Sounds like it will your round with your dollar riches!
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Tbf its constituents still derive c50% of their earnings overseas. Ftse 100 nearer 75%.
This too, good shout. If it was good enough for Scotland...maybe he just thought the teenagers would be the separatist ones like in Scotland? If so he's even more of a dunce.
The financial markets and pound have recovered well which at least is positive, though God knows what will happen when art 50 is triggered.
That's why I said earlier that the lowering of UK's AAA credit rating seems premature. No actual legislation has been done.
I wouldn't call that a recovery, it's stabilised at last weeks lows.
It's still 10% down the weeks prior Brexit.
10% is good news for the British economy. Given the sheer luck of timing with record low inflation, the consequently higher cost of imports isn't so threatening.
Look at it this way, anything we export will be 10% cheaper to buy around the world, and to Europe this will cancel out the likely 10% trade levy we'll have to pay.
Not so good for the Germans though, their exports will be 10% dearer, and as they will have to pay the same levy, their exports to us will cost 20% more.
Should help our balance of payments no end.
Last edited:
Well not really, the risk is very real. Gove will win the election and trigger Article 50 before he's ousted because he's a messianic cnut, just like Blair. If anything I think the markets have overestimated the boon of Johnson standing down and massively underestimated Gove. The only bonus is that he'll probably get a better deal out of the EU than anyone else would (although May is a hard nosed bitch too tbf).
I'm really hoping right now that the PM doesn't actually have the constitutional power to trigger Article 50 on his own without an act of parliament, that's pretty much the only way out I can see.
I am fairly certain it must be a vote. Would not be surprised if 2/3rds majority is needed as well.
It's blatant xenophobia. Something the entire campaign was built upon.
Out of curiosity, if you remainers had the choice would you rather see:
A) The government refuse to follow through on brexit, even though that would be a damaging breach of basic democratic principles, one that would likely see the already alienated elements of British society become even more disillusioned and divide the UK even further.
Or
B) The government follow through on brexit, with all the likely chaos that entails?
A) The government refuse to follow through on brexit, even though that would be a damaging breach of basic democratic principles, one that would likely see the already alienated elements of British society become even more disillusioned and divide the UK even further.
Or
B) The government follow through on brexit, with all the likely chaos that entails?
I'm trying to analyse things as objectively as possible here. When they trigger art. 50 I suspect the pound and FTSE will take a massive beating, rather than it being a global thing. We'll also see an exodus of companies I suspect, moving their (European) HQ's elsewhere. So the economic & financial outlook is hardly looking great for the UK. Unless of course, the UK remain in the single market which inevitably must involve freedom of movement on a similar level to the current rules and that will undermine the promises made by the leave campaign regarding immigration. If the next government can engage the population that feels neglected, gain support for an acceptance from the majority of the electorate for freedom of movement and avoid a break up of the United Kingdom then that would be a satisfactory end to this mess.
As the UK is a nett importer they will be even worse off than they are now - this part is stage one - beware of stage 2 - and 3
Politically the UK is going through a nervous breakdown. Something needs to be done to tackle the divisions within the British society. This will need strong leadership from all the main political parties. However, the only coherent and united party at this moment seems to be the SNP. This is a very scary situation indeed.
A and it's not even close.
I would go for option A if that were possible - B is a total disaster whichever way you look at it and is causing divisions in society anyway - A is not a legal requirement to follow through but the EU are pissed off either way
Additionally I would prosecute Farage and Boris for High Treason
The words 'up the shit creek without a paddle' come to mind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629
In a piece co-authored by three legal experts, for the UK Constitutional Law Association, it is argued that under our constitutional settlement, the prime minister cannot issue a notification under Article 50 without being given authority to do so by an act of Parliament.
The argument rests on the fact that without Parliament's backing any prime minister would be exercising what are known as prerogative powers.
And so, by extension, if a prime minister triggered Article 50 and so put the UK on a one-way road out of the EU without Parliament's backing, he or she would be overriding the 1972 European Communities Act, which provides for the UK's membership of the EU and for the EU treaties to have effect in domestic law.
The Article 50 process would cut across and emasculate the 1972 act, and so, the argument goes, the prime minister needs the backing of a new act of Parliament to give him of her the constitutional authority to push the Leave button.
Writing in the Times newspaper, the crossbench peer Lord Pannick QC, an eminent specialist in public law, said: "Whether Parliament would enact legislation to allow for an Article 50 withdrawal is a matter for it.
"However, without such legislation, the prime minister cannot lawfully give a notification."
(The article does point out though that its unthinkable that Parliament would override the public's vote in the referendum and block it)
Last edited:
If by 'Brexit' we mean the things the Leave campaign were campaigning on, then I don't think B is even an option.
Well I mean whatever you think will likely happen once you leave the EU. I'm guessing that's only remotely related to what the Leave campaign said was going to happen.
I don't see how we leave without keeping free movement. That is undemocratic, as a majority just voted based on a campaign of ending free movement. So there is no option not to be undemocratic and anger people.
It's wonderful. We've emboldened the racist/xenophobic idiots, making them think 52% of our country agree with them. We now have to tell them we're ignoring their wishes, despite the fact their side won, and make some emboldened scary people very angry. We've also alienated our migrant population, which we now have to tell 'actually, we want you to stay'. We've also fecked our economy and probably lost Scotland.
But isn't the Lisbon Treaty already British law? Having been ratified and adopted under the last Labour government? Will the 1972 act not have been amended to reflect that? Pretty sure the Government legal service will have looked at this long before the Government published its Brexit guide.
2 ways for this to go down -
1. Best case is deal struck, immigration almost certainly unchanged. Gove spins it as bringing in his "Australian-style" - for which read racist - immigration system from outside the EU and hope that the trogs don't notice the difference between that and limiting EU immigration. Might also secure a guarantee of not having to allow freedom of movement to any new countries I'd guess. In terms of legislative, environmental, administrative and economic terms it'll be incredibly expensive and the legislation changes highly undemocratic and almost certainly the quality of our laws will suffer.
2. Worst case, no deal struck, economic catastrophe, civil catastrophe, fascist and neo-liberal politics dominates. AND legislative, environmental, undemocratic changes problems as well.
Either of those options is dreadful.
if we don't end up leaving, at the very least we'll suffer less economically even if the anti-immigrant lot feel let down and cause trouble. We'll also maintain consumer and environmental protection as well as having a say in European law, which would otherwise be foisted upon us. No contest which i'd go for.
I suspect we will be worse off for many reasons, but a 10% fall in exchange rate is not one of them, rather it is a saving grace.
Previous falls have given a boost to exports and seen a rise in GDP. Once again the danger is inflation, but by lucky timing that isn't a problem at the moment.
"A" too.
A Brexit would be a win for the very worst of politics. I'd much rather we undid that than live with the social, political and economic consequences.
That's a good idea for a poll.
Neatly sums it up. Plus we've probably done massive damage to one of our biggest industries, the City. Stick that up your Cornwall/NHS funding.
He must have had some crackpot reason for deciding against it. Opinion polls before the referendum had 18 year olds at around 70% to vote remain. So i imagine 16-17 year olds would have been similar.
And there would have been 1.5m eligible to vote. So it wouldn't have tipped the balance of the vote alone but it was still foolish not to allow them to vote. He was just way too confident that people would vote to remain.
Shows how out of touch he really is and undoubtedly proves he's a moron.
Maybe if the leaders of the political parties can engage people and the government can make a fairer society then the people will accept freedom of movement.
A, and without a seconds thought. If anyone becomes disillusioned if the government employs common sense and overrules an idiotic Referendum based on lies then sorry but tough shit.
I dunno tbh. My mum voted out and was ranting about immigrants, despite my wife being...a brown immigrant.
All my partner's family voted out. My partner's friends are largely immigrants from the EU. We're currently trying to decide when we'll be calm enough to visit them.
Pretty cutting summary of the failures of Tories and Labour by Portillo. Loud shirt.
Yeah, I had a few testy text chains, then a lot of tongue-biting. I know my mum loves my wife, almost as the daughter she never had. My mum's just got one of those 'she's one of the good ones' attitudes cos she works in hedge funds and paid more than my mum ever earnt in tax each year.
Was going to make it a separate thread but figured there was probably enough brexit threads as is.
Would be good to get an idea about the percentages. How many would still believe in democracy when they really don't like the result? So far 0%?
In my defence, I've never been a great fan of democracy.
Yep, all A so far I think. Gotta say I'm amazed, especially as I know a lot of them are probably rather liberal in their outlook. For me that would be breaking one of the most fundamental principles of a functioning society, up there with outright denying all Leave voters the right to free speech.
I'd pick B with zero hesitation. I know the consequences would likely be terrible but some core values are just too important....
You have to laugh really.
So basically they just miss the empire. India better watch out.
Seriously though it reflects the arguments of the Leave campaign: "we can deliver all the benefits and none of the responsibily or effort".
Not to make you feel worse but you forgot to mention that it might also end up stirring trouble in Northern Ireland too. Really was an awful decision.