The EU referendum - 23rd June

[frizzell54]

From 'The Slog'

A number of seemingly random events over the last five days now appear to form some kind of pattern.

• Cameron resigns but delays triggering Article 50
  
• Back in 2010, the EU rule was we could leave if we applied Article 50, or repealed the European Communities Act 1972. These two caveats still apply, but only till 31st March 2017, after which date these two pieces of legislation will require a QMV.
  
• Boris Johnson calls a press conference to say there is “no need for haste” on Article 50
  
• Michael Gove endorses Johnson’s view
  
• The VoteLeave group freezes UKIP/Nigel Farage out of discussions about the process of Brexit
  
• The Blairite wing of Labour moves swiftly against Jeremy Corbyn, whom they know full well is in reality deeply suspicious of the EU
  
• The EC wakes up to the game plan, and Merkel suggests UK be given “as much time as possible” to decide when to trigger Article 50.
  

One doesn’t have to be a rabbit-hole conspiracist to suspect a unified Establishment strategy to dilute and even negate what 52% of the electorate voted for five days ago.

Edited June 29, 2016 by frizzell54

[Crusoe]

Yes, it does look like a rather desperate attempt to backtrack. I've no idea what'll happen next.

 

The apparent increase in visible racism is horrific. The articles I've seen suggests this isn't just heightened sensitivity, it's an actual increase in these crimes. The head of my company (around 2,500 staff, a large proportion non-UK) emailed everyone yesterday saying that there had been many reports from many staff of abuse in the street. It's as though the vote has legitimised a nasty undercurrent of xenophobia that would previously have been unacceptable.

 

On top of that I'm getting increasingly worried about my own job. Latest estimate I've read is that around 70,000 banking-related jobs will be moving from London to Dublin and Frankfurt (2,000 already announced). Those companies aren't going to wait around until someone pulls their finger out and makes a decision, if you work in euros you need to be in the EU.

 

Many will understandably say "good riddance to bad rubbish" and be happy to see rich wide-boy Londoners vanish. I get that. But they aren't the ones who'll suffer. It's everyone whose jobs depend in part upon them - caterers, cleaners, bar staff, coffee shops, sandwich shops, printers, DTP companies, couriers, middle- and back-office clerks, legal staff, delivery companies, meeting venues, etc. And in a big way, IT, my line of work.

 

I also worry about what will happen to companies that process or manufacture goods for non-EU countries. Car importers and manufacturers, for example. The EU has shown no interest in playing nice and agreeing deals with the UK (and why should they? they could offer a nice fat subsidy and wider market access for Honda and Nissan to move from Swindon and Sunderland to, say, Schalke and Strasbourg).

Edited June 29, 2016 by Crusoe

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Yes, it does look like a rather desperate attempt to backtrack. I've no idea what'll happen next.

 

The apparent increase in visible racism is horrific. The articles I've seen suggests this isn't just heightened sensitivity, it's an actual increase in these crimes. The head of my company (around 2,500 staff, a large proportion non-UK) emailed everyone yesterday saying that there had been many reports from many staff of abuse in the street. It's as though the vote has legitimised a nasty undercurrent of xenophobia that would previously have been unacceptable.

 

On top of that I'm getting increasingly worried about my own job. Latest estimate I've read is that around 70,000 banking-related jobs will be moving from London to Dublin and Frankfurt (2,000 already announced). Those companies aren't going to wait around until someone pulls their finger out and makes a decision, if you work in euros you need to be in the EU.

 

Many will understandably say "good riddance to bad rubbish" and be happy to see rich wide-boy Londoners vanish. I get that. But they aren't the ones who'll suffer. It's everyone whose jobs depend in part upon them - caterers, cleaners, bar staff, coffee shops, sandwich shops, printers, DTP companies, couriers, middle- and back-office clerks, legal staff, delivery companies, meeting venues, etc. And in a big way, IT, my line of work.

 

I also worry about what will happen to companies that process or manufacture goods for non-EU countries. Car importers and manufacturers, for example. The EU has shown no interest in playing nice and agreeing deals with the UK (and why should they? they could offer a nice fat subsidy and wider market access for Honda and Nissan to move from Swindon and Sunderland to, say, Schalke and Strasbourg).

 

It's looking grim for the City of London. I'm one of those people who'd quite like the Exchequer to ask a little more of bankers, but have been told repeatedly, including by Boris Johnson, that that will give them no choice but to move to Frankfurt and Geneva and Dublin, where you aren't allowed high-rise buildings, and so on. The fact is that London, including the City of London, subsidises the entire country, from John O'Groats to Lands End.

 

Let's hope it all calms down like people are saying it will. (I don't believe for a second that will happen.)

If one thing will make the financial sector up sticks, it's leaving the EU.

[losesome]

I don't think banks will make a mass exodus to the EU , a lot will just open branches over there to deal with the euro side of business and keep the London sites on reduced basis.

 

At the end of the day the EU needs the UK as much as we need them , some will say more but when it's all calmed down then proper negotiations can start.

We are right not to apply for article 50 just yet and get a proper negotiating team in place to do the business before doing so.

 

I voted out and the more i hear and see whats being said in the EU i know i have made the right decision.

[Crusoe]

I don't think banks will make a mass exodus to the EU , a lot will just open branches over there to deal with the euro side of business and keep the London sites on reduced basis.

 

Banks won't leave completely, but London is the hub for most global banks' European activity. You can leave a few hundred people to deal with sterling markets but all those other functions - tens of thousands of jobs, and dependent jobs outside banking - will go because London is a stupidly expensive place to base yourself.

 

And it won't just be banking - as I speculated above, what about non-EU companies that will no longer get EU access by having regional headquarters and factories in the UK?

[jimsleftfoot]

 

From 'The Slog'

A number of seemingly random events over the last five days now appear to form some kind of pattern.

• Cameron resigns but delays triggering Article 50
• Back in 2010, the EU rule was we could leave if we applied Article 50, or repealed the European Communities Act 1972. These two caveats still apply, but only till 31st March 2017, after which date these two pieces of legislation will require a QMV.
• Boris Johnson calls a press conference to say there is “no need for haste” on Article 50
• Michael Gove endorses Johnson’s view
• The VoteLeave group freezes UKIP/Nigel Farage out of discussions about the process of Brexit
• The Blairite wing of Labour moves swiftly against Jeremy Corbyn, whom they know full well is in reality deeply suspicious of the EU
• The EC wakes up to the game plan, and Merkel suggests UK be given “as much time as possible” to decide when to trigger Article 50.

One doesn’t have to be a rabbit-hole conspiracist to suspect a unified Establishment strategy to dilute and even negate what 52% of the electorate voted for five days ago.

 

 

A quick Google shows that this came up previously and it looks like it is rubbish. The EU have to vote to accept the exit deal (by QMV) not to accept a country leaving.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

 

Banks won't leave completely, but London is the hub for most global banks' European activity. You can leave a few hundred people to deal with sterling markets but all those other functions - tens of thousands of jobs, and dependent jobs outside banking - will go because London is a stupidly expensive place to base yourself.

 

And it won't just be banking - as I speculated above, what about non-EU companies that will no longer get EU access by having regional headquarters and factories in the UK?

 

Our burgeoning car and plant assembly scene is about to go south. Did Boris or anyone talk to Nissan etc during or before the campaign? Did they :censored:.

[losesome]

 

Our burgeoning car and plant assembly scene is about to go south. Did Boris or anyone talk to Nissan etc during or before the campaign? Did they :censored:

In 2016 the UK is heading for a trade deficit with the EU approaching £100 billion of which 25% + is with Germany.

Do you honestly think they are going to jeopardise that !!

For all their hard talk of no compromise and out is out they have to do a deal.

[beag_teeets]

You make it sound like the leading lights of the out campaign had a plan.

[OldhamSheridan]

 

Our burgeoning car and plant assembly scene is about to go south. Did Boris or anyone talk to Nissan etc during or before the campaign? Did they :censored:.

 

Seem as Nissan are taking legal action against the leave campaign and wrote out to their employees pretty much telling them to vote 'in' or lose their jobs. I would suspect it may have fallen on deaf ears.

[losesome]

You make it sound like the leading lights of the out campaign had a plan.

How could they have a plan , they are not in power so couldn't deliver it !!!!

 

We will end up with a deal on access to trade and probably free movement of people.

If so we can at least impose rules on them that the EU currently wont allow ie - no benefits even if out of work , no NHS , take out insurance etc etc

[frizzell54]

 

 

A quick Google shows that this came up previously and it looks like it is rubbish. The EU have to vote to accept the exit deal (by QMV) not to accept a country leaving.

 

Would be interested to see the link. I imagine it all comes down to words and interpretation and implication. Step forward the lawyers.

[al_bro]

There is a suggestion by a senior Conservative MP that once UK obtains an agreement with EU over sigle market etc, the governemnt should either hold another referendum or call a general election.

The EU has said that they won't negotiate anything with us until Article 50 has been invoked, and that means we are leaving. Hunt the c*** wants a referendum on what we intend to ask for (not get).

There are also rumours that the Labour Party would put into their manifesto before the next election, that they would seek to rejoin the EU.

All this nonsense stinks. They should just admit defeat and get on with it, instead of plotting to get their own way.

[leeslover]

The EU has said that they won't negotiate anything with us until Article 50 has been invoked, and that means we are leaving. Hunt the c*** wants a referendum on what we intend to ask for (not get).

There are also rumours that the Labour Party would put into their manifesto before the next election, that they would seek to rejoin the EU.

All this nonsense stinks. They should just admit defeat and get on with it, instead of plotting to get their own way.

Juncker is saying that. His own position is extremely shaky and many countries who want to stay but with reform might take a different view. I suspect there will be a deal cut relatively soon after 50 is called. Movement of people and not shafting the financial sector (in so far as they could) are the only real issues I can see

[joe_lead]

Negotiate exit agreement.

 

Offer a new referendum based on "Out on these specific terms" or "remain".

There is a lot of confusion around the 'exit agreement' which will take about 2 years after Article 50. This 'exit agreement' is really a divorce settlement about things like the rights of citizens that currently live and work in each other's country. The media have kidded us or didn't understand that the way we trade/work/engage with the EU in the future is something entirely different and will take many more years.

 

What is almost certain is that by the time all these terms are agreed the UK will have conceded to the free movement of people if it wants access to the benefits of the single market.

 

Internationally, we are better negotiating as part of the Eu than we are alone. When we negiociate trade deals we also offer access to other countries within the EU, outside of the EU we will have less to bargain with. Unless that is, during our EU negotiations we can retain these benefits but there will now be a price to pay.

 

I believe the full impact of leaving the EU is still being understood as no one truely believed we we'd leave. Rest assured that the Tory government has a new excuse to impose further austerity on us, and judging by the state of Labour we will be stuck with it for 20 years

[leeslover]

There is a lot of confusion around the 'exit agreement' which will take about 2 years after Article 50. This 'exit agreement' is really a divorce settlement about things like the rights of citizens that currently live and work in each other's country. The media have kidded us or didn't understand that the way we trade/work/engage with the EU in the future is something entirely different and will take many more years.

 

What is almost certain is that by the time all these terms are agreed the UK will have conceded to the free movement of people if it wants access to the benefits of the single market.

 

Internationally, we are better negotiating as part of the Eu than we are alone. When we negiociate trade deals we also offer access to other countries within the EU, outside of the EU we will have less to bargain with. Unless that is, during our EU negotiations we can retain these benefits but there will now be a price to pay.

 

I believe the full impact of leaving the EU is still being understood as no one truely believed we we'd leave. Rest assured that the Tory government has a new excuse to impose further austerity on us, and judging by the state of Labour we will be stuck with it for 20 years

The EU is the Roy Hodgson of negotiating trade deals. It's demonstrably authentically rubbish at it.

[Crusoe]

To throw another spanner in the works, an (apparently) leading QC and expert in consitutional matters has said that invoking Article 50 would require legislation to be passed by Parliament. The article is mostly behind a paywall, but from the snippets I've read it's along the lines that because the effect of notifying the EU of the intention to invoke Article 50 would ultimately be withdrawal, and withdrawal conflicts with 1972 legislation, Parliament would have to pass new legislation to unwind the previous legislation.

 

Which means, in short, that a single Prime Minster doesn't have the prerogative to do it without Parliament agreeing. Which means legislation being drafted and interminable negotiations, i.e. more than two years if it happens at all. No idea if this is true, but apparently the chap saying it is no fool.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Crusoe

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

To throw another spanner in the works, an (apparently) leading QC and expert in consitutional matters has said that invoking Article 50 would require legislation to be passed by Parliament. The article is mostly behind a paywall, but from the snippets I've read it's along the lines that because the effect of notifying the EU of the intention to invoke Article 50 would ultimately be withdrawal, and withdrawal conflicts with 1972 legislation, Parliament would have to pass new legislation to unwind the previous legislation.

 

Which means, in short, that a single Prime Minster doesn't have the prerogative to do it without Parliament agreeing. Which means legislation being drafted and interminable negotiations, i.e. more than two years if it happens at all. No idea if this is true, but apparently the chap saying it is no fool.

 

That may well be so, but no law can outlive the political will to repeal it. There's hope for remainers, but possibly not on technical legal grounds. Your best bet Prime Minister Boris Johnson realises (he's known all along) that almost every element of extraction negotiations involve hard work.

[Crusoe]

Agreed. But whether the political will is there - or at least can be massed without interminable delays - is the question.

[frizzell54]

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” Mark Twain

[TheBigDog]

That may well be so, but no law can outlive the political will to repeal it. There's hope for remainers, but possibly not on technical legal grounds. Your best bet Prime Minister Boris Johnson realises (he's known all along) that almost every element of extraction negotiations involve hard work.

Possibly why he has decided not to stand...

[Crusoe]

As a friend of mine said, it's like UK politics has been cancelled so they're trying to wrap up all the plotlines in two episodes.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Possibly why he has decided not to stand...

 

As usual, your political insider called it exactly wrong!

 

The point is the same though, to be fair. When to invoke article 50 and when you are in an acceptable negotiating position is a chicken-and-egg question that could kick the referendum result into the long grass forever. May is now saying the new year, whereas official policy yesterday was September when there's a new leader. Come February, she (you can stick your mortgage on her winning) will say: "We are facing X,Y and Z challenges and now is not the time to invoke article 50. We will start the clock at a time of our choosing, when it's right for us..." which means never.

 

I'd say there's a 65:35 chance that we won't have left or started to leave by the time of the next election.

 

And I don't mind May too much, all things being relative and with :censored: all chance of a Labour Government unless David Miliband makes a beeline for Batley and Spen. She plays the competent-if-cold technocrat guardian of conservative sense because that's exactly what she is. She's also more collegiate than any of the rivals, which should endear her to the Tory faithful...but might not, depending on whether their meds have kicked in that morning.

 

One thing May did back in the day that marked her out as fairly cold. (It all came right in the end, but it wasn't a given at the time.) She made a speech about Hillsborough in the House of Commons in about 2010/11. All the families were in the gallery. This was before the inquiry and obviously before the new inquest.

 

Her prepared notes said explicitly that the Government would do everything they could to ensure the families got "the truth and justice". The "justice" part of that meant "new inquest", which is what the families were after. When she spoke on the floor of the house, she omitted the words "and justice". All's well that ends well you might say. But having made the decision to promise Her Majesty's Government's support for a new inquest, she backtracked right there and then, in front of the watching, crying families. True fact.

[jimsleftfoot]

 

 

 

Would be interested to see the link. I imagine it all comes down to words and interpretation and implication. Step forward the lawyers.

 

 

I think misinterpreted in the first place (either on purpose or accidentally). There isn't one page I can link to that gives an obvious 'no it doesn't apply' but neither is there a credible source that I can see that it does.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, new voting rules will be brought in, but this doesn't affect Article 50. My employer is advised by 2 of the big 4 accountancy firms and I have sat through 2 webinars since Friday, no mention of this issue whatsoever.

[jimsleftfoot]

To throw another spanner in the works, an (apparently) leading QC and expert in consitutional matters has said that invoking Article 50 would require legislation to be passed by Parliament. The article is mostly behind a paywall, but from the snippets I've read it's along the lines that because the effect of notifying the EU of the intention to invoke Article 50 would ultimately be withdrawal, and withdrawal conflicts with 1972 legislation, Parliament would have to pass new legislation to unwind the previous legislation.

 

Which means, in short, that a single Prime Minster doesn't have the prerogative to do it without Parliament agreeing. Which means legislation being drafted and interminable negotiations, i.e. more than two years if it happens at all. No idea if this is true, but apparently the chap saying it is no fool.

 

Who is it saying it?