Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sir Tigger KC on 24 July 2018, 22:02:45
-
Two weeks into his new job as BREXIT Secretary Dominic Raab has been sidelined, as the PM announces that she is taking control of the BREXIT negotiations and the Cabinet Office's Europe Unit headed by the now infamous Olly Robbins will take overall responsibility for the talks. ::)
My betting is that she didn't like Raabs declaration over the weekend that there would be no divorce payment to the EU if they didn't deliver with a free trade deal. I also think that she will soften her stance even further and give more concessions to the EU which will keep us in the EU in all but name (or BRINO), gambling that Tory MP's won't bring her down and force a General Election. :P
-
This is what TM said when the Dept. was set up
“I will create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work. That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State – and I will make sure that the position is taken by a Member of Parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.”
How times change.
-
SURELY Boris could do a better job?
Ron.
-
SURELY Boris could do a better job?
That's never happened before.
And it never will.
-
I have no idea how all of this will end and I have given up trying to guess. TM is obviously after her place in history, but I think she is on a hiding to nothing.
-
Anyone would think we are a third world country shitting ourselves in case our betters don’t like what we suggest. Fk um I say, time to play hardball that’s the way it will end anyway. Why the hell dont everybody on all parties cons,libs, labs, get together and sort it out I mean that is really why MP s are there, we pay the fuc/ers after all.
-
The woman is a useless and disgraceful waste of skin. The Tories should grow a pair and knife her mercilessly, then replace her with almost anyone. Cant imagine any of them doing a worse job.
-
They are also bringing out another White Paper, parts of which amends the recently passed EU Withdrawal Bill, so that crucial clauses of the European Communities Act are not repealed. Meaning that EU law will remain supreme until December 2020 and the ECJ retains jurisdiction. ::)
I guess it gives a legal basis to the so called implementation/transition period, but it's a bit troubling that they're already weakening the legislation that takes us out of the EU. :-X
Brexit means Brexit right? :P
-
I am not going to start suggesting anything one way or another on Brexit, as the numerous interuprations of the "correct" policy is almost in the number of every adult in the land. Everyone has something to say on it.
That then is the problem; we live in a democracy that with a Brexit vote split 48/52 over those who voted, with complicated patterns over age groups, political persuasion, and class. The PM has the hardest job in the world to balance all this, giving rightful recognition to the result, the needs of the country and telling Europe what we want that has the support of the majority of MP's, her own and those of other parties, that will be political acceptable to all parties, especially to us, the people.
Now if we did not have a democracy the situation would be much easier. The Leader would tell everyone what they must accept, and shoot those who disagree. Easy!
So, anyone who thinks PM May has an easy life, and should just "sort it out", is simply naive. Anyone who had been handed the poisoned chalice of Brexit, would suffer the same torturous road of trying to bang heads together and getting a consensus of positive opinion to travel to Brussels with. On the pitence we pay our politicians, even the PM, we are lucky we do not get the likes of certain directors of major corporations who are paid millions more and still well and truly fxck up!
-
They are also bringing out another White Paper, parts of which amends the recently passed EU Withdrawal Bill, so that crucial clauses of the European Communities Act are not repealed. Meaning that EU law will remain supreme until December 2020 and the ECJ retains jurisdiction. ::)
I guess it gives a legal basis to the so called implementation/transition period, but it's a bit troubling that they're already weakening the legislation that takes us out of the EU. :-X
Brexit means Brexit right? :P
Not Brexit.
-
She wasn't handed the poison chalice, she volunteered herself for it and campaigned against anyone else who wanted it.
Her approach to Brexit now, flies in the face of her speech on the subject last year.
She has given the job of sorting the whole thing out to Oliver Robbins, her hand picked closest adviser, and arch Europhile.
As I said earlier, a useless waste of skin.
-
While we are subject and continue incorporating the EU rules to keep single market compatibility, May-Robbins weasel words 'common rules', which is the EU rule book or 'acquis communautaire' all the laws, rules and regulations that define the EU, there is no Brexit, there are no red lines as the EU can erase these as and when they wish as single market rules like insisting on the complete free movement of people, common tax rates, trading only with an adopted common currency, transparent borders for people as well as goods, payable fees for us benefitting from 'frictionless trade', ECJ supremacy and anything else they decide, and the EU are masters at extending regulation especially into new areas. >:( >:( >:(
We will become as always planned a vassal province of the EU dictatorship on even worse terms than now as we will have no representation or say on any new laws, rules or regulations. The EU 'acquis communautaire' is their army of occupation. >:( >:( >:(
There will be NO FTAs with countries outside of the EU as they will all insist on reciprocal standards which is incompatible with our EU straight jacket on goods and agricultural products. So no big gains from ROW trading, cheaper food etc. >:( >:( >:(
The May-Robbins EU pact will be to the UK the biggest sell out to foreign interests and countries this country has suffered since Traitor Heath took us into the EEC and any Europe country since the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop was to Poland. >:( >:( >:(
-
I feel it might be a good time to drop this in here for those who haven't seen it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkvEp_B5Kq8
The first time I saw this, I was crying with laughter, in the middle of a pub :y
-
Very good. ;D
-
While we are subject and continue incorporating the EU rules to keep single market compatibility, May-Robbins weasel words 'common rules', which is the EU rule book or 'acquis communautaire' all the laws, rules and regulations that define the EU, there is no Brexit, there are no red lines as the EU can erase these as and when they wish as single market rules like insisting on the complete free movement of people, common tax rates, trading only with an adopted common currency, transparent borders for people as well as goods, payable fees for us benefitting from 'frictionless trade', ECJ supremacy and anything else they decide, and the EU are masters at extending regulation especially into new areas. >:( >:( >:(
We will become as always planned a vassal province of the EU dictatorship on even worse terms than now as we will have no representation or say on any new laws, rules or regulations. The EU 'acquis communautaire' is their army of occupation. >:( >:( >:(
There will be NO FTAs with countries outside of the EU as they will all insist on reciprocal standards which is incompatible with our EU straight jacket on goods and agricultural products. So no big gains from ROW trading, cheaper food etc. >:( >:( >:(
The May-Robbins EU pact will be to the UK the biggest sell out to foreign interests and countries this country has suffered since Traitor Heath took us into the EEC and any Europe country since the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop was to Poland. >:( >:( >:(
[/highlight]
I could be mistake but you seem to be suggesting that Brexit isn't going to plan, Mr Rods. ::) ::) ::) :)
-
While we are subject and continue incorporating the EU rules to keep single market compatibility, May-Robbins weasel words 'common rules', which is the EU rule book or 'acquis communautaire' all the laws, rules and regulations that define the EU, there is no Brexit, there are no red lines as the EU can erase these as and when they wish as single market rules like insisting on the complete free movement of people, common tax rates, trading only with an adopted common currency, transparent borders for people as well as goods, payable fees for us benefitting from 'frictionless trade', ECJ supremacy and anything else they decide, and the EU are masters at extending regulation especially into new areas. >:( >:( >:(
We will become as always planned a vassal province of the EU dictatorship on even worse terms than now as we will have no representation or say on any new laws, rules or regulations. The EU 'acquis communautaire' is their army of occupation. >:( >:( >:(
There will be NO FTAs with countries outside of the EU as they will all insist on reciprocal standards which is incompatible with our EU straight jacket on goods and agricultural products. So no big gains from ROW trading, cheaper food etc. >:( >:( >:(
The May-Robbins EU pact will be to the UK the biggest sell out to foreign interests and countries this country has suffered since Traitor Heath took us into the EEC and any Europe country since the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop was to Poland. >:( >:( >:(
[/highlight]
I could be mistaken but you seem to be suggesting that Brexit isn't going to plan, Mr Rods. ::) ::) ::) :)
-
I could be mistake but you seem to be suggesting that Brexit isn't going to plan, Mr Rods. ::) ::) ::) :)
I usually love a good irony, but not this one! ::)
Parliament voted to have a referendum on whether or not it and it's laws should be supreme and promised to implement whatever decision the British people came to. :y
The people decided that Parliament should be supreme, but it was a decision that Parliament didn't want or expect. However, amidst much wailing and knashing of teeth, Parliament then voted to start the process of restoring it's own supremacy. :)
Since then it appears that Parliament dosnt really want the supremacy that the people decided that it should have as it seems hell bent on giving away it's supremacy just as soon as it regains it. >:(
Ironic. ::)
-
Brexit is going to plan, but its Olly Robbins plan. He has never stood for election to anything in his life, yet is deciding the whole future of this country.
I heard today that there is a campaign to bring back the charge of high treason. Lets hope it succeeds and soon.
-
So dogs breckers soft Brexit will be put to the EU. The EU will want amendmens and concessions.
Hard line Brexiteers will emerge from hiding to try and topple May.
The great British public might wake up from their torpor.
You couldnt make it up
Oh and in April there is going to be a shortage of sandwiches.
Stop press. Barnier just rejected UK collecting trade fees.
-
Surely not your surprised face... ::)
-
Stop press. Barnier just rejected UK collecting trade fees.
May's response? ???
Oh dear, we'll just have to prostrate ourselves to the Commission and accept that we have no alternative but to stay in the single market and customs union. ::)
-
It would now appear that the EU have left the UK with only two options. Complete surrender or No deal.
My guess is that they are banking on Mrs weak & wobbly caving in completely. We can only hope that the men in grey suits escort her off the political stage before she does it.
For better or worse, I think it would be worth betting a few quid on Boris becoming PM before Christmas.
-
Well, the only consistency in this whole clusterfluck is No Deal...
And even a brain dead worm knows that No Deal is infinitely better than being permanently butt raped.
So perhaps we are finally getting somewhere...
-
Dominic Grieve said today that if we leave with no deal, it will bring about a state of emergency. ::) ;D
Project fear goes into hyperdrive. ;D
-
Dominic Grieve said today that if we leave with no deal, it will bring about a state of emergency. ::) ;D
Project fear goes into hyperdrive. ;D
How about Anna Soubry for PM?
Any Brexiteers up for that? ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I see "Bigears Gary Lineacre" :D is putting in his four pennarth for another referendum. Stick to footy mate. :P
-
How about Anna Soubry for PM?
I don't know about PM, but she seems to have a permanent case of PMT! ;D
Seriously though, given that her constituency voted leave, her actions since seems like she is not representing the good people of Broxbourne. :-\ So the question is, who is she representing? ???
Whose back pocket is Anna Soubry in? ::)
-
How about Anna Soubry for PM?
I don't know about PM, but she seems to have a permanent case of PMT! ;D
Seriously though, given that her constituency voted leave, her actions since seems like she is not representing the good people of Broxbourne. :-\ So the question is, who is she representing? ???
Whose back pocket is Anna Soubry in? ::)
Bit of a 'gobby mare' but surely this second referendum idea is dead in the water. I don't want one. We lost. Shit happens.
There may be consequences but nothing the UK can't handle (I hope)
This 'watery Brexit' the PM is so keen on pleases nobody. It makes us look submissive. :-\
-
As I see it there are 3 basic options.
1) Some/Any kind of soft BREXIT deal. Bound to upset hard Brexiteers and remainers alike and will perpetuate the Tory party problems. HMG and EU can't seem to agree on very much, and time is running out. An extension to negotiations past March is possibly, but seems unlikely to me unless some of the key questions are answered soon.
2) Hard BREXIT on WTO terms. Apparently little support in parliament for that, so not likely IMV.
3) Withdraw Art50 before end March and remain in. Can't see that being politically acceptable without another referendum.
I think the politicians are going to say that because no-one can decide/agree what to do, they'll throw it back to the people with another referendum. The question will be do we stay in as we are, or hard BREXIT on WTO.
If the answer is BREXIT on WTO, then that's it, we crash out at the end of March and start from scratch.
If the answer is remain, then we withdraw the Art50 notification. No-one knows for sure if this is actually possible, and if challenged the ECJ will have to decide so it'll rumble on for a few years before we know where we are.
-
A couple of observations on your post in which you have summed up the situation pretty well.
If there is a vote on a clearly worded and explained "stay as we are" or Brexit on WTO then:
1. The vote must be a minimum threshold and an explanation of what happens if it is 48%:52% say. maybe if it was a minimum of 70% and that wasn't achieved then Britain goes ahead with Brexit BUT with a cross party steering group to ensure buy in from all parties. Anyone who thinks that is wrong? Well what happens if there is a war? Do some parties say we aren't interested we vote against war as the enemy land on our beaches?. This latter point sums up what has gone wrong so far but then Cameron started the rot with his lack of clarity on what people were voting for plusses and minuses and a minimum threshold.
2. Stay as we are needs explaining as I doubt we would keep the opt outs plus the UK would be a cowed version of its previous self despite outwardly being welcomed back warmly.
3. A cast iron legal guarantee to offer the public a vote in x years time (say 15) so that in the (in my view likely event) of the EU failing to reform that we could get out. A lot of older people , myself included, voted out because they could not see any reform, only greater federalisation with ultimately having to take the euro etc. The timing of the vote was questionable but it was possibly the ONLY opportunity ever to vote on "EU" having joined a "common market" That legal guarantee might make Junckers successor think hard about change having just averted disaster in terms of losing the British cash cow and the ensuing trade friction and years of distrust on both sides of the channel.
-
Here's my guess at what will happen (I have no basis for this other than pessimism):
Gov't will withdraw article 50, beg the EU to stay in.
We will lose all of our "rebates" and voting rights.
Tory government will collapse.
Corbyn will be elected, but will be PM in name only with all control coming from the EU.
Jobs for all!
Free money!
Socialist utopia!
etc
-
1. The vote must be a minimum threshold and an explanation of what happens if it is 48%:52% say. maybe if it was a minimum of 70% and that wasn't achieved then Britain goes ahead with Brexit BUT with a cross party steering group to ensure buy in from all parties. Anyone who thinks that is wrong? Well what happens if there is a war? Do some parties say we aren't interested we vote against war as the enemy land on our beaches?. This latter point sums up what has gone wrong so far but then Cameron started the rot with his lack of clarity on what people were voting for plusses and minuses and a minimum threshold.
There was no threshold on the original referendum, and I doubt there would be one on any new referendum. If there were, then it would be more likely the other way - the status quo rules unless 60/66/70/whatever percent want it changed. The status quo is that we are currently in.
2. Stay as we are needs explaining as I doubt we would keep the opt outs plus the UK would be a cowed version of its previous self despite outwardly being welcomed back warmly.
Stay as we are means exactly that. If we are legally allowed to withdraw Art50, then everything reverts to as it would have been had we never invoked in the first place. We never left, so there would be no welcome back.
3. A cast iron legal guarantee to offer the public a vote in x years time (say 15) so that in the (in my view likely event) of the EU failing to reform that we could get out. A lot of older people , myself included, voted out because they could not see any reform, only greater federalisation with ultimately having to take the euro etc. The timing of the vote was questionable but it was possibly the ONLY opportunity ever to vote on "EU" having joined a "common market" That legal guarantee might make Junckers successor think hard about change having just averted disaster in terms of losing the British cash cow and the ensuing trade friction and years of distrust on both sides of the channel.
In the UK, Parliament is soverign. No parliament can bind a future one to do (or not do) anything. If one parliament passes a law, then the next one could revoke it. However the EU rules would remain so Art 50 would still be there and if parliament decided to do so it could invoke it again at any time in the future.
One option might be to pass a law which stated no future EU treaty changes could be agreed by the government without the agreement of parliament and a public referendum. The government can be bound by parliament. This would effectively freeze the EU as it currently is. No additional QMV, no EU army etc. Wouldn't be very popular in Brussels though.
-
It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. ::)
In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. :-\
-
It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. ::)
In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. :-\
On what basis do you believe that?
We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.
I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.
The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.
-
If we have a second referendum and vote 'to leave' again we will be in exactly the position we are currently in. Some form of luke warm Brexit.
-
The fact that any of the points raised in this thread are being considered goes to show what a total f*uck up the handling of Brexit has been.
I was told............ they sell more to us than we sell to them so we have the whip hand. It doesn't seem like that to me. :-\
-
If we have a second referendum and vote 'to leave' again we will be in exactly the position we are currently in. Some form of luke warm Brexit.
HMG only ever had the unilateral ability to either remain, or Hard Brexit. Anything else requires the agreement of Brussels and the EU27. That agreement appears unlikely. If a second referendum simply asks the questions that HMG actually has the power to deliver, then MP's will have no wiggle room. Yes some will vote against on principle, but the majority won't defy a second public leave vote.
The problem with the original question is that 'leave' means different things to different people. Some think it means Hard/WTO, others EEA/EFTA/Canada/Japan, and yet others various flavours of Soft/Warm. If you ask the public do you want a Hard Brexit in Jan/Feb, and they say yes, then we just allow the clock to tick on till March 29th and we're out. Anything else requires HMG to either negotiate an extension to the Art50 deadline, or HMG to withdraw the Art50 invocation.
I don't see how we'll end up in exactly the same position, provided the question asked is actually possible for HMG to deliver.
-
No mention of being able to withdraw/revoke Article 50 is contained within Article 50.
Sure we can rejoin, as per Article 49, but only once we have left.
Ergo, in 9 months time we're out. Really can't see what else there is to debate ???
-
No mention of being able to withdraw/revoke Article 50 is contained within Article 50.
Sure we can rejoin, as per Article 49, but only once we have left.
Ergo, in 9 months time we're out. Really can't see what else there is to debate ???
Oh......there's always something to debate.......to death ;D
-
No mention of being able to withdraw/revoke Article 50 is contained within Article 50.
Equally it doesn't state cannot be revoked. Either everyone agrees it means the same thing, or the ECJ decide.
Sure we can rejoin, as per Article 49, but only once we have left.
Yes. If we leave then Art49 to re-join. If we revoke Art50 and therefore don't leave....
Ergo, in 9 months time we're out. Really can't see what else there is to debate ???
See above.
-
It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. ::)
In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. :-\
On what basis do you believe that?
We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.
I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.
The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.
I never said that the revocation of A50 and the rebate etc are directly linked. ::)
As you say A50 can or can't be revoked and if there is a dispute it would end up at the ECJ. But do you really think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions? ??? ;D
Even if they didn't attach conditions, it would be down the line that we'd come under pressure to conform and I think the same would have happened had we voted to remain. In any case the commission has said it will end rebates for all countries, but we'd have come under intense pressure to relinquish it at the next round of budget talks in any case. ;)
-
It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. ::)
In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. :-\
On what basis do you believe that?
We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.
I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.
The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.
I never said that the revocation of A50 and the rebate etc are directly linked. ::)
As you say A50 can or can't be revoked and if there is a dispute it would end up at the ECJ. But do you really think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions? ??? ;D
The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.
Even if they didn't attach conditions, it would be down the line that we'd come under pressure to conform and I think the same would have happened had we voted to remain. In any case the commission has said it will end rebates for all countries, but we'd have come under intense pressure to relinquish it at the next round of budget talks in any case. ;)
I accept that, with the reservation that ultimately it doesn't matter what the commission want, governments agree EU funding budgets. We'd need a strong govt negotiating our side. I'd put Boris/Mogg in charge with instructions to behave like Maggie T would have. Good training for when he become PM.
-
It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. ::)
In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. :-\
On what basis do you believe that?
We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.
I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.
The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.
I never said that the revocation of A50 and the rebate etc are directly linked. ::)
As you say A50 can or can't be revoked and if there is a dispute it would end up at the ECJ. But do you really think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions? ??? ;D
The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.
Even if they didn't attach conditions, it would be down the line that we'd come under pressure to conform and I think the same would have happened had we voted to remain. In any case the commission has said it will end rebates for all countries, but we'd have come under intense pressure to relinquish it at the next round of budget talks in any case. ;)
I accept that, with the reservation that ultimately it doesn't matter what the commission want, governments agree EU funding budgets. We'd need a strong govt negotiating our side. I'd put Boris/Mogg in charge with instructions to behave like Maggie T would have. Good training for when he become PM.
Gawd help us. :D
One is a clown, a buffoon. The other is out-of-touch toff, the product of inbreeding over countless generations.
I'd rather Theresa......not that she is going to sort things out.
-
Retaining the status quo, realistically wont be an option. The EU is well down tis chosen road of federalisation. The UK has always been in the slow lane on this road (although ultimately would at some point arrive at the same destination). If we changed our minds and remained, I don't see how it would be possible for the UK to be the problem child / constant objector / slow lane nuisance etc.
They would laugh at us and back us into a corner where we were obliged to stfu and get on with it the same as everyone else.
Our bluffed would have been well and truly called and we bottled it. We would have no bargaining power at all.
At the moment, I think the most likely scenario is that Boris will be PM by Christmas. But a week is a long time in politics.
-
Retaining the status quo, realistically wont be an option. The EU is well down tis chosen road of federalisation. The UK has always been in the slow lane on this road (although ultimately would at some point arrive at the same destination). If we changed our minds and remained, I don't see how it would be possible for the UK to be the problem child / constant objector / slow lane nuisance etc.
They would laugh at us and back us into a corner where we were obliged to stfu and get on with it the same as everyone else.
Our bluffed would have been well and truly called and we bottled it. We would have no bargaining power at all.
What you are effectively saying is that you don't trust the current lot of politicians to stand up to the EU if we remain, yet these are the same lot that are supposed to negotiate with the EU for a soft brexit deal, or failing that negotiate with the RoW for trade deals after a Hard Brexit. So heads they win, tails we lose?
The number one bargaining power we have is that we are a net contributor to the EU budget. Maggie T knew that. We just need someone to say No and stick to their guns.
At the moment, I think the most likely scenario is that Boris will be PM by Christmas. But a week is a long time in politics.
If Boris is as bright as many politcos say, then he won't want such a poisoned chalice just yet. No one will, which is why I reckon TM is safe till (very close to) the next general election. The Tories don't want a GE just yet because they may lose, and Corbyn is a bigger fear to them than the EU.
-
The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.
I didn't say that the commission would put conditions on the ECJ. ::)
I said that the commission might put conditions on allowing the UK to revoke A50 and stay in the EU. As far as I'm aware there is nothing in the treaties that cover a country changing it's mind after invoking A50, so I think that it would work in the same way as extending the A50 period. ie with the agreement of the 27. ;)
So hypothetically the UK changes its mind and decides to stay. The commission says that's fine but the rebate will go and also the veto over the EU military, and that stance is backed up by the 27. If the UK contests this and takes it to the ECJ, do you really think that the ECJ would rule in the UK's favour? ??? ;D
-
Retaining the status quo, realistically wont be an option. The EU is well down tis chosen road of federalisation. The UK has always been in the slow lane on this road (although ultimately would at some point arrive at the same destination). If we changed our minds and remained, I don't see how it would be possible for the UK to be the problem child / constant objector / slow lane nuisance etc.
They would laugh at us and back us into a corner where we were obliged to stfu and get on with it the same as everyone else.
Our bluffed would have been well and truly called and we bottled it. We would have no bargaining power at all.
What you are effectively saying is that you don't trust the current lot of politicians to stand up to the EU if we remain, yet these are the same lot that are supposed to negotiate with the EU for a soft brexit deal, or failing that negotiate with the RoW for trade deals after a Hard Brexit. So heads they win, tails we lose?
The number one bargaining power we have is that we are a net contributor to the EU budget. Maggie T knew that. We just need someone to say No and stick to their guns.
At the moment, I think the most likely scenario is that Boris will be PM by Christmas. But a week is a long time in politics.
If Boris is as bright as many politcos say, then he won't want such a poisoned chalice just yet. No one will, which is why I reckon TM is safe till (very close to) the next general election. The Tories don't want a GE just yet because they may lose, and Corbyn is a bigger fear to them than the EU.
The current negotiations are to all intents & purposes being carried out by Ollie Robins, who is an arch Europhile, he reports to Theresa the Appeaser. Dominic Raab , like David Davis before him, is not much more than her bag carrier.
I don't think Boris is as bright as he or his supporters think he is, but he wants the job as much as Gordon Brown did. He thinks he was born to it, and wont turn it down under any circumstances imo.
The fact that we are one of the few net contributors, and the fact the we have a huge trade surplus with the 27, seems to be completely ignored by those who are negotiating on our behalf. You could almost be forgiven for thinking they don't want to succeed. ::)
If they dont get any more of our money they are going to be in deep trouble, and Im sure they know it. They are playing high stakes poker, and our side are folding every time the cards are dealt.
Another thing which has been conveniently ignored is that the odious little shit who is currently Irish premier, let slip recently that Juncker and others have assured him on many occasions that even if we leave with no deal, the EU will not place any border infrastructure or customs checks between R.O.I and the U.K. :)
We are in a strong negotiating position, but we appear not be taking the slightest advantage of it. :(
-
The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.
I didn't say that the commission would put conditions on the ECJ. ::)
I said that the commission might put conditions on allowing the UK to revoke A50 and stay in the EU.
The commission cannot put conditions on the revokeability of Art50 because it's a decision for the ECJ, and the commission cannot put conditions on the ECJ. The ECJ has to rule on what it says in the current Art50, and changing Art50 is a treaty change so not going to happen. If there is a dispute about whether it's revocable or not, the ECJ decides.
The minute the other side publishes anything that says "you can if..." then they are conceding that Art50 is revocable.
As far as I'm aware there is nothing in the treaties that cover a country changing it's mind after invoking A50, so I think that it would work in the same way as extending the A50 period. ie with the agreement of the 27. ;)
I disagree. The rules for extending the Art50 deadline are explicitly described in the treaty. I agree there is nothing in the treaty about a country revoking Art50. If there is a disagreement about the meaning of Art50 then the ECJ will need to rule one way or t'other. The ruling will be on the meaning of the words in the treaty. The EU could I suppose try to argue that the same rules for extending should be applied to revoking, but the counter argument would then be why doesn't it say so in the Art50 text.
So hypothetically the UK changes its mind and decides to stay. The commission says that's fine but the rebate will go and also the veto over the EU military, and that stance is backed up by the 27. If the UK contests this and takes it to the ECJ, do you really think that the ECJ would rule in the UK's favour? ??? ;D
Again, that would be the commission trying to put conditions on the revoking of Art50. The Art50 wording is there in black and white, and you can't change it without a new treaty. There is nothing about linking it to other conditions. The ECJ will rule on the wording as is. Art50 is either revocable or not. There can be no additional conditions.
The ECJ may well decide Art50 cannot be revoked. If it does, then we're effectively out on March 29th anyway - probably Hard WTO Brexit out unless an Art50 extension is agreed.
-
Another thing which has been conveniently ignored is that the odious little shit who is currently Irish premier, let slip recently that Juncker and others have assured him on many occasions that even if we leave with no deal, the EU will not place any border infrastructure or customs checks between R.O.I and the U.K. :)
We are in a strong negotiating position, but we appear not be taking the slightest advantage of it. :(
I wonder what percentage of Eire imports/exports pass through the UK en route mainland Europe. Do lorries cross Calais-Dover, drive through the UK to Holyhead/Fishguard and cross to Dublin? Or do they cross direct from mainland Europe to Eire - That's a much longer sea crossing.
If it's the former, then border/customs checks at Dover/Calais are just as important to Eire as they are between N Ireland and the South.
-
The commission cannot put conditions on the revokeability of Art50 because it's a decision for the ECJ, and the commission cannot put conditions on the ECJ. The ECJ has to rule on what it says in the current Art50, and changing Art50 is a treaty change so not going to happen. If there is a dispute about whether it's revocable or not, the ECJ decides.
Yes, but the ECJ would only get involved if there is a dispute and I say again, there is nothing in A50 about whether it can be revoked or not. If the 28 heads of state and the commission agree that A50 can be revoked then there is no need for a decision from the ECJ.
Again, that would be the commission trying to put conditions on the revoking of Art50. The Art50 wording is there in black and white, and you can't change it without a new treaty. There is nothing about linking it to other conditions. The ECJ will rule on the wording as is. Art50 is either revocable or not. There can be no additional conditions.
Why do you think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions to the UK revoking A50? ??? You are right, the A50 writing is there in black and white. There isn't a word about revocation and you are right there is nothing about conditions, but there is nothing forbidding the attachment of conditions either. ;) I suspect that if the UK tried to revoke A50, the 27 and the commission would breathe a huge collective sigh of relief, outwardly welcome back the black sheep of the family and then start calculating what concessions they could wring out of us. ::)
I suppose that if the UK did try to revoke A50 and it was all agreed with the 28 heads of state, the commission and the EU Parliament that this could happen, someone, somewhere in the EU could mount a legal challenge against it that got passed up to the ECJ for a final decision. That would take years though.... ::)
It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon. No deal is much more likely. :)
-
Like all dictatorships rules are there for the little people & countries, not for the big ones. The Greek bailout rules were decided by Germany & France on the basis that the money Greece owed to German & French banks if Greece had defaulted on there loans it would have been a major financial crisis for their banks. What the bailout forced was what was owed to German & French banks had to be socialized as Greek sovereign debt by the bailout and immediately transferred to pay off German & French debt. When Greece resisted they forced the Greek banks to shut so they had no money until they surrendered, all of this was outside of EU & ECB rules, but it involved the big countries, so rules were ignored. :( :( :(
Because of the funny Russian money in Cyprus they forced a bailin of account & bond holders and revised the EU / ECB rules that all bank bailouts would involve deposit holders & bond holders in an future bank bailouts.
When Italian banks needed bailing out there was a problem due to mis selling of bonds as savings accounts to small depositors, so their bailouts were done at the weekend and did not bailin depositors or bond holders.
When France broke the 60% of GDP debt and 3% deficit rules they and Germany agreed they shouldn't be fined as per EU/ECB rules as they only applied to the little countries.
In EU terms Germany & France are the big countrie and then there are all the other small ones so EU rules apply to them and obviously to us as France & Germany are the big countries and can make them up or change them as required to their advantage as they go along, acting like a pair of mafia Dons as that is how the EU works.
I said from day one that the EU commission would want to punish us for leaving and the UK Remainer 5th column are determined lead by Olly Robbins and Treason May are determined to get us the worst deal possible. I have not seen such disgusting, betrayal politics like thia before from even the majority Europhile fanatic Conservatives. Our democratic stability and survival and the Conservative party's future are now on the line as a result of May's deceit and betrayal.
Guido Fawkes website on what Trator May said on her election as PM, in her election manifesto and what the bare faced liar says now is very telling. >:( >:( >:(
https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/ (https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/)
-
The commission cannot put conditions on the revokeability of Art50 because it's a decision for the ECJ, and the commission cannot put conditions on the ECJ. The ECJ has to rule on what it says in the current Art50, and changing Art50 is a treaty change so not going to happen. If there is a dispute about whether it's revocable or not, the ECJ decides.
Yes, but the ECJ would only get involved if there is a dispute and I say again, there is nothing in A50 about whether it can be revoked or not. If the 28 heads of state and the commission agree that A50 can be revoked then there is no need for a decision from the ECJ.
Yep, agree with all that.
Again, that would be the commission trying to put conditions on the revoking of Art50. The Art50 wording is there in black and white, and you can't change it without a new treaty. There is nothing about linking it to other conditions. The ECJ will rule on the wording as is. Art50 is either revocable or not. There can be no additional conditions.
Why do you think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions to the UK revoking A50? ???
Because there is no legal basis to impose new rules on a member state without their agreement. If all EU28 and the commission have agreed Art50 is revocable, then how can anyone attach further conditions? The Uk just says no to the conditions, and revokes anyway.
You are right, the A50 writing is there in black and white. There isn't a word about revocation and you are right there is nothing about conditions, but there is nothing forbidding the attachment of conditions either. ;) I suspect that if the UK tried to revoke A50, the 27 and the commission would breathe a huge collective sigh of relief, outwardly welcome back the black sheep of the family and then start calculating what concessions they could wring out of us. ::)
And the UK just says No. Technically they wouldn't need to welcome us back either since revoking Art50 means we'd never actually left.
I suppose that if the UK did try to revoke A50 and it was all agreed with the 28 heads of state, the commission and the EU Parliament that this could happen, someone, somewhere in the EU could mount a legal challenge against it that got passed up to the ECJ for a final decision. That would take years though.... ::)
Possible, but the rules on referral to the ECJ are fairly tight. I think (but I'm not certain) only a member state can refer a case to the ECJ on a treaty matter. The ECJ website says...
Referral of cases to the European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice has its own rules on the referral of cases.
As a general rule, only Member States, the institutions of the European Union and national courts can refer cases to the Court of Justice. In some circumstances, a firm or a private individual can bring a case before the Court. This is the case for appeals to the Court regarding decisions taken by the institutions of the European Union in the field of competition, Community grants, contracts with European Union institutions or the European public service. The rules of procedure can be consulted on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon. No deal is much more likely. :)
Parliament has to approve a no deal Brexit.
-
I think it's best to agree to disagree Malcolm, as it's clear that we have very different views on the EU and how it operates. ::) ;D
You take a very British view that if it's not written down it can't happen and that the EU will do things by the book. I think that the EU interprets treaties and the law to suit itself and it regularly turns a blind eye when it suits. :P Budget deficit and debt rules spring to mind. :-X
Take the Irish border for example. The EU say that a hard border or any sort of infrastructure at the border will contravene the Good Friday Agreement and basically blackmailed Theresa May into agreeing the 'backstop' where NI stays in the single market and customs union. Thankfully she later backtracked and said that she would not agree to a border down the Irish Sea effectively splitting the UK up. ::) So on one hand a hard border between ROI and NI would contravene the GFA, but they don't seem worried about the fact the splitting NI from GB would also contravene the GFA. ::)
Personally I think putting a border down the Irish Sea would be far more damaging to NI than a hard border across Ireland, but I'll leave that to our Ireland expert for comment! :)
Because there is no legal basis to impose new rules on a member state without their agreement. If all EU28 and the commission have agreed Art50 is revocable, then how can anyone attach further conditions? The Uk just says no to the conditions, and revokes anyway.
If the UK gets to a point where it wants to revoke A50, we will be weak, humiliated and desperate. If the commission, the EU27 heads of state and the EU parliament present a united front and decide that the UK can revoke A50, but only if conditions are met such as adopting the Euro, we would have little option but to comply. Without agreement from the EU institutions I don't believe that we could unilaterally revoke A50 and carry on as if nothing had happened. ;)
We could of course take it to the ECJ for a decision. Hmmm take the EU to it's own court.... ::) Good luck with that then, and all the while the clock is ticking. Tick tock! :P
It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon. No deal is much more likely. :)
Parliament has to approve a no deal Brexit.
As I understand it, Parliament gets to have a 'meaningful vote' over the deal, but dosn't hold a veto. It's what Dominic Grieve and his cronies tried to achieve, but he backed down and voted against his own amendment. ::) If on the 29th March 2019 there is no deal in place we will leave anyway. Amid much wailing and knashing of teeth no doubt! ::) Tick tock! ;D
At the other end of the spectrum, if Olly Robbins Theresa May decided to abandon BREXIT, I'm sure Parliament would have to approve the attempt to revoke A50, given that they overwhelmingly approved starting the process in the first place. It would be politically explosive, might lead to civil unrest and would certainly bring down the government leading to a GE. ::) :)
Cue the return of Farage and if he organised UKIP properly they might do well in a GE amid such circumstances, given that 3/4 of English and Welsh constituencies voted leave and across the UK 2/3 of all constituencies voted leave. ;)
That's hypothetical speculation though. ::) :)
-
Hypothetical speculation is not allowed on here. Facts only, please. ;D
-
Hypothetical speculation is not allowed on here. Facts only, please. ;D
Dammit! You've just demolished the entire debate I was having with Malcolm! >:( ;D
-
tick tock ;D
-
I'll have one more go at trying to explain why the EU27/Commission cannot and will not try to impose additional conditions on revoking Art50.
The principle in English common law is "What the Man on the Clapham Omnibus should understand the Law to mean". Ok, this is EU law/treaties, so perhaps it's the Homme on the Paris Metro, or Herr on the Berlin S-Bahn, but the principle is the same - what would most people believe the words to mean.
The words in Art50 are completely silent on revocation. Hence there is no way for a man on the bus to know whether it's revocable or not. If there is a disagreement, then the ECJ must rule. The disputing parties all put their case, including any other court rulings which support their interpretation, and after all the argey-bargy the ECJ decides. I think we both agree on that?
So what happens if the EU27/commission try to say that Art50 is only revocable if we agree to X, Y, Z? We say piss off, and revoke anyway. The EU27/Commission decide to take it to the ECJ. The UK's case is that both sides agree Art50 is revocable. The EU say yes, but only if we adhere to X,Y,Z. We then produce the text of Art50, and state we simply invoking/revoking our treaty rights under Art50, and no-where does it mention X,Y,Z. There is no way on gods green earth that even the dimmest of passengers on the No88 can read the Art50 text and come to the conclusion that it allows additional conditions to be imposed on either the invocation or revocation of Art50. That would amount to a treaty change, and would apply to all EU members equally.
It's an unwinnable position, so the EU27/commission won't take it. If anyone did I'd expect the ECJ to reject the application out of hand. The only question is "is Art50 revocable or not". If it is we can, if it isn't we can't.
If the UK gets to a point where it wants to revoke A50, we will be weak, humiliated and desperate. If the commission, the EU27 heads of state and the EU parliament present a united front and decide that the UK can revoke A50, but only if conditions are met such as adopting the Euro, we would have little option but to comply. Without agreement from the EU institutions I don't believe that we could unilaterally revoke A50 and carry on as if nothing had happened. ;)
You mean we have the right to unilaterally invoke treaty rights (such as Art50), but don't have the right to unilaterally revoke treaty rights (such as Art50) unless we agree to X, Y, Z? Where does the treaty say that?
We could of course take it to the ECJ for a decision. Hmmm take the EU to it's own court.... ::) Good luck with that then, and all the while the clock is ticking. Tick tock! :P
I have more trust in the ECJ judges than I do in all politicians put together. They're at the top of their particular tree, and as independent as it is possible to be.
It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon. No deal is much more likely. :)
Parliament has to approve a no deal Brexit.
As I understand it, Parliament gets to have a 'meaningful vote' over the deal, but dosn't hold a veto. It's what Dominic Grieve and his cronies tried to achieve, but he backed down and voted against his own amendment. ::) If on the 29th March 2019 there is no deal in place we will leave anyway. Amid much wailing and knashing of teeth no doubt! ::) Tick tock! ;D
At the other end of the spectrum, if Olly Robbins Theresa May decided to abandon BREXIT, I'm sure Parliament would have to approve the attempt to revoke A50, given that they overwhelmingly approved starting the process in the first place. It would be politically explosive, might lead to civil unrest and would certainly bring down the government leading to a GE. ::) :)
Cue the return of Farage and if he organised UKIP properly they might do well in a GE amid such circumstances, given that 3/4 of English and Welsh constituencies voted leave and across the UK 2/3 of all constituencies voted leave. ;)
In the UK, Parliament is always sovereign, not the Govt. Parliament will decide what the Govt does next as a result of the 'meaningful vote'. That includes all the options - Soft Brexit, Hard Brexit and Revoke/Remain.
The best reason I can think of for the EU arguing that Art50 is not revocable is that if it were revocable, we could revoke on March 28th 2019, and then invoke again on March 30th 2019. This would give us another 2 years to get a deal we like. And do the same again in 2021.
-
Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate. When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.
Parliament knows this, which is why many of its inhabitants are desperately trying to find a way of stopping the decision being implemented, without overtly being seen to be guilty of doing so.
The EU also know this, which is why each time a member state has been silly enough to allow its people to have a referendum on important EU matters, and then got a decision it didn't like, they used very crafty methods to have another vote, and made damn sure it went the way they wanted it to.
The slight changes to the EU constitution and it being renamed the Lisbon treaty being a case in point.
The EU barely tries to disguise its contempt for democracy. UK politicians love everything about it, until the people don't vote as they are advised they should.
Vile, loathsome creatures, the lot of them.
-
Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate.
No, it's not. Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since it took those powers from the last 'dictator/King'.
When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.
Yes, it does. The referendum was advisory only. The government promised to enact the 'will of the people'. Parliament didn't.
-
Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate.
No, it's not. Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since it took those powers from the last 'dictator/King'.
In A strictly legal sense you are correct. However it is only with the consent of the people that they hold this power. We can take it off each off them at every election, and if we all wrote on our ballot papers at the next election "none of the above", then there would be no parliament to hold any power or sovereignty.
So, ultimately it lies with the people.
When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.
Yes, it does. The referendum was advisory only. The government promised to enact the 'will of the people'. Parliament didn't.
Again, you are correct in a strictly legal sense, but not only did the Government promise to enact the will of the people, parliament has endorsed this by its various votes since then. As for having the power to overturn it - they couldn't possibly dare to try in any overt way, because it would end democracy as we know it in the UK.
-
If we agree that A50 may or may not be revoked by virtue of the absence of any mention in the rather succinct, plain text, then surely by the very same tokens, conditions may or may not be attached either way.
UK plc could just as easily say that it wishes to rekove A50 but only on condition of halving our contributions* in the same way as the EU could turn round and say that it isn't revocable and as such we must leave and rejoin as per A49, and then only with xyz terms.
Works both ways...
* insert random condition of choice.
-
Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate.
No, it's not. Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since it took those powers from the last 'dictator/King'.
When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.
Yes, it does. The referendum was advisory only. The government promised to enact the 'will of the people'. Parliament didn't.
That will never fly.
-
I'll have one more go at trying to explain why the EU27/Commission cannot and will not try to impose additional conditions on revoking Art50......
As there is nothing written in A50 regarding revocation after it has been invoked, the whole issue is wide open to interpretation and we are interpreting the situation very differently. ::)
You take the view that the EU will rigidly stick to it's own laws and rules and will not deviate. If it's not explicitly written down allowing something to happen, it cannot. I take the view that the EU will cynically manipulate a situation to suit it's own ends, especially where nothing is written to prevent it taking a particular course.
Take the current 'negotiations', A50 says that the Withdrawal Agreement must take account of a framework for future relations and yet the EU thus far have pretty much refused to discuss the future, so they are not even adhering to A50 properly. ::) The phased negotiation that the EU has insisted on is absurd as everything is interlinked. How can you decide what will happen at the borders when you havn't discussed the terms of trade? ??? The reason that they are not adhering to A50 properly is because it suits them. ::)
This whole discussion is hypothetical anyway as the government won't try to revoke A50, but I'll leave the last word to this Guy. ;)
“If Britain changes its mind, it would find an open door. But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, to a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity.” Guy Verhofstadt MEP and BREXIT Negotiator for the EU Parliament.
https://www.politico.eu/article/guy-verhofstadt-brexit-european-parliament-to-uk-you-can-stay-in-eu-but-lose-perks/
-
You take the view that the EU will rigidly stick to it's own laws and rules and will not deviate. If it's not explicitly written down allowing something to happen, it cannot. I take the view that the EU will cynically manipulate a situation to suit it's own ends, especially where nothing is written to prevent it taking a particular course.
you have that completely the wrong way around: anything that ISN'T explicitly written down can happen. If it is written down, then that's the only way it can occur
-
You take the view that the EU will rigidly stick to it's own laws and rules and will not deviate. If it's not explicitly written down allowing something to happen, it cannot. I take the view that the EU will cynically manipulate a situation to suit it's own ends, especially where nothing is written to prevent it taking a particular course.
you have that completely the wrong way around: anything that ISN'T explicitly written down can happen. If it is written down, then that's the only way it can occur
That's Malcolm's point of view not mine. ;)
I agree with you Nick and believe that the EU will use any ambiguity in it's own laws or treaties to suit it's own ends. ::)
-
You take the view that the EU will rigidly stick to it's own laws and rules and will not deviate. If it's not explicitly written down allowing something to happen, it cannot. I take the view that the EU will cynically manipulate a situation to suit it's own ends, especially where nothing is written to prevent it taking a particular course.
you have that completely the wrong way around: anything that ISN'T explicitly written down can happen. If it is written down, then that's the only way it can occur
That's Malcolm's point of view not mine. ;)
I agree with you Nick and believe that the EU will use any ambiguity in it's own laws or treaties to suit it's own ends. ::)
Of course they will, because we do the same thing. It's Germans who think as originally quoted 8)
-
If we agree that A50 may or may not be revoked by virtue of the absence of any mention in the rather succinct, plain text, then surely by the very same tokens, conditions may or may not be attached either way.
No. The treaties cannot have any additional conditions attached. That would be a change to the treaty. The treaty, as written, is either revocable or not. If it is revocable, then we can revoke. If it isn't, then we can't. Simple as that.
UK plc could just as easily say that it wishes to rekove A50 but only on condition of halving our contributions*
You can ask for anything you like, but unless the treaty allows it, it can't form a condition on invoking a right granted under a treaty. It could happen if all EU28 and the commission and the EU parliament agree to it.
in the same way as the EU could turn round and say that it isn't revocable and as such we must leave and rejoin as per A49, and then only with xyz terms
Yes they could claim Art50 isn't revocable, and then the ECJ decide if it is or not. If it is we can revoke. If not then A49 is the only way back in.
-
You take the view that the EU will rigidly stick to it's own laws and rules and will not deviate. If it's not explicitly written down allowing something to happen, it cannot. I take the view that the EU will cynically manipulate a situation to suit it's own ends, especially where nothing is written to prevent it taking a particular course.
you have that completely the wrong way around: anything that ISN'T explicitly written down can happen. If it is written down, then that's the only way it can occur
That's Malcolm's point of view not mine. ;)
I agree with you Nick and believe that the EU will use any ambiguity in it's own laws or treaties to suit it's own ends. ::)
I hold no such view. I take the view that "the ECJ will rigidly stick to the EU's own laws and rules and will not deviate". If it's written down, then the ECJ will hold that what is written down must be followed. If it's not written down then the ECJ will have to decide based on which of the two sides presented the most persuasive arguments.
The ECJ is not the EU/commission. The EU/commission are politicians and so will lie and cheat to meet their own ends.
-
Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate.
No, it's not. Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since it took those powers from the last 'dictator/King'.
In A strictly legal sense you are correct. However it is only with the consent of the people that they hold this power. We can take it off each off them at every election, and if we all wrote on our ballot papers at the next election "none of the above", then there would be no parliament to hold any power or sovereignty.
So, ultimately it lies with the people.
When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.
Yes, it does. The referendum was advisory only. The government promised to enact the 'will of the people'. Parliament didn't.
Again, you are correct in a strictly legal sense, but not only did the Government promise to enact the will of the people, parliament has endorsed this by its various votes since then. As for having the power to overturn it - they couldn't possibly dare to try in any overt way, because it would end democracy as we know it in the UK.
Yep - a point I made here :
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=143164.msg1868967#msg1868967
which is why I think we're headed for another referendum.
-
I take the view that "the ECJ will rigidly stick to the EU's own laws and rules and will not deviate". If it's written down, then the ECJ will hold that what is written down must be followed. If it's not written down then the ECJ will have to decide based on which of the two sides presented the most persuasive arguments.
So you think it's possible that the ECJ could hold that the UK could revoke A50, but only with conditions attached? ??? ::) ;D
-
I will be amazed if we have another referendum. If it did happen, I suspect the vote to leave would be considerably higher than it was last time.
-
I will be amazed if we have another referendum. If it did happen, I suspect the vote to leave would be considerably higher than it was last time.
Unless it was rigged! :-X
I'm starting to think that the establishment will do anything to keep us in, or at least keep us under the control of the EU. :-\
-
I take the view that "the ECJ will rigidly stick to the EU's own laws and rules and will not deviate". If it's written down, then the ECJ will hold that what is written down must be followed. If it's not written down then the ECJ will have to decide based on which of the two sides presented the most persuasive arguments.
So you think it's possible that the ECJ could hold that the UK could revoke A50, but only with conditions attached? ??? ::) ;D
No, for the reasons outlined in the previous 4 pages.
The only way conditions could be attached is if we try to negotiate with the EU27/commission in an attempt to avoid it going to the ECJ in the first place. If everyone then agrees on the conditions for revoking Art50, then it won't go to the ECJ. However, I don't think that approach is very likely to work because I don't fancy our chances of negotiating an acceptable deal, and if things like budget rebates get tangled up in it then the Govt won't be able to agree to the deal. The EU know that.
All the stuff I've written has assumed that no acceptable deal can be reached with the EU27/commission. At that point the only route is an official request to the ECJ on whether Art50, once issued, is revocable. IMV the only possible 'verdicts' are yes and no.
-
The only way conditions could be attached is if we try to negotiate with the EU27/commission in an attempt to avoid it going to the ECJ in the first place. If everyone then agrees on the conditions for revoking Art50, then it won't go to the ECJ. However, I don't think that approach is very likely to work because I don't fancy our chances of negotiating an acceptable deal, and if things like budget rebates get tangled up in it then the Govt won't be able to agree to the deal. The EU know that.
All the stuff I've written has assumed that no acceptable deal can be reached with the EU27/commission. At that point the only route is an official request to the ECJ on whether Art50, once issued, is revocable. IMV the only possible 'verdicts' are yes and no.
As I've said earlier, if we get to the point where the government attempts to revoke A50, we will be so weak and humiliated that they will will agree to almost anything. There will be no red lines or tough talking and the EU will have the whip hand.
The UK will be in no position to demand what sandwiches to have for lunch let alone whether we get to keep the rebate or not! ::) :(
Slowly but surely, I think you are coming round to the idea that conditions could be attached to the revocation of A50! :P :)
-
The only way conditions could be attached is if we try to negotiate with the EU27/commission in an attempt to avoid it going to the ECJ in the first place. If everyone then agrees on the conditions for revoking Art50, then it won't go to the ECJ. However, I don't think that approach is very likely to work because I don't fancy our chances of negotiating an acceptable deal, and if things like budget rebates get tangled up in it then the Govt won't be able to agree to the deal. The EU know that.
All the stuff I've written has assumed that no acceptable deal can be reached with the EU27/commission. At that point the only route is an official request to the ECJ on whether Art50, once issued, is revocable. IMV the only possible 'verdicts' are yes and no.
As I've said earlier, if we get to the point where the government attempts to revoke A50, we will be so weak and humiliated that they will will agree to almost anything. There will be no red lines or tough talking and the EU will have the whip hand.
The UK will be in no position to demand what sandwiches to have for lunch let alone whether we get to keep the rebate or not! ::) :(
Slowly but surely, I think you are coming round to the idea that conditions could be attached to the revocation of A50! :P :)
If the EU27 attempted to impose unacceptable conditions during agreed revocation negotiations, then we'd just have walk away, revoke unilaterally and take our chances in the ECJ (should the EU decide to contest it). I've no idea if the ECJ would determine Art50 is or is not revocable, but whatever they decide it would be unconditional and apply equally to all EU members from then on.
We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.
-
There will be "No walk away" while she is running the show"
-
If the EU27 attempted to impose unacceptable conditions during agreed revocation negotiations, then we'd just have walk away, revoke unilaterally and take our chances in the ECJ (should the EU decide to contest it). I've no idea if the ECJ would determine Art50 is or is not revocable, but whatever they decide it would be unconditional and apply equally to all EU members from then on.
We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.
No. If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament. It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
-
I have spent much of this evening revisiting several episodes of The thick of it, which reminded me how the game of politics works, and how little us mere voters know about what is really going on inside the bubble.
For those who have seen the programme, my new nickname for Mother Theresa is Nichola Murray. :)
-
Are you guys all still debating what will or won't happen? Yeesh.. ;D
Nothing any of us do or say is going to make any difference to the outcome, so just sit back, relax, and let it happen...
...I'm sure they'll use lube, at least. ;)
-
We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.
No. If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost
No such thing as "at any cost". There are some things that HMG simply won't give up.
and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament.
Other way around initially at least. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament has to vote to decide to hold another referendum - the Govt can't do it unilaterally. If Parliament agree to make the referendum binding (like the Scottish indy one) then no further input from Parliament required. If they don't make it binding, then yes back to Parliament (as per the Gina Miller case).
It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
We're already there. It's about getting the least worst result now. If that's Hard Brexit then so-be-it. If it's Hard Brexit or take our (50/50) chance in the ECJ, then what is there to lose in the ECJ?
-
Are you guys all still debating what will or won't happen? Yeesh.. ;D
Nothing any of us do or say is going to make any difference to the outcome, so just sit back, relax, and let it happen...
...I'm sure they'll use lube, at least. ;)
Which was not a luxury afforded to Jimmy during his time at boarding school. ::)
-
We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.
No. If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost
No such thing as "at any cost". There are some things that HMG simply won't give up.
Sadly I don't share your confidence Malcolm. :-\
and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament.
Other way around initially at least. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament has to vote to decide to hold another referendum - the Govt can't do it unilaterally. If Parliament agree to make the referendum binding (like the Scottish indy one) then no further input from Parliament required. If they don't make it binding, then yes back to Parliament (as per the Gina Miller case).
Yes you are right, but I still can't see it happening. ::) :)
It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
We're already there. It's about getting the least worst result now. If that's Hard Brexit then so-be-it. If it's Hard Brexit or take our (50/50) chance in the ECJ, then what is there to lose in the ECJ?
If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy. ::)
Personally, I would never bother voting again. :-X
-
If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy. ::)
Personally, I would never bother voting again. :-X
Even if it were after another referendum which produced a remain vote? Surely the electorate is allowed to change it's mind - you know democracy in practice ::)
This is a decent overview of the Art50 revoking options. 2 professors of law argue each way, and quite surprisingly don't come up with 3 different opinions.
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/01/can-article-50-notice-of-withdrawal.html
-
If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy. ::)
Personally, I would never bother voting again. :-X
Even if it were after another referendum which produced a remain vote? Surely the electorate is allowed to change it's mind - you know democracy in practice ::)
I was having a similar conversation the other day with a Scottish friend who campaigns for IndyRef2 using a similar argument. I said presumably he wouldn't have a problem if Unionists campaigned for IndyRef3 if IndyRef2 produced a vote for independence. Funnily enough he didn't seem so keen on democracy in practice in those circumstances. ;D
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right? :)
Ah no, that would be silly! :-[ Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! ::)
-
And what is the 'right result' ;)
-
No means no, kids :D
-
And what is the 'right result' ;)
A worthwhile majority to a simple question with a clear and achievable plan behind it. The only part of the Brexit referendum that accomplished that was the simple question. And that's why the whole thing continues to be a monumental clusteropps.
-
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right? :)
Ah no, that would be silly! :-[ Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! ::)
It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.
I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.
-
The only reason we got a referendum was to keep UKIP at bay. Cameron was shit scared of them and it was his cunning plan.
Where is he again? ;D
-
The only reason we got a referendum was to keep UKIP at bay. Cameron was shit scared of them and it was his cunning plan.
Where is he again? ;D
Presumably hanging out the front end of a luckless pig somewhere. ::)
-
The only reason we got a referendum was to keep UKIP at bay. Cameron was shit scared of them and it was his cunning plan.
Where is he again? ;D
Presumably hanging out the front end of a luckless pig somewhere. ::)
Or milking the "hey! I used to be prime minister"* gravy train like B. Liar. >:(
* - I was a waste of space, mind...
-
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right? :)
Ah no, that would be silly! :-[ Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! ::)
It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.
I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.
This possibility just makes it worse.
If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.
If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.
I say chaps......I think we find ourselves in a tight spot. ::)
-
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right? :)
Ah no, that would be silly! :-[ Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! ::)
It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.
I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.
This possibility just makes it worse.
If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.
If people didn't change their mind then we'd have had the same government in office for the past hundred years.
Yes I'd expect team leave to continue campaigning.
If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.
That's only true if the question is the same as before. If it's an explicit choice between Hard/WTO Brexit and Remain on the same terms as before then it's a different question, with options the public understand better now, and can be delivered by the Govt (assuming remain is an option). If team leave win a second time with such clear options then few would quibble.
I've read in various places that the Irish govt have already asked the ECJ for a ruling on if Art50 is revocable or not. Can't find anything listed in the ECJ schedule though. If the answer to that becomes important then the ECJ can expedite a decisions in 4 months apparently. End of November then.
-
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right? :)
Ah no, that would be silly! :-[ Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! ::)
It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.
I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.
This possibility just makes it worse.
If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.
If people didn't change their mind then we'd have had the same government in office for the past hundred years.
Yes I'd expect team leave to continue campaigning.
If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.
That's only true if the question is the same as before. If it's an explicit choice between Hard/WTO Brexit and Remain on the same terms as before then it's a different question, with options the public understand better now, and can be delivered by the Govt (assuming remain is an option). If team leave win a second time with such clear options then few would quibble.
I've read in various places that the Irish govt have already asked the ECJ for a ruling on if Art50 is revocable or not. Can't find anything listed in the ECJ schedule though. If the answer to that becomes important then the ECJ can expedite a decisions in 4 months apparently. End of November then.
Team leave will say they have already won the referendum (and in my view they did) and there will be an impasse, possibly followed by civil war :-X
The reason we had an IN/OUT vote was to make it easy for the great unwashed to get their head around it. Start introducing extra "my brain hurts" information like WTO and all that involves and you'll be opening a can of worms. Total confusion will follow.
-
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right? :)
Ah no, that would be silly! :-[ Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! ::)
It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.
I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.
This possibility just makes it worse.
If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.
If people didn't change their mind then we'd have had the same government in office for the past hundred years.
Yes I'd expect team leave to continue campaigning.
If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.
That's only true if the question is the same as before. If it's an explicit choice between Hard/WTO Brexit and Remain on the same terms as before then it's a different question, with options the public understand better now, and can be delivered by the Govt (assuming remain is an option). If team leave win a second time with such clear options then few would quibble.
I've read in various places that the Irish govt have already asked the ECJ for a ruling on if Art50 is revocable or not. Can't find anything listed in the ECJ schedule though. If the answer to that becomes important then the ECJ can expedite a decisions in 4 months apparently. End of November then.
Team leave will say they have already won the referendum (and in my view they did) and there will be an impasse,
They did win, on the original question. The discussion now is what does leave mean. And once that is known, do the majority of the public still want it?
possibly followed by civil war :-X
You know someone has lost the argument as soon as the civil war card is played. It's similar to the Hitler card.
The reason we had an IN/OUT vote was to make it easy for the great unwashed to get their head around it. Start introducing extra "my brain hurts" information like WTO and all that involves and you'll be opening a can of worms. Total confusion will follow.
Yes - the my brain hurts issue is exactly why there shouldn't have been a referendum in the first place. But we are where we are.
-
From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?
-
The discussion now is what does leave mean. And once that is known, do the majority of the public still want it?
The problem with another BREXIT referendum as I see it, is that those campaigning for a 'People's Vote' want the question loaded heavily in favour of remaining in the EU, and as discussed earlier they might not get the 'Remain' that they thought they were getting, ie the status quo. ::)
-
Yes. I don't recall the general public insisting we have a referendum. It was the usual suspects. The gobby element that is always causing trouble in the Tory party, along with Shouty Nige.
Cameron could have told them all to f*uck off but he didn't.
As you say. We are where we are. :)
-
From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?
Because your vote matters..........except it doesn't. :-\
-
From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?
Which just makes it more likely that people who have the opposite beliefs/opinions to you win.
-
From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?
Which just makes it more likely that people who have the opposite beliefs/opinions to you win.
No. I've already used my vote to 'win'. Why should I have to vote again? Before you say 'because you didn't fully understand the ramifications', well, does anyone who votes in a general election? Do political parties stick to their manifestos?
You vote and you live with the consequences. You can't eject, say, Labour in favour of the tories because you didn't understand that they were a bunch of Trots when you voted for them.
I'll live with my decision, the turncoats can do as they please.
-
No. I've already used my vote to 'win'. Why should I have to vote again?
Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign. You have to try and persuade enough of them do what you want - you can't make them. If voting once isn't enough then perhaps twice will be. Or thrice. Regardless of whether you vote for them or not, they are doing things in your name. Or, put another way (accepting this is basically a civil war/Hitler faux-pas) ....
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
You can't eject, say, Labour in favour of the tories because you didn't understand that they were a bunch of Trots when you voted for them.
Well, you can, at the next GE although it may be 5 years till you get the chance.
-
From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?
I repeat, from my nice, warm entrenched position.
-
I, personally, don't believe there will be a second referendum. :)
-
Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign.
Except that it isn't, as it's subservient to the EU. ::)
The people voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty, but it doesn't appear to want it! :P
-
Why would we need a second referendum? TM and cronies are perfectly capable of selling us out without one.
-
I, personally, don't believe there will be a second referendum. :)
A second referendum on what........ exactly?
F*ucked if I know. :-\
-
Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign.
Except that it isn't, as it's subservient to the EU. ::)
The people voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty, but it doesn't appear to want it! :P
No, it's not. Parliament is Sovereign. Parliament is free to decide what it wants. It can declare the moon is made of cheese, and then legally for the UK the moon IS made of cheese.
But, if you want to play (football) with other equally sovereign countries, then you have to abide by the rules (of football). The FA could repeal any of the laws of football it wants, but it can't play internationally then. Similarly Parliament can refuse to adopt any EU rule it likes within the UK, but you then won't be able to play with the rest of the EU.
-
Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign.
Except that it isn't, as it's subservient to the EU. ::)
The people voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty, but it doesn't appear to want it! :P
No, it's not. Parliament is Sovereign. Parliament is free to decide what it wants. It can declare the moon is made of cheese, and then legally for the UK the moon IS made of cheese.
But, if you want to play (football) with other equally sovereign countries, then you have to abide by the rules (of football). The FA could repeal any of the laws of football it wants, but it can't play internationally then. Similarly Parliament can refuse to adopt any EU rule it likes within the UK, but you then won't be able to play with the rest of the EU.
They say jump.......we ask how high. :)
-
Bit of wartime austerity.....powdered egg...keep right on till the end of the road. It saw us through against the bastards last time. ;D
-
Bit of wartime austerity.....powdered egg...keep right on till the end of the road. It saw us through against the bastards last time. ;D
Still popular in Barnsley , I imagine. :)
I hear that the indoor crapper will be heading North soon. You can't stop progress. :)
-
I, personally, don't believe there will be a second referendum. :)
Nor do I. It is wishful thinking from the remainers, and as we all know, standard practice from the EU when they get a result they don't like.
It isn't the EU,S decision to make this time though.
I also don't believe the MSM propaganda about buyers remorse on Brexit. I havent met anyone who regrets voting leave, but I have met a lot of people who wanted to, but were scared off by Cameron and Osbornes predictions of immediate doom if the result was to leave.
-
I, personally, don't believe there will be a second referendum. :)
Nor do I. It is wishful thinking from the remainers, and as we all know, standard practice from the EU when they get a result they don't like.
It isn't the EU,S decision to make this time though.
I also don't believe the MSM propaganda about buyers remorse on Brexit. I havent met anyone who regrets voting leave, but I have met a lot of people who wanted to, but were scared off by Cameron and Osbornes predictions of immediate doom if the result was to leave.
Not from me.
At the moment we are leaving the EU ( if you can call it leaving) like a whipped dog with it's tail between it's legs. This needs to change.
-
Jacob for PM then. :y
-
Jacob for PM then. :y
A man of the people........the most wealthy 1% anyway. :)
-
The reason the EU is making things awkward for us is threefold:
1. Dictatorships like building bigger & bigger empires as it gives them more power and riches to indulge themselves on. If we make a success of Brexit with much higher economic growth (not difficult with their poor record),then other countries will start asking the question, why shouldn't we.
2. We can trade very happily on WTO terms like most of the rest of the world including with the EU. When there are a range of rules (rarer and rarer these days as there are several standards organisations which create standards which are universally adopted including by the EU). However, there are some problematic areas where we have transferred our standards sovereignty to the EU and signed up to their gold plated versions. A transition period of up to two years should resolve this so we can rejoin the standards bodies and get other alternative arrangements in place.
3. Under WTO rules they are not allowed to discriminate against us but we all know what EU commission & French bloody mindness can do while we take them to WTO arbitration, where the WTO can fine them.
Finally this food shortage tosh is exactly that. Anybody that gets a calculator out can see that. Global population in 2018 is 7,600m. UK population is 65m less than 1%. We produce about 40% of our own food, plus on top of this much of our food comes from the rest of the world like winter fruit from the southern hemisphere as there seasons are the opposite of ours. If the EU banned all food to the UK we would increase world demand by less than 0.5%. UK food buyers are used to dealing globally with suppliers and also commodity markets which for many staple basics like wheat, rice, sugar, vegetable oils are priced in USD with the US controlling the commodity traders.
If the EU want a trade war our €50bn trade deficit will disappear very quickly plus much more. The French, Germans, Spanish, Dutch and Danish farmers will not like the drop in income from losing our food market at the same time as EU budgets are squeezed from losing our contribution. Do you really want to ruled by a dictatorship that is making these kinds of threats against us?
This EU food trade situation is exactly what has happened in the US with Trump pulling out of TIPP and now with retalitarity sanctions on US food. The US government are subsidizing US farmers to make up there shortfall. Trump pulling out of TIPP has increased Australasian mutual trading where they are buying from each other lower tariff cheaper substituted US products. It has also been good for the UK meat trade where our meat is seen as premium produce with sales going up in countries like Japan.
All this daily Remoaner project fear, fake news, propaganda is getting increasingly boring where I just take it for the total bullsh*t it is.
-
The reason the EU is making things awkward for us is threefold:
1. Dictatorships like building bigger & bigger empires as it gives them more power and riches to indulge themselves on. If we make a success of Brexit with much higher economic growth (not difficult with their poor record),then other countries will start asking the question, why shouldn't we.
2. We can trade very happily on WTO terms like most of the rest of the world including with the EU. When there are a range of rules (rarer and rarer these days as there are several standards organisations which create standards which are universally adopted including by the EU). However, there are some problematic areas where we have transferred our standards sovereignty to the EU and signed up to their gold plated versions. A transition period of up to two years should resolve this so we can rejoin the standards bodies and get other alternative arrangements in place.
3. Under WTO rules they are not allowed to discriminate against us but we all know what EU commission & French bloody mindness can do while we take them to WTO arbitration, where the WTO can fine them.
Finally this food shortage tosh is exactly that. Anybody that gets a calculator out can see that. Global population in 2018 is 7,600m. UK population is 65m less than 1%. We produce about 40% of our own food, plus on top of this much of our food comes from the rest of the world like winter fruit from the southern hemisphere as there seasons are the opposite of ours. If the EU banned all food to the UK we would increase world demand by less than 0.5%. UK food buyers are used to dealing globally with suppliers and also commodity markets which for many staple basics like wheat, rice, sugar, vegetable oils are priced in USD with the US controlling the commodity traders.
If the EU want a trade war our €50bn trade deficit will disappear very quickly plus much more. The French, Germans, Spanish, Dutch and Danish farmers will not like the drop in income from losing our food market at the same time as EU budgets are squeezed from losing our contribution. Do you really want to ruled by a dictatorship that is making these kinds of threats against us?
This EU food trade situation is exactly what has happened in the US with Trump pulling out of TIPP and now with retalitarity sanctions on US food. The US government are subsidizing US farmers to make up there shortfall. Trump pulling out of TIPP has increased Australasian mutual trading where they are buying from each other lower tariff cheaper substituted US products. It has also been good for the UK meat trade where our meat is seen as premium produce with sales going up in countries like Japan.
All this daily Remoaner project fear, fake news, propaganda is getting increasingly boring where I just take it for the total bullsh*t it is.
..........and breathe. :)
-
The reason the EU is making things awkward for us is threefold: . . . . .
So . . . . . when are you seeing Mrs May to put her right ? ( I wish ::) )
There really is soooo much b****x around. I'm about to stick my head in the sand
-
Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign.
Except that it isn't, as it's subservient to the EU. ::)
The people voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty, but it doesn't appear to want it! :P
No, it's not. Parliament is Sovereign. Parliament is free to decide what it wants.
Technically yes you are right Malcolm and the fact that Parliament has the ability to repeal the European Communities Act proves this. :y
However Parliament has decided to cede much of it's sovereignty to the EU and the European Court of Human Rights via the Human Rights Act 1998. One fact that came out during the referendum campaign was that 60% of Parliaments business is enacting EU laws, rules, and regulations onto the statute book.
They could refuse as you say, but that would probably cause a constitutional crisis. One of the many reasons that people voted leave was a deep seated unease across the country that Parliament is not really in control of the country. ;)
-
They could refuse as you say, but that would probably cause a constitutional crisis. One of the many reasons that people voted leave was a deep seated unease across the country that Parliament is not really in control of the country. ;)
It wouldn't cause any constitutional crisis, because Parliament is sovereign and is free to do anything it likes. Always, no exceptions. It might result in us getting thrown out of the EU, or any other treaties we have voluntarily entered into, if parliament does something that breaches the rules of those treaties.
The will of parliament always overrides what anyone else, including the EU, want - within the jurisdiction of the UK. But when dealing with other sovereign entities you either obey the agreed rules, leave the treaty, or send the gunboats in. Cherry picking the bits of the treaty you like and discarding the bits you don't like is unlikely to be acceptable to the other parties to the treaty.
-
They could refuse as you say, but that would probably cause a constitutional crisis. One of the many reasons that people voted leave was a deep seated unease across the country that Parliament is not really in control of the country. ;)
It wouldn't cause any constitutional crisis, because Parliament is sovereign and is free to do anything it likes. Always, no exceptions. It might result in us getting thrown out of the EU, or any other treaties we have voluntarily entered into, if parliament does something that breaches the rules of those treaties.
The will of parliament always overrides what anyone else, including the EU, want - within the jurisdiction of the UK. But when dealing with other sovereign entities you either obey the agreed rules, leave the treaty, or send the gunboats in. Cherry picking the bits of the treaty you like and discarding the bits you don't like is unlikely to be acceptable to the other parties to the treaty.
Yep.....I can see problems with this.
-
They could refuse as you say, but that would probably cause a constitutional crisis. One of the many reasons that people voted leave was a deep seated unease across the country that Parliament is not really in control of the country. ;)
It wouldn't cause any constitutional crisis, because Parliament is sovereign and is free to do anything it likes. Always, no exceptions. It might result in us getting thrown out of the EU, or any other treaties we have voluntarily entered into, if parliament does something that breaches the rules of those treaties.
The will of parliament always overrides what anyone else, including the EU, want - within the jurisdiction of the UK. But when dealing with other sovereign entities you either obey the agreed rules, leave the treaty, or send the gunboats in. Cherry picking the bits of the treaty you like and discarding the bits you don't like is unlikely to be acceptable to the other parties to the treaty.
Fixed..
-
Like pissing in the wind methinks......