EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

"we just had a ruling on this case, you can't suspend Parliament for political reasons"

Cynically, getting that ruling again will take a couple of days, until they're down to the length 'usually' needed to actually do a Queens speech, when it will be legit?

No queens speech means he can’t bring the withdrawal agreement back for a vote, which could be a problem

Also if Parliament goes back you'd hope maybe they'd have the foresight to legally remove the power to prorogue indefinitely from the PM, as it's clearly open to abuse.

Hopefully this.

But my point was that he could do a 'legit' short one (it does need to happen at some point) that 'happened' to run over leaving the EU. (If they don't manage to limit proroguing powers).

There was a vote today in the EU Parliament calling for Iran to release British national Nazanin Zachary-Ratcliffe.

The Brexit MEPs abstained

https://amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/former-tory-ed-vaizey-still-trade-envoy-despite-expulsion-from-party-20190918-p52srj.html

Is this an actual fail? I don't think trade envoys have to be ruling party members.

Brexit party pro Iran, and clearly anti freedom for British citizens, interesting stance!

I did not realise that the idea of a Brexit referendum had been around for such a long time and is not just the idea of Tories/UKIP.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49753420

Awesome.

1 Attachment

Economists for Brexit is basically Minford isn't it?

He's a total loony. He's currently doing the rounds of the red tops claiming that a no deal Brexit will cost the EU £500bn and the UK will be £640bn well off. Total and utter drivel.

Even assuming that he was directionally correct - where has the extra 140bn gone?

Edit: I guess we're profiting from non EU trade deals to that tune... Seems unlikely

He wrote a book that analysed the UK's relationship with the EU back in 2005. It's pretty technical and thorough. It concludes that the UK is better off out, at the cost of its farming,fishing and manufacturing industries. I don't agree with a lot of its content, but it was a thorough and interesting opinion.

The thing is, fast forward to 2019 and Minford is 76 years old and when he speaks about Brexit he just parrots things he wrote in 2005. For me, if an academic hasn't changed his opinions one iota over nearly fifteen years, that's a really big alarm bell.

By all accounts he is a very nice man in person, but you can't help feel that he's just an old man desperately trying to stay relevant and hold on to his past successes.

That said, some people I know say that he's been full of shit since the 80s so maybe I'm being too kind.

https://twitter.com/minvws/status/1174627056426074112?s=21&fbclid=IwAR3qd_EfeXRhEHMRSbULuQvEVIEcoZAh5031Tv34Q5-xkZHZU0kwfZxCnkg

meanwhile the Dutch ministry of business n stuff has hired an actor in a Brexit Monster outfit to block the entrance to an information meeting...

...well, I guess it fits the more absurd parts of the TragicAbsurdClusterPantoMimeFuck that is Brexit.

Have any legal experts given their opinion on which way the Supreme Court is going to go since the case has been submitted?

Yes, but there really is no point second guessing.

Pretty much as soon as we joined. But especially once it became clear that Monnet's idea of a Federalised Europe was likely to be the final destination.

Worth having a look at the Referendum Party and James Goldsmith (who is an very interesting figure).

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

Alf0nse's statement is factual, but if you're going to extrapolate that from what happened you might want to do some reading.

It's akin to claiming Labour are anti workplace pensions because they voted against whatever Govt finance bill.

What's the source for that? I'd be interested in passing it on.

Looks like the FT, no?

edit; gold star for me https://www.ft.com/content/a3a17eac-4a0b-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb

https://twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/1106490422711537664

Treasury not looking great

Have any legal experts given their opinion on which way the Supreme Court is going to go since the case has been submitted?

Most I've seen think probably against the government, but likely to be very close.

I think they'll manage to buy it

Even if it is against the outcomes seem quite varied.

It amazes me that 3 years of those brexit flow charts on Newsnight and I don't think any of them ever envisaged the monumental clusterfuck that has happened. If this were a political drama (or even the thick of it) no one would have thought the plot was credible.

Wrong thread

Isn't there a big variable which would massively impact all of these forecasts, which is when Brexit actually happens? ie wouldn't most of these forecasts pre March 2018 have gone on the assumption that we would have left at that point?

Or is the probability of actually leaving on a given date incorporated into the forecasts?