Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[GrizzlyDave]

5 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Wouldn't know. I was not in a position to do it until the end of the 80s. Then I spent most of the nineties dealing with the consequences of interest rates doubling and the early 90s recession fecking my business. This was what it was like for the majority.

 

Gravy

[WageWar]

16 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Gravy

What do you mean by "Gravy"? That's it's all good?

[jonb2]

1 minute ago, WageWar said:

What do you mean by "Gravy"? That's it's all good?

No other word will do. For that’s what it was.
Gravy.
Gravy, these past ten years.
Alive, sober, working, loving, and
being loved by a good woman. Eleven years
ago he was told he had six months to live
at the rate he was going. And he was going
nowhere but down. So he changed his ways
somehow. He quit drinking! And the rest?
After that it was all gravy, every minute
of it, up to and including when he was told about,
well, some things that were breaking down and
building up inside his head. “Don’t weep for me,”
he said to his friends. “I’m a lucky man.
I’ve had ten years longer than I or anyone
expected. Pure Gravy. And don’t forget it.

by Ray Carver, describing his feeling after giving up the booze (he was an alcoholic)

 

So, in GD's terminology - it's all good.

[HairyOb1]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

If that was the case no law would ever be changeable.

That's absolutely not true.  This law was specifically put together to appease the eurosceptics in that if our relationship changed, e.g. they asked us to join the Euro, or join a Euro army, we'd need a referendum to make the choice.  However, leaving the EU materially affects our relationship, so the argument is we need to agree to that.

2 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

So the EU isn`t stronger, and it isn`t weaker. What is it then?

I'd venture you know this.

2 hours ago, kzb said:

Leaving aside the rather strange view on what supersedes what.

We've had the referendum on materially changing our relationship with the EU !

This is desperate.

No, we had a referendum on whether we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it.  Then laws were enacted to affect that.  The referendum didn't change our relationship at all.  It's not desperate, it is logical.  Do you want to stay or remain in the EU is not something that affects our relationship, as it was an advisory and a question.  The Departing the EU law that came in because of that affects our relationship.  Invoking Article 50 affects our relationship.  That's what is being put to the courts.

 I really hope you can see this absolute difference in this.  If we voted to remain it wouldn't have affected it, so the referendum itself did nothing but tell the government how we voted.  This is really not a difficult concept.

[OnionTerror]

3 hours ago, kzb said:

What's this 2011 act then?

Anyhow, we have presented Article 50 in accord with our own constitution.  The EU Treaties cease to apply to the UK two years from that date, unless an extension is agreed.

That is the legal position as far as anyone is aware.  So what is this challenge to it?

It’s the default position.

[Confusion of VIs]

46 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Aye must have been tough buying a detached house for 2x an annual salary.

You can do that in Blackpool today.

[HairyOb1]

Quote

The European Union Act 2011, passed by the coalition government, created a so-called "referendum lock". Its purpose was to create a legal requirement to hold a referendum if any proposal were made to transfer powers from the UK to the EU.

Because of the way the Act is worded, people have argued that it could be used to force a second referendum before the UK leaves the EU. It says that any new treaty that amends or replaces one of the existing primary EU treaties should be subject to a referendum before it can be ratified.

Pavlos Eleftheriadis, a barrister and legal academic, argues that any withdrawal agreement the UK negotiates with the EU, and any future trade agreement, will effectively replace the existing treaties - and hence, under the terms of the 2011 Act, will require a new referendum.

Quote

The debate surrounds the European Union Act 2011, colloquially known as the “Referendum Lock Act”. This legislation, which was pushed through by David Cameron, is designed to avoid any transfer of powers to the EU unless the people give their approval in a referendum.

It now arguably applies to the exit deal that May is planning to agree with the EU. Of particular relevance is the transitional period – or what the prime minister misleadingly calls an “implementation” phase. During this, we will be required to follow the EU’s rules without a vote on them, turning us into a “vassal” state as Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg used to say.

This would seem to be precisely the sort of situation covered by the Referendum Lock Act. If so, the prime minister needs the people’s permission to sign up to such a transfer of power.

 

So it's a poorly written law, made in a hurry.  It would be funny if this is what stops brexit.

It is said the only cast iron way this can be overturned, is by repealing the law, which has to be agreed by both houses, and is therefore unlikely.  It will not be seen as an abuse of power, as it wouldn't be refusing new laws being created, just not supporting the repeal of one.

Interesting times.

And by the way, I am not desperate, I am simply outlining what news is there.

Pavlos Eleftheriadis: Professor of Public Law at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Mansfield College.

Quote

In my view, the Act adds an important dimension to the debate about the effects of the EU referendum of June 23. The 2011 Act has been written in such an expansive way as to encompass, in my view, not only treaties that amend the EU treaties, but also treaties that the UK is due to enter as a result of withdrawing from it. This may be a surprising suggestion, because the drafters of the 2011 Act probably had not thought about this prospect. Nevertheless, the Act is to be applied on the basis of what it says, not on the basis of what its drafters were thinking at the time. On the basis of the words on the page, a new referendum is most likely legally necessary before the UK withdraws from the EU.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by HairyOb1

[GrizzlyDave]

35 minutes ago, WageWar said:

What do you mean by "Gravy"? That's it's all good?

Gravy

32 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

No other word will do. For that’s what it was.
Gravy.
Gravy, these past ten years.
Alive, sober, working, loving, and
being loved by a good woman. Eleven years
ago he was told he had six months to live
at the rate he was going. And he was going
nowhere but down. So he changed his ways
somehow. He quit drinking! And the rest?
After that it was all gravy, every minute
of it, up to and including when he was told about,
well, some things that were breaking down and
building up inside his head. “Don’t weep for me,”
he said to his friends. “I’m a lucky man.
I’ve had ten years longer than I or anyone
expected. Pure Gravy. And don’t forget it.

by Ray Carver, describing his feeling after giving up the booze (he was an alcoholic)

 

So, in GD's terminology - it's all good.

Exactly

[pig]

2 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

Sorry, are we in a time warp here? People HAVE already voted to leave....you just need to get over this I`m afraid. Nothing has changed since the vote to indicate that we are going to be worse off,  property/banking might take a hit yes, but this will make many people BETTER off not worse.The dire predictions of Carney and co. were laughable, everyone knows this now, and the EU electorate will have the final say, not a bunch of un-elected self-entitled clowns in Brussels, about how their individual countries interact with other countries. Brexit and the Italy V EU show must surely tell all but the most brainwashed that the game is up for the EU in it`s present form? Also do you think that with the backdrop of Italy and maybe others leaving that any meaningful number of the 1 million new voters would be thick/brainwashed enough to vote STAY in a new fantasy referendum? The thing that scares me is that many of them probably would be indoctrinated enough by the current media etc. to do so 

Maybe best take a week or two off from the DE/DM ? Esoeciallly the comment sections. Yoga retreat in the Canary Islands should do the trick

 

[OnionTerror]

I wonder when Bonio would pop up... didn’t  U2 move their operation to the Netherlands in order to pay less tax?

 

[Confusion of VIs]

Just now, pig said:

Maybe best take a week or two off from the DE/DM ? Esoeciallly the comment sections. Yoga retreat in the Canary Islands should do the trick

 

It looks like the DM may be not be as rabidly pro Brexit going forward.

No-deal Brexit could cause the worst economic crash for 45 YEARS with the Pound slumping and Britons hoarding food, government watchdog warns

The rest of the article is a pretty reasonable, even if very superficial, summary of the OBR's report.

[pig]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It looks like the DM may be not be as rabidly pro Brexit going forward.

No-deal Brexit could cause the worst economic crash for 45 YEARS with the Pound slumping and Britons hoarding food, government watchdog warns

The rest of the article is a pretty reasonable, even if very superficial, summary of the OBR's report.

Lol - Project Fear !

Seem to remember the DE editor was standing down too  - damage done I guess !

Tbf Even Farage was back-tracking a bit. Makes sense to try to reduce the risk of becoming a scapegoat the closer we get to hard reality.

[HairyOb1]

1 hour ago, highYield said:

It's not written in stone that all our stuff must be made in China from raw materials shipped from South America, Africa & Australia, shipped to Rotterdam, then trucked to the UK. Doesn't seem sustainable long term. If you look at a shipping map, https://www.shipmap.org or this:

Our natural (historical) place is physically trading with the world, especially the Americas and arguably Africa (which is close enough for Ireland to live ship cattle to, remember). The EU is more Mediterranean centred, the UK is open to many seas - the Med isn't strategically or economically much use to us, yet it's naturally the EU's focus.

edit: this is cool: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-2.2/centery:51.6/zoom:4

Excellent use of a heat map.  What are those red bits, and where are they?

[HairyOb1]

56 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

It’s the default position.

Not if we are in a transition period still subject to the treaty rules.  I think that's the noggin they're going for.

[OnionTerror]

3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Not if we are in a transition period still subject to the treaty rules.  I think that's the noggin they're going for.

A withdrawal agreement would have to be agreed to first, including a / the backstop.

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

A withdrawal agreement would have to be agreed to first, including a / the backstop.

It's this agreement that will mean the treaty has changed, in all fairness.  That's my take on it all.

[Sheeple Splinter]

On ‎06‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 01:34, Confusion of VIs said:

1. If I am wrong so are the OBR, BoE, OECD 

2. You haven't explained why the OBR etc don't seem to have taken account of your graph in coming to their conclusion about lost GDP.

Maybe they just don't have your Googling skills.

Answer my questions and I may answer yours.  

1. No, I was quoting your assertion not theirs.

2. Could the reason be similar to Osborne's brief for the pre-referendum, Forecast of Doom?

Hopefully, your next post will wrap these points up:

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

???  Isn't the generally accepted estimate that we have now lost +2% of GDP and the average person is around £500 worse off because of Brexit induced inflation that was not reflected in pay increases.   

Even if were right about the EU breaking up at some point in the future, why pay £40bn now and weaken the economy prior to TSHTF.  

Edit The OBR released an updated report today. More of the same project fear continues on track. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-uk-economy-office-for-budget-responsibility-no-deal-gdp-investment-inflation-a8579306.html

Fortunately, the graph in your linked article above should suffice... GDP has been falling since the 2014 peak:

Quote

 

Obviously not your graph, but why would Macrobond mark the referendum date as March 2016? 

The article is also flawed...

Quote

… The OBR described these calculations as plausible and in line with its own estimates, noting that the UK had slipped from having the highest growth rate in the G7 before the vote, to the lowest now.

… Japan and Italy are lower at the moment.

So, back to my question, What caused the 2014 peak?

Edited October 11, 2018 by Sheeple Splinter
contraction

[OnionTerror]

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1ca7aa11-a572-4d69-bc16-5d621b041e86

ah, you now have to log in to view the source, I'll have another look.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Dave Beans

[Sheeple Splinter]

On ‎06‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 01:47, Confusion of VIs said:

1. Only so far as we fail to implement the available FoM controls the rest is simply reducing the requirement for non EU immigration.

2. We don't register them, there is no requirement to  register NINo is a pretty useless measure as NINo are not linked to the person being in country.

3. That's the nub of it, add in the cultural expectation that you will use your status to bring in relatives and family friends plus the far lower likelihood that you will ever go home and you end up with recruiting from outside the EU resulting in 30% more migration overall.    

1. Why do you prioritise uncontrolled EU immigration over controlled (visa), non-EU immigration?

2. I disagree, NINo's are the key to HMRC/NI & Benefits/NHS data and therefore registration. If a person has left the country, other than as a clandestine, then it will have been recorded at the border. 

3. What would you suggest to reduce the number of dependents that non-EU immigrants can bring in?

[OnionTerror]

I think that this is a copy of that article.  

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/15504/landing-pages/3107e-brexit-legal-guide-03-withdrawal-qa-d4.pdf

[Peter Hun]

2 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Aye must have been tough buying a detached house for 2x an annual salary.

Even if was that cheap, 2X 15% interest rates is one hell of a lot of take home pay 

[Confusion of VIs]

29 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

1. No, I was quoting your assertion not theirs.

2. Could the reason be similar to Osborne's brief for the pre-referendum, Forecast of Doom?

Hopefully, your next post will wrap these points up:

Fortunately, the graph in your linked article above should suffice... GDP has been falling since the 2014 peak:

 

Obviously not your graph, but why would Macrobond mark the referendum date as March 2016? 

The article is also flawed...

… Japan and Italy are lower at the moment.

So, back to my question, What caused the 2014 peak?

1. I cannot even recall what the assertion was but assume I was being guided by all the published reports

2. No the OBR is independent of Osborne. 

As to your question, why should I know and why do you think it is relevant?  As I am sure I said earlier, the post referendum changes were assessed against earlier forecasts not just the headline growth rate. It is the deviation from the previously assumed growth rate when compared with other countries deviation from their previously assumed growth rates, after allowing for non Brexit related influencing factors not catered for in those forecasts,  that is the basis for the assessment that the vote itself caused the rapid slowdown in UK growth now amounting to around 2.5% of lost GDP.

Looking at the latest reports from the OBR, et al the loss to the economy is now between 4 and 5 times the promised Brexit dividend. Even Minford has admitted the economy has taken a, for him, surprisingly large hit.  I think you should either give up on this or write a learned paper explaining exactly why everyone else has got it so wrong. 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

37 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

1. Why do you prioritise uncontrolled EU immigration over controlled (visa), non-EU immigration?

2. I disagree, NINo's are the key to HMRC/NI & Benefits/NHS data and therefore registration. If a person has left the country, other than as a clandestine, then it will have been recorded at the border. 

3. What would you suggest to reduce the number of dependents that non-EU immigrants can bring in?

1. It is far more responsive to demand and less bureaucratic than visa/quota led non EU immigration. It also enables us to be a member of the single market.   

2 Exit checks are relatively recent. NINOs were routinely shared/recycled and even visual passport checks didn't stop this. Although routine biometric checks would/do.   

3. I wouldn't. Just pointing out that recruiting non EU workers rather than EU will lead to higher overall migration.  

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

1. Why do you prioritise uncontrolled EU immigration over controlled (visa), non-EU immigration?

For me it is for the same reason I support the right of every person, no matter how elite or non elite, to move for work within the four countries of the United Kingdom.

I view this as a very good thing for humans and I like that the countries of Europe have agreed that this is a good thing. When I found out in 1993 that I would be able to work freely in any one of the EU countries after graduating I immediately start dreaming of doing so, and ended up doing exactly that.

[GrizzlyDave]

1 hour ago, Peter Hun said:

Even if was that cheap, 2X 15% interest rates is one hell of a lot of take home pay 

Let’s pop that little bubble of hindsight bias.

15% for a short while over the whole 1970-80s period.

Ask yourself this; can a teacher buy a nice detached today?

Like I said.

Gravy.