No one seems capable of stepping forward and offering reassurance. The Leavers, who disagreed on what Brexit should look like, do not think it is their responsibility to set out a path. They reckon that falls to Number 10 (where they have appeared in public, it has mostly been to discard the very pledges on which they won the referendum). Number 10, however, seems to have done little planning for this eventuality. It seems transfixed by the unfolding chaos; reluctant to formulate answers to the Brexiteers’ unanswered questions.
The fifth [leave] group is those who like and benefit from both cultural and economic globalisation – but not as much as they would like. They want more of both … People with these kinds of views voted Leave. Some of them ran the campaign. This is – in varying degrees – the political and economic theory of Dominic Cummings (who ran Vote Leave), Michael Gove and Steve Hilton (Cameron’s former advisor). There is an argument out there that Leave didn’t really want to win. Don’t believe it. These men wanted to win.
Ratings agency Standard & Poor's strips the UK of top AAA credit rating following vote to leave the EU pic.twitter.com/XRNbcnCpbZ
— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 27, 2016
Ratings agency Fitch downgrades UK's credit rating to AA negative, following similar move by S&P, after Brexit vote. https://t.co/RzsnrdbgFa
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 27, 2016
But some notes were significantly more gloomy. John Llewellyn, founder of Llewellyn consulting and a former chief economist of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, said the UK was heading into recession at a time when its economy was not fixed and the BoE appeared to be the only functioning authority.
– Osborne’s calming words undermined by economists by Chris Giles and Emily Cadman at the FT
TIN HAT TIME John Llewellyn, former OECD chief economist, and one of the least alarmist people I know pic.twitter.com/uTvyjU09ND
— Chris Giles (@ChrisGiles_) June 27, 2016
Our membership of the European Union has conferred a host of legal rights on British citizens, some through incorporating statutes, some granted directly in domestic law. Applying the common law principle found in The Case of Proclamations and Fire Brigades Union, the Government cannot remove or nullify these rights without parliamentary approval. Its prerogative power cannot be used to overturn statutory rights. Statute beats prerogative.
Many of the comments on the above mention this seems like an exercise in wishful thinking, including:
Sorry to disagree, but I think this is an exercise in wishful thinking. I don’t think you can reduce the principle of the dualism of domestic and international law to a mere technicality, and I think you are making too much of Fire Brigades Union, which not only involves very different facts, but a wholly different policy area, where there are no strong issues of justiciability.
– by Aileen McHarg
Very interesting, but will not bear up to serious scrutiny. Also, just pause and think about the politics – London based lawyers go to Judges to thwart the will of the people. An interesting academic exercise, but pursuing this line of attack would not be well advised. If there is an ‘answer’ to Brexit it will have to be a political one, following a general election.
– by Joe Barrett
perhaps, there is the language we use. Who cares about “the economy”, “growth”, “trade”, if we can’t translate them directly into “incomes”, “jobs”, “living standards”. We must start speaking more plainly. And we must also link these things to real people, to the poor, to those in the middle, to parents, to families, to workers and to pensioners.
Britain is now a source of global instability, economic turmoil, and political uncertainty. This may not last more than a few years, but London’s reputation is damaged forever. When UN Security Council reform belatedly arrives, it is unlikely that Little England will keep the permanent seat that has been reserved for Great Britain over the last seven decades.
The referendum was a vote against something but it wasn’t a vote for anything. It tells us nothing about the new relationship people want with Europe. The Brexiteers never told us what they collectively stood for.
The point is that neither Trump nor the Brexit leaders have ever believed for one moment that any of these promises are real.
Politics however is just exploiting an information ecosystem designed for the dissemination of material which gives us feelings rather than information.