Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[Jason]

The essential part of your and my post is "the UK is the leader" - and because Britain isn't, you want to leave the EU.

It's leadership in soft power. Leadership in social justice, in democracy, in taking a stand on global issues. The EU as an institution is failing on all these. Most EU nations are also failing, in part because the EU ties them.

 

[dandelion]

The issue over whether parliament or the prime minister has the power to invoke article 50 is in court right now.

indeed it is. And it seems increasingly likely it will go all the way to the european court to decide who is formally empowered to give notice. A sequence of events which could have all been avoided by May obtainig an empowering motion from parliament. but oh, they might refuse.

The view of Cameron or anyone else is irrelevant - the court will decide.

I dare say it will. But in the recent past I am sure I recall you posting that obviously the government is mandated to Brexit by the terms of the referendum. Now we see that it had always been agreed this is not true. brexit now is simply a decision by the conservative party for its own ends. It is a very high stakes gamble on their part, and I am sure they are very nervous.

You are putting a strange spin on events.

I report events.

First off gilt yields are up a tad, but up from historic lows. In effect investors are pricing in the probability of some inflation in the British economy and of course require higher yields. This is normal.

No, it is not normal. The incredibly low cost of government borrowing has been one of the saving graces of the recession. And I persist in calling it a recession despite not fitting the classroom definition. The article argues that what we are seeing is the start of a trend returning to more 'normal' times, where the government has to pay significantly to borrow. Sure, it might fade away, but it seems a number of experts think it the start of a trend.Brexit has destroyed confidence in the government of the UK.

I think we do have to delay until the court process is finished before Theresa May can invoke Article 50, but I gather this will be finished before Christmas.

How long does an appeal to the european court take? Some cases seem to take years.

Meanwhile the euro crisis continues.

You will recall my view, that this a 'we all hang together or assuredly we will hang separately" moment. Benjamin franklin, someone else who had difficulties persuading states to stick together. Turned out well for him.

 

[dandelion]

The fourth group - and I suspect a large number - are those for which the decision was a cumulation of many reasons. Worry about the direction the EU was heading - and we cannot stop the drive for ever closer political union, no matter how much Dandy incorrectly believes we 'control the EU'.

We can, you know. Not for the others perhaps, but we have the power to expand our existing island of opt-outs. We have a unique ability to force the EU to agree our terms for the relationship with them. We lose this power the instant we leave.

It is quite incredible how good our position is. The Uk would never have been permitted to join if the others had understood the extent to which we would be able to control the entire EU.

Add these reasons to the immigration issue, and the desire to make our own decisions, then you have an overall picture, where economic short-termism is relegated to second place behind the other considerations.

It is highly likely leave voters came to it with various reasons top of their list. However some of them made their decision based on assurances of good economic outcome. It is pretty much certain that enough of those people would today vote remain so there is no longer a majority to leave.

But 52% of the electorate thought so.

"The people have spoken and must not be allowed to change their minds"

 

[dandelion]

It's leadership in soft power.

I'm sure I posted an article about that, which explained how our membership of the EU is an important part of our national soft power.

 

[Jason]

@dandelion I see no way that either the ECHR or ECJ could answer a question on UK constitution. If it is the Remoaners intention to seek to bring a UK constitutional issue to either of these courts then I assume they will find the courts refuse to handle them. If one of these courts seems willing then presumably parliament would legislate to make it clear that the court has no jurisdiction.

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion I see no way that either the ECHR or ECJ could answer a question on UK constitution. If it is the Remoaners intention to seek to bring a UK constitutional issue to either of these courts then I assume they will find the courts refuse to handle them. If one of these courts seems willing then presumably parliament would legislate to make it clear that the court has no jurisdiction.

It would appear that the current high court action regarding the power of the PM to invoke article 50 may turn on whether this would be a final and irreversible step. If parliament still has the power to cancel notice to leave, then the PM has not usurped parliaments prerrogative to decide. If it is a final decision, then it may be unlawful for the PM to take such a step, and therefore such notice could not be validly made. UK law states that EU courts have final say in interpreting EU treaty law. So the question of exactly how article 50 works, whether it is final or could be withdrawn, needs to be settled by those courts before the Uk courts can decided if the PM is exceeding her powers.

The EU court might also need to rule on who it regards as able to give notice, although I would think it would take the view of the UK court on how the constitution of the Uk works. I dont know how it would regard a PM purporting to give notice, but only on the basis her MPs have the right to withdraw that notice. The court might decide that no notice had been given unless it had been fully ratified in advance. this without prejudice to a future right to withdraw that notice. So it might be the legal process would require a vote of all parliament to give notice (ie a statute), and also accept that this could be withdrawn at any time by another vote of parliament within the negotiation period.

Given the parliament act allows the house of lords to hold up legislation for a year, this could become a very drawn out debate.

 

[Jason]

@dandelion, the Lisbon Treaty does provide a mechanism for EU exit. This is not however the only mechanism. If the ECJ prohibits triggering of Article 50 then another mechanism will be used. The alternative is simply treaty abrogation by the UK, which is always a matter of Royal Prerogative (therefore the PM). While aspects of the running of an EU Treaty are subject to EU law, the abrogation of the Treaties is not.

Personally I find the idea of the ECJ ruling that the UK cannot trigger Article 50 ludicrous. If it were to happen it would of course illustrate the extent of loss of sovereignty.

I know the Lords can delay, and it is clearly important that those aspects of the Brexit process which go through parliament are started soon. However the key issue - that we are leaving - is as I understand it not subject to parliament. Parliament is sovereign, but within the constitution. Parliament can do anything except the things it cannot do. I know there is the ultimately the idea that a sovereign parliament can change the constitution, but this just isn't going to happen.

 

[dandelion]

I didnt suggest the court would prohibit use of article 50. Rather the UK government is so tied up in knots because of its internal disagreemements and lack of consensus in parliament, it does not dare give parliament a free hand in passing some formal authorising legislation. That ought to be the simple answer, but because there was never a mandate for Brexit, it has become very difficult for them.

It would seem the sitution is this. One group voted to remain as now. Another group voted to remain part of the market but not be a member. A third group voted to exclude migrants, and therefore of necessity not be a member of the market. The problem is that although the last two both involve leaving the EU, they are still mutually incompatible. A vote for one is a vote against the other. So the truth is that of the votes cast about 50% were to remain, 25% to do a norway, and 25% to sever all ties. As I see it, that means the remain vote was about double that of either of the other two options and plainly wins.

My estimates of a 50/50 split for soft or hard brexit is something of a guess, of course, but it is very unlikely either option got more votes than remain. The governments problem right now is that although minded to leave, it knows there was no majority at all for either of the two mutually exclusive and indeed antagonistic leave options.

 

[dandelion]

Further on royal prerrogative. Limiting the power of the crown to set aside acts of parliament (ie abrogating the EU act through the Queen's first minister giving notice to leave, acting on her behalf), is something parliament has been engaged in for a very long time. The bill of rights 1689 says:
"1That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.
2 That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal." http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/constitu/rights2.htm

Various legal precedents since then have always come down against any devious way whereby ministers of the crown seek to get around acts of parliament without explicit parliamentary approval.

Although it does not seem that way, the Prime minister is constitutionally an employee of the crown and acts for the queen, not parliament. Perhaps we should formally recognise this and require all ministers to surrender their voting rights in parliament while they hold office. That would be interesting.

 

[Drifterwood]

Can't wait till page 1066.

 

[dandelion]

Oh and I found a bit more. It appears the ministers of the scottish crown are also entitled to exercise 'royal prerrogative' on behalf of the sovereign. If Ministers are entitled to cancel treaties, then it would be possible for the Scottsh first minister to cancel the treaty uniting Scotland and England. Oops...scottish independence!

 

[chrisrobin]

The essential part of your and my post is "the UK is the leader" - and because Britain isn't, you want to leave the EU.

I don't think you read the press. When Germany said let the refugees in regardless of border controls over a million people entered Europe unchecked, and also without asking all the other EU countries, but, because Germany has the big stick they all followed suit till the real picture emerged. The balance of power in the EU is all wrong, France, Belgium, Luxemburg and Italy all eager to keep on the right side of Germany - and Germany wants an even bigger EU so they will all go along and sing from the same song sheet while hoping to get brownie points.
The point being missed is that little UK doesn't want to be ruled by a federation or rules and laws made by 27 other countries all with differing priorities, the UK would like the UK to work according to its own remit. France has never forgiven the UK because of Waterloo, therefore has allowed a dreadful situation with immigrants at Calais to embarrass the UK about letting in migrants while having failed to offer , acceding to international Law, refugee status to all those in the so called "jungle". Germany will always have to face up to its past and regrettably the UK reminds it that it lost 2 major wars, but fails to remember the money the world poured into German in 1945 to rebuild a shattered nation even though they were the aggressors. The world didn't offer the same to the UK tho0ugh but we did pull through But conflict isn't the real issue, its the level playing field that's missing and with 28 countries all at different stages of financial progress or otherwise the Euro will only succeed if its run on central fiscal lines, which means a Federal Europe - and this will fail, crumble and slowly disintegrate. Currently the pounds sterling is low brought about by scare mongering words for the EU President among others, all of whom are posturing and posing trying to look strong - in reality as its election year coming up in France and Germany they are all looking after their own personal agendas. If the EU were to approach the coming talks with a fair amount of decency they are afraid they would look weak and other countries within the EU might try and either follow the UK lead or ask for favourable adjustments - and tip the playing field yet further. On the world stage it is not the fact that the EU is going to leave the EU that is the problem with world economies but rather the EU bitter stance at having their boat rocked that is unsettling world markets.
So, rather than blandly say that just because the UK isn't top of the class therefore its going to leave shows little understanding of how those living in the UK feel about the EU and how it treats us - the naughty step again UK - or even how the EU treats others within its membership! When we voted to join the common market all those years ago that precisely what we voted to join, since then erosion, collusion and creep have added to the power of Brussels and by default Germany. There are to many laws, to much red tape all supporting a corrupt for of European Government which seems to many to promote itself for its own self interest - which other well known body would pay to have an office build near the home of its MD because he often isn't well enough to travel to head office, and then provide light heat and rates as well as staff so this official can "work at home" as it were, and while not costing a great deal of the overall budget to the man in the UK street, if it were him he'd have to retie or go on sick leave, oh yes, JC Junker is a law unto himself and the Brussels elite.
Look at history as it has a habit of repeating itself, Syria, Palestine, Iran and Afghanistan while closer to home the Russian Bear is looking on and enjoying the disconnected nations of Europe quarrelling and Greece is a problem which no one will face up to because having been allowed in even though it didn't meet the criteria but added to the number states the EU will not admit to having made a mistake and ask/tell Greece to leave, and it should, its a problem which will roll on and on beneath the surface for years - possibly held there with good old German money!

 

[Jason]

Can't wait till page 1066.

LOL!

 

[Jason]

@dandelion, British constitutional law is a complex matter which will keep the experts busy. However Royal Prerogative is exercised for the UK, not for the separate nations, and is therefore a function of the UK government. There is not one Royal Prerogative in England and another in Scotland. The 1689 Bill of Rights gives parliament the right to make laws. (It isn't quite as simple as being uniquely the function of parliament - the 1982 Requisitioning of Ships Order was royal authority without parliament.) Treaties are not laws in the sense of the Bill of Rights.

I understand the judges are considering the issue right now, so we should have some clarity soon. Later today? This week? Soon anyway.

 

[Jason]

...shows little understanding of how those living in the UK feel about the EU and how it treats us...

Yes this is a key point. The EU certainly didn't understand this and probably still doesn't. Our politicians and business leaders had pretty much all gone native and adopted the EU view. I really don't think the Eurocrats or for that matter the people in Germany or France or any other nation understand the depth of feeling.

52% voted for Brexit. Many who voted to Remain did so because they were frightened to vote for Brexit. We also had the Jo Cox murder shortly before the vote, which presumably altered the figures. In terms of what people feel in their hearts there is overwhelming support for Brexit.

 

[Perados]

I don't think you read the press. When Germany said let the refugees in regardless of border controls over a million people entered Europe unchecked, and also without asking all the other EU countries, but, because Germany has the big stick they all followed suit till the real picture emerged.

I guess YOU don't know the correlation, but made your own reality...

Most of these refugees already been in Europe, as Germany has let them enter Germany. 20,000 been in Budapest and hundreds of thousands on the balkan rout.

But who cares for reality, as long as you can create your own reality, to proof your point

No one had to call them, they were coming by themself, because their homes were bombed

The balance of power in the EU is all wrong, France, Belgium, Luxemburg and Italy all eager to keep on the right side of Germany - and Germany wants an even bigger EU so they will all go along and sing from the same song sheet while hoping to get brownie points.

Again you should make a reality ckeck...
In the EU it's often Germany vs France, with Britain on Germany's side. The EU only acts when Germany and France have a compromise.

And not Germany, but Britain was pushing for a bigger EU. It was Britain who supported the EU east expansion... it couldn't be enough new members and it couldn't be fast enough. - funny, now it's Britain complaining about it

The point being missed is that little UK doesn't want to be ruled by a federation or rules and laws made by 27 other countries all with differing priorities, the UK would like the UK to work according to its own remit.

that's how the world works...
You have 28 members, with 28 interests and you try to find a compromise that fits as many as possible.

Not everything can be perfectly designed for the UK... and even less can Britain dictatw what the other have to desite

France has never forgiven the UK because of Waterloo, therefore has allowed a dreadful situation with immigrants at Calais to embarrass the UK about letting in migrants while having failed to offer , acceding to international Law, refugee status to all those in the so called "jungle".

sure... all these refugees at Calais are only there because of Waterloo.

If France would try to pay back Waterloo, they would let them pass till they arrive at Dover. Then it would be Britain's problem.

Germany will always have to face up to its past and regrettably the UK reminds it that it lost 2 major wars, but fails to remember the money the world poured into German in 1945 to rebuild a shattered nation even though they were the aggressors.
The world didn't offer the same to the UK tho0ugh but we did pull through

Sure... THE WORLD
It was the USA who payd some mone. The main part was dor France, Britain and Italy... Germany got 10% of the money, not THAT much.
What did you learn in history lessons?

And we don't need Britain as an EU member, to remember these wars.
If so, we should let India enter the EU to remember British terror in India. Too bad it doesn't work like this

But conflict isn't the real issue, its the level playing field that's missing and with 28 countries all at different stages of financial progress or otherwise the Euro will only succeed if its run on central fiscal lines, which means a Federal Europe - and this will fail, crumble and slowly disintegrate.

that it will fail is just your point of view...
The other one is, the EU is such a success story, that every other area in the world tries to imitate it

Currently the pounds sterling is low brought about by scare mongering words for the EU President among others, all of whom are posturing and posing trying to look strong

Sure... it's the foreigners fault
OR
That Britain voted for leave...

But that's just details you shouldn't care much for

- in reality as its election year coming up in France and Germany they are all looking after their own personal agendas.

You mean like Cameron, promising a referendum to win his election?

If the EU were to approach the coming talks with a fair amount of decency they are afraid they would look weak and other countries within the EU might try and either follow the UK lead or ask for favourable adjustments - and tip the playing field yet further.

correct... no extrawurst for Britain....
But that's something you should have known before Brexit

On the world stage it is not the fact that the EU is going to leave the EU that is the problem with world economies but rather the EU bitter stance at having their boat rocked that is unsettling world markets.

Please try again... i don't get it

So, rather than blandly say that just because the UK isn't top of the class therefore its going to leave shows little understanding of how those living in the UK feel about the EU and how it treats us - the naughty step again UK - or even how the EU treats others within its membership!

Britain not top of the class is juat one point...
The other one are the losers of globalization
And some racists

When we voted to join the common market all those years ago that precisely what we voted to join, since then erosion, collusion and creep have added to the power of Brussels and by default Germany. There are to many laws, to much red tape all supporting a corrupt for of European Government which seems to many to promote itself for its own self interest - which other well known body would pay to have an office build near the home of its MD because he often isn't well enough to travel to head office, and then provide light heat and rates as well as staff so this official can "work at home" as it were, and while not costing a great deal of the overall budget to the man in the UK street, if it were him he'd have to retie or go on sick leave, oh yes, JC Junker is a law unto himself and the Brussels elite.
Look at history as it has a habit of repeating itself, Syria, Palestine, Iran and Afghanistan while closer to home the Russian Bear is looking on and enjoying the disconnected nations of Europe quarrelling and Greece is a problem which no one will face up to because having been allowed in even though it didn't meet the criteria but added to the number states the EU will not admit to having made a mistake and ask/tell Greece to leave, and it should, its a problem which will roll on and on beneath the surface for years - possibly held there with good old German money!

a mixture of everything, without a clear statement... or missed I something?

 

[Jason]

a mixture of everything, without a clear statement... or missed I something?

I think you've missed the heart-felt sentiment.

People in the UK don't want to be part of the EU. It's not just the 52% who actually voted to leave but many of the reluctant remainers. We we were pushed into joining the EEC in the 1970s by a mix of pressure from our uninspiring politicians and UK economic problems, and have been reluctant about everything since. Had the UK voted on Lisbon the rejection would have been over-whelming. In hind-sight it is a great shame we didn't vote, as I suspect Lisbon would have been modified to create a two-speed Europe which might have been better for everyone.

A few intellectuals in the UK consider themselves European, perhaps @Drifterwood and @dandelion, representing business interests and the Corbynite faction. Most in the UK are not Europeans. And this is the key point. We are no more Europeans than we are Asians or Africans. We wish nations in these areas well, but they are not a part of our identity.

 

[chrisrobin]

I guess YOU don't know the correlation, but made your own reality...

Most of these refugees already been in Europe, as Germany has let them enter Germany. 20,000 been in Budapest and hundreds of thousands on the balkan rout.

But who cares for reality, as long as you can create your own reality, to proof your point

No one had to call them, they were coming by themself, because their homes were bombed
Again you should make a reality ckeck...
In the EU it's often Germany vs France, with Britain on Germany's side. The EU only acts when Germany and France have a compromise.

And not Germany, but Britain was pushing for a bigger EU. It was Britain who supported the EU east expansion... it couldn't be enough new members and it couldn't be fast enough. - funny, now it's Britain complaining about it that's how the world works...
You have 28 members, with 28 interests and you try to find a compromise that fits as many as possible.

Not everything can be perfectly designed for the UK... and even less can Britain dictatw what the other have to desite sure... all these refugees at Calais are only there because of Waterloo.

If France would try to pay back Waterloo, they would let them pass till they arrive at Dover. Then it would be Britain's problem.
Sure... THE WORLD
It was the USA who payd some mone. The main part was dor France, Britain and Italy... Germany got 10% of the money, not THAT much.
What did you learn in history lessons?

And we don't need Britain as an EU member, to remember these wars.
If so, we should let India enter the EU to remember British terror in India. Too bad it doesn't work like this that it will fail is just your point of view...
The other one is, the EU is such a success story, that every other area in the world tries to imitate it
Sure... it's the foreigners fault
OR
That Britain voted for leave...

But that's just details you shouldn't care much for
You mean like Cameron, promising a referendum to win his election? correct... no extrawurst for Britain....
But that's something you should have known before Brexit
Please try again... i don't get it Britain not top of the class is juat one point...
The other one are the losers of globalization
And some racists
a mixture of everything, without a clear statement... or missed I something?

Refugees, some are political and should be granted asylum but at the country of entry. Many of these so called refugees have lost, miss-laid or eaten their papers deliberately so checks on their stories are all but impossible. majority are coming just financial refugees - or in the case of Cologne a good time - see how many single men there are, how few families in comparison. And yet it took a few countries in the Balkans to get the picture and set up border controls to stop the flow. No you cant blame then for wanting a better life but you cannot in these troubled times let all and sundry into a country without checks - as Paris and Germany have found out to their cost. Much of the problems with Calais have been caused by the bleeding heart liberals who not only provided food shelter clothes and money, performances of Shakespeare (ha) and concerts while at the same time deploring the living conditions in the Jungle made by the inhabitants of the Jungle . But think again, without all this so called charity Calais wouldn't have ben the magnet it is - for the time being - without all these handouts in material things as well as advice on how to illegally cross the channel
The UK has just admitted some so called vulnerable children, up till 18 young men are still called children, and when checks were called on to prove age the bleeding hearts were up in arms saying it was not humane - and yet there is evidence from previous crossings of "young adults" suddenly when presented with papers being in their mid twenties.
There are parts of the EU when world history is whitewashed and twisted to suit the favourable memory of the time, countries did dreadful things to one another and still do, again history repeats and again the world stands by as ethnic cleansing goes on.
The one good thing about going it alone we won't have to listen to the wet eyed rhetoric of the Court of Human Rights, that on its own is good enough reason to leave the EU, we can become hopefully less PC and therefore more honest about things. If the EU were totally honest they might Germany had no right to woo Turkey by promising to look at possible entrance to the EU on the grounds of its human rights record which is totally deplorable, but, because of sucking up the EU will wait to be told what to do.
Politics is about compromise, in the EU comprise as a word doesn't exist - suddenly even Donald Tusk is giving out ultimatums without room for compromise.
Like it or not the EU is comprised of a lot of bad apples, bad ideas and petty ego's where it doesn't matter much whether what you say is legal, makes sense or had been agreed upon as long as you get you five minutes in the sun - ergo Nicola Sturgeon - but that's something else - who thinks she should be given preferential treatment because in her last referendum vote on independence the population got it all wrong and now they'll have to vote and vote till they get it right - a trick she picked up from the EU over Ireland

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion, Royal Prerogative is exercised for the UK, not for the separate nations, and is therefore a function of the UK government.

Apparently not. There are still separate kngdoms of Scotland and England, surely? The queen is also head of state for various other places which technically have nothing to do with the british government. Creating a separate parliament for Scotland has made a plain return of some sovereign powers to that nation. So just who exercises the royal prerrogative of the Scottish Queen as opposed to the English Queen?

the 1982 Requisitioning of Ships Order was royal authority without parliament.)

I doubt it.
If it was, then it relied upon statute law or precedent pre-dating the modern supremacy of parliament. Most likely it was exercising an authority exprssed in statute.

Treaties are not laws in the sense of the Bill of Rights.

But the european union act is.

 

[Jason]

The one good thing about going it alone we won't have to listen to the wet eyed rhetoric of the Court of Human Rights, that on its own is good enough reason to leave the EU, we can become hopefully less PC and therefore more honest about things.

Brexit is about leaving the EU, not the ECHR.

I don't think it would be possible to be a member of the EU and not also a member of the ECHR. However certainly after Brexit it would be possible for the UK to leave the ECHR.

The ECHR provides a clear example of the difference between a common law system (England) and a civil law system (the ECHR and almost everywhere else in Europe). The problem at the intersection of the two systems is that civil law intrudes. It is possible to have a civil law system subordinate to a common law system (the textbook example is the state of Louisiana in the USA, civil in common) but not the other way round. I'm inclined to feel that the UK must leave the ECHR because of this judicial dilemma - and I think leaving it would be very popular. The big question of course is what the UK should put in its place. The UN system may be the way forward. Ultimately a human rights breach would be examined by the International Criminal Court (of which the UK is already a member).