Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Garrison]

It's not my advice. We had a democratic referendum, in case you've forgotten.

Which provided no mandate for 'we'll just have to wait and see'. A large section of those who voted leave did so on the assurance that economy would as well as, if not better than, it would by remaining in the EU.

Yes. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to solicit that advice - now they have to act on it. Or they can ignore the advice, at their likely peril.

Which version? The version that promised £350 million a week for the NHS? The version that promised there would be no economic downside to leaving? Like the rest of the hardcore Brexiteers you seem to feel the promises made by the leave campaign can be simply discarded now they have the result they wanted. Fortunately the courts and parliament see things differently.

 

[Lothian]

You reveal how undemocratic you are. But as it's a democracy, you still have the right to vote however you wish.

Do you believe in the public's democratic right to vote on the final negotiated deal with the EU?

 

[ceptimus]

Do you believe in the public's democratic right to vote on the final negotiated deal with the EU?

If the EU were prepared to offer us the chance to do that then yes, I wouldn't mind a vote on it.

But the EU won't offer any such thing - once Article 50 is invoked there is no going back to the status quo, and the EU will not negotiate unless and until Article 50 is invoked.

If you think it should be the public's democratic right to vote on the deal then you need to take it up with the EU, not me. You've got no chance of success though - the EU won't entertain the idea.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How have they shown this incompetence? By not revealing to you the minutia of their intended negotiating position ahead of the actual negotiations?

Minutiae or..... even the broadest of brush strokes. No surprise though because the lack of definition was what got Brexit over the finishing line in the first place. Actually explaining what it means would be too much to bear for some voters.

I see today some bumping gums about British people maybe losing their rights to live in Germany.... that's what the very same people complaining about it voted for.

 

[Lothian]

If the EU were prepared to offer us the chance to do that then yes, I wouldn't mind a vote on it.

But the EU won't offer any such thing - once Article 50 is invoked there is no going back to the status quo, and the EU will not negotiate unless and until Article 50 is invoked.

If you think it should be the public's democratic right to vote on the deal then you need to take it up with the EU, not me. You've got no chance of success though - the EU won't entertain the idea.

Invoking Article 50 does not mean we leave the EU. what happens is the parties seek to agree a withdrawal agreement. If agreement is not reached then the Uk will leave after two years, unless the parties agree a longer deadline. However, there is nothing in article 50 to stop the UK changing its mind and withdrawing from the withdrawal.

Therefore it is entirely possible for the Uk to put the proposed withdrawal agreement to the public vote. Following that vote they could sign the withdrawal agreement or withdraw from the article 50 process.

Lets hope you do get a vote on it. I understand (perhaps wrongly) that you are a hard brexiteer. I doubt very much that will be the UK's negotiating team's aim. I suspect the deal will be very soft.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Invoking Article 50 does not mean we leave the EU. what happens is the parties seek to agree a withdrawal agreement. If agreement is not reached then the Uk will leave after two years, unless the parties agree a longer deadline. However, there is nothing in article 50 to stop the UK changing its mind and withdrawing from the withdrawal.

Therefore it is entirely possible for the Uk to put the proposed withdrawal agreement to the public vote. Following that vote they could sign the withdrawal agreement or withdraw from the article 50 process.

Lets hope you do get a vote on it. I understand (perhaps wrongly) that you are a hard brexiteer. I doubt very much that will be the UK's negotiating team's aim. I suspect the deal will be very soft.

As I understand it there is nothing in Art 50 that says you can change your mind either. You seem to be assuming that if it doesn't forbid it then it must be allowed.

 

[ceptimus]

Article 50 begins the process of exiting. There is no provision to negotiate for two years and then change your mind if you've not negotiated something better.

 

[abaddon]

If the EU were prepared to offer us the chance to do that then yes, I wouldn't mind a vote on it.

Make up your mind. You already rejected any second referendum.

But the EU won't offer any such thing -

Why should they?

once Article 50 is invoked there is no going back to the status quo,

Yes there is.

and the EU will not negotiate unless and until Article 50 is invoked.

Correct. What are you waiting for?

If you think it should be the public's democratic right to vote on the deal then you need to take it up with the EU, not me. You've got no chance of success though - the EU won't entertain the idea.

Nor will you. The point is thus moot.

Article 50 begins the process of exiting. There is no provision to negotiate for two years and then change your mind if you've not negotiated something better.

Yes there is.

 

[Darat]

How have they shown this incompetence? By not revealing to you the minutia of their intended negotiating position ahead of the actual negotiations?

The government does more than deal with Brexit you know.

 

[Lothian]

As I understand it there is nothing in Art 50 that says you can change your mind either. You seem to be assuming that if it doesn't forbid it then it must be allowed.

Yes, there is a lacuna. However looking at the text and the terminology article 50 is about the pre withdrawal discussions suggesting withdrawal is a separate act. There is nothing to say once enacted article 50 notification can not be withdrawn. Given EU law is purposive you have to ask whether the intention was that states entering into withdrawal negotiations should not be permitted to change their mind. I doubt very much that would be the case.

 

[Lothian]

Article 50 begins the process of exiting. There is no provision to negotiate for two years and then change your mind if you've not negotiated something better.

There is no provision to say you can wear white socks with sandals. Don't confuse explicit provision with what is allowed, no matter how distasteful you may find it.

 

[Degeneve]

Yes, there is a lacuna. However looking at the text and the terminology article 50 is about the pre withdrawal discussions suggesting withdrawal is a separate act. There is nothing to say once enacted article 50 notification can not be withdrawn. Given EU law is purposive you have to ask whether the intention was that states entering into withdrawal negotiations should not be permitted to change their mind. I doubt very much that would be the case.

Even if a state entered in the article 50 process changes it mind, I doubt that it could come back to the status quo ante without negotiations. In particular for the UK which received some particular advantages (remember "I want my money back") which could be questionned...

 

[Aber]

Either that, or Theresa is a Bremainer in disguise. I found this increasingly unlikely in the past few months, but actions like these are consistent with a closet Bremainer sabotaging the process from the inside.

In this case European =/= EU.

From the article

The UPC itself is not an EU institution, it is an international patent court.

 

[Aber]

A Welsh UKIP politician made a great suggestion : having Ireland using EU fundings to pay for the M4 motorway between London and South Wales because a substantial part of Irish exports are dispatched through this motorway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAmhI0YPbE&feature=youtu.be

Probably the wrong issue to choose.

Reducing the weight limits on the Menai Bridges to 20 tons would be far more effective.

 

[Klimax]

In this case European =/= EU.

From the article

Problem: It uses EU Law and CJEU oversees it. It's de facto EU institution.

See that article: http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...ary-patent-accepts-supremacy-of-top-eu-court/

 

[The Don]

David Davis has suggested that the UK could pay for access to the EEA but is standing firm on freedom of movement.

The UK would consider making payments to the EU after it leaves the bloc to secure the best possible access to the EU single market, Brexit Secretary David Davis has said.

Boris Johnson may or may not be standing firm on freedom of movement depending on whether you believe he is reported to have said on the subject or what David Davis says he believes Boris thinks.....

He said reports Boris Johnson backed freedom of movement were "at odds" with what he knew of Mr Johnson's views.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942

So now the "£350m a week" has to cover:

• The £122bn budget shortfall
• Additional funding for the NHS
• Refurbishing Buckingham Palace
• Maintaining farming subsidies
• Maintaining fishing subsidies
• Indemnifying manufacturers against negative impacts of Brexit
• £2bn a year for science and innovation
• Replace EU investment for our poorest regions
• Pay our EEA subscriptions

What a shambles.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes there is.

Can you show me that? I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, there is a lacuna. However looking at the text and the terminology article 50 is about the pre withdrawal discussions suggesting withdrawal is a separate act. There is nothing to say once enacted article 50 notification can not be withdrawn. Given EU law is purposive you have to ask whether the intention was that states entering into withdrawal negotiations should not be permitted to change their mind. I doubt very much that would be the case.

Equally I doubt it would be the case that they intended for countries to create havoc by indicating they want to leave, negotiating to leave, then not being able to get the deal approved to actually leave and being stuck in a no man's land.

Leaving seems to be automatic after 2 years elapses unless the EU votes to extend the notice period so I would assume that not leaving would require an EU vote to allow it at the very least.

 

[ohms]

• Refurbishing Buckingham Palace

Putting that in there is a bit disingenuous as it would be done whether we leave or remain in the EU. Can't argue with the rest of your post though.

 

[3point14]

So now the "£350m a week" has to cover:

• The £122bn budget shortfall
• Additional funding for the NHS
• Refurbishing Buckingham Palace
• Maintaining farming subsidies
• Maintaining fishing subsidies
• Indemnifying manufacturers against negative impacts of Brexit
• £2bn a year for science and innovation
• Replace EU investment for our poorest regions
• Pay our EEA subscriptions

Can we club together for some billboard space to put this on them?