Quick breakdown on Brexit since my last post.

32176717770_2cc8a1438f_bSo the last time I posted was in November 2016, how poor is that?

This is what has happened since my last post ‘Brexit high court ruling’

Nov 2016 – The Government appeal the high court ruling to have a vote in Parliament on Article 50.

Jan 2016 – The Government loses appeal in the Supreme Court; article 50 will be debated and voted on in Parliament.

Feb 2017 – The Commons votes on Article 50.  A total of 498 MPs back the government on triggering Article 50, while 114 vote against it and 38 abstain.

Mar 2017 – The Article 50 bill is defeated in the House of Lords.  The Lords wanted the rights of EU citizens living in the UK to be guaranteed.

Mar 2017 – Article 50 clears Parliament.

Mar 2017 – Article 50 (Notification of Withdrawal) is given Royal Accent.  Theresa May now has the legal authority to invoke Article 50.

13 Mar 2017 – Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland) announces she will hold a second  Scottish independence vote.

22 Mar 2017 – Parliament is attacked. Five people are killed, including police officer Keith Palmer.

29 Mar 2017 – Article 50 is triggered.

Apr 2017 – Tension is sparked over the EU’s decision to give Spain a veto over any decision about Gibraltar.

And that sums up what has happened so far

Thank you for reading.






Brexit High Court Ruling – Parliament must vote on whether Article 50 should be invoked.


When this story broke I held my head in my hands and thought “Wow, what does this all mean now?”  I just want this whole thing over and done with and the UK to get on with it.

There are no winners in this scenario.

The 51.9% of people who voted to leave the EU will feel frustrated, some will possibly end up voting for UKIP in protest if there is an early election.  MPs who were remainers but whose constituents voted to leave will have hard decisions to make, although I have heard news commentators state that MPs must vote in the interest of what is best for their constituents, even if it goes against what they have actually voted for.

Remainers have grasped for a bit of hope that I’m not sure will end up benefitting the country in anyway.

There may be an increase in racial attacks as people resort to blaming foreigners for not having what they voted for.

If the UK remains in the EU, aren’t we just going to be a joke with no power or influence?  Who will listen to us when we are so divided.

The government is going to appeal the decision.  However all this means is more delays in invoking Article 50.  When I heard skeptics saying Article 50 will never be invoked, I thought they were being too skeptical, now I really fear this may be true.  More delays = more uncertainty = more economic uncertainty.

Would all of this have happened if the referendum result was to remain.  Gina Miller claims that it was about process not politics.  How is this true?  It is all about politics.  What was her intention if not to derail the triggering of Article 50.  She also said this was about all our futures, or does she mean it’s about the future of her investment business.

If Parliament vote to trigger Article 50, will this be the end of this?  I don’t think so.

One thing is certain though; there will be more head in my hands moments to come.  Oh dear.

Tony Blair says we should keep our Brexit options open

Tony  Blair has emerged this week asking the people of Britain to keep our options open.  His view being that even though we have voted for Brexit, we have not voted for what type of Brexit we want.msc_2014_blair_mueller_msc2014

Is Tony Blair calling for either a 2nd referendum once the outcome of negotiations are known.  It is quite obvious that he is choosing his words carefully, as not to offend the 52% who voted for Brexit.  However, he is still offering hope to the 48% of the UK population who voted to remain.  Is this a good idea?  Shouldn’t we just be getting on with negotiating the best deal rather than perpetuating the idea that if a bad deal is negotiated we will have no choice but to remain in the EU?

Lloyds Bank blames Brexit for plans to cut 3000 jobs and close 200 branches


Lloyds bank has announced that there will be an additional 3000 job cuts alongside the current plans to axe 9000 jobs over the next three years.  The banking group sites the concern over negative interest rates as a result of Brexit for the need to make the extra cuts.

I am somewhat sceptical about whether this is the real reason for Lloyds announcing these job cuts.  My question is that if Lloyds needs to cut the jobs due to the likelihood of negative interest rates, shouldn’t all other banks be announcing similar job cuts and bank closures?  Shouldn’t Lloyds have had contingency plans in place to weather the storm in the case of negative interest rates, even if it does mean a cut in profits?  Negative interest rates could have been on the way without a Brexit some commentators have suggested.

Michel Barnier appointed Brexit negotiator for the EU


Michel Barnier is appointed Brussels’ chief negotiator for the UK’s exit talks with the EU.

There is concern that Michel Barnier is no friend of the UK and there is speculation that he blames the UK for losing his job as EU commissioner for internal markets and services.

Has Jean-Claude Junker, President of the European Commission, deliberately employed Michel Barnier to ruffle Britain’s feathers?  Or does he believe that Michel Barnier will be the best person to negotiate a good deal for the EU?

First legal challenge to Brexit

Legal Claims Software


The high court will hear a legal challenge to the EU referendum outcome in October.  To my understanding, the premise of the legal challenge is that the referendum was never legally binding, only advisory.  The claim is that in order for the government to trigger Article 50 a vote would need to take place in Parliament.  Some commentators have expressed the view that the premise is precarious at best as the Prime Minister Theresa May can use historic Royal Prerogative powers to start the process of withdrawing from the EU without the need to consult Parliament.  Others have also pointed out that the leaflet that the government spent £9 million on stated that the outcome of the referendum would be acted upon.

It is expected that the case will be appealed either way and one thing is for sure, it will be at the tax payers expense.

Brexit brings about biggest Asian investment into the UK.

The allure of investing into the UK has not dampened it seems.  Softbank, a Japanese telecommunications group, have agreed a price of £24bn to acquire ARM holdings, a technology company who develops computer chips for iPhone.

The fall in sterling and rise in the yen could be the reason the technology firm has decided to invest in the UK.  Are the Japanese seeing an opportunity that others are missing?  Or could it be the fact that technology is somewhat insulated from some of the doom predicted from brexit compared to other business industries?