E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

The ultra hardcore brexit cultists managed to dig up some study that suggests we will all be richer due to brexit...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ration-Britain-independent-study-reveals.html

Oh wait, 0.5% in over a decade? Enjoy your rounding error

 

And by the way this drop in immigration would result in a drop of 5.4% of GDP per capita by 2030. All worth it then.

 

Well the court case is over, the govt could still win, though it looks unlikely... [But then Brexit and Trump looked unlikely too...]

If the govt loses, it remains to be seen how badly they lose...

If it's judged that has to go through parliament, they're in no worse shape than after the High Court case... aside from wasting everyone's time and money...

If however the SC say that brexit requires NI and/or Scotland's explicit approval, then they'll have wasted everyone's time and money and will have dug a massive hole for themselves, one that could've been avoided completely had they just gone 'fair enough, we'll put it before parliament' either in the ref bill itself or after the lost in the High Court.

If Scotland gets a Veto, you can all but guarantee the SNP will laugh their asses off then plonk them selves down and say 'you give us independence and we'll let you have your little brexit...'

 

TL-DR - If the Govt loses, It's all May's fault.

 

Given that the UK is built on parliamentary sovereignty it seems weird to me that people like May are trying to bypass that sovereignty.

 

One of my mates was basically saying the same thing a couple of days ago. He thought that the government would 'try very hard' to implement brexit, but come up with increasing problems that just couldn't be overcome using May as a scapegoat. Then continue business as usual with everyone say well we tried. He also thought Johnson would take over afterwards.

I thought it was an interesting idea.

PS - thanks to snoopers charter "Oh no they're on to us"

 

Or Cameron and his merry band of run away politicians could have explored the details on how to implement a brexit prior to the referendum.

In other news, as the EU prepares to crack down on McDonalds for dodging taxes McDonalds decides to hide its money in the UK...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/08/mcdonalds-to-scrap-luxembourg-tax-structure

For the more cynically inclined that effectively confirms that in post EU Britain it will be normal people and small business who will have to shoulder the tax burden while large companies will get a free pass.

 

It's Cameron's fault for the referendum bill and/or question not being watertight, especially as some of the argument revolve around what the European Communities Act and the Referendum act don't say as much was what they do.

But the court case is all on May, she chose to appeal the High Court decision, which was only that Parliament needed to vote on it. But instead she chose to risk bring the possibility of a NI and/or Scotland veto being brought into into the mix and risk [further] obstacles between now and her self-imposed March deadline.

In short she should've quit whilst she was behind and put it before parliament.

 

The Supreme Court aims to have a decision by the end of January:

If the Govt loses, it doesn't leave May much room to get A50 triggered by the end of march. It could of course come sooner [or later], but 'by the end of January' is the official SC estimate.

 

Not enough wrinkles in brexit yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...-intervene-in-brexit-legal-process-article-50

 

this dead horse is getting silly now.

how many people want to undermine democracy , because they didn't like the way the decision went

 

Isn't the ECJ already due to make a judgment about if article 50 can be cancelled after it's triggered, or have i misremembered and got confused.

To be fair though no one is disputing the result, they're disputing the implementation and they're only able to do that because our politicians screwed things right up, something that doesn't bode well for how they're going to handle things going forward.

EDIT: Looks like Rupert Murdoch is planning to make a new bid to buy out Sky now Brexit means we'll be looking towards inward investment more than ever. Who would've guessed that the guy who once said Brussels ignores him and the UK government does what he says would've had an ulterior motive and used his newspapers to push his Eurosceptic propaganda for his own ends.

 

you can bet there wouldn't be repeated court cases if leave had lost..... the irish case is about `oh wait we changed our minds` - by an English QC ! as I said , looking for ANY loop hole

 

Are you still falling for that trope?

 

No, instead we got 40 years of fake news by tabloids and campaigning by politicians. And didn't Nigel Farage vow that if the result went 52/48 against Leave, "it would be far from over"? Didn't a Leaver launch a petition for a second referendum when he feared the first would go against Leave? Didn't Leavers urge people to "bring their own biro" to the voting booth because they were sure the ballots would be falsified?

 

actually we`ve had 50 years of lies - the entire premise to get us into the EEC was a bunch of lies , fishing quotas etc

 

See? There's one: Fishing quotas. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

The EEC was never a bunch of lies. Its ambitions for political unions was clearly outlined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

 

- Edward Heath,1972

Roberts,A. (2006)A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 HarperCollins:New York.

 

Of course not because precedence has been set for over 40 odd years.

 

i do believe theres a court case just finished in the supreme court which has been arguing about something similar...