The consequence thread (Brexit)

[unbeliever]

Oh dear, Loob's right.... I've looked at some charts of USD ETFs that track FTSE100.

 

The "record highs" in the FTSE are because of the record lows in the value of the £.

 

When shown in USD instead of GBP, the charts are flat and show an ongoing downtrend over several years.

 

FWIW, in USD, the FTSE250 also shows a strong downtrend starting mid 2015.

 

And if even the majority of transactions in the UK were in USD that would matter.

Most of our trade is domestic and only a fraction of our foreign trade is in USD. The £ losing value is not good overall, but a 1% drop on the value of the £ against the USD does not represent a 1% drop on the value of the UK economy. Not even close.

[L00b]

I agree with unbeliever. It's implicit that the government will have the power to enact article 50 following the referendum. Not legally obligated to but I think by voting in favour of having the referendum they also implied such consent.

So, like unbeliever, you're happy to now be governed by tacit consent, rather than by the centuries-old, per-issue expressed consent of your elected representatives?

 

I see

 

Looks like May read this mood correctly after all. With that mindset, you deserve everything that's coming this way, tbh.

[unbeliever]

I like most if not all of you chaps/chapesses, but this overly confrontational, told you so, hope you get your comeuppance stuff is just not conducive to a good mood. I'm unsubscribing. Have fun.

[L00b]

I like most if not all of you chaps/chapesses, but this overly confrontational, told you so, hope you get your comeuppance stuff is just not conducive to a good mood. I'm unsubscribing. Have fun.

Too bad.

 

I'd have liked to try and get to the bottom of your (and Santo's) ready acceptance of this unprecedented democratic deficit.

 

You're clearly smart, so I refuse to believe it's as simple as entrenched buyer (voter) comfort.

 

Oh well.

[Santo]

So, like unbeliever, you're happy to now be governed by tacit consent, rather than by the centuries-old, per-issue expressed consent of your elected representatives?

 

I see

 

Looks like May read this mood correctly after all. With that mindset, you deserve everything that's coming this way, tbh.

 

Why didn't our MPs reject the bill or demand it contained a clause saying enacting article 50 would require parliamentary approval? Are they too stupid not to have done so?

 

Tacit isn't a naughty word. It means understood. That's what was understood. Allowing the referendum also allows the present government to respect the vote and enact article 50 if it so chooses. In all honesty that's how I understood it when I voted remain.

 

They ballsed up the distinction and are now scrabbling about in the dust, fuelling the Kipper 'you don't respect democracy' mob. It's their own stupid fault.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Santo

[L00b]

Why didn't our MPs reject the bill or demand it contained a clause saying enacting article 50 would require parliamentary approval? Are they too stupid not to have done so?

Because the EURA was about running a referendum, not managing the aftermath.

 

Remember that, legally, the referendum is only consultative.

 

Strictly speaking, there was no need to plan for managing the aftermath specifically with or without Parliamentary approval, as a hard or soft Brexit, with bows or ribbons on top and in what colour <etc.>

Tacit isn't a naughty word. It means understood. That's what was understood. Allowing the referendum also allows the government to respect the vote and enact article 50.

I'm a legal practitioner. I'm well aware of what tacit means.

 

Had the EURA 2015 made the outcome binding, then you would be correct (on the whole, about the outcome empowering the government to set about Brexiting).

 

Because it does not, you are not.

 

Dura Lex Sed Lex.

 

That is all why the ongoing Court challenge against May & Co. in the matter, due to be heard next week, is classed by most legal commentators as 'strong'.

They ballsed up the distinction and are now scrabbling about in the dust, fuelling the Kipper 'you don't respect democracy' mob. It's their own stupid fault.

On that, we certainly agree.

 

But which rule do you prefer?

 

The rule of law, with its due process and checks and balances, or the rule by "court of public opinion", without?

 

Have a think about that question in the context of the above. My point is not to disregard the outcome of the referendum, argue for a second referendum or such other anti-Brexiting scenario/aim. It's simply to draw attention to, and caution about, the (frankly, astonishing-) lack of democratic accountability of May & Co. so far, wilful at that.

Edited October 11, 2016 by L00b

[Santo]

Because the bill was about running a referendum, not managing the aftermath.

 

Remember that, legally, the referendum is only consultative.

I'm a legal practitioner. I'm well aware of what tacit means.

 

Had the EURA 2015 made the outcome binding, then you would be correct (on the whole, about the outcome empowering the government to set about Brexiting).

 

Because it does not, you are not.

 

Dura Lex Sed Lex.

On that, we certainly agree.

 

I know you are technically correct.

 

But like I say in my edited post above, when I voted remain, if it was Brexit I fully expected the government to enact article 50 without a further act of Parliament. I'm only talking about enacting article 50.

 

Was this highlighted before the vote? I can't remember press but there might have been.

[monkey104]

It's lovely to see everyone talking ******** about something they know nothing about.

It's like that scene from carry on film where Kenneth Williams shouts " Infamy, infamy. They've all got it infamy"

You all make it sound like before long we are going to be waiting at the tip for the wagons to tip their load in order to sort through it to make a few bob.

Brexit is happening. As someone once said " get with the programme or **** off"

Whingers!

[tinfoilhat]

It's lovely to see everyone talking ******** about something they know nothing about.

It's like that scene from carry on film where Kenneth Williams shouts " Infamy, infamy. They've all got it infamy"

You all make it sound like before long we are going to be waiting at the tip for the wagons to tip their load in order to sort through it to make a few bob.

Brexit is happening. As someone once said " get with the programme or **** off"

Whingers!

 

We've had 40 years of leavers banging on and you can't cope with 3 months? Lightweight;)

[L00b]

I know you are technically correct.

 

But like I say in my edited post above, when I voted remain, if it was Brexit I fully expected the government to enact article 50 without a further act of Parliament. I'm only talking about enacting article 50.

 

Was this highlighted before the vote? I can't remember press but there might have been.

Well, I see that you only joined in August.

 

Had you joined earlier (maybe you lurked? ), you would be aware of the pre-referendum 'Brexit' thread, in which I certainly opined all of the above: that the referendum was consultative/non-binding, that the EURA did not empower the government to Brexit/enact Article 50 of its own motion, that the government would have to run it by Parliament, <etc.>

 

The only surprise is how May has been allowed to run away with it unchecked for so long. The 'technical correctness' hasn't changed one iota. Stands to reason, since it was the law of the land then, and it's still law of the land now. The obvious disregard for it by May & Co. is as disquieting (to me at least) as Rudd's foreigners' lists last week.

It's lovely to see everyone talking ******** about something they know nothing about.

It's lovely to see Brexiters' disquiet about everything they knew, and obviously still know, nothing about.

Brexit is happening. As someone once said " get with the programme or **** off"

Brexit is happening indeed. I'm a-OK with the programme, I'm **** off to Antibes Edited October 11, 2016 by L00b