Sterling prices.

[Tim Streater]

You've still got your obsession with flouncing I see, Dave.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Do you think he is a secret poodle?

[jjjuu78]

Or it can do what the more sensible do in a divorce, just accept the fact that it isnt working, agree to disagree and have a pissup leaving celebration just like many do when they change to a better job.

Can't see the EU being too keen on coming to a leaving pissup, but that is their problem.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

There is already a 'pre-nuptial agreement' in force. If the UK wants to leave the EU, it takes approx 2 years to finalise things. A treaty the UK willingly signed. But that hasn't stopped some of the BREXIT lot saying we should welsh on that treaty. In other words, pull up the drawbridge.

The problem comes if we actually want to negotiate a trade agreement after leaving. Which only total idiots think wouldn't be a good idea.

[jjjuu78]

That utterly mangles the real story. The 2 year thing just spells out what happens if no agreement is reached in that time, not that there has to be any negotiation at all, let alone any question of being allowed to leave.

Nothing to do with any drawbridge, in fact no restriction at all on who Britain trades with.

No point really since the EU is going to make it a condition of any agreement that Britain continues to allow the free movement of people from the EU and continues to pay the EU what it currently pays. There is no point in leaving the EU to end up with exactly the same thing as Britain has now.

And they are certain to do that to discourage others from leaving.

Same way they wouldn?t let Switzerland do anything about restricting immigration to Switzerland.

Even sillier than you usually manage given that it would be no different to what Britain has now.

The only viable approach is to make an obscene gesture in the general direction of the EU if Britain doesn?t like free movement of any EU citizen who wants to move to Britain and be more selective about what EU citizens are allowed to do that, say have the same deal as there is with commonwealth citizens, only those that Britain wants are allowed to move.

[Tim Streater]

What has "willingly signed" go to do with anything.

1) Welch, not welsh 2) And in what way does invoking a clause in a treaty we "willingly signed" constitute welching ?

[Tim Streater]

Which puts the Swiss govt in a bit of a bind as the people have ordered it to effect those changes. So the Swiss may have to tear up their agreement with the EU in its entirety if the EU won't renegotiate it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Optionally and more commonly, but not solely. Welch is the archaic spelling of welsh.

What he means is what I was saying. WE don't have to invoke an article in a treaty we signed if the signing was 'ultra vires' of UK law.

And there is pretty clear-cut evidence that it was, and that in fact no government has had the power to sign away our sovereignty, under our constitution.

Ultra vires is a very important term in UK law. If something is ultra vires, you don't accept the new status quo and get damages, you act as though the initial act had never happened.

If you breach a contract, you get sued for damages.

If signing the contract was ultra vires, the judge will look at the case

*as if it never had been signed* and attempt to put things back to where they were before.

If the original 1972 act was ultra vires, then we never were members of the EEC/EU. And we have full sovereign authority to repeal it, and any other legislation we please.

The EU can sue Harold Wilson and Ted Heath if they like.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed. And the Swiss all have rifles in their homes don't they?

And that's not the only country getting peeved by the EUs utter incompetence.

[jjjuu78]

It's more complicated than that with Swiss referendums.

Yes, that is obviously one option. But it is far from clear that a referendum that asks if that is what should happen would succeed or not.

The Swiss can be quite sensible at times, like when they decided at a referendum with an overwhelming majority that they think it makes no sense to pay everyone a great slab of money regardless of whether they need it or not.

[Huge]

[21 lines snipped]

Even though they're wrong.

[Big Les Wade]

Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of lying propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first quarter, according to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers waiting to see the outcome of the June 23 referendum in case an exit vote hurts property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial property transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is that true? Could something else have caused it? Were there, for example, any taxation changes in that first quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17 FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor announced in today's Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being amended, with the top rate increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of the price that exceeds £250,000. The increase in rates on purchase price and lease premiums to 5% will catch virtually all investment acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial property deals was caused by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the referendum?

[michael adams]

Surely if charges are being *increased* in March, and taxation policy is a factor governing the number of transactions, then there should be an *increase* in the number of first quarter transactions which would include those up to March 16 so as to avoid the increase. Not a fall.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Or now, having actually read the post

They could only have reacted after March 16th, with only 15 days left of the first quarter.

The first quarter is 91 days. 15 days is 16% of this. So that even if absolutely no transactions were filed in the 15 days following the announcement, then all other things being equal this would only amount to a

16% decrease in transactions as compared with the Ist quarter of 2015. Which stil leaves the other 24% to be accounted for,

michael adams

...

[Big Les Wade]

michael adams posted

You're assuming that by first quarter they mean Q1 of the calendar year, i.e. Jan-Mar. Does it really seem likely that a referendum that won't happen for another three to six months would cause the rate of commercial transactions to fall? Especially as the referendum date wasn't even announced until late in February.

ISTM more likely that they're referring to Q1 of the UK financial year, i.e. Apr-Jun.

Either way, the article's linking of the fall in transaction volume to the referendum is pure speculation.

[michael adams]

Not according to the second chart, 1B on here. However after "seasonal adjustment" there's no fall at all.

Actual sales fell through the floor in Jan and Feb and recovered to peak around March 16th only to fall back again.

40% is a big number no matter how you look at it.

michael adams

...