jackofalltrades
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,137
Presumably because essntially it would be about leave or remain but without a referendum.Why does this increase the chances of a snap General Election?
Presumably because essntially it would be about leave or remain but without a referendum.Why does this increase the chances of a snap General Election?
I am not sure either. But maybe there would be a desire for conciliation, leading to both parties pulling back from the brink. When I was still one of the Newbies I asked about something which Wolfgang Schlaúbel (?) said , maybe 18 months or two years now ago - that the UK would be joining the Euro sooner than it expected. What was he up to ?
Alternatively the EU could leak the proposed details before the vote in the HoC. That would concentrate minds.
Would the house of commons half full of UKIP MPs be any more useless or shambolic than it is now? It would be an embarrassment abroad, but no more embarrassing than the fact we already elect the prats to represent us in a European Parliament they oppose in principle.Is it a valid worry that if they cancel Brexit, all the aggrieved Leavers would vote UKIP at the next election?
Christ.I've heard that it can take up to one year.
Lord Kerr who authored Article 50 thinks it is possible to revoke the notification.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
And i would say to you that Remain used its goodly share of falsehoods, doubtless persuading some voters to continue with the status quo out of fear. I've also heard my fair share of nonsense about the future from those advocating In. They would sell the line of a reformed EU for example, while lacking any practicable means of achieving their ends.
EUrophiles, be they elected or voters like yourself, have been more than happy to ignore and override Eurosceptic sentiment for years. That was perfectly okay of course.
Lord Kerr who authored Article 50 thinks it is possible to revoke the notification.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
I'm not suggesting it's something which will ever come to the test. However, 'He explained: "It is not irrevocable. "You can change your mind while the process is going on.' and '"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."' translates to me (non-native speaker) as if Lord Kerr think the notification can be revoked. In any case, I'd be shocked if the UK were changing their mind in the future.I realise that because he wrote it my take will sound foolish but his article doesn't say that at all.
He talks about the leaving country notifying the EU of his desire to leave the EU, basically it means invoking the art.50, that's the notification. From there the EU is in a simple but tough situation at the same time because they have to accept the notification because of its democratic and freedom principles and they can't accept a simple withdrawal of the withdrawal because it is assumed that a country invoking the art.50 has good reasons to do it and the total backing of its nation.
So if a country wanted to withdraw from art.50, the EU would demand a big gesture and a pretty public proof that they are doing it with the back of the nation and for good reasons. Basically a referendum at the qualified majority.
When everyone voted, the thought was that the referendum result would lead to a debate in the commons and a parliamentary vote as is usual for things of this magnitude and the courts agree with that. It isn't something we just decided and made up now. We had this discussion in the thread on results night.No-one has to be happy with any result they don't like but they should accept it and deal with it. Referendum result was clear, accept and move on. I am not able to vote in the uk or in NL, I live with whatever outcome.
I'm not suggesting it's something which will ever come to the test. However, 'He explained: "It is not irrevocable. "You can change your mind while the process is going on.' and '"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."' translates to me (non-native speaker) as if Lord Kerr think the notification can be revoked. In any case, I'd be shocked if the UK were changing their mind in the future.
Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought that in your reply, you meant the BBC article when you wrote article, not article 50. My bad.But that's the thing, there is no mention of revokation while it is said that the absence of agreement still leads to a withdrawal from the EU.
The article is built in a way that deters anyone from notifying officially a withdrawal from the EU without meaning it because that action is only followed by the actual withdrawal, that's how the man wrote it.
The invokation of article 50 is the act of withdrawal.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought that in your reply, you meant the BBC article when you wrote article, not article 50. My bad.
I know there's nothing in article 50 like a withdrawal from the ongoing process but I don't know if there is any kind of legal commentary to it that might interpret the actual meaning in the way Lord Kerr implied in the BBC article.
Right, so uncertainty is not important now? Uncertainty just got dragged out a bit longer.When everyone voted, the thought was that the referendum result would lead to a debate in the commons and a parliamentary vote as is usual for things of this magnitude and the courts agree with that. It isn't something we just decided and made up now. We had this discussion in the thread on results night.
Brexit will happen regardless but at least now it can be debated and discussed instead of having just a few decide on how it should be.
That would mean joining the Euro ?Legally, there is nothing that backs Lord Kerr claim because it's not stipulated that a country can back track from a notification of withdrawal and there is no precedent, there is also nothing stipulating that the EU have to accept a back tracking after two years without agreement.
In fact, if you read the article even lengthening the negotiation process is made hard by the unanimous vote, the article clearly says that the absence of agreement still leads to a withdrawal and the last sentence kind of tells you that when you decide to withdraw you become an outsider and have to follow the standard procedure if you decide to comeback.
But objectively, the UK could decide to back track and the EU could accomodate them but any member of the EU could refuse because legally the notification of withdrawal and it's recognition are final.
PS: The EU could play with the recognition of the withdrawal and only do it when an agreement is reached but there is no benefit for the EU.
That would mean joining the Euro ?
No-one has to be happy with any result they don't like but they should accept it and deal with it. Referendum result was clear, accept and move on. I am not able to vote in the uk or in NL, I live with whatever outcome.
Right ok
You're version of 50% is different to mine so we'll leave it there
If the remainers didn't acted like complete idiots and wasted their credibility and time calling the leavers racists and idiots, they could have destroyed the "democratic" and national sovereignty arguments.
- "It's not about foreigners, it's about sovereignty"
- British judges make decision that Britain's elected parliament must vote on Article 50 in accordance with British law.
lets appeal to the European court of human rights about it?
I want to believe that people are smarter than that. To me the problem was never the idea of brexit but the stupid and fallacious reasons mixed with a total absence of actual plan.
I mean in theory if it was really the problem the Uk could throw all the immigrants out of the country tomorrow, ratify all the laws that they want and just dare the EU to throw them out of the Union. If the absence of plan isn't a problem then why wait?
In any case, I'd be shocked if the UK were changing their mind in the future.
And if they pass it then its those meddling Europeans over ruling our courts again...Ah feck, I just realized.. that is exactly what they're going to do, and then when it fails they'll use it as a fresh round of ammunition against those 'meddling Europeans trying to subvert our democracy!'.
Are these tweets sarcastic?
No. They actually think this.Are these tweets sarcastic?
Wrong, British politics has gone "post truth". Nobody has the attention span for sensible arguments so if it doesnt fit in a tweet or a hastag then you're wasting your breath.If the remainers didn't acted like complete idiots and wasted their credibility and time calling the leavers racists and idiots, they could have destroyed the "democratic" and national sovereignty arguments.
Wrong, British politics has gone "post truth". Nobody has the attention span for sensible arguments so if it doesnt fit in a tweet or a hastag then you're wasting your breath.
#makestuffup
It's a bit sad because it reminds me the 2012 presidentials in France, I just don't understand people.
Spin it how you like broOnly about 37% voted to leave due to a lack of compulsory voting.
spin it how you likeOnly about 37% voted to leave due to a lack of compulsory voting.
Spin it how you like bro
Suck it up i say
And?Says the guy living in Holland.
Spin it how you like bro
Suck it up i say
Honestly, I don't think that it would change anything. The mind-set that everything coming from the EU is evil and the only purpose of the EU is to subjugate Britain won't change. Suffering economically would be sold and perceived as an heroic act. If it wasn't so sad that this kind of BS is sticking, it would be hilariously funny.The only way it could happen is if triggering Article 50 causes a massive economic crash and a snap election with a party running on 'Stop this madness!' winning.
Lord Kerr who authored Article 50 thinks it is possible to revoke the notification.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628