Brexit Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brexit will require a parliament vote \

A blow for the PM who insisted that government doesn't need parliament's consent.

Since the majority of MPs are against Brexit, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Take a brave MP to vote for party preference against the will of their borough on this one. Though, some of the Boroughs may well have shifted a bit since the vote...

[Beskar]

Looks like the Pound grew stronger too with this outcome.

[Pannonian]

Take a brave MP to vote for party preference against the will of their borough on this one. Though, some of the Boroughs may well have shifted a bit since the vote...

The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.

You've hit on the London-centric theme a couple of times now, and I see how you believe it would play out here to further the "goal" of brexit (at least after the fashion of "paying off" the London Boroughs to accept it whilst the less populated but geographically broader hinterlands receive less). And your argument seems to make sense to me on a political level -- it very much ties in with my assessment of the limitations of democratic-republican government.

As I recall, however, NI and Alba were nearly as solid in support of the "NO" vote as was greater London. Yet if it plays out as you suggest, would that not end up encouraging/reinvigorating the independency movements in Ulster and Scotland? After all, they would not get the "payoff" London would receive under your formula.

[Pannonian]

You've hit on the London-centric theme a couple of times now, and I see how you believe it would play out here to further the "goal" of brexit (at least after the fashion of "paying off" the London Boroughs to accept it whilst the less populated but geographically broader hinterlands receive less). And your argument seems to make sense to me on a political level -- it very much ties in with my assessment of the limitations of democratic-republican government.

As I recall, however, NI and Alba were nearly as solid in support of the "NO" vote as was greater London. Yet if it plays out as you suggest, would that not end up encouraging/reinvigorating the independency movements in Ulster and Scotland? After all, they would not get the "payoff" London would receive under your formula.

That kind of London-centric policy-making isn't paying off London for giving them what they didn't want. It's just what UK governments do, probably exacerbated by the government and Parliament being based in London. The EU forced at least some degree of decentralisation in funding by redistributing EU dues to the regions in order to promote regional identities (a game which Italy are particularly adept at). Once the UK government doesn't have to do this any more, it will revert to its own tendency, which is to be London-centric. The first big spending commitment since the referendum has been made, to expand Heathrow. It will benefit London's economy (at the cost of upsetting some nimbies), with some trickle down effects for other areas, but it will cost a hell of a lot, which will mean commitments to other areas won't be met. There will probably also be some upgrading on rail links around London, again benefiting London's economy with some trickle down effects for others, but again costing a hell of a lot and meaning commitments to other areas won't be met. That's what UK governments do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?

The Crisis will be triggered when the government says it wants to take a diplomatic action and parliament is able to prevent it. Hopefully this will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. The problem is built into the exit procedure though - because the UK can't negotiate before it triggers article 50 (which means the UK is leaving the EU, no take-backs) it is unclear what will happen, say, to the rights of UK Citizens to work and travel around the EU.

In a sane world the UK would indicate a desire to leave the EU, would then try to negotiate an exit and then Parliament would pass a bill to ratify to the treaty. Parliament will still need to pass that Bill - but now we're being told they need to pass a Bill just so the government can open negotiations.

I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.

We don't, and mostly that's a good thing - until you get something like this. One might argue this is our flexible unwritten constitution coming up against the codified EU Constitution.

That kind of London-centric policy-making isn't paying off London for giving them what they didn't want. It's just what UK governments do, probably exacerbated by the government and Parliament being based in London. The EU forced at least some degree of decentralisation in funding by redistributing EU dues to the regions in order to promote regional identities (a game which Italy are particularly adept at). Once the UK government doesn't have to do this any more, it will revert to its own tendency, which is to be London-centric. The first big spending commitment since the referendum has been made, to expand Heathrow. It will benefit London's economy (at the cost of upsetting some nimbies), with some trickle down effects for other areas, but it will cost a hell of a lot, which will mean commitments to other areas won't be met. There will probably also be some upgrading on rail links around London, again benefiting London's economy with some trickle down effects for others, but again costing a hell of a lot and meaning commitments to other areas won't be met. That's what UK governments do.

You mean the decision that has been put off for a decade?

The refusal of multiple UK governments to put the South East's Transport links in order have held up sensible development for decades.

As to UK governments only benefiting London,it's not some sort of blind bias. London launders Europe's money, and thereby generates money for the exchequer. The UK's other regions either produce food, raw resources or finished goods. The unnaturally high value of the pound makes these other endeavours unprofitable, and the UK government has been trying to lower the value of the pound on and off since before they found oil in the North Sea. A few days ago, before the rise in the Pound analysts were saying that the expansion in manufacturing meant that the sector might actually make a positive contribution to GDP. That's not going to happen now.

Consider - for example - tin and copper mining, Cornwall's economy requires mining for the county to be in growth, Cornwall's farmland is too poor for mass production of crops or livestock and it's too remote with too little flat land for large scale production of finished goods, except possible ships. The fall in the price of tin and the high cost of labour in the UK meant mining wasn't practical. With the fall in the Pound it was conceivable that once things stabilised mining might become profitable again, meaning thousands of new jobs in Cornwall.

Not to mention that, in general, if £1=€1 then the cost of producing and exporting finished goods in the UK is roughly the same as it is in Germany because the Euro keeps German labour costs and export prices artificially low vs the UK.

Membership of the EU has become a systemic problem for the UK economy, leaving is one way to fix the problem - and nobody seems to have a better idea.

[Montmorency]

In a sane world the UK would indicate a desire to leave the EU, would then try to negotiate an exit and then Parliament would pass a bill to ratify to the treaty. Parliament will still need to pass that Bill - but now we're being told they need to pass a Bill just so the government can open negotiations.

To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question, certainly not at this point in your country's history. If it indeed is, then that needs to be checked one way or another by the courts.

[Kralizec]

IMO the argument that PVC made, about EU inflexibility vs. flexibility isn't very convincing, because of...

To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question

...this. The way the exit procedure is setup, and the fact that European politicians won't discuss details until the exit procedure is triggered, has a very good reason. Leaving the EU is not a decision to be taken lightly, or something that you'd want member states to wave around as a bargaining tactic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be frank, mere executive discretion to negotiate something under very broad legislative approval should not be a Constitutional question, certainly not at this point in your country's history. If it indeed is, then that needs to be checked one way or another by the courts.

It's not a problem with the UK Constitution, it's the withdrawal mechanism. It's designed not to work (surprise) because you basically leave, and then negotiate your exit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The advisory body (Parliament) will ratify whatever the executive (Cabinet) decide on. The executive will decide on something that they can sell as Brexit, then use that cover to shift funding and focus from the regions to London. After the referendum, the government assured the regions that they would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but the biggest funding decision made since the referendum is London-centric. The negotiations with the EU will be centred on making sure that the City of London does not lose out. And further infrastructural plans will centre on making London work better, London, which was heavily pro-Remain, will have the softest landing from Brexit. The regions, which were pro_Leave, will take the hit. The EU won't be there to ensure they get their share of funding. The UK government will do what any UK government does, which is to focus on London at the expense of everything else.

Excuse me, I threw up in my mouth a bit at this-but I have been drinking.

If the MP's try to stop Brexit they just make Brexit, a nastier Brexit, more likely a decade from now. We're only having Brexit now because the Lisbon Treaty was forced on us, to double down on the same stupidity is to further erode trust in British politics.

Of course, there will be some Eurocrats relieved by this - the more ineffectual the British are as a "political body" the harder it is for them to stand in the way of EU integration.

It's important to understand that, up to now, the pound has been over-valued vs the UK economy (which is why we cannot export) and London is laundering everyone else's money. Brexit would have hurt London in the long term and benefited the UK's manufacturing sector (by re-aligning our currency with the actual strength of our economy). It says a lot that it was Hedge Fund managers with no actual vested interest in the UK who brought this case.

The ruling is also nonsense - Parliament will demand to know the negotiating terms before agreeing to triggering article 50, but the EU won't even discuss negotiation until the article is triggered.

So, now we have a REAL Constitutional crisis instead of an imagined one looming. Great fucking job, guys.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Excuse me, I threw up in my mouth a bit at this.....

We call that "baby barfing" on this side of the pond. Thought you'd enjoy the alliteration.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We call that "baby barfing" on this side of the pond. Thought you'd enjoy the alliteration.

Yes, very Anglo-Saxon.

fun fact: I fitted my new RX480 whilst tipsy - seems fine so far.

[Husar]

fun fact: I fitted my new RX480 whilst tipsy - seems fine so far.

Since we don't seem to agree on a lot otherwise, maybe we can be RX 480 buddies? Also, welcome to the club!

[Gilrandir]

We're only having Brexit now because the Lisbon Treaty was forced on us,

You are having Brexit because some politicians spouted too many fairy visions of the Promised EUless land.

So, now we have a REAL Constitutional crisis instead of an imagined one looming. Great fucking job, guys.

I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.

You don't have to have a constitution to enjoy constitutional crisis.

[Montmorency]

PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

PVC, if all that were correct then it would be the most excellent argument for proceedings on cancelling or hedging the Brexit process - or would you prefer the constitutional crisis even 20 years along the line?

I thought you lot didn't HAVE a constitution. We went and printed ours up and everything. Sometimes, our political leaders even follow it.