EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Yeah, I had to check that was real.

Yeah, how sadly predictable

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/article-50-fallout-sees-gina-millar-receive-death-threats-online_uk_581ba19fe4b020461a1bec57

Phillips resignation hasn't hurt the pounds bounce - if anything, in the last 20 minutes it's gone up more quickly. Amazingly political instability is being taken by the markets as a positive.

#wtafigo

(obviously only been about 40 minutes, but will be interesting to see if it continues)

^ corbynistas, obvs.

#npf

Might be the hope a hard brexit is off the table?

Some may hope the whole thing is off the table as it risks the UK banking sector.

I find it laughable how this is spun as a vote of the people against the establishment, the courts are the only thing that has actually stood up against said establishment so far.

Can we vote to leave the Murdoch Empire next? That would be most beneficial ;)

It's exactly that. But it's amazing to see political instability treated as a positive thing by the markets when often it's the other way around. What it's, to an extent, saying in this case is the government is a pesky thing which could get in the way of global capitalism.

Also: https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794474117156237312

#wtafigo

The markets don't want a hard brexit, if they would get it another way that isn't "instability" which is self-imposed, they'd also be pleased.

And yes governments don't always do what markets/capitalist want, but the hard left hasn't a fucking clue either here. Leaving the whole of capitalism with no ethical bank or country to loan from? Good luck.

I'm for more government control BTW and oversight.

^^ amazing.

Well, there has now been a response from the Prime Minister

1 Attachment

Brian May?

^ anotherlol

IDS just on The Daily Politics arguing that the referendum result is legally binding. Why didn't he, as a member of the government, actually ensure it was when Parliament approved the legislation for it then?

The twat.

The Poke predicts headlines today ;)

Twat, and also he's wrong (as you said - he should have pushed for this being the case when the bill was written).

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7249

Click on the Briefing Paper, and check out section 5.

This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017.
It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which
a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type
of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables
the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the
Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type,
where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK
does not have constitutional provisions which would require the
results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the
Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding
referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV
in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without
further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided
for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were
also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority
against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the
re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all
EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed
by both Houses.

He - and his mates - are trying to fabricate a constitutional crisis.

He - and his mates - are trying to fabricate a constitutional crisis.

When actually, what is happening is that the constitution is working exactly as it should.

It still amazes me how little understanding of government some politicians actually have, i.e. the separation of powers between the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial).

Same picture - spot the difference?

also: why is the times still laid out like a newspaper from 1907?

@idilsukan I took that picture. Sun hasn't darkened it.

— Ben Cawthra (@BenCawthra) November 4, 2016

A lot of the voters don't seem to understand it either, with whinging about this meaning brexit won't happen, May should just have the power to do whatever...

They could have made the fact that permission of parliament was needed explicit in the referendum, but hey, that would have indicated competence and honesty.

Behind a paywall but the headline says loads: "We will achieve Brexit, even if it takes an election, a purge of the Europhiles or 1,000 new peers to get there" care of slimy quiz panel regular and Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/04/we-will-achieve-brexit-even-if-it-takes-an-election-a-purge-of-t/

Why is Stephen Phillips resigning over the Government's approach to Brexit when the high court has just ruled that parliament must be involved, which seems to go in the direction he wants? Sorry if I've missed something.

Because Theresa May has said she'll appeal the court's decision, and, apparently, has told Juncker that she's confident that appeal will succeed (she's in a minority of one here I think).

I think it's the government intending to appeal and do what it takes to disregard the ruling that is the issue.