The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[apelike 10]

5 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

That is all just your interpretation. Nearly all of it biased and wrong.

 

Not biased at all and backed up by reality based on facts unlike what is stated in that link.

 

Quote

The implementation is purely political. The referendum wasn’t binding. It was a political sense of having an obligation to implement the result that led to acts of Parliament being passed.

What you call a political sense of having an obligation is in fact called democracy as parliament as our representatives voted to pass acts to allow the UK to leave. It does not matter now at this stage that it was not binding as we have moved on since and those acts have been passed.

 

Although the results of referendums may not be binding, according to the Lords:

 

House of Lords Library Briefing I Referendums and Parliamentary Democracy

"Parliamentary sovereignty, and the associated principle that no
Parliament can bind a successor, makes the concept of a legally binding
referendum impossible in theory. However, it is clear that, in reality,
referendums are seen by the public as conferring an obligation on
parliamentarians to deliver the result."

 

And like it or not that is exactly what parliament did! If parliament now wish to change its mind after all that then they have the power to do so.

 

Quote

 

The Leave campaign wrong-doing has had to be proven to a criminal burden of proof. That is how the process works. Look it up.

 

And what was that wrong-doing?

 

Quote

Sorry, but you don’t seem to understand any of this.

 Yes I do, its you who are anti brexit and spinning it just as that whole article does.

Edited February 18, 2019 by apelike

[phil752 10]

On 16/02/2019 at 19:34, I1L2T3 said:

Today’s pro-Brexit march in Manchester: 12 people turned up.

 

Twelve!!!

 

😆

why would they have to?

[I1L2T3 10]

5 hours ago, phil752 said:

why would they have to?

Because they’re not getting a hard Brexit

[I1L2T3 10]

6 hours ago, apelike said:

 

Not biased at all and backed up by reality based on facts unlike what is stated in that link.

 

What you call a political sense of having an obligation is in fact called democracy as parliament as our representatives voted to pass acts to allow the UK to leave. It does not matter now at this stage that it was not binding as we have moved on since and those acts have been passed.

 

Although the results of referendums may not be binding, according to the Lords:

 

House of Lords Library Briefing I Referendums and Parliamentary Democracy

"Parliamentary sovereignty, and the associated principle that no
Parliament can bind a successor, makes the concept of a legally binding
referendum impossible in theory. However, it is clear that, in reality,
referendums are seen by the public as conferring an obligation on
parliamentarians to deliver the result."

 

And like it or not that is exactly what parliament did! If parliament now wish to change its mind after all that then they have the power to do so.

 

 

And what was that wrong-doing?

 

 Yes I do, its you who are anti brexit and spinning it just as that whole article does.

You’re still missing the point. I think.

 

The referendum was never legally binding. It was considered to be morally and politically binding.

 

The subsequent implementation has taken place against a backdrop of a proven burden of criminality by the leave campaigns on multiple counts. Investigations are still continuing. This is beyond dispute. It’s fact.

 

One point that the article makes is that technically the referendum is not valid because a fully legal referendum hasn’t yet taken place. It’s most likely correct and is interesting but in practical terms not much use.

 

What is of use is the fact that Parliament is sovereign(not the government), and could take back control from May and revoke A50 without her being able to stop it happening. All it takes to initiate the process is a private members bill at the right time. From a single MP.

 

The article explains most of this very well. I’m not surprised you find it uncomforting.

Edited February 18, 2019 by I1L2T3

[L00b 441]

9 hours ago, Magilla said:

This latest "escapade" can't be helping, seems their movement got hijacked.

 

Looks like the French have sussed 'em:

https://www.politico.eu/article/most-french-want-yellow-jackets-movement-to-stop-poll/

Their movement has been getting hijacked left and right for weeks, the average French (and Begian, yellow jackets started there first) has had just about enough of them. I've been telling ye all for days. I live by the place, travel in twice-weekly on average, and take my news as much from French media as from the UK, Luxbg and Germany. I would have an at least semi-informed opinion, as would Longcol 

8 hours ago, mafya said:

People who buy Porsche’s won’t be put off buying one over a 10% extra charge anyway  and if they are then they shouldn’t be buying a Porsche in the first place. 😊

Every EU-made car would attract a 10 to 11% tariff in the UK post-no deal Brexit, because WTO.

 

Unless car manufacturers like Nissan (Sunderland), BMW-Mini (Oxford), PSA (Vauxhall) etc. scale down & repurpose their UK plants for servicing the UK and Irish markets, that would shortly be all new cars on UK forecourts. Expect a boon in the used car market, likewise in garages for maintaining cars beyond current average ownership/mileage statistics.

 

That wasn't the plan, still isn't, but a business case might well arise wherein it's worth my while re-reg'ing my Merc on UK plates, and bringing it back to sell it on 

[melthebell 862]

9 hours ago, phil752 said:

gosh if buying a Porsche being a remoner or brexitee, we are all lost

But it's what we've been saying for over two years, "project fear" poo poo it all you like, but it's coming closer to coming true. And it's not just Porsche that it'll happen to. Why anybody would vote willingly to make themselves poorer is beyond me, especially the poorer in society. We all know why the likes of mogg, bojo and farage do, they will make lots of cash, the rest of us....well....

Edited February 18, 2019 by melthebell

[L00b 441]

10 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You don't live in the real world, do you?

 

Very few Porsches are bought for cash by millionaires. The majority are bought on finance by blokes who have always wanted one. A 10% extra charge will put about 8K on the price and will make the difference between bying it now, buying it in two years time or not buying it at all!

By and large, (new) Porsches are leased through companies (real or shell), the balance of cars (particularly the more exotic and rarer varieties) bought cash. More wealth- and tax-efficient, than outright personal purchases.

 

Same story for the higher end of German luxury brands (Audi A8s, Q7s, S & RS variants; Merc S, G classes and AMG variants).

 

A 10% tariff-caused price hike would be lost in the noise: people who 'buy' these cars don't the sort of pre-purchase price-per-mile and depreciation mathematics, which a 10% windscreen hike would influence.

 

It's not a purchase constrained by rationality and/or affordability. 

 

And anyway, employers wouldn't have too much trouble finding extra dosh down the back of the 'updated' working conditions sofa .

Edited February 18, 2019 by L00b

[I1L2T3 10]

2 minutes ago, L00b said:

By and large, (new) Porsches are leased through companies, the balance bought cash (in either case with trade ins). More wealth- and tax-efficient, than outright personal purchases.

 

Same story for the higher end of German luxury brands (Audi A8s, Q7s, S & RS variants; Merc S, G classes and AMG variants).

 

A 10% tariff-caused price hike would be lost in the noise: people who 'buy' these cars don't the sort of pre-purchase price-per-mile mathematics, which a 10% windscreen hike would affect.

 

It's not a purchase constrained by rationality and/or affordability. 

Some of our clients are in finance and sounds like they have plans for tariff hikes on all types of cars if no deal happens. Expect a heavy shift towards leasing for all types of vehicles, not just high end cars. The finance market has been shifting that way anyway.

[L00b 441]

41 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Some of our clients are in finance and sounds like they have plans for tariff hikes on all types of cars if no deal happens. Expect a heavy shift towards leasing for all types of vehicles, not just high end cars. The finance market has been shifting that way anyway.

The whole market has shifted that way, never mind finance (which underpins that shift), with PCP deals (which are leases rather than HP) pretty much the norm for new cars in the UK nowadays.

 

I vaguely remember a stat that I read a while ago, that some 90% of new cars were now sold through PCP deals in the UK?

 

That's a bubble which is going to create a whole host of negative after-effects at the micro-economic scale, when the next crisis hits: many people don't have any equity in their cars anymore, it's been grabbed and locked by manufacturers (' financial arm) in the cars' "future resale value"...so long as the market doesn't implode under their feet.

 

They don't have the option of keeping their car, if they can't afford the balloon payment at term, and they don't have any cash to show for the duration of their ownership: they restart from scratch.

Edited February 18, 2019 by L00b

[El Cid 212]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

But it's what we've been saying for over two years, "project fear" poo poo it all you like, but it's coming closer to coming true. And it's not just Porsche that it'll happen to. Why anybody would vote willingly to make themselves poorer is beyond me, especially the poorer in society. We all know why the likes of mogg, bojo and farage do, they will make lots of cash, the rest of us....well....

I don't think Porsche car buyers will have to pay the 10%, but the news about it may put people off buying, car and van sales are at there lowest for 10 years, that is the problem.

Other products will also be suffering from the same downturn. There will be a stock market crash this year, a crash is over-due and the negative conditions are coming to create a lack of confidence.

[Bargepole23 337]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

The whole market has shifted that way, never mind finance (which underpins that shift), with PCP deals (which are leases rather than HP) pretty much the norm for new cars in the UK nowadays.

 

I vaguely remember a stat that I read a while ago, that some 90% of new cars were now sold through PCP deals in the UK?

 

That's a bubble which is going to create a whole host of negative after-effects at the micro-economic scale, when the next crisis hits: many people don't have any equity in their cars anymore, it's been grabbed and locked by manufacturers (' financial arm) in the cars' "future resale value"...so long as the market doesn't implode under their feet.

 

They don't have the option of keeping their car, if they can't afford the balloon payment at term, and they don't have any cash to show for the duration of their ownership: they restart from scratch.

So many new cars on the roads now. Personally, I have little or no interest in cars, other than they be reliable and clean, but I can see why others do.

 

The number of older cars, say 7-10 years old seems to have dropped, and there do seem to be lots of higher end cars, Range Rovers and the like. I can afford one, but I don't one. 

 

I always think that the vast majority must be financed in some way, because to go out and drop the best part of 60-70K on a car requires a lot of disposable income/savings...or pension pot drawdown.

 

Anyway, all a bit OT, so back to it.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Bargepole23

[apelike 10]

4 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

You’re still missing the point. I think.

 

The referendum was never legally binding. It was considered to be morally and politically binding.

Already accepted as such but the point you are missing is that it was passed into law thus making it binding no matter how you spin it.

 

Quote

The subsequent implementation has taken place against a backdrop of a proven burden of criminality by the leave campaigns on multiple counts. Investigations are still continuing. This is beyond dispute. It’s fact.

A fact I am not disputing! But, is election spending over the limit enough to void a referendum alone despite it being a criminal act? If there was major fraud in leave voter numbers then I would agree that would tip the balance.

 

Quote

One point that the article makes is that technically the referendum is not valid because a fully legal referendum hasn’t yet taken place. It’s most likely correct and is interesting but in practical terms not much use.

It is not a technical referendum but a real democratic one as there is no such thing as a fully legal referendum. It went through all the parliamentary processes to set up and as parliament are supreme it means that it was a proper referendum and perfectly valid despite remainers stating otherwise.

 

4 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

What is of use is the fact that Parliament is sovereign(not the government), and could take back control from May and revoke A50 without her being able to stop it happening. All it takes to initiate the process is a private members bill at the right time. From a single MP.

 

Providing no one objects!

 

Quote

The article explains most of this very well. I’m not surprised you find it uncomforting.

 But I don't find it uncomforting only one very anti brexit persons spin on the whole mess.

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by apelike