Brexit delayed

[Sandydragon]

Food for thought:

Brexit is the result of an English delusion, a crisis of identity resulting from a failure to come to terms with the loss of empire and the end of its own exceptionalism, argues Cambridge University professor Nicholas Boyle

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... _1_4851882

SO how does he explain Wales voting for Brexit? Plenty of people in Scotland and NI also voted to leave. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the EU without highlighting the British Empire, which many people i the UK today were born after it morphed into the Commonwealth.

[Digby]

Food for thought:

Brexit is the result of an English delusion, a crisis of identity resulting from a failure to come to terms with the loss of empire and the end of its own exceptionalism, argues Cambridge University professor Nicholas Boyle

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-sto ... _1_4851882

SO how does he explain Wales voting for Brexit? Plenty of people in Scotland and NI also voted to leave. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the EU without highlighting the British Empire, which many people i the UK today were born after it morphed into the Commonwealth.

This sounds like the sort of work that will be unleashed on some poor unsuspecting undergrads (and quite rightly so) until the esteemed academic in question goes on to write and publish his next opus. But unless you're in one of his seminars or are spectacularly unlucky in a dinner party invitation you're really never going to him from him or his ramblings on this.

That said I do like academia for the sake of academia, I wouldn't want to see academics not writing and not being free to write as they wish even before some small percent is really useful, that this isn't useful doesn't really matter.

[Len]

Hes not exactly wrong. Its a trait I pick up on from Britons all the time. The British public generally do think they're more important on the world stage than they actually are.

*ducks for cover awaiting various NZ based put downs

[Adder]

Hes not exactly wrong. Its a trait I pick up on from Britons all the time. The British public generally do think they're more important on the world stage than they actually are.

*ducks for cover awaiting various NZ based put downs

I know, everyone else knows the French are top

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

[Digby]

Hes not exactly wrong. Its a trait I pick up on from Britons all the time. The British public generally do think they're more important on the world stage than they actually are.

*ducks for cover awaiting various NZ based put downs

Everyone thinks they're more important then they are. We see it in such as problems are often trivial until they're your own problems,

[morepork]

I'm sure the working class who voted leave will be delighted by the news of Britain becoming a tax haven.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Is it? From what I've read that's only a possibility if the EU try and strike an incredibly hard and punitive bargain. Even if it does come to pass, I've never heard a country becoming competitive over corporation tax be labelled a tax haven. Until this week, that is.

Taxen haven usually implies somewhere where one can avoid paying tax. Im not sure that a low tax corporate friendly environment is the same thing, but its a nice soundbite.

Bermuda? Cayman Islands? Jersey?

[Sandydragon]

Is it? From what I've read that's only a possibility if the EU try and strike an incredibly hard and punitive bargain. Even if it does come to pass, I've never heard a country becoming competitive over corporation tax be labelled a tax haven. Until this week, that is.

Taxen haven usually implies somewhere where one can avoid paying tax. Im not sure that a low tax corporate friendly environment is the same thing, but its a nice soundbite.

Bermuda? Cayman Islands? Jersey?

And as you know, they are different entities to what has been suggested for the UK, if the EU decides to play hardball.

[morepork]

Taxen haven usually implies somewhere where one can avoid paying tax. Im not sure that a low tax corporate friendly environment is the same thing, but its a nice soundbite.

Bermuda? Cayman Islands? Jersey?

And as you know, they are different entities to what has been suggested for the UK, if the EU decides to play hardball.

Their administrative convenience would look great on a glossy brochure advertising the financial sector in the UK though.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Hes not exactly wrong. Its a trait I pick up on from Britons all the time. The British public generally do think they're more important on the world stage than they actually are.

*ducks for cover awaiting various NZ based put downs

The problem is that he seems to think that only the English were involved in Empire.

[Stones of granite]

Hes not exactly wrong. Its a trait I pick up on from Britons all the time. The British public generally do think they're more important on the world stage than they actually are.

*ducks for cover awaiting various NZ based put downs

The problem is that he seems to think that only the English were involved in Empire.

He wouldn't be the first Englishman to think that.

[Stones of granite]

The Supreme Court decision is that the Government cannot make substantive changes to British Law without agreement from Parliament, regardless of the outcome of an advisory referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

Thank fuck for that. God only knows what kind of precedent that could have set.

[rowan]

The Supreme Court decision is that the Government cannot make substantive changes to British Law without agreement from Parliament, regardless of the outcome of an advisory referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

Thank fuck for that. God only knows what kind of precedent that could have set.

To what extent will this effect the Brexit decision?

[Which Tyler]

The Supreme Court decision is that the Government cannot make substantive changes to British Law without agreement from Parliament, regardless of the outcome of an advisory referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

Thank fuck for that. God only knows what kind of precedent that could have set.

As you say - it means that we're still not a presidency / autocracy (well, officially anyway)

To what extent will this effect the Brexit decision?

At most it will delay it by a couple of weeks whilst they draft a vote - unlikely to do that much though. If they have to send it through the Lords it will cause delays though; but again, only delaying the inevitable.
It will sail through the Commons with a much greater majority than it got in the referrendum.
the principal at stake was executive power; May wanted to act as if she were the Queen in a feudal monarchy - this would have been a bad thing.

[rowan]

To what extent will this effect the Brexit decision?

At most it will delay it by a couple of weeks whilst they draft a vote - unlikely to do that much though. If they have to send it through the Lords it will cause delays though; but again, only delaying the inevitable.
It will sail through the Commons with a much greater majority than it got in the referrendum.
the principal at stake was executive power; May wanted to act as if she were the Queen in a feudal monarchy - this would have been a bad thing.[/quote]

Cheers. I was rather hoping it would shoot the whole thing down in flames

[Digby]

The Supreme Court decision is that the Government cannot make substantive changes to British Law without agreement from Parliament, regardless of the outcome of an advisory referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

Thank fuck for that. God only knows what kind of precedent that could have set.

To what extent will this effect the Brexit decision?

Really it shouldn't change it. It's just telling the government it's a parliamentary democracy which might be less convenient for May than a dictatorship but that government needs to not get carried away.

The government is now unlikely to get away with a one line bill, so they're going to have put aside more time for this than planned, but given they're in charge of allotting time they should be able to get A50 passed and stick with their current deadline of March unless they make a real dog's dinner of the bill. The government is likely to face some amendments, the idea they'd structure a bill such it couldn't be amended makes as much sense as the idea they were entitled to ignore parliament in the first place, but still, the government will get support on its own side and be able to whip some of the remainers too, and then plenty in the other parties want to leave the EU and/or will respect the outcome of the referendum.

[Len]

Brexiters will be losing their shit. Heh.

[Mellsblue]

Brexiters will be losing their shit. Heh.

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

[Mellsblue]

The Supreme Court decision is that the Government cannot make substantive changes to British Law without agreement from Parliament, regardless of the outcome of an advisory referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

Thank fuck for that. God only knows what kind of precedent that could have set.

As you say - it means that we're still not a presidency / autocracy (well, officially anyway)


At most it will delay it by a couple of weeks whilst they draft a vote - unlikely to do that much though. If they have to send it through the Lords it will cause delays though; but again, only delaying the inevitable.
It will sail through the Commons with a much greater majority than it got in the referrendum.
the principal at stake was executive power; May wanted to act as if she were the Queen in a feudal monarchy - this would have been a bad thing.

It will go through the Lords, all legislation does.
The principle/precedent at stake was executive power/royal prerogative after a referendum. If the Supreme Court had decided in favour of government it wouldn't have given May and her successors free rein to pass anything they wished via Royal perogative.

[Mellsblue]

The government is now unlikely to get away with a one line bill, so they're going to have put aside more time for this than planned, but given they're in charge of allotting time they should be able to get A50 passed and stick with their current deadline of March unless they make a real dog's dinner of the bill. The government is likely to face some amendments, the idea they'd structure a bill such it couldn't be amended makes as much sense as the idea they were entitled to ignore parliament in the first place, but still, the government will get support on its own side and be able to whip some of the remainers too, and then plenty in the other parties want to leave the EU and/or will respect the outcome of the referendum.

Why do think this about the bill they put forward? The Supreme Court - based on the verbal statement as I haven't had the time or the will to read the report or its summary - has merely said that parliament must vote on article 50 not how this vote should look.
The government have expected to lose this for a long time, and, I believe, expected to when they appealed, so have had plenty of time to formulate their plan. That's not to say they won't mess it up.
May stated her negotiating objectives, as requested by parliament, last week. What more is required? She has also stated a vote in parliament will be held once negotiations are finished. Other than Lammy continuing to dig his third hole of this parliament, the other two being an embarrassing attempt to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor and being the main protagonist to have Corbyn's name on the leadership ballot, I'm not sure why anyone else has any other demands. Other than political grandstanding, of course. This had seemed to die down once they realised I wouldn't be front page news but no doubt it'll resurface once again.

[Digby]

The government is now unlikely to get away with a one line bill, so they're going to have put aside more time for this than planned, but given they're in charge of allotting time they should be able to get A50 passed and stick with their current deadline of March unless they make a real dog's dinner of the bill. The government is likely to face some amendments, the idea they'd structure a bill such it couldn't be amended makes as much sense as the idea they were entitled to ignore parliament in the first place, but still, the government will get support on its own side and be able to whip some of the remainers too, and then plenty in the other parties want to leave the EU and/or will respect the outcome of the referendum.

Why do think this about the bill they put forward? The Supreme Court - based on the verbal statement as I haven't had the time or the will to read the report or its summary - has merely said that parliament must vote on article 50 not how this vote should look.
The government have expected to lose this for a long time, and, I believe, expected to when they appealed, so have had plenty of time to formulate their plan. That's not to say they won't mess it up.
May stated her negotiating objectives, as requested by parliament, last week. What more is required? She has also stated a vote in parliament will be held once negotiations are finished. Other than Lammy continuing to dig his third hole of this parliament, the other two being an embarrassing attempt to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor and being the main protagonist to have Corbyn's name on the leadership ballot, I'm not sure why anyone else has any other demands. Other than political grandstanding, of course. This had seemed to die down once they realised I wouldn't be front page news but no doubt it'll resurface once again.

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

[Digby]

As a slight aside to Brexit, but with a view to trade deals and coming out of the EU, and what the EU are like to deal with, well they're not exactly scary



Mr Pabriks is doing better there in what at most is his second language than most of our MPs manage. And to think where Latvia has come from it's quite some thinking.

[Mellsblue]

The government is now unlikely to get away with a one line bill, so they're going to have put aside more time for this than planned, but given they're in charge of allotting time they should be able to get A50 passed and stick with their current deadline of March unless they make a real dog's dinner of the bill. The government is likely to face some amendments, the idea they'd structure a bill such it couldn't be amended makes as much sense as the idea they were entitled to ignore parliament in the first place, but still, the government will get support on its own side and be able to whip some of the remainers too, and then plenty in the other parties want to leave the EU and/or will respect the outcome of the referendum.

Why do think this about the bill they put forward? The Supreme Court - based on the verbal statement as I haven't had the time or the will to read the report or its summary - has merely said that parliament must vote on article 50 not how this vote should look.
The government have expected to lose this for a long time, and, I believe, expected to when they appealed, so have had plenty of time to formulate their plan. That's not to say they won't mess it up.
May stated her negotiating objectives, as requested by parliament, last week. What more is required? She has also stated a vote in parliament will be held once negotiations are finished. Other than Lammy continuing to dig his third hole of this parliament, the other two being an embarrassing attempt to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor and being the main protagonist to have Corbyn's name on the leadership ballot, I'm not sure why anyone else has any other demands. Other than political grandstanding, of course. This had seemed to die down once they realised I wouldn't be front page news but no doubt it'll resurface once again.

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

All fair enough. Even if I don't agree with most of it!
They're clearly not worried about public perception. On all things May and her hit squad seem incredibly arrogant that it's their way or the highway.
They have agreed to include the devolved governments via meetings at various stages. The Supreme Court have said there is no constitutional reason for the devolved parliaments to be involved. As all sides have agreed they are the final arbiter why then not stick to their ruling.

There is plenty of opportunity to input. The Brexit Committee, chaired by a Remainer, is the place to do it. The numerous statements to the House by Davis are also an opportunity. The best place was during the time the referendum bill passed through the House but the all seeing all knowing Cleggs and Lammys of this Parliament seemed to have missed that one. If they'd legislated for the post referendum process at this point then all this chaos and distraction would've been avoided.

I think you've misread May and her team. It's not that they're unable to do their job without review, it's that they feel they'd be able to do their job better without review. It's a big failing of this government and I'm afraid it probably always will be.

[Len]

Brexiters will be losing their shit. Heh.

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

[Digby]

Why do think this about the bill they put forward? The Supreme Court - based on the verbal statement as I haven't had the time or the will to read the report or its summary - has merely said that parliament must vote on article 50 not how this vote should look.
The government have expected to lose this for a long time, and, I believe, expected to when they appealed, so have had plenty of time to formulate their plan. That's not to say they won't mess it up.
May stated her negotiating objectives, as requested by parliament, last week. What more is required? She has also stated a vote in parliament will be held once negotiations are finished. Other than Lammy continuing to dig his third hole of this parliament, the other two being an embarrassing attempt to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor and being the main protagonist to have Corbyn's name on the leadership ballot, I'm not sure why anyone else has any other demands. Other than political grandstanding, of course. This had seemed to die down once they realised I wouldn't be front page news but no doubt it'll resurface once again.

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

All fair enough. Even if I don't agree with most of it!
They're clearly not worried about public perception. On all things May and her hit squad seem incredibly arrogant that it's their way or the highway.
They have agreed to include the devolved governments via meetings at various stages. The Supreme Court have said there is no constitutional reason for the devolved parliaments to be involved. As all sides have agreed they are the final arbiter why then not stick to their ruling.

There is plenty of opportunity to input. The Brexit Committee, chaired by a Remainer, is the place to do it. The numerous statements to the House by Davis are also an opportunity. The best place was during the time the referendum bill passed through the House but the all seeing all knowing Cleggs and Lammys of this Parliament seemed to have missed that one. If they'd legislated for the post referendum process at this point then all this chaos and distraction would've been avoided.

I think you've misread May and her team. It's not that they're unable to do their job without review, it's that they feel they'd be able to do their job better without review. It's a big failing of this government and I'm afraid it probably always will be.

That could be read as if May and her team want to whine that they could do a better job free of oversight they should feel free to resign. And often times decisions are made outside of committee, the committees should be where more decisions are made but clearly pacts are made outside those chambers, and it's hardly odd MPs want more chances to stick their respective oars in.

And yes the government will seek to brief and pretend to consult the devolved governments, but there's no way those other institutions aren't going to try and make more of this politically than the law says they've a legal right to, no way. And so that will already come with a cost to the government, which in part is just a cost of doing business, but it'd another reason I think it'd be odd if they looked to increase the challenges to them. And in looking at what's coming out of the ruling I think it looks well set for a challenge if the government tries to get a one line bill through, partly I know that as I'd be happy to help fund that challenge, and I suspect it's easier for the government to simply take the short term pain of going to parliament to cut off at the knees those who might seek such action.

[Mellsblue]

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

All fair enough. Even if I don't agree with most of it!
They're clearly not worried about public perception. On all things May and her hit squad seem incredibly arrogant that it's their way or the highway.
They have agreed to include the devolved governments via meetings at various stages. The Supreme Court have said there is no constitutional reason for the devolved parliaments to be involved. As all sides have agreed they are the final arbiter why then not stick to their ruling.

There is plenty of opportunity to input. The Brexit Committee, chaired by a Remainer, is the place to do it. The numerous statements to the House by Davis are also an opportunity. The best place was during the time the referendum bill passed through the House but the all seeing all knowing Cleggs and Lammys of this Parliament seemed to have missed that one. If they'd legislated for the post referendum process at this point then all this chaos and distraction would've been avoided.

I think you've misread May and her team. It's not that they're unable to do their job without review, it's that they feel they'd be able to do their job better without review. It's a big failing of this government and I'm afraid it probably always will be.

That could be read as if May and her team want to whine that they could do a better job free of oversight they should feel free to resign. And often times decisions are made outside of committee, the committees should be where more decisions are made but clearly pacts are made outside those chambers, and it's hardly odd MPs want more chances to stick their respective oars in.

And yes the government will seek to brief and pretend to consult the devolved governments, but there's no way those other institutions aren't going to try and make more of this politically than the law says they've a legal right to, no way. And so that will already come with a cost to the government, which in part is just a cost of doing business, but it'd another reason I think it'd be odd if they looked to increase the challenges to them. And in looking at what's coming out of the ruling I think it looks well set for a challenge if the government tries to get a one line bill through, partly I know that as I'd be happy to help fund that challenge, and I suspect it's easier for the government to simply take the short term pain of going to parliament to cut off at the knees those who might seek such action.

I find it strange that May is whining if she moans about being legally forced consult parliament but the devolved parliaments are merely trying to make political gains if they moan about not having to be legally consulted. Seems to me that view is very much taken from a Remainer's stand point.

All the noise coming from govt is that the wording of the bill will be tighter than a Scotsman who has lost his wallet. Of course, there's quite a high chance they'll balls up the wording.

Are you talking about another legal challenge? I'm not sure I'm happy about the judiciary having so much power that they can decide on the minutiae of the legislature's day to day running. The separation of powers runs both ways. The ruling is that parliament must vote on article 50, how that process is managed is the sole domain of the govt and parliament as far as I'm concerned. The statement made by, I think, Lord Neubetger explicitly stated this was a decision solely on whether article 50 should be subject to a vote. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I haven't read the report so there may be more to it. I'd be disappointed if there were.