale had pro-EU views and warned that it was not the job of judges to tell parliament what to do. Duncan Smith said: “This is a very big step. If they were to do this it’s a constitutional crisis. What the judges will decide on at the supreme court is whether or not the government can use its executive powers to trigger article 5

“It is not their job to tell parliament … how they should go about that business, that’s for parliament to decide.”

He said “the individual concerned” had always opposed Britain leaving the EU, and said that he did not believe that would be a majority view in the supreme court.

The Conservative MP Dominic Raab said: “If judges dip their toes in political waters by making speeches outside the courtroom, they are asking to get splashed back.”

Raab did not question whether the comments suggested which way Hale would sway but argued that she simply should not have made any public comments. “I’m all for democratic debate. But you can’t have it both ways. If such a senior judge muses in public about a pending supreme court judgment, the judiciary can hardly scream blue murder if politicians, the media or public respond,” he said.

After the outcry over the high court ruling, the prime minister was told to calm the “mob”, with the former attorney general Dominic Grieve saying the coverage “started to make one think that one was living in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe”.

Other Brexit supporters also lashed out at Hale’s lecture. Sir Bill Cash, a Tory MP and chairman of the European scrutiny committee, said: “I am astounded that a justice of the supreme court would venture into this territory before hearing the evidence of the case. It appears completely contrary to the proper relationship between the courts and parliament for her to suggest what parliament should do.”

A supreme court spokesman said that Hale was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students as part of a wider lecture on constitutional law, and it was proper for judges to set out arguments in high-profile cases to help public understanding of the issues involved in an even-handed way.

“One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for parliament to be able to lawfully trigger article 50, if the government loses its appeal,” the spokesman said. “A number of politicians have raised the same question. Though it was not dealt with explicitly in the high court judgment, it is not a new issue. In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”

Stephen what we have here is from Hale   ifs, but, maybees. could, would,hints at..ALL a little story to scare pants off people In Kuala Lumpaland?

"In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be" which is good because she would be lending herslef to serious claims of 'match fixing' scenario. IE she has spoke there for she judges on her beliefs, and not what is being discussed.

Yeah, well golly,gosh...
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #100 on: November 26, 2016, 03:40:17 PM »
Stephen what we have here is from Hale   ifs, but, maybees. could, would,hints at..ALL a little story to scare pants off people In Kuala Lumpaland?

"In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be" which is good because she would be lending herslef to serious claims of 'match fixing' scenario. IE she has spoke there for she judges on her beliefs, and not what is being discussed.

Yeah, well golly,gosh...

Well golly gosh, perhaps it is time that you and others leave the twilight zone and face reality .

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #101 on: November 26, 2016, 04:17:08 PM »
 
Well golly gosh, perhaps it is time that you and others leave the twilight zone and face reality .
Facing it already... what will be will be. 8**8:/:
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #102 on: November 26, 2016, 05:34:16 PM »
Facing it already... what will be will be. 8**8:/:

Since you ask, up Brexshitte without a paddle. 8)--)) 8((()*/

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #103 on: November 27, 2016, 05:45:10 PM »
Stephen what we have here is from Hale   ifs, but, maybees. could, would,hints at..ALL a little story to scare pants off people In Kuala Lumpaland?

"In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be" which is good because she would be lending herslef to serious claims of 'match fixing' scenario. IE she has spoke there for she judges on her beliefs, and not what is being discussed.

Yeah, well golly,gosh...

If Lady Hale said what the Grauniad reported she said then she would have been out of order. Under those circumstances one would hope that 'im wot percheth upon the Woolsack had a not so quiet word in her shell like.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Brexit has well and truly begun!
« Reply #104 on: November 30, 2016, 01:35:32 PM »
"We're Heading For A Trade War And We'll Lose"

Excellent article in today's Times by Danny Finkelstein:




Quote
We’ve got a secretary of state all dressed up and ready to negotiate. We’ll be out of the EU and looking out to the world. We’ll be out of the Customs Union, too, and able to do our own deals. A new era of global free trade beckons for this country. That, at least, is the idea. I just wish I was that confident.

In September 2009, under pressure from the United Steelworkers union, President Barack Obama imposed a new tax on car and truck tyres imported from China. Over three years, the tax rose to more than 35 per cent. And here, based on industry and government data, is what happened.

US importers stopped buying as many Chinese tyres. Of course they did. Instead, they bought them from Indonesia. Since these tyres were more expensive, domestic tyre manufacturers were able to put their prices up too and keep a bit more of the market. The combined effect cost the consumer $1.112 billion.

The policy did save some jobs. About 1,200 jobs in fact, each of them paying about $40,000 a year. So more than a billion pounds was extracted from consumers to save $48 million of jobs.

Unfortunately the tax didn’t even do that. As people spent more money on tyres, Indonesian and domestic, there was a drop in spending on other items. This cost more than 3,700 jobs. Given that tyre manufacturers are only one of the constituents of the United Steelworkers, it is possible that, together, the union and the president actually lost more members’ jobs than they saved. Certainly more jobs were lost than saved across the whole economy.


You would have thought that such an outcome would be so embarrassing that no one would mention it again. But in the 2012 presidential debates Mr Obama raised the topic, in order to congratulate himself on protecting tyre workers.

Now Donald Trump has been elected arguing that this nonsense was simply not good enough. There needs to be more of it.

Steve Bannon, Mr Trump’s chief strategist, gave an interview after the election rejecting charges that he was a racist. “I’m not a white nationalist,” he said. “I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist.” To this he added: “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia.”

In Mr Trump’s first broadcast as president-elect, his very first promise was to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal between 12 countries signed in February. This nationalist position is economically illiterate, but politically powerful. And when Mr Bannon says he wants to make economic nationalism the basis of a world movement, I take him very seriously indeed.

The case made by economic nationalists against free trade is simply wrong in almost every particular. It’s wrong because it forgets that people who make goods also buy them. So the American working class that Mr Bannon claims to champion are enriched by trade not impoverished by it. The giant sucking sound that presidential candidate Ross Perot predicted as jobs departed to Mexico after the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement has not been heard.

It’s wrong because it ignores the fact that products are dependent upon each other. The limitations placed on sugar imports are designed to help the sugar producers but are a disaster for the food-processing industry. In the 1990s, the Lifesaver candy plant on Michigan produced about three million rolls of Lifesavers a day, employing 650 people. In 2002, to escape high sugar prices, it closed down and moved to Canada.

It’s wrong because it ignores the way that the competition provided by trade pushes up productivity, and it is rising productivity that lifts wages.

It is wrong because it looks at the creation of a middle class in Asia as bad for America and only possible at its expense. But it is good for everyone that NAFTA helped create a more prosperous, liberal and democratic Mexico. And TPP was a major part of the Japanese government’s strategy to restructure its economy, from which they would not be the only beneficiary. Does America not want them to spend more money on defence?

And most of all, it is wrong because it just isn’t true that trade is replacing high-paid jobs with low-paid ones. On the contrary, as Douglas Irwin argues cogently in his book Free Trade Under Fire, the evidence suggests that in advanced economies trade increases the proportion of high-paid to low-paid jobs. Workers with less skills are under pressure but this is because of new technology, and not because of trade. The evidence on this is overwhelming.

So if economic nationalism is illiterate, why do I regard it as so politically powerful? And why do I worry about it coming here?

First, the costs of adjustment in the economy are usually concentrated on specific groups while the benefits are spread across many people. So it becomes economically worthwhile for groups of people losing out to resist adjustment, while not really worthwhile for the broad mass to spend energy on fighting back.

Technological change is hard to resist, while trade is much easier, even though trade isn’t really the problem. So as Labour begins to fight Ukip or a similar force in the north, economic nationalism may recommend itself to both sides. For Ukip it just fits, while for Labour it is a way of identifying with the pressures and nationalist instincts of core voters, without sacrificing their own liberalism on migration.

Britain has long been the world champion of free trade and this government will certainly wish to maintain that position. But we are now leaving the one big trade arrangement we have made and it has been decades since we last negotiated a free trade deal of our own. When we do, is it unduly pessimistic to wonder if we will all remain as united on free trade?

Any deal, with any country, will raise some of the sovereignty issues on the right that the EU raised. And on the left there will be concerns that any arrangement might undermine domestic regulation or workers’ rights. Moving to satisfy the right will increase problems with the left and vice versa.

Doubt me? Look at what happened over the proposed transatlantic deal with the EU, TTIP, which was opposed by right and left.

And at the same time there will be protectionist moves by other countries — the US under Mr Trump, the EU responding to Brexit politically rather than economically — all of which will encourage self-defeating British retaliation.

I don’t think I’ve ever ended a column feeling this more strongly: I really hope that I am wrong.