The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	k_and_e
	2. Get the EU to agree on general leaving conditions that would be applicable to any country that would leave and would be non-negotiable

That is the exact problem with the EU !!


One size does not fit all and it is really stupid to try and make it fit all

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	They did, but we are 2 governments down the line, and as mentioned before, one of our founding pricinciples of democracy is that no future government can be bound by a previous government's decisions.

You don't have 'founding principles' or anything like that, just traditions and as we're seen they are easily forgotten.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	You don't have 'founding principles' or anything like that, just traditions and as we're seen they are easily forgotten.

Of course we do. We don't have a written constitution, but we certainly have founding principles going back to the Magna Carta.

Ironically, one argument against having a written constitution is exactly that it would bind successor governments.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	So the EU is Hotel California.

Do you ever actually bother to educate yourself on the topic? Nothing could be simpler that leaving the EU as A50 sets out:

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.

If all the UK wanted was to just walk away the could have done so, but as we all know that is not what they want....

Expecting the other 27 member states to disadvantage themselves or endanger their union in order to give the UK the deal they want is simply dumb and will not happen.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Problem is, what is the way out ? There just isnt one. Remain - Goes against wishes of democratic vote. Leave - Economic catastrophe. General Election - Nothing fixed. Rerun of vote ("Final Say") - sounds great. What do you do if the result is 51% vs 49% to remain on a lower turnout ? There just isn't a fix without some sort of disaster.

There used to be an old fashioned concept called compromise. Get the others to approve some of your points in return for conceding on some of their points.

We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in if there weren’t so many people trying to have it all their way.

But the idea is so out dated, I know

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	Of course we do. We don't have a written constitution, but we certainly have founding principles going back to the Magna Carta. Ironically, one argument against having a written constitution is exactly that it would bind successor governments.

The Magna Carta was an agreement between nobles and the king and the last of it was repealed sometime around 1848.... there is not even a provision to require the Speaker of the House to impartial and to remove him if he fails to do so... never mind anything else.

And as we've seen yesterday even the so called sovereign parliament is not sovereign it is subject to the government, a minority one in this case.

Get real and stop swallowing the nonsense that the upper classes have been peddling you for the last couple of hundred years. "Oh yes we got a constitution, but it is unwritten and that is a great advantage because it makes it very flexible", yes it certainly is.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	amogles
	We wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in if there weren’t so many people trying to have it all their way.

You would not be in this mess, if the UK had joined other modern democracies in having a codified and enforceable democratic process.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	The Magna Carta was an agreement between nobles and the king and the last of it was repealed sometime around 1848.... there is not even a provision to require the Speaker of the House to impartial and to remove him if he fails to do so... never mind anything else. And as we've seen yesterday even the so called sovereign parliament is not sovereign it is subject to the government, a minority one in this case. Get real and stop swallowing the nonsense that the upper classes have been peddling you for the last couple of hundred years. "Oh yes we got a constitution, but it is unwritten and that is a great advantage because it makes it very flexible", yes it certainly is.

Dude, take a breath. I never opined whether having a written constitution was a good or a bad thing, stop projecting for a second. I was merely saying that the founding principles of our democracy can be traced back that far and that your suggestion there are no founding principles, because they aren't written down, is nonsense.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Do you ever actually bother to educate yourself on the topic? Nothing could be simpler that leaving the EU as A50 sets out: 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. If all the UK wanted was to just walk away the could have done so, but as we all know that is not what they want.... Expecting the other 27 member states to disadvantage themselves or endanger their union in order to give the UK the deal they want is simply dumb and will not happen.

That was actually my point. It will not happen that there is a deal accepted by a leaving country, so the only way for a country is a no deal or to stay.


Just imagine that a country that is geographically in the middle of Europe and using the euro would leave with no deal, both for the country and for the EU.

[dandi]

	Quote:
	2. Get the EU to agree on general leaving conditions that would be applicable to any country that would leave and would be non-negotiable

	Quote:
	Your second point is never going to happen, it is in the interest of the EU to keep as many aboard for as long as possible and thus making a leave as shitty as can be.

Actually, the EU has a set of leaving conditions that is article 50 that is pretty clear and fair IMHO. You say you want to leave, you have 2 years to sort it out and then you are out. And they even grant extensions without too much fuss.

Now, what you would mean is some kind of leaving conditions where you keep your priviledges after you leave - now that would be something rather unusual, don't you think? Like, you leave the fancy golf club and don't pay the membership fee, but you keep the keys to have a play every now and then, right?

Don't see anything wrong with EU's position here, they may have an interest to keep some countries in but the conditions are the same for everyone, whether they are net contributors or net beneficiaries of EU funding.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	Dude, take a breath. I never opined whether having a written constitution was a good or a bad thing, stop projecting for a second. I was merely saying that the founding principles of our democracy can be traced back that far and that your suggestion there are no founding principles, because they aren't written down, is nonsense.

And I'm saying there is noting but tradition. Or can you for instance square the use of the Queen's Prerogative by a PM with the principle of a sovereign parliament? A set of principles should at least in some way be compatible with each other...

[greenmount]

	Quote:	dandi
	Actually, the EU has a set of leaving conditions that is article 50 that is pretty clear and fair IMHO. You say you want to leave, you have 2 years to sort it out and then you are out. And they even grant extensions without too much fuss. Now, what you would mean is some kind of leaving conditions where you keep your priviledges after you leave - now that would be something rather unusual, don't you think? Like, you leave the fancy golf club and don't pay the membership fee, but you keep the keys to have a play every now and then, right? Don't see anything wrong with EU's position here, they may have an interest to keep some countries in but the conditions are the same for everyone, whether they are net contributors or net beneficiaries of EU funding.

But you see, that's the problem. Those countries who benefited the most, for decades, are now flirting with the idea of "leaving". OK, only a certain segment of the population, to be fair. "Leaving" but with all their privileges intact.

What was that saying about having the cake and eating it?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	That was actually my point. It will not happen that there is a deal accepted by a leaving country, so the only way for a country is a no deal or to stay. Just imagine that a country that is geographically in the middle of Europe and using the euro would leave with no deal, both for the country and for the EU.

You seem to forget that the UKs red line items is what got them to this point... the have ruled out every other option from an EEA style integration deal to a Canada/Japan style FTA.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	And I'm saying there is noting but tradition. Or can you for instance square the use of the Queen's Prerogative by a PM with the principle of a sovereign parliament? A set of principles should at least in some way be compatible with each other...

I'm not sure traditions must be mutually exclusive with principles? A good deal of order is maintained in all walks of life through (oral) tradition, from uncontested drop balls in football to the monarch not exercising any prerogative they may have for over 200 years.

We have all seen what a badly worded agreement leads to a very very ambiguous treaty with no real get out, save about 2 lines of fluff.


This is why it is so important only to sign an exit agreement that is clear and unambiguous with clear wording, definitions and obligations, not some bollocks with a never ending clause subject to whatever interpretation you care to make and with it being dependent on one party only.

[amogles]

	Quote:
	We have all seen what a badly worded agreement leads to a very very ambiguous treaty with no real get out, save about 2 lines of fluff. This is why it is so important only to sign an exit agreement that is clear and unambiguous with clear wording, definitions and obligations, not some bollocks with a never ending clause subject to whatever interpretation you care to make and with it being dependent on one party only.

A lot of laws as written and passed by parliaments are essentially fluff. Typically it's then the courts that clarify the details.

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:
	That is the exact problem with the EU !! One size does not fit all and it is really stupid to try and make it fit all

Can you give examples of EU countries being required to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach against their will and against their citizens' interests?

Take the two-year guarantee on all goods, for example, that was introduced by the EU member states. Do you believe that people in the UK should get only a one-year guarantee, those in Poland an 18-month guarantee and those in Spain a two-year guarantee and that it's stupid for all consumers in the EU to get a two-year guarantee? Or that only some goods should be covered and not others? Or that online sales should be excluded? Plenty of opportunity for a multitude of different systems here.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	This is why it is so important only to sign an exit agreement that is clear and unambiguous with clear wording, definitions and obligations, not some bollocks with a never ending clause subject to whatever interpretation you care to make and with it being dependent on one party only.

That doesn't make sense, the more detailed the regulation the more needs to be adapted when things change.

Besides, fundamentally Brexit is quite simple:
Pay what you committed for, leave and be out. Done. But GB wants to somehow remain in, just without what it sees as negatives, such as incorporating EU regulations on the EEA.

I may be wrong with this, but to me it looks like GB got the best of two worlds already with what's offered (at least much of it, not sure about passporting), GB can effectively stay in the EEA for free and without FMOP. If that's not flexibility by the EU nothing is.

[Blueangel]

Just catching up after watching last night's debates this morning.

Sir Alan Duncan (Conservative Remainer) said, and I totally agree with him on this much, that it would be reckless for the government to assume that they could properly prepare for no deal, do everything in their power to attain a new deal, attend to normal daily business and prepare their manifesto for the Queen's Speech whilst also fighting a GE. It was always a ploy and I'm glad it was defeated.

Today, the first batch of people who just missed out on having a vote in the 2016 Referendum are beginning their 3rd year at uni or graduated this summer, or they're working people, maybe married and with children of their own. That's how far removed we are from 2016.

Larry the cat says he was kept awake last night by Cummings using shredders on an industrial scale It wouldn't surprise me.

My feeling and instinct is that when a single issue is not partisan along the traditional party divisions, it can only be properly assessed and judged by being addressed in a non-partisan format. To my mind, that would exclude a GE as being the method to resolve such an issue.

I want to read Operation Yellowhammer and I'm guessing I'm not alone in that. I want to see the best deal the PM can get out of the EU and have time to compare and contrast it with May's deal. Whilst I doubt that any of it will change my belief that we already had the best deal within the EU, I'll still take the time to read and consider it all.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	That is the exact problem with the EU !! One size does not fit all and it is really stupid to try and make it fit all

The only way to make sense of your comments is to conclude that you do not understand the objective!

You can’t build a single market if everyone is to have different rules or obligations it is as simple as that.

The UK is a single market, who well do you think it would function if each of the four countries started implement different consumer laws, standards, corporate taxation laws, regulations on the movement of people within the union and so on.

Suppose the Government Of Wales decides that in order to protect their farmers they require all lamb sold in the country to be sourced in Wales and as a counter measure the Scottish Government decide to subsidize the exports of lamb into England, this is the kind of nonsense you are advocating.