The consequence thread (Brexit)

[L00b]

So in your world, "status quo" and "rapidly changing" are compatible?

You assume that I'm minded to accept that this "rapid change" is factual. I'm afraid you have a lot of convincing left to do here, about what this change is, how rapid this change is, and the extent to which it could or would have affected the UK (considering the UK's small mountain range of opt-outs beyond being out of Schengen and the €, plus those secured on paper by Cameron).

 

Are you a luddite, perchance?

See this is how otherwise reasonable and intelligent people end up voting for remain.

Reasonable and intelligent people don't cut their nose to spite their face. Deny that.

[unbeliever]

It's a hell of a lot more stable than brexit. Deny that!

 

I would certainly agree that things will change more rapidly for the UK over the next 2 years or so that they would have if we had remained in the EU.

After that I think we shall enter a period of political and constitutional stability that we would not have enjoyed within the EU.

 

See. I can agree when you say something that's correct. Doesn't mean I've given in or anything.

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2016 at 14:01 ----------

 

You assume that I'm minded to accept that this "rapid change" is factual. I'm afraid you have a lot of convincing left to do here, about what this change is, how rapid this change is, and the extent to which it could or would have affected the UK (considering the UK's small mountain range of opt-outs beyond being out of Schengen and the €, plus those secured on paper by Cameron).

 

Are you a luddite, perchance?

Reasonable and intelligent people don't cut their nose to spite their face. Deny that.

 

 

With all due respect to the former PM, the UK's relationship with the EU (and its predecessors) changed greatly and continuously since 1972 and it is rather implausible to suggest that would have stopped.

 

I'm not spiting anything. I'm of the view that the nation state is a better servant of the people than a continental federation.

Edited October 11, 2016 by unbeliever

[tinfoilhat]

I would certainly agree that things will change more rapidly for the UK over the next 2 years or so that they would have if we had remained in the EU.

After that I think we shall enter a period of political and constitutional stability that we would not have enjoyed within the EU.

 

See. I can agree when you say something that's correct. Doesn't mean I've given in or anything.

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2016 at 14:01 ----------

 

 

 

.

 

What are you basing the period of stability on? Three major parties in this country are very much divided in their internal politics. I don't see a world when they're suddenly going to get along.

[unbeliever]

What are you basing the period of stability on? Three major parties in this country are very much divided in their internal politics. I don't see a world when they're suddenly going to get along.

 

As it should be. There will be some consensus no doubt.

At least the constitution may be stable.

[L00b]

With all due respect to the former PM, the UK's relationship with the EU (and its predecessors) changed greatly and continuously since 1972 and it is rather implausible to suggest that would have stopped.

The world and its dog has changed greatly and continuously since 1972 and it is rather implausible to suggest that would have stopped any time soon, either.

 

You're not one of these stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off people, are you?

 

Because that's exactly what the above suggests. And that's not what status quo at the referendum ballot box means (which you know perfectly well).

I'm not spiting anything. I'm of the view that the nation state is a better servant of the people than a continental federation.

I don't doubt for a second that you don't see it as spiting, unbeliever.

 

So, er...bit in black, about the question I asked you in #4616?

 

How is May better serving the British people by shunting Parliament and ignoring legislative due process with its checks and balances?

 

(It's not just me saying it btw, it's her own Leave-voting Tory MPs as well)

 

How is May better serving the British people by appointing some douche with all the aptitude hallmarks of an amoeba as her Brexit Minister?

 

How is May better serving the British people by deliberately excluding the best economic minds of the planet at the LSE from Brexit planning if they're not British?

 

The Parliamentary cross-party coalition slowly forming against May's government clearly belies your claim of stability, I'm afraid. Rest assured money market traders are busy pricing that in as I type, as well.

 

It's a slowmo car crash, mate. And the car ain't stopped rolling yet. Here, enjoy.

Edited October 11, 2016 by L00b

[Flexo]

The £ is down to $1.23 today, continuing its slide.

 

That's down from $1.31 (6.5%) since the start of the Tory conference when it became clear that they are prioritising the unity of the Conservative Party over the health of the economy.

 

Down from $1.55 (26%) in one year as the referendum drew near.

 

The FTSE100 goes up as it is comprised of multinational companies that make their money abroad but are traded in Sterling in London. Those holding £'s to invest find there are few worthwhile investments as their money is worth 26% less than last year.

[unbeliever]

The world and its dog has changed greatly and continuously since 1972 and it is rather implausible to suggest that would have stopped any time soon, either.

 

You're not one of these stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off people, are you?

 

Because that's exactly what the above suggests. And that's not what status quo at the referendum ballot box means (which you know perfectly well).

I don't doubt for a second that you don't see it as spiting, unbeliever.

 

So, er...bit in black, about the question I asked you in #4616?

 

How is May better serving the British people by ignoring legislative due process with its checks and balances?

 

(It's not just me saying it btw, it's her own Leave-voting Tory MPs as well)

 

The Parliamentary cross-party coalition slowly forming against May's government clearly belies your claim of stability, I'm afraid. Rest assured money market traders are busy pricing that in as I type, as well.

 

Any new treaties with the EU will have to be approved by parliament. The repeal of the 1972 act will also pass through parliament.

The negotiations are handled by the executive who may consult the legislature as they see fit. The legislature has already given their approval for the executive to activate article 50 and begin negotiations. It was called the "European Union Referendum Act 2015".

I don't have a problem with how the current executive is handling matters so far. If parliament feel strongly about it, they can reject the PM and thereby the whole executive at the next confidence vote, or if 2/3 are in agreement they can call a general election as and when they please.

Edited October 11, 2016 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

The legislature has already given their approval for the executive to activate article 50 and begin negotiations. It was called the "European Union Referendum Act 2015".

 

Below is a link to that Act. It only seems to be about the detail of running the referendum voting. Please can you point out to me the clause that you are referring to?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents

Edited October 11, 2016 by Flexo

[unbeliever]

Below is a link to that Act. Please can you point out to me the clause that you are referring to?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents

 

What do you suggest the MPs supposed was going to happen if we voted leave.

The MPs also approved the Lisbon treaty which includes article 50.

This is a matter for the executive.

[Flexo]

What do you suggest the MPs supposed was going to happen if we voted leave.

 

It's not up to me to suggest anything. You say it is written in that Act. But exactly where?