For the Brits: When will BREXIT referendum happen ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

What did the Soviets do with American and British POW's at the end of WW 2?
https://stevehollier.wordpress.com/2...ver-to-return/

---

Most of them other than those who died, were repatriated by 1953. Unfortunately the author of the article you have linked has relied on Nigel Cawthorne's book 'The Iron Cage', which offers no documentary evidence to support the claims he makes, but does ignore the documentary evidence in the form of the US/Russian Joint Commission on POW/MIA that was established in 1992 and reached the conclusion I have noted above, though it does seem some US service personnel involved in the Korean and Vietnam Wars may have been taken prisoner and remained in the USSR or chose to live there. You can read the report in this link-
http://memory.loc.gov/frd/tfrussia/t...it/tfr099.html

You may be interested in some of Cawthorne's other books -

• Sex Lives of the Popes
• Sex Lives of the US Presidents
• Sex Lives of the Great Dictators
• Sex Lives of the Kings and Queens of England
• Sex Lives of the Hollywood Goddesses
• Sex Lives of the Hollywood Goddesses 2
• Sex Lives of the Hollywood Idols
• Sex Lives of the Great Artists
• Sex Lives of the Great Composers
• Sex Lives of the Famous Gays
• Sex Lives of the Famous Lesbians
• Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Cawthorne

The Conservative Party meets for its annual conference in Birmingham this week, and the Conservative newspaper The Telegraph offers the clearest indication yet of how the mechanics of Brexit will happen. As the article below indicates, the government intends to propose to Parliament a Great Repeal Bill which will have the effect of repealing the European Communities Act of 1972 that was the legal instrument by which the UK joined the European Economic Community as it was then called, and that this new Act will mark the legal cessation of EU membership when Article 50 is invoked. What will happen after that is that Parliament will be able to sift through 40 years of law to decide which of those laws should be retained and which should be repealed. For example, laws on the rights of the employed at work may be retained while the Human Rights Act of 1996 may be repealed (this latter proposal was in the Manifesto of the party in the 2015 General Election). This instrument will thus break the formal relationship with the EU but it is not really clear what the new relationship with the Single Market will be, as this 'Hard Brexit' may require the UK to re-negotiate every new arrangement (or none at all for those who want a 'clean break) whereas a 'soft Brexit' may seek an exit with existing arrangements retained or modified in order to maintain the UK's full or partial access to the Single Market, the issue on which European ministers have said there can be no privileges for the UK and the main issue of contention within the Conservative Party.

The article also claims that this Repeal Act will 'restore sovereignty' to the UK ignoring the fact that the UK never ceded sovereignty to the EU at any time since 1973 as the Government throughout those years always had the power to veto any and every law proposed or passed by the EU through its own Parliament. As was seen in the Referendum debates, this fact was either ignored or distorted because those opposed to the EU did not want to accept that it has been the UK which proposed many of the EU's laws and regulations, that the laws and regulations that were passed were not vetoed because of that or because they were considered good for Britain, and that in any sense of the word the Government of the UK has only limited sovereignty in a globalised economy -the government does not control the value of Sterling, for example.

Nevertheless, it is a good statement because it is clear and sets a clear agenda, one that Labour led by Jeremy Corby must support because,
a) he has opposed the EU his entire political life, and
b) the Repeal may be followed by the selective process whereby Labour can protect those EU laws, mostly on worker's rights which it supports.

Superficially, this is a win-win situation for Theresa May, she shows she has a clear agenda, and can make robust decisions everyone can agree on. But as ever with these things, the devil will lie in the detail.

The article is here-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2...y-theresa-may/

As long as we can keep Johnny Foreigner out then it will all over by March 2019. We will re-enter the 1950s and behave like North Korea but with no significant army. As long as we can grow our own food, work as the sweatshop of the world, bow down to the superior classes - then our work is done (For Americans, please note this is sarcasm)

sad thing is that many who voted for BREXIT would not have detected the sarcasm

Sterling traded below 1.18 tonight
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-brexit-result

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36956418

we're doing pretty well, amidst the doom and gloom after the referendum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36956418

we're doing pretty well, amidst the doom and gloom after the referendum.

---

Yeah right - we haven't even left yet....

Quote:

---

But sterling is currently trading against the dollar at $1.29 - a year ago it was worth $1.57.

The pound has also fallen significantly against the euro. It is currently worth about €1.15. A year ago it was worth €1.35.

---

In the murky pre-Brexit world in which we live, the options are beginning to narrow as the Government says a 'hard brexit' -meaning an exit from the EU with no access to the Single Market- is more likely than a 'soft Brexit', something EU politicians appear also to confirm.

Nevertheless, there are those in the Conservative Party, such as John Redwood MP, who welcome to the fall in the value of the pound -but did not recommend before July 2016 that the Chancellor devalue Sterling by 17%- and while the markets appear to be robust- even the FTSE 250 which fell dramatically in July (the 250 is the index of mostly British-based firms rather than the multi-nationals who make up most of the FTSE 100); there are other signs that Brexit nerves are having a negative effect:

1) the Russian VTB Bank is to re-locate from London to somewhere else in Europe -Paris, Frankfurt or Vienna; other bankers have also begun to look at their options:
Several US banking executives told a conference in London on Tuesday that without clarity on whether the UK will keep access to the single market, they may start moving people out of London early next year. “How do we and when do we start making decisions … knowing the plan is ready to go … it could be in the first quarter of 2017,” said James Bardrick, head of UK for Citigroup.
https://www.ft.com/content/94667d58-...5-f79f5696c731

2) Academics in UK universities have already begun to feel the impact of Brexit in terms of delayed funding applications, and concerns that if the UK does not remain in the Single Market it will not be able to meet the stipulations for EU-wide research (such as the Euro 2020 project), with additional concerns over the longer term fate of EU nationals teaching in UK institutions-
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-funding-fears
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ve-warns-group

3) Budget airlines EasyJet and Ryanair have both issued profit warnings as the fall in the value of Sterling and acts of terrorism (Egypt, in Easyjet's case) have hit the firms in terms of sales and revenue; it remains to be seen if the fall in the value of the pound making foreign holidays more expensive will deplete the amount of budget airline sales compared to previous years, Eurostar will be increasing train capacity but over the next year will also be changing its schedule to cut the number of trips per day.
Easyjet is also applying to operate from another European country, and while it claims it has no plans to re-locate from its headquarters in Luton, the option is seen as a Brexit manoeuver which could see precisely that move if the terms of the UK's exit from the EU affect the company's future.
http://www.independent.ie/business/i...-35144183.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/easyjet-...cks-1475735440
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7113301.html

4) Last but by no means least, the motor manufacturer Nissan will make a decision next month (November) on whether or not to make the latest model of its Qashqai car at the Sunderland plant. 80% of the vehicles made in Sunderland are exported, and executives are looking at their options post Brexit, as the Chief Executive stated: "We're not asking for any advantage [from the British government], but we don't want to lose any competitiveness no matter what the discussions." Nissan employs 7,000 people in Sunderland. A decision not to go ahead with the new Qashqai model in Sunderland would, I think, be a major blow to British industry and the confidence investors have in the UK over the next 2-5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-37726493

In addition to my post above, today's Observer/Guardian offers a provocative article that has generated much heat, if not light, claiming-

Britain’s biggest banks are preparing to relocate out of the UK in the first few months of 2017 amid growing fears over the impending Brexit negotiations, while smaller banks are making plans to get out before Christmas.

The dramatic claim is made in the Observer by the chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, Anthony Browne, who warns “the public and political debate at the moment is taking us in the wrong direction”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...t-of-brexit-uk

Stravros - you should stop reading real newspapers like the Guardian and read the Mail and the Express :)

even as a child of immigrants to our country, i don't get how polish or czech people are moaning. most do hard work, but not all immigrants do. we should be more selective of who does come in, only select people who share similar values. there's a reason why blacks and Indians of immigrants groups do the best in the UK, not Pakistanis or Bangladeshis, different cultures and religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

even as a child of immigrants to our country, i don't get how polish or czech people are moaning. most do hard work, but not all immigrants do. we should be more selective of who does come in, only select people who share similar values. there's a reason why blacks and Indians of immigrants groups do the best in the UK, not Pakistanis or Bangladeshis, different cultures and religions.

---

In my Eden, the person who dislikes Bellini has the good manners not to get born (Auden)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._and_education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ss_and_finance

http://bbpower-inspiration.com/

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-so-successful

A week is a long time in politics. Since my last post Nissan have committed themselves to build the new model Qashqai at their plant in Sunderland, a boost for the motor industry but one that has come with bells and whistles provided by the tax-payer in the form of subsidies, although the government, of course is not calling them that. If the UK leaves the EU any tariffs imposed on British made goods may be met by the tax-payer to maintain car production, though one doubts the steel industry will also be subsidised.

This morning -Thursday 3rd November- the High Court has judged that the Government cannot invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin the UK's exit from the European Union without Parliament's approval. The Government claimed the Referendum gave it the authority to use the 'Royal Prerogative' to enact a constitutional change without reference to Parliament, the Court disagreed. This (I think) is the key passage in the judgement-

The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers.[*] That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...log-navigation

*For example the Govt doesn't need Parliamentary approval to sever diplomatic relations with a state (as happened in 1986 when the UK severed diplomatic relations with Syria).

Obviously the Govt will appeal, and I expect it to lose again because the case for Parliamentary approval is in my frail opinion unassailable. But if it does fail, this means that not only will Parliament have to vote on a Bill that gives some detail as to what the Exit negotiating terms will be, it will take some time for the Bill to pass through Parliament and will give decisive powers to the unelected House of Lords, which would put the UK in the amusing situation where a vote which the Brexit camp said would take powers back from an unelected European Commission could be scuppered by an unelected House of Lords right here in our own Parliament. Or this could just be an exercise in 'smoke and mirrors' whereby much gets said, words printed, opinions challenged, amendments made -but what you see: Brexit, is what you get. And anyway most of it will be decided by the negotiating teams in the EU.

Or we could re-assert the primary of Parliament and stop holding 'advisory' referendums on divisive subjects and transforming them into policy, but as the leader of the Labour Party and Chief Weasel, Jeremy Corbyn is committed to taking the UK out of the EU, as he always has been, I expect much temper and tedious debate, with the prospect that the exit may take longer than expected but happen in its own messy way.

still digesting this AM development after a long night of World Series viewing.
I agree the government appeal will likely fail. It'll be facinating to see the thing play out in Parliament next year. In the states, they made a big deal about a lot of Leave folks having immediate buyers remorse. Now they'll actually get the chance.
can't wait to hear from Nigel and Bojo

As usual Stavros, a very informative piece. You & I know; a large number of influential people, mainly wealthy, Politicians and other "hangers -on" have done their best to derail the UK's departure from the Brexit result, refuse to accept democracy. I know we differ on this subject but does all this mean there is a possibility this country will not be leaving the EU after all? This may result in serious unrest and possible anarchy on our streets, understandably so as people feel so strongly about it. Look at voter turn out!
I happen to agree; Cameron was a total fool in holding a referendum but it was so typical of him being so distant from ordinary working people in this country! What's done is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

As usual Stavros, a very informative piece. You & I know; a large number of influential people, mainly wealthy, Politicians and other "hangers -on" have done their best to derail the UK's departure from the Brexit result, refuse to accept democracy. I know we differ on this subject but does all this mean there is a possibility this country will not be leaving the EU after all? This may result in serious unrest and possible anarchy on our streets, understandably so as people feel so strongly about it. Look at voter turn out!
I happen to agree; Cameron was a total fool in holding a referendum but it was so typical of him being so distant from ordinary working people in this country! What's done is done.

---

A realist will argue that the opportunity to derail Brexit has been given to Parliament, but that it is unlikely to happen, not least because the main opponents, the Scottish National Party need all of the Labour Party to vote with them together with a number of Tories, but Labour is in disarray and many Labour MPs have always wanted out of the EU anyway. May could calculate that in these extraordinary times we need a new election to re-affirm Brexit, which I would expect her to win with an increased majority at the expense of Labour, with incidentally, the Tories winning at least 5 seats in Scotland owing to Ruth Davidson's stellar impact on that country and indeed the party.

What today's judgement has done is to take control of the timetable away from the government and hand it back to Parliament. The debate on Brexit will in effect be a re-run of the arguments we have heard before and since the referendum, with the key issue being access to the Single Market. In theory, Parliament could therefore attach conditions to Article 50 so that once invoked, the understanding would be that the British will press for a 'modified' Brexit which severs formal legal and institutional relations, while retaining access to all or part of the Single Market, yet European Ministers of various countries have already said they would oppose compromises of this kind just to keep the UK in touch at some level.
There could also be a measure designed to protect the combined academic and industrial research and development programmes that are at risk if the UK leaves the Single Market, as well as the Erasmus programme that allows student exchanges across the EU.

But again, the fundamental problem is that the EU has indicated it does not want a pick 'n mix solution but a simple In or Out across the board, and as that is what most of the Brexit team in the UK want, I fear that whatever package the British take to the negotiating table the end result will be a 'hard Brexit' if only to prevent other EU member states extracting special privileges -we should always factor in what the EU wants as well as what the UK wants.

In the meantime, we face daily debates on what Brexit means, as if the public were not weary of it already, and markets will rise and fall as one issue dominates another. At least Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has captured the spirit of this voyage on which we are embarked, having said in a speech at an awards ceremony yesterday that the UK will make 'a titanic success of Brexit'...

this high court bollocks.

parliament is sovereign.

no court can strike down parliament's actions.

acccept we remainers LOST and get over it!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

this high court bollocks.

parliament is sovereign.

no court can strike down parliament's actions.

acccept we remainers LOST and get over it!!!

---

That's essentially what the court decided...the sovereignty of parliament.
begs the question... has the court made the BREXIT referendum irrelevant ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

That's essentially what the court decided...the sovereignty of parliament.
begs the question... has the court made the BREXIT referendum irrelevant ?

---

Maybe not if mps vote brexit out of respect for the referendum even if they wouldn't in their own wisdom. That's all I got...that was also my understanding of the court decision as well so I'm glad you said it.

Stavros said it way before the court ruling. The referendum is not legally binding. An Article 50 trigger is strictly a parliamentary function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

Stavros said it way before the court ruling. The referendum is not legally binding. An Article 50 trigger is strictly a parliamentary function.

---

Exactly, because unless the act authorising the referendum states that the result will be binding on the government (as was the case in 2011 with the Referendum on proportional representation), the existing law on referendums assumes them to be advisory only. This is the key element in the High Court's decision. To be fair to those who think it is wrong, the link below argues that the Government does have the right to invoke Article 50 without Parliamentary approval but claims this is because the Conservative Party stated in its election Manifesto in 2015-

“We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.”
It should be noted that the election promise was to “let the people decide”. It was not a promise to hold an advisory referendum, with the final decision being left to Parliament.
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/ref...-binding.shtml

-But this cannot be right, first because manifesto commitments have no force in law; and second it does not recognise what a referendum is in law and uses politics to subvert both the law and the will of Parliament.

As 2016 draws to a close there are still more questions than answers on the mechanisms which will result in the UK leaving the European Union. I hope the following is a clear and accurate account and timetable of the situation as it is today.
The timetable is accurate as far as I know, but below I have outlined some key issues, some of which may prevent the Govt from invoking Article 50 by the end of May, the status of Scotland being the key obstacle to this.

Timetable

January 2017 Supreme Court judgement on the Appeal against the decision to refer Article 50 to Parliament.
February-March 2017 Article 50 Bill debated in Parliament.
March 15 2017 General Election in the Netherlands -the leader of the Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders is committed to taking the Netherlands out of the EU.
March 2017 By the end of this month the Government of the UK will invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
April 2017 Negotiations between the UK and the EU begin. The Treaty on European Union allows a two-year period of negotiations to take place before a formal exit takes effect.
April 23 2017 -first round of the General Election in France. Leader of the Front National, Marine le Pen is committed to taking France out of the EU.
May 7 2017 -second round of the Presidential vote will decide who becomes President of France.
August-October 2017 General Election in Germany (date to be confirmed, August the earliest possible, but must be concluded by the end of October).

Issues and Obstacles

-The Prime Minister, Theresa May is committed to invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (Lisbon, 2007).

-The intention of the UK Government to invoke Article 50 without reference to Parliament was based on an interpretation of the Royal Prerogative which allows the Government to amend treaties without reference to Parliament. This has been challenged in the Courts, and in November 2016 the Supreme Court ruled that the Government cannot exercise this power, and that Parliament alone can authorise the invocation of Article 50. The Government has appealed against this decision, and the Supreme Court will issue its judgement on the appeal in January 2017.

-Theresa May has thus proposed a brief Bill to be passed within two weeks in January if the Government is defeated in the Supreme Court. The assumption is that MPs will not vote against the referendum result, and indications that only a few Conservative and Labour rebels, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats will vote against suggest that Parliament will approve the invocation of Article 50.

-However, there is a legal instrument which could see the Supreme Court refer the invocation of Article 50 to the European Union Court of Justice [EUCJ] under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which gives the EUCJ the authority to offer preliminary judgement on the legal decisions made by member states on Treaty matters. However, this is not an obligation on the part of the British government, and would only be seen as a delaying mechanism as it would not change the political decision to leave the EU.

-Further complications arise with regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Included in the Scotland Act of 1998 where the 'Sewel Convention' states that
“it is recognised that the parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”
In practice this means the Scottish Parliament passing a formal Legislative Consent Motion but in reality because Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU it may vote on but not pass the required Legislative Consent Motion. This will probably delay the invocation of Article 50.
It has been argued Northern Ireland does not have the protection of the Legislative Consent Motion mechanism, and while it does not exist in Wales it is likely to be included in the Wales Bill that is making its way through Parliament.

-Currently, the EU position is divided between the Council of Ministers in Brussels, and the European Parliament in Strasbourg. In Brussels, the Council of Ministers began consultations with the 27 member states on Friday 15^th December 2016, while in Strasbourg Guy Verhofstadt has been designated the Parliamentary leader on Article 50 negotiations. As a result there is some confusion as to who in the EU has the most power, but it is generally accepted that Article 50 will also have to be subjected to a vote by the European Parliament, with the assumption that the Parliament will vote to acknowledge and confirm the desire of the UK to leave the EU.

-The key issues therefore now revolve around the extent to which votes in the Parliament of the UK and the European Parliament will be based on a general principle alone, or be shaped around a group of propositions that determine the relationship the UK will have with the EU after it leaves, crucially with regard to the UK's access to the Single Market.

-The position of the UK Government is that Article 50 must be invoked first, and negotiations subsequent to that deal with issues such as access to the Single Market etc; others want what they see as crucial issues to be clarified before the vote is sought so that both sides know what they are voting for.

-The opposition want Parliament to include specific provisions in the Article 50 Act, the Government wants a free hand to negotiate and thus only include them in the Great Repeal Bill which it is assumed will follow the final agreement of the EU on the UK's exit from the EU and thus determine the precise arrangements.

-David Davis has said the UK could be 'out of the EU' by the end of 2018, but most experts expect negotiations on the details of the UK's exit to last 10 years.

A clear presentation of the legal arguments can be found here-
https://fullfact.org/law/brexit-supr...urt-arguments/

As presently constituted, this is the EU-
Attachment 984761

As presently constituted, this is the EU- (warning- taken from the Daily Express, hence the loaded comments in the box below the map).

Attachment 984761

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

-Currently, the EU position is divided between the Council of Ministers in Brussels, and the European Parliament in Strasbourg. In Brussels, the Council of Ministers began consultations with the 27 member states on Friday 15^th December 2016, while in Strasbourg Guy Verhofstadt has been designated the Parliamentary leader on Article 50 negotiations. As a result there is some confusion as to who in the EU has the most power, but it is generally accepted that Article 50 will also have to be subjected to a vote by the European Parliament, with the assumption that the Parliament will vote to acknowledge and confirm the desire of the UK to leave the EU.

---

To clarify, Michael Barnier has been appointed by the European Commission to represent the EU in negotiations with the UK on Brexit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37542204

We're finding out today the ambassador to the EU resigned...bit of a shocker. This is the guy Farage called the ultimate insider. So much for soft Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-email-in-full

I think the problem is that most of the senior civil servants in Whitehall have served in some capacity in the EU, and for the militants, having sat in an office in Brussels or Strasbourg is proof they cannot be trusted to negotiate the exit they want. The problem is that the Government doesn't really have a corps of experienced negotiators that would satisfy the militants, and if they are satisfied with Rogers' exit it is also because of his relationship with the demon, Cameron. In any case, it appears that Theresa May now believes it will not be possible for the UK to negotiate a compromise on the Single Market, a key issue for the militants on both sides.

One should also note, given my previous more general post above, that in France, Marine le Pen has begun to shift the goalposts on her own version of Brexit, known as Frexit (one is tempted to say Frigide sur Frexit). If there is a referendum asking the French if they want to leave the EU it may not include leaving the Euro at the same time, a confusing policy which is aimed at placating those French with savings who fear their value would be depreciated if France left the Euro and revived the Franc. Le Pen is suggesting a dual Franc/Euro system but in doing so has weakened her cause and opened up the kind of divisions in the Front National we have seen in the Conservative Party over 'hard and soft Brexit'. In any case barely 33% of the French polled want France to leave the EU.
For more confusion-
http://www.politico.eu/article/marin...-after-frexit/
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/...hing-the-euro/

Please update us on Madam PM's Brexit speech this Tuesday
Across the pond we're a little preoccupied with Friday's inauguration.
God save us all

Theresa May has delivered her speech on the UK's exit from the EU, based around a 12-point plan which highlights these issues:

1. Provide certainty about the process of leaving the EU
2. Control of our own laws
3. Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom
4. Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland
5. Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe
6. Rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU
7. Protect workers' rights
8. Free trade with European markets through a free trade agreement
9. New trade agreements with other countries
10. The best place for science and innovation
11. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism
12. A smooth, orderly Brexit

In addition, she confirmed that the Brexit deal will be presented to Parliament for a vote, and when asked after the speech, was confident that MPs and the Lords would not vote against it.

May's primary aim was to present Brexit as a positive step forward for the UK, one that would allow it to retain its links to the EU with regard to trade, investment, security and settlement rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU. She pressed the right buttons on repatriating law-making to Westminster (which it never lost anyway as Parliament could always veto EU laws), reducing EU immigration into the UK, and ending the substantial annual payments to the EU as part of the membership deal. The relief from the constraints on negotiating separate trade deals would thus re-configure the UK as a 'global economy', in spite of the fact that we already are, and have substantial trade arrangements across the world.

The main problem is that the negotiations have not begun and that Mrs May indicated that in reality the 'half-in half-out' arrangement that some have called for, which she says is not on the table, was right there in her speech.
She wants the UK to leave the Single Market, but wants to re-negotiate access to it.
She wants the UK to leave the Customs Union, but also wants the UK to negotiate tariff free deals in the Customs Union on certain (unspecified) aspects of trade.
She wants the UK to retain links in research & development in education but ignores a requirement of most EU R&D projects that they adhere to the free movement of people and other EU rules.
She says the UK will not longer be paying billions of pounds a year into the EU, but also said the UK would make financial contribution to projects agreed with the EU on trade, R&D, security and intelligence and so on.

Mrs May thus presented in advance of the negotiations what the UK would like to get out of the deal, rather than what it insists is non-negotiable, though she did warn that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, and that it would be 'calamitous' for the EU to punish the UK for leaving by making access to the Single Market difficult or impossible. This clearly sets a challenge for Michel Barnier and his team in the EU, not least because May also wants a swift set of negotiations to ensure most if not all issues are ready to go within the two-year time-frame set for the talks.

She made many references to 'free trade', a reflection of the view of those who see the EU as an obstacle to free trade globally, yet seems committed to inter-state trading negotiations, referring to the potential of the USA as a trading partner. Yet she also knows how difficult and time-consuming it was for Canada and the EU to reach a trade agreement, not to mention TTIP and TPP both of which appear to be dead in the water.

So on the one hand, we have a clearer idea of what the UK government wants, but no idea what the EU will offer, and how the compromise will look when negotiations are concluded. It was, incidentally, a good speech, and shows May is in command of the brief. But putting the UK's case before the EU and the world is only one part of the play, the rest is yet to come.

I guess you could sum up her speech thus: always look on the bright side of life...

The full text of the speech (+ video) can be found here-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...t-speech-full/

SCOREBOARD:

Theresa May's Combined Top Team 3 - 8 Supreme Court XI

Devolved Administrations also lost their match after being kicked into touch. There may not be dancing in the streets of Glasgow/Cardiff tonight..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodinuk

SCOREBOARD:
Theresa May's Combined Top Team 3 - 8 Supreme Court XI
Devolved Administrations also lost their match after being kicked into touch. There may not be dancing in the streets of Glasgow/Cardiff tonight..

---

A spokesperson for the SNP on Radio 4's The World at One said they have 50 amendments to table to the Bill when the government presents it to the Commons later this week. They won't get 50 debated, but it may constitute the only substantial opposition to the Bill given Corbyn has signalled Labour will not oppose it.

May is meeting Trump at White House Friday. I'm wondering if she's being politically savvy by laying down with the devil. Will a robust May-Trump relationship add to her prestige at home?
And does anyone know if Farage will be a accompaning her? I'm sure Nigel's been given a free private suite at the Trump hotel so he and POTUS can hang together. I'm sure Trump will insist he's appointed ambassador in exchange for a plum trade deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

May is meeting Trump at White House Friday. I'm wondering if she's being politically savvy by laying down with the devil. Will a robust May-Trump relationship add to her prestige at home?
And does anyone know if Farage will be a accompaning her? I'm sure Nigel's been given a free private suite at the Trump hotel so he and POTUS can hang together. I'm sure Trump will insist he's appointed ambassador in exchange for a plum trade deal.

---

Farage is desperate to be an important man, having finally ceded the leadership of UKIP to others in a party he says is full of 'low-grade people'. Mindful of the fact he is going to lose his 93,000 Euros a year salary (but not his EU pension), the man needs money and the power he has never been able to obtain in the UK. From the start this pompous loser has bragged about his links to Trump, claimed he can be a 'bridge' between the US President and the government of the UK, because like Trump's people Farage sees career diplomats as 'part of the problem' of bureaucratic inefficiency and hostility to change. Energised by the 'can-do' businessman in DC, Farage claims the US is already on the verge of offering the UK a trade deal, even though he knows it would be a violation of EU rules, and knows that May is not going to go solo given the difficulties she will have once Article 50 negotiations start. In any case, Cabinet Ministers have been told not to speak to Farage, who is now some sort of loud mouth on Fox News.

What Theresa May will be most concerned about is the existing trade between the US and the UK compared to trade with the EU. Using figures from 2014 with data from 2015 the UK sells goods and services to the EU worth around £220 billion, it imports from the EU goods and services worth around £290 billion using UK data or £360 billion using EU data
In contrast, the UK exports goods and services to the USA are worth £88 billion, and imports roughly £52 billion. This makes the USA the UK's largest trading partner outside the EU. May will be most concerned to protect UK-US trade but also to register the view that tariff walls would damage both sides, and rather obviously place the UK in a vulnerable position as the UK economy will shrink as Brexit takes hold (sources for figures in the links below).

From this point of view, Trump could make all the usual vacuous noises about the 'special relationship', polish the bust of the Anglo-American bigot and windbag Churchill in his Oval Office, waffle on about his love of the UK (or is it Scotland, a country that doesn't love him), but the bottom line could be a businessman salivating over the prospect of a weakened UK economy desperate for US investments, with the irony that if the UK allows it to happen, the relationship could be even more unequal than the UK-EU relationship is alleged to have been. How this squares with Trump's decree 'Buy American, hire American' is anyone's guess. The Independent put it quite well a few days ago-

A hasty US-UK deal could mean a raft of compromises for Britain, involving a diverse array of industries and rules, from food and farming through to drug production and environmental legislation.
For example, in the UK, standards and regulations in the food industry are tightly controlled. But a free trade deal allowing US food into the UK market would seriously undermine those standards and would throw UK farmers into direct competition with American producers.
Likewise, an amalgamation of UK and US drug markets could mean the current low prices for pharmaceuticals in Britain could come to an end.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7536816.html

Data on trade can be found here-
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspect...eu-and-beyond/

The 'Brexit Bill' has been published -

Attachment 991149

I listened to May's Philadelphia address in my car driving home. It was masterful. She praised "the new emboldened America". Lots of kiss-ass references to Trump and the special historical US-UK relationship.
Can she come home with any concrete trade deal from Trump? No way, but it's all about optics and she checked the required boxes with this speech. She'll be hailed as the next Thatcher when she gets back. Hope she delivers

Question for the board.
The PM referred to her county as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Notthern Ireland. Why does N Ireland get separate mention as opposed to say, Scotland. Is there a Southern Ireland? Are they British?
POTUS might not like the confusion. Most Americans basically call you guys England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

Question for the board.
The PM referred to her county as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Notthern Ireland. Why does N Ireland get separate mention as opposed to say, Scotland. Is there a Southern Ireland? Are they British?
POTUS might not like the confusion. Most Americans basically call you guys England.

---

Great Britain, in geographical terms, is the large island which contains England, Scotland and Wales, but not, for example, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Northern Ireland is therefore not geographically attached to Britain, but as part of the island of Ireland comes within the geographical term, the British Isles, which includes the islands off the coast of mainland Europe that are under the jurisdiction of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The official name of the state, 'the United Kingdom' dates from 1707 and the Act of Union between England and Scotland (Theresa May is leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party), but in 1801 became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, indeed some Irish historians argue the 'long war' of independence from Britain began as a result of the hostile reaction in Ireland to the merger between the two, the designation ending with Irish independence in 1922.

Consider the difference between America and the United States of America. Literally speaking, a Brazilian, a Canadian and a Colombian could all claim to be American, yet most of the time we think of Americans as being citizens of the USA.

Merging 'English' with the UK is bad form, ask any Scot! And just what is it that Trump loves, Scotland or England? Or rather, if he had to choose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

I listened to May's Philadelphia address in my car driving home. It was masterful. She praised "the new emboldened America". Lots of kiss-ass references to Trump and the special historical US-UK relationship.
Can she come home with any concrete trade deal from Trump? No way, but it's all about optics and she checked the required boxes with this speech. She'll be hailed as the next Thatcher when she gets back. Hope she delivers

---

In fact Theresa May only mentioned Trump twice, to acknowledge his victory and to look forward to discussing policy with him. On policies she actually highlighted the differences not just between the UK and the Trump administration but also between the Republican Party and Trump, which is one reason the speech was well received.

For example
--she made a point of endorsing NATO where Trump has questioned it
--she appealed to a shared commitment to an international role in meeting our responsibilities to our friends and allies, champion the international cooperation and partnerships that project our values around the world, and continue to act as one of the strongest and most forceful advocates for business, free markets and free trade anywhere around the globe -where Trump has put 'America First'.
--Where Trump has criticized Globalization and China, May says The rise of the Asian economies – China yes, but democratic allies like India too – is hugely welcome. Billions are being lifted out of poverty and new markets for our industries are opening up.
--Where Trump has a soft position on Russia (the noise is that Trump will lift US sanctions on Russia this weekend) -May is unequivocal: But we should engage with Russia from a position of strength. And we should build the relationships, systems and processes that make cooperation more likely than conflict – and that, particularly after the illegal annexation of Crimea, give assurance to Russia’s neighbouring states that their security is not in question. We should not jeopardise the freedoms that President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher brought to Eastern Europe by accepting President Putin’s claim that it is now in his sphere of influence.
--Where Trump has called the nuclear deal with Iran 'the worst deal in history' May rebukes him with: The nuclear deal with Iran was controversial. But it has neutralised the possibility of the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons for more than a decade....[it] was vitally important for regional security.
--Where Trump has raised doubts about the USA's commitment to the UN, May says I have encouraged Antonio Guterres, the new UN Secretary General, to pursue an ambitious reform programme, focusing the United Nations on its core functions of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and resolution
--May deals with the contradiction between 'Buy American, Hire American' and a trade deal with the US by arguing the deal must: demonstrate to those who feel locked out and left behind that free markets, free economies and free trade can deliver the brighter future they need. And it can maintain – indeed it can build – support for the rules-based international system on which the stability of our world continues to rely.

Some of the things May said were crowd pleasing, but wrong, but intended to emphasize the British view that there is a 'Special Relationship' which many Americans do not recognize in the same way.

It was evident in the remark on the US-UK partnership being vital in the Cold War, but which by excluding the crucial role of West Germany may have been a subtle dig at Obama who had a warmer relationship with Angela Merkel than David Cameron, but is historically wrong. She was also wrong to claim that only the US and the UK meet the requirement to fund NATO with 2% of GDP as this is also met by Poland, Estonia and Greece. It should also be noted that NATO members like Iceland don't have a standing army and with such a small population 2% of GDP is for them an unrealistic figure -it spends around 0.1% on defence.

May took sides with the US and Israel against the rights the Palestinians have to live independently in the land they have owned and farmed for thousands of years, misleading her audience with references to Israel as a democracy, which it might be in Israel, whereas it is a brutal, and illegal military dictatorship in Occupied Palestine. May did not refer to the 'two-state solution' which has been the basis of US and UK policy since the Oslo Accords of 1993 -the peace signed by Yitzhak Shamir but trashed by Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu- but as the editorial in the Financial Times yesterday (26th January 2017) pointed out Trump is playing a dangerous game by changing policy and allying himself with the violent extremists in Netanyahu's government.

One also notes that May has said Iran's ambitions in the Middle East need to be curtailed, but made not one mention of Saudi Arabia as the GHQ of international terrorism or its savage, unwinnable war in the Yemen.

The point is that May made many positive references to Trump's idol, Ronald Reagan, but did so mostly to draw out the differences between the two men, in terms of both style and content. Whether Trump can match Reagan's diplomacy remains to be seen, but I can't see May and Trump agreeing on a range of issues other than the need for a trade deal, where the anxiety in the UK is that we should not deal with the US at any price, given that our regulations on food and product quality, on health and other aspects of business are superior to the USA.

But again, the hollow bombast of 'Buy American, Hire American' was exposed by Joachim Fels, also in yesterday's FT where he argues it is Europe that is in a better and stronger position on trade than the USA -but does this also mean the UK?- because the Euro is weaker than the dollar making European imports attractive to US consumers, thus:
"Switching demand from foreign goods could work eventually, but in the near term there is not quality and capacity in US manufacturing to fill the gap".

Whether or not the UK can fill that gap, the UK is in a stronger position with a weaker pound, but for how long can the UK take advantage of demand in the US, and will the 'Buy American, Hire American' ever mean anything in real terms? In other words, if there is a deal to be made, who stands to benefit most from it? In the long term, the UK will be weaker outside the EU, and at the moment is desperate for deeper trade ties with the US.

The full text of May's speech can be found here-
http://uk.businessinsider.com/full-t...17-1?r=US&IR=T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Merging 'English' with the UK is bad form, ask any Scot! And just what is it that Trump loves, Scotland or England? Or rather, if he had to choose...

---

Note I'm going on memory and haven't checked my facts, but I believe that Trump claims Scottish ancestry somewhere in his linage. Of course, we all know that what Trump claims and the actual facts are often two very different things.

However, after his spat with Alex Salmond, a few years ago, over plans to build an offshore windfarm, "spoiling" the views from his golf course in Aberdeenshire, I'm half expecting a US Navy warship to be permanently stationed in the North Sea as a deterent to developments...

Last night -1st February 2017- the House of Commons voted to begin the process of leaving the EU, giving the Government the authority to invoke Article 50. As pugnacious Laura Kuenssberg -the BBC journalist who rattled Donald Trump in the May-Trump press conference in Washington DC- has put it:

After decades of debate, years of acrimony over the issue in the Conservative Party, months of brutal brinksmanship in Westminster, and hours of debate this week, MPs have just approved the very first step in the process of Britain leaving the European Union.

There are many hurdles ahead, probably thousands of hours of debate here, years of negotiations for Theresa May with our friends and rivals around the EU, as she seeks a deal - and possibly as long as a decade of administrative adjustments, as the country extricates itself from the EU.
On a wet Wednesday, the debate didn't feel epoch-making, but think for a moment about what has just happened.
MPs, most of whom wanted to stay in the EU, have just agreed that we are off.

The full article is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38830552