Brexit - Will it be ratified?

[Sonicscooter]

It's like the sinking of the Titanic.......

Atilla just quotes news paper articles that suite his point of view..........i respect an ability to judge and independently view, not copy and paste...

Atilla and Barjon, at what point are you going to get over it?

 

[Splitlink]

I just saw a political cartoon. It depicted three flamingos standing near a marsh. They were arguing over whether the thing in the marsh was a log or a crocodile. Flamingo A said it was just log and FLamingo B said that it was a crocodile. Flamingo A walked up to it and said, "see, it is just a log". He was subsequently eaten by the crocodile. Even after Flamingo A was eaten by the (log) crocodile, the third flamingo still would not believe that the thing in the water was a crocodile.

Even after the Brexit has happened, people still refuse to believe that the Brexit is here to stay.

Yes, I think that you are right on that point and the UK must move on to the next step and stop messing about. The election of a new pm should be done ASAP and not wait until October. The law says that Brexit must be ratified in Parliament. The sooner that is done, the better. If the Lords send it back (as is probable) it will have to go through Commons, again. Jeez!

I am an anti-Brexiter but its no good crying over spilt milk. Move on.

 

[hhiusa]

This is why I don't understand English politics or law. In the US it is never a matter of will that be ratified. There is no in between if something is voted on then it will either pass and must become law or it will not pass.

In California, in 2008, we voted for a high-speed rail. The proposition passed despite the extreme expense. The pension system has bled and is bleeding the state coffer funds dry. They borrowed the $40 billion in state funds set aside to build the rail and loaned it to the ailing pension systems. Even though California can no longer truly afford to build the high-speed rail, unless they put a bill forth to repeal the passage of the proposition, then it must happen. A bill to repeal it would also be quite expensive and would've had to have been or be on the ballot. It is estimated that a repeal vote would cost for billion dollars.

The people don't let the government go "now that's not a good idea we should scrap the project halfway through."

The same can be said in the UK. No one is considering how costly the election was for the Brexit itself. It would be doubly expensive if you wanted to create a repeal vote. Talk about a waste of money. You're halfway there and you passed the referendum now it should be ratified.

What is the purpose of voting on something if it doesn't become law.

 

[barjon]

It's like the sinking of the Titanic.......

Atilla just quotes news paper articles that suite his point of view..........i respect an ability to judge and independently view, not copy and paste...

Atilla and Barjon, at what point are you going to get over it?

You don't read do you - I've said consistently that the decision should be accepted and we should get on with it without prevarication.

That doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to start thinking that Brexit is going to be a good thing for the country.

 

[Sonicscooter]

No, you've made it quite clear over the previous weeks that you can't be ar5ed to consider anything other than your own view.

The first legal case for halting Brexit is going to court later this month. Mr Justice Cranston, a high court judge, has scheduled the preliminary hearing for July 19.

Probably it will (and should) get thrown out, but you can't just deny the genuineness of Atilla's reporting as you do.

It's called clinging to flotsam, doesn't take much to rattle your cage, i'd still hold a splinter of respect if you had the gumption to say you were both wrong and deal with Brexit and the personal implications it may have, instead of typing reams in the hope, desperate hope someone is still listening without....this face.....

 

[Splitlink]

You don't read do you - I've said consistently that the decision should be accepted and we should get on with it without prevarication.

That doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to start thinking that Brexit is going to be a good thing for the country.

My view, entirely. In fact, the Brexit idea stinks!

 

[hhiusa]

You don't read do you - I've said consistently that the decision should be accepted and we should get on with it without prevarication.

That doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to start thinking that Brexit is going to be a good thing for the country.

That in itself does not make any sense to me. For the sake of argument, people say that it is a bad situation. Regardless of whether I am agree ornot, one thing remains. The old adage, "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade." For some reason you have decided to toss the lemons out instead of accepting them and realize that even though they're not what you want to eat there still something to eat.

If you focus on how bad the situation is then you are unlikely to ever get anything positive from it.

As far as I see it right now life hasn't even given you any lemons yet. If we are to carry the analogy further. I don't know why you don't like it, when nothing negative has happened to you yet. If you think something positive, something positive is more likely to happen. If you think something negative, something negative is more likely to happen.

 

[Splitlink]

This is why I don't understand English politics or law. In the US it is never a matter of will that be ratified. There is no in between if something is voted on then it will either pass and must become law or it will not pass.

In California, in 2008, we voted for a high-speed rail. The proposition passed despite the extreme expense. The pension system has bled and is bleeding the state coffer funds dry. They borrowed the $40 billion in state funds set aside to build the rail and loaned it to the ailing pension systems. Even though California can no longer truly afford to build the high-speed rail, unless they put a bill forth to repeal the passage of the proposition, then it must happen. A bill to repeal it would also be quite expensive and would've had to have been or be on the ballot. It is estimated that a repeal vote would cost for billion dollars.

The people don't let the government go "now that's not a good idea we should scrap the project halfway through."

The same can be said in the UK. No one is considering how costly the election was for the Brexit itself. It would be doubly expensive if you wanted to create a repeal vote. Talk about a waste of money. You're halfway there and you passed the referendum now it should be ratified.

What is the purpose of voting on something if it doesn't become law.

It, probably, will become law but both main parties are in such upheaval that its like having a hung government. Even Labour, which is supposed to be a decent opposition, has a leader who cannot form a shadow cabinet.

 

[barjon]

It's called clinging to flotsam, doesn't take much to rattle your cage, i'd still hold a splinter of respect if you had the gumption to say you were both wrong and deal with Brexit and the personal implications it may have, instead of typing reams in the hope, desperate hope someone is still listening without....this face.....

Please see my previous reply just before your post. I fully accept the result but I don't have to like it. I was wrong only in that I thought remain would win, it remains to be seen whether I was wrong to think Brexit would be a bad thing for the country.

 

[hhiusa]

it remains to be seen whether I was wrong to think Brexit would be a bad thing for the country.

Indeed. Why be hung up over something that has yet produce untoward effects, especially those that would not be a direct detriment to yourself.

What specifically has been a detriment to you personally?

 

[barjon]

Indeed. Why be hung up over something that has yet produce untoward effects, especially those that would not be a direct detriment to yourself.

What specifically has been a detriment to you personally?

Blimey, I'm not hung up about it.

Detriment? So far two of my bank shares are down 25 - 30%. My pension pot is suffering, too. My £ buys over 13% fewer euros (I spend a lot ot time in Europe), but I can stand all that and more. It's the long term effects of Brexit on the country that concern me. I would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong and I hope I am.

 

[Pat494]

Will EU law be null and void soon or will they keep some of them after careful consideration ? Someone said there are about 60,000 piddling little EU laws to keep someone busy.

I suppose the EU will gradually be Germanised, language etc.

 

[hhiusa]

Blimey, I'm not hung up about it.

Detriment? So far two of my bank shares are down 25 - 30%. My pension pot is suffering, too. My £ buys over 13% fewer euros (I spend a lot ot time in Europe), but I can stand all that and more. It's the long term effects of Brexit on the country that concern me. I would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong and I hope I am.

Those all seem like they are avoidable. You should known better than have positions in uk banks or any open positions pre- and post-Brexit. How is buying few euros important. Whatever you are purchasing in Europe can be had in the UK or the US. Millions of Europeans flooded the Us treasuries market pre-Brexit. Problem solved.

Pensions, however nice, are not a realized loss until you have the cash in hand.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

[Sonicscooter]

Blimey, I'm not hung up about it.

Detriment? So far two of my bank shares are down 25 - 30%. My pension pot is suffering, too. My £ buys over 13% fewer euros (I spend a lot ot time in Europe), but I can stand all that and more. It's the long term effects of Brexit on the country that concern me. I would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong and I hope I am.

This is a trading forum, i was completely in cash prior to Brexit, my investment portfolio is up 8.37% since the Friday, ie bought the morning after the vote........

 

[barjon]

This is a trading forum, i was completely in cash prior to Brexit, my investment portfolio is up 8.37% since the Friday, ie bought the morning after the vote........

Seems you've done better than me, then

 

[hhiusa]

Seems you've done better than me, then

It seemed like the obvious move was to buy put options for absolutely any british multinational company, (i.e. banks). You could have randomly drawn a company out of hat and you would have been über-flush. Even post-Brexit, all British companies trading in the US plummeted by around 20%, fetching a lot of people who used put options more returns than the S&P makes in a decade.

I did a put option on BP the day after the Brexit when it had already fallen 22%.

 

[Atilla]

It's like the sinking of the Titanic.......

Atilla just quotes news paper articles that suite his point of view..........i respect an ability to judge and independently view, not copy and paste...

Atilla and Barjon, at what point are you going to get over it?

Sonic, you really need to drop that respect biz as peeps going to start thinking you voting for George Galloway. I like him by the way. I reckon he tells it like it is.

You talk of 1066 and independence of the UK. Just how do events in 1066 effect price of cheese today? Do you know for 400 years French was the language of UK?

Do you know your battles and wars? You may have won a battle but you haven't won the war. Now run back up the hill and hold your position. Don't be so hasty in celebration of lies and deceit. Learn a bit of history first.

There is a radio station in Hastings called Arrow FM by the way. Try tuning into it some day as it's bound to be your cup of tea. My son doesn't like it. He thinks it's in bad taste. I said it was better than a poke in the eye. He didn't think that was funny either.


Cutting and pasting from the national papers captures the mood and current debate of the day. It is a way of discussing anything of serious issue without personalising stuff.

For someone who says he doesn't care if UK has 20 years of recession he wants UK independence come what may, you have relinquished any ability to judge anything at all. So why do you participate in replying to what is of no consequence to you I'm curious to try and understand???

Nothing is quite certain in life but death and taxes so they say. That excludes Brexit. I'm not one to desert my position, turn or run especially when the UK needs intelligence and direction right now. There is everything to play for after all the deceitful lies that have been perpetrated against parliament and the British people by politicians in pursuit of personal gain. You have stated your position very clearly. Good on you. Now get on with it.

So have I and I am indeed getting on with it. Right now there is no real assessment of fall out, approach or plans in place for negotiations let alone a government or opposition.

We don't know what post Brexit is supposed to look like?

You claim I don't get it. It's difficult to get anything right now as there is nothing on the table. Some think yep that's it all done and dusted? Let's roll with it! Roll with what exactly?

Referendum was simply a pulse in moment in time.

The referendum has been noted and will be addressed I'm sure. Cameron has already resigned for starters. Process already begun.

This is the "Brexit - Will it be ratified" thread right?


All the best mate... Stay chilled.

 

[hhiusa]

People should indeed try to keep calm, but it does not need to be Sonic. The Bremainers are making the most fuss.

 

[Atilla]

Britain’s shock referendum result has sparked a legal debate about who has the right to initiate the process of taking Britain out of the EU -- the Prime Minister or the U.K. Parliament?
The debate cuts to the core of what Brexit will look like, raises legal questions that could dog the process for years and could play a role in deciding whether Brexit happens at all. If the matter isn’t resolved, it could lead to a constitutional crisis.
We try to untangle some of the arguments.
What legal standing does the referendum result have?
It is non-binding. The vote was an “advisory” referendum designed to recommend a particular course of action to the U.K. government. Such votes -- where an issue is put directly to the electorate -- are rare in the U.K. because of the guiding principle that sovereignty rests with Parliament.
So just because the U.K. voted to leave the EU, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen.
Why does Parliament matter if the people have already spoken?
Some parliaments matter more than others, but Britain’s is a special case. It is the central pillar of Britain’s political system and, since 1689, has been “sovereign,” meaning that -- in theory -- it has the right to create or abolish any law.
Its supremacy, however, has been chipped away. The 1972 European Communities Act, which brought the U.K. into the EU, granted EU law primacy over many areas.
There is also what’s known as the royal prerogative. Powers held by the Crown from medieval times have passed over time to the executive branch -- giving the prime minister the authority to act without the backing of Parliament in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Refresh your memory on how why Britain is Quitting the EU, with this QuickTake
What does the Prime Minister say?
His lawyers and lieutenants have already said that invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is up to the Prime Minister to decide. Triggering Article 50 starts a two-year countdown after which the U.K. would leave the EU.
Oliver Letwin, the minister overseeing the preparation for Brexit negotiations, told the foreign affairs committee in Parliament on July 5 that while there were “conflicting views,” government lawyers had advised him that “it is clearly” the prerogative of the prime minister rather than parliament to trigger the exit mechanism.
He added, however, that this was “an entirely academic issue” because the involvement of Parliament would be needed down the line to repeal or “substantially amend” the European Communities Act, or ECA.
So is that it?
Not so fast, say Parliament’s defenders. Bringing in lawmakers to repeal or amend the ECA is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted because Article 50 would already have been triggered at that point.
Eminent jurists such as David Pannick and Geoffrey Robertson argue that the very fabric of U.K.’s constitutional monarchy is based on Parliament. On a matter this monumental, Parliament -- and not the prime minister -- should have the final say on when and whether Article 50 gets triggered.
They cite the first paragraph of Article 50, which specifies that a country’s decision to leave must be made “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” So a premier acting alone would violate this basic tenet, they argue.
Robertson was unequivocal: “It’s the right of MPs alone to make or break laws, and the peers to block them. So there’s no force whatsoever in the referendum result. It’s entirely for MPs to decide.”
If the government flies solo, it should expect this line of attack from Mishcon de Reya, one of London’s biggest law firms, which has been hired by a group of business clients to mount a legal offensive against Brexit.
Does Parliament actually oppose Brexit?
Not right now. While almost three-quarters of lawmakers backed the Remain campaign, the leaders of all the main parties have pledged to respect the will of the people. Voting against the will of the people might not be the smartest thing for lawmakers who hope to get reelected one day.
So why do these differences matter?
The debate might look abstract, but the tensions between the Prime Minister and Parliament have the potential to blow up into a constitutional crisis.
It’s true that everyone is promising to respect the will of the people right now. But what if voters change their minds? What if the U.K. falls into a deep recession? What if the next prime minister calls a snap election and there’s a swell in support for lawmakers arguing for a rethink of the referendum?
In that situation, the legal implications of who approves what and when could become very important and destabilizing for markets.
Can the Scottish Parliament block Brexit?
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she’s examining this.
One of the conventions that has emerged since Scotland got its own assembly in 1998 is that the U.K. Parliament won’t legislate on Scottish matters without the consent of the government in Edinburgh. This is known at the Sewel Convention.
As repealing EU law would also cancel huge swathes of the legislation that governs Scotland, the regional assembly could choose to withhold consent from a decision to trigger Article 50.
Of course, the Parliament in Westminster is sovereign and can ultimately choose to override Scottish objections. But politically, it would be a very risky path to take.

What’s the conclusion?
Britain doesn’t have a codified constitution, so there’s no clear answer. The politics will be complicated by the fact that the next prime minister heading the negotiations won’t have been elected directly by the people, unless Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom call snap elections.

If it ends up in the courts, a legal battle over triggering Article 50 could become the most important constitutional lawsuit ever decided, said Jeff King, a professor of law at University College London.

"It’s quintessentially a legal question and ultimately for an authoritative ruling you can only look to the courts on that.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-spark-a-constitutional-crisis-in-the-u-k-q-a

 

[Oscar Reed]

Interesting interview in Asia about Spain being better off with the UK out of the Eurozone.

See if I can dig it up on line and post it.

So long Spain now and short UK.