-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Yup. The population of the UK is about 64 million, so that's about £5.76 for each man woman and child to contribute. Of course most children and some adults won't contribute - I don't know how much it works out for each of the mythical 'average taxpayers' - maybe £15 ?
I'd rather spend my money on a bag of fish and chips and let the Queen pay for the repairs herself. She's rich enough.
I'd rather spend my money on a bag of fish and chips and let the Queen pay for the repairs herself. She's rich enough.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
As is blaming others for the failure.
Personally, I think this subject serves much better as yet another element of uncertainty and confusion into the dreadful mix we've got already. The whole scheme will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions eventually. That's the best case scenarion, anyway.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
"How vacuous the benefits of Leaving will be" is yet another.
Some panic at the prospect of Scottish and Welsh involvement in the Brexit appeal?
Theresa May should abandon an appeal against the court ruling that means MPs must vote on the UK leaving the EU, leading Conservatives say.
Sir Oliver Letwin, former head of the government's Brexit preparations, and two former law officers said the case should not go to the Supreme Court ...
The MPs voiced their concerns after the Supreme Court decided on Friday that the Scottish and Welsh governments should have a say at the appeal hearing in December.
Sir Oliver Letwin, former head of the government's Brexit preparations, and two former law officers said the case should not go to the Supreme Court ...
The MPs voiced their concerns after the Supreme Court decided on Friday that the Scottish and Welsh governments should have a say at the appeal hearing in December.
They don't need any reason for panicking. They do all remind me of Corporal Jones.
However, until we do put down Article 50 we remain a member. Theresa May should tell the EU that according to our constitution that no decision to put down article 50 has been made until parliament decides.
Agreed, it's like watching a really bad episode of Dad's army. A typical British farce theme.
If and when the EU becomes annoyed enough with our procrastination, they could choose to eject us from the EU even if we haven't invoked Article 50.
There are provisions within the EU rules that allow an undesirable member country to be thrown out. These rules may not really cover the Brexit situation, but I'm sure some clever EU lawyers could find away of throwing us out if that's what the EU decides it wants to do.
No one actually wants to throw us out but they do want us to be transparent about the process. What we now have is a Government actually trying to circumvent parliament and our constitution. The high court has ruled in a very long ruling that parliament must decide. Now Theresa May is trying to overturn that judgement by suggesting that article 50 is reversible. However, I think the only court with jurisdiction to decide that will be the EC court. The Government is in panic and Brexit is not only a farce but a potential constitutional timebomb.
I find it difficult to believe that - if May tells the EU that the British constitution requires the consent of Parliament before Art 50 can invoked, and that Parliament will be asked to vote when the Supreme Court so decides - then in these conditions "some clever EU lawyer" will successfully proceed to have the UK "thrown out" of the union as an "undesirable" country. That seems a bit paranoid.
I don't think I'm paranoid about it. I would welcome the EU throwing us out as it would probably be a faster way to get out than interminable negotiations after invoking Article 50.
I don't think they're likely to, unfortunately. But if after twenty years we're still saying, "Yes, we are going to leave but we've not decided when to begin leaving yet", then I can see that the EU might finally lose patience.
I don't think they're likely to, unfortunately. But if after twenty years we're still saying, "Yes, we are going to leave but we've not decided when to begin leaving yet", then I can see that the EU might finally lose patience.
Last edited:
The problem with your statement is that we have not yet decided to leave according to our constitution and article 50 can only be set down in line with a state's constitution. At present all that has happened is that parliament has received advice from the people but either the parliament has to decide by passing a bill in parliament or the government has to revert the high court judgement to allow the prime minister to act under the prerogative. Now I know that everyone thinks this is mere detail but it is actually a key question about whether the democratically elected parliament is sovereign or just the winning party that gets to form a government.
Last edited:
You are just showing how utterly clueless you are about this subject. There is no mechanism for having a member state "ejected" from the EU for any reason. At most it can have certain membership rights suspended.
That depends on if the legislation authorising the vote has that listed as a requirement. This plebiscite didn't so technically they would be justified in ignoring it.
They EU can't go back on it. They can extend the negotiating time but there's no official way of undoing the invocation.
I would hope that Spain have some sort of common sense there and see how vastly different a Scottish entry into the EU after the UK left is to Catalonian independence.
It's not though. That money is coming from a temporary increase in the cut she gets of the profits of the Crown Estate.
I'm not certain of that. The only condition in which Scotland could remain in the EU following the departure of the UK would be if Scotland had previously become effectively independent, in fact if not in name. And Spain might not wish to encourage Catalonia to aspire to a similar degree of self determination.
But Spain should exercise common sense. In the thirties fascist Spain could oppress Catalonia, just as in earlier decades Imperialist Britain had oppressed Ireland. But the power, and I hope along with the power, the willingness, of Spain and the UK to be overbearing in this fashion, are no longer in existence.
I wonder if there is a possible deal to be made here re Scotland and Gibraltar that would allow Spain to change her mind and allow Scotland and Gibraltar some sort of special status in the EU.
With Brexit, Scotland is in a significantly better position to secure Spanish consent. Scotland can argue that being part of the EU is more important to it than being a part of UK. Being given a choice between either UK or EU, it chose EU, but it would stay a part of UK otherwise.
There is no such issue with Catalonia. Brexit made Scottish independence an actual sui generis.
McHrozni
Gibraltar might be an option, but it would most likely come at a price of joint sovereignty with Spain and other limitations. Scotland is way too large for that.
McHrozni
Whilst that's strictly true, it's money that won't be coming to the treasury instead and so it'll have to be "replaced" from the "£350m a week"
I see that Theresa May has found another £2bn a year to fund scientific research:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38044015
That "£350m a week" will be stretched pretty thinly. At the moment IIRC it's being used to fund
- Scientific research
- Brenda and Stavros' refurb
- Nissan (and all other manufacturers') additional costs post-Brexit
- Tens of thousands of additional civil servants
- Farming subsidies until at least 2020
- Fishing subsidies until at least 2020
- Replacement regional development aid until at least 2020
I've probably missed some and no doubt there will be others in the future but these are the explicit promises I can remember.
Gee, Brexit is really saving the UK taxpayer a fortune
- Status