Grow up
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Grow up
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
In other news the Bank of England's (#luvexperts) pessimistic pre referendum forecast of post Brexit growth plummeting to 0.8% in 2017 has already been revised upwards to 1.4%.
And... I would add, a snapshot at a particular point in time.
In other news the Bank of England's (#luvexperts) pessimistic pre referendum forecast of post Brexit growth plummeting to 0.8% in 2017 has already been revised upwards to 1.4%.
The markets obviously had factored in the High Court judgment
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
i dont really see why anyone thinks its vague, its clear enough that there is no law or statute that gives the government powers to repeal existing legislation. thats what the court argument (as i understand it) boils down to. also dont see how Supreme Court will find any different. courts are there to interpret and apply the laws (they can make case law along the way), in this situation there is nothing to go by so they are duty bound to refer it to parliament to legislate.
comment from IDS sums up the confusion, he says the courts do not have the right to tell the government what to do. wrong, the courts are empowered to tell the government to follow the law of the land, and here the legislation for the referendum was deeply flawed so there is no legal grounds for government to repeal older legislation.
sad day for leaving, good day for our legal system and parliament (wouldn't happen in Europe)
comment from IDS sums up the confusion, he says the courts do not have the right to tell the government what to do. wrong, the courts are empowered to tell the government to follow the law of the land, and here the legislation for the referendum was deeply flawed so there is no legal grounds for government to repeal older legislation.
sad day for leaving, good day for our legal system and parliament (wouldn't happen in Europe)
Labour's main dilemma is Farage-shaped, they, not the Tories, have leaked voters to the UKIP cause. A key Labour strategy is to win them back, you won't do this by opposing Brexit.
UKIP will be pouring over the voting data from the referendum, if you're an MP with a small majority and whose constituency is sat in an area where there was a strong Brexit vote you'll find Farage on your turf very quickly if you don't vote Brexit.
UKIP will be pouring over the voting data from the referendum, if you're an MP with a small majority and whose constituency is sat in an area where there was a strong Brexit vote you'll find Farage on your turf very quickly if you don't vote Brexit.
What would you like, a weekly vote and then an annual decision based on that vote, or would that just be a snapshot of just one particular year
!!!
larus
Well-known member
1 - in place and now a pre-requisite of joining the EU.
2 - openly being discussed.
3 - growth no stability pact is the first step, but for a single currency to work, this will need to happen eventually (as per the UK). The problems of this not being in place are obvious with the huge structural problems within Greece, Portugal, Italy.
As for the issues with the banking system, read some articles on the Italian Banks etc. Lots of problems, and even with negative interest rates and QE, Italy is still not getting any sensible growth. Levels of NPLs are increasing still. Ticking Time-Bomb.
Indeed. This is why, if they are held, there should be an overwhelming (60%+) vote required for a significant change to take place. (or the referendum should be advisory, as it was).
larus
Well-known member
Really. Is that your best reposte? You seems to take pleasure in running down and trying to ridicule a country where you no longer live.
It looks like you've swallowed the EU diktat fully.
In other news the Bank of England's (#luvexperts) pessimistic pre referendum forecast of post Brexit growth plummeting to 0.8% in 2017 has already been revised upwards to 1.4%.
and 2018 has been revised downwards.
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
The markets obviously had factored in the High Court judgment
You definitely wouldn't make a broker !
The role of an MP is to represent the wishes of his constituency, I'm not sure about how that would result in banning the French etc but it has set MPs against the party line (e.g. Goldsmith). It's usually only in unique circumstances that an MP can gauge an attitude to a specific issue, for example closing a hospital. The referendum has given each MP a good idea of what their constituents decided, so you could argue that they will follow this.
larus
Well-known member
In other news the Bank of England's (#luvexperts) pessimistic pre referendum forecast of post Brexit growth plummeting to 0.8% in 2017 has already been revised upwards to 1.4%.
Follows the trend of all news since the BREXIT vote. All surveys and stats have been much better than the "Experts" told us.
Hmm, what does that say about these "Experts"?
And we're still meant to believe their forecasts?
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,584
At first glance it seems to me that, unless the government wins on appeal, it may allow for more democratic accountability. At the moment we have a referendum vote that asked leave or remain and leave won. Subsequent to that the talk has been as to whether the leave vote gave a mandate for a hard exit: i.e. leave the single market in order to prevent free movement of labour. Despite the fact that the leave campaign continually said that the country wouldn't have to make this choice, but could get both things, the government says the referendum vote gives a mandate for the hard version, but this has not been tested in parliament or through a referendum.
In all honesty I can't see that the numbers for hard exit add up. With 48% voting for remain presumably preferring to retain the single market, it only requires 5.77% of the 52% who voted leave to prefer the 'soft' option and the mandate would be for soft exit. i.e. paying for continued membership of the single market, which would have to come with acceptance of free movement, which would mean that the country has gone through all of this to achieve next to nothing but giving up its voting rights at the EU parliament.
Apparently the bookies have halved the odds for a second referendum and there is talk of an early election. This would require a two thirds majority vote, so would need Labour support. You would think they won't support it, but some of them might see an early election smashing as preferable to another four years of Corbyn leadership followed by an election smashing.
In all honesty I can't see that the numbers for hard exit add up. With 48% voting for remain presumably preferring to retain the single market, it only requires 5.77% of the 52% who voted leave to prefer the 'soft' option and the mandate would be for soft exit. i.e. paying for continued membership of the single market, which would have to come with acceptance of free movement, which would mean that the country has gone through all of this to achieve next to nothing but giving up its voting rights at the EU parliament.
Apparently the bookies have halved the odds for a second referendum and there is talk of an early election. This would require a two thirds majority vote, so would need Labour support. You would think they won't support it, but some of them might see an early election smashing as preferable to another four years of Corbyn leadership followed by an election smashing.
What would you like, a weekly vote and then an annual decision based on that vote, or would that just be a snapshot of just one particular year
What would you like, one general election and then that government stays in power forever, even when they're all dead, along with all the people that voted for them?
I believe a number of other Brexiteers could also live with a reformed EU. I really do think there's a golden opportunity here for the UK to put itself in a fantastic position at the heart of a reformed U.K. which will work or the vast majority of Brits.
I have never bought the idea the EU can't be changed. I've never bought the idea the UK can't change it either. Two world wars and the inability to change some EU blokes in suits doesn't add up.
Maybe wishful thinking but I feel optimistic.
Totally agree. It's great that our governments have to abide by the rule of law. I'm a brexiter but I'm perfectly happy with this result for two reasons: as a demonstration of the independence of our judiciary and because it means parliament will have the ultimate say over brexit - which is how it should be.
I'm afraid that IDS's remarks merely draw attention to the fact that he struggles to comprehend the simplest concepts. In 50 years of following politics, I can't think of a more inadequate cabinet minister
Yes, as **** off seemed impolite.