The EU debate - Part II

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
petersaxton said:
I don't know. It depends how many MPs realise that the referendum was a vote of the people and then more relevant than a vote of MPs.
Click to expand...
Those whose constituency voted to leave with vote for Brexit, sheep will follow the whip and many others have already made clear that they will respect the referendums decision, my own MP included.

The chances of anything other than a vote for Brexit is as close to zero as makes no odds.
 
The RDBD said:
I doubt there are enough MPs who would vote against to overturn the result.
However the number who would vote against does matter, in that it would
again show the degree of disconnect between Parliament and the electorate.
Click to expand...
The referendum was a vox pox poll at a given point in time.

If there was a vote in the Commons it'd be for each and every MP to vote the way that their constituents were telling them in the present. It'd be their responsibility to reflect the consensus in the present, not the past.
 
steveninaster1 said:
Or reflect the proportion of electorate that voted for/against.
In which case how would it show a disconnect?
Click to expand...

If you are an MP that wishes to vote remain if allowed to so in Parliament,
but the electorate in your constituency voted emphatically to leave
(or vice-versa) , then there is a disconnect between your intent and those
you represent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petersaxton
Tobes said:
The referendum was a vox pox poll at a given point in time.

If there was a vote in the Commons it'd be for each and every MP to vote the way that their constituents were telling them in the present. It'd be their responsibility to reflect the consensus in the present, not the past.
Click to expand...

Sure.
And if the current consensus is contrary to their position, to vote according
to the will of the electorate (not differently, not abstain etc) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Saxton
The RDBD said:
If the exchange rates are the same, then so are the import costs.
Exchange rates remaining constant does not equal exchange rates weakening.
Click to expand...
Exactly the only way a company has benefited in terms of foreign raw material costs is if the pound has strengthened against that currency.
Does not matter if the currency you are comparing to is strong or weak, what matters is whether it strengthens or weakens in relation to the pound.
 
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. May has already said that she intends to invoke article 50 without a vote. That, as discussed before, is very liable to be challenged in the courts.

Depending on the outcome of any legal challenge, the Gvt will have to decide how it intends to proceed from there.

Again, depending on the amount of time it may take for this to drag on in various legal challenges, attitudes may have changed.

We wont really know anymore if and until May tries to act, and if the promised legal challenges then appear.
 
The RDBD said:
I don't think Lightning Stan wants to deal with anyone who can demolish
his comments with near-zero effort and no offensive language.
He could of course try to deflect from that with some attempted "banter" .
Click to expand...
Top windmilling. Stan inspires many in lots of different ways.

Nice avatar by the way. Happy felching.
 
steveninaster1 said:
Exactly the only way a company has benefited in terms of foreign raw material costs is if the pound has strengthened against that currency.
Does not matter if the currency you are comparing to is strong or weak, what matters is whether it strengthens or weakens in relation to the pound.
Click to expand...

The flawed comment was that only UK companies that have a domestic market
are not bothered by the Leave result. I easily showed that a company that does
export can similarly go meh, if their "raw material" costs are domestic, or from
importing said materials from nations whose exchange rates have not benefited
from the currency market antics post referendum.

That is all.
 
steveninaster1 said:
Exactly the only way a company has benefited in terms of foreign raw material costs is if the pound has strengthened against that currency.
Does not matter if the currency you are comparing to is strong or weak, what matters is whether it strengthens or weakens in relation to the pound.
Click to expand...

It's fairly simple. If the exchange rate of your currency has fallen against those of your main trading partners, and more importantly, against the main international trading currency, the US$, then your imports will be more expensive as you have to pay more of your own currency to buy the goods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
The RDBD said:
The flawed comment was that only UK companies that have a domestic market
are not bothered by the Leave result. I easily showed that a company that does
export can similarly go meh, if their "raw material" costs are domestic, or from
importing said materials from nations whose exchange rates have not benefited
from the currency market antics post referendum.

That is all.
Click to expand...
<laugh>

You're a Mini-Me!
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. May has already said that she intends to invoke article 50 without a vote. That, as discussed before, is very liable to be challenged in the courts.

Depending on the outcome of any legal challenge, the Gvt will have to decide how it intends to proceed from there.

Again, depending on the amount of time it may take for this to drag on in various legal challenges, attitudes may have changed.

We wont really know anymore if and until May tries to act, and if the promised legal challenges then appear.
Click to expand...
The apparent decision to not have a vote and instead try and use the Royal prerogative is odd in the extreme. As the vote would almost certainly be carried anyway.

Surely they know that this will see the process slowed by an obvious legal challenge, that could prove to be protracted.

A sceptic might think this was a tactic to slow the process down....
 
  • Like
Reactions: steveninaster1 and NSIS
The RDBD said:
The flawed comment was that only UK companies that have a domestic market
are not bothered by the Leave result. I easily showed that a company that does
export can similarly go meh, if their "raw material" costs are domestic, or from
importing said materials from nations whose exchange rates have not benefited
from the currency market antics post referendum.

That is all.
Click to expand...
I know,
So which nations are we talking about?
So do you think increased fuel transport costs will impact domestic prices?
 
Tobes said:
The apparent decision to not have a vote and instead try and use the Royal prerogative is odd in the extreme. As the vote would almost certainly be carried anyway.

Surely they know that this will see the process slowed by an obvious legal challenge, that could prove to be protracted.

A sceptic might think this was a tactic to slow the process down....
Click to expand...

Good point, Tobes. A cynic might think so...<whistle>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back