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

	Quote:
	https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/782575747470725120 Tim Farron says it better than I could. If there are any nutters (surely not) who are here in CH on UK pensions in £ - they better hold on tight to their knicker elastic - a rocky ride indeed

Bremoaners: "When will Art. 50 be invoked? No one knows what's going on, we need a plan and a timeline"

May sets out time line and date for Art. 50.

Bremoaners: "Parliament should be deciding this! It's far too early! We're not ready yet!"

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Except that EU regulations will have to drafted and incorporated into UK law, unlike directives that are UK law. Other wise some kind of catch all law will be needed.

	Quote:	Mikers
	OK well we'll do that then I expect. Whatever needs to be done I'm sure they will do it.

Would be nice to know who "they" are; some sort of team of experts needs to be created and given the responsibility, it will not happen on its own.

Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, has published a paper; on repealing EU law and then unpicking parts of legislation, he wrote: “The more our laws diverge from those of our partners, the less access we will have to the single market.”

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Bremoaners: "When will Art. 50 be invoked? No one knows what's going on, we need a plan and a timeline" May sets out time line and date for Art. 50. Bremoaners: "Parliament should be deciding this! It's far too early! We're not ready yet!"

From the same site you got the cartoon

"Why the hell does this process need to take so long? Negotiations should have begun right after the referendum was voted on by the people.
Here we are months after the initial vote and we only have an announcement on when the negotiations are to begin? WTF is up with this?"

Source

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:	marton
	Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, has published a paper; on repealing EU law and then unpicking parts of legislation, he wrote: “The more our laws diverge from those of our partners, the less access we will have to the single market.”

Problem solved!


May speech makes it clear: We’re leaving the single market

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	May sets out time line and date for Art. 50. Bremoaners: "Parliament should be deciding this! It's far too early! We're not ready yet!"

I take it you've never been divorced?


This isn't people being deliberately obstructive. There are sound legal and constitutional reasons why it should be Parliament, and despite your view, there are many people on both sides of the debate who feel this way. Parliament should be involved at this stage because there will definitely be knock on effects to UK law and constitutional law. But you can read all the whys and wherefores in this House of Lords document...

http://www.publications.parliament.u...onst/44/44.pdf

[marton]

	Quote:	Reb77Br
	Problem solved! May speech makes it clear: We’re leaving the single market

From the link " “We're going to be able to make our own decisions on how we label our food.”
So no possibility to export food to the EU if the labelling does not comply; circa £4.5 billion annually, source

[Blueangel]

I meant to show this paragraph from the above document...

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I take it you've never been divorced? This isn't people being deliberately obstructive. There are sound legal and constitutional reasons why it should be Parliament, and despite your view, there are many people on both sides of the debate who feel this way. Parliament should be involved at this stage because there will definitely be knock on effects to UK law and constitutional law. But you can read all the whys and wherefores in this House of Lords document... http://www.publications.parliament.u...onst/44/44.pdf

Who cares about the House of Lords? With any luck they'll get the bullet too in the coming years. Totally unnecessary and undemocratic level of government.

The bottom line is that Parliament is there to execute the will of the people. The people have spoken. End of.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	Would be nice to know who "they" are; some sort of team of experts needs to be created and given the responsibility, it will not happen on its own. Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, has published a paper; on repealing EU law and then unpicking parts of legislation, he wrote: “The more our laws diverge from those of our partners, the less access we will have to the single market.”

So they will hire some experts. Easy.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The bottom line is that Parliament is there to execute the will of the people. The people have spoken. End of.

There are deep set and long running legal consequences. This must be done in a sound and orderly fashion.

Triggering Article 50 = Decree Nisi

March 2019 = Decree Absolute

Only then do you begin the financial settlement, which must include definitive legal terms to prevent either party from claiming financial dependency from the other at a later date.

That's the timeline for a straighforward, no children divorce.

There are parallels to be drawn and I really don't see why May isn't going to give a Parliament a say, when her popularity rating is so high at the moment and she would benefit from having all the legalities solidly tied up. All the pundits are saying she would absolutely walk it if there was a snap general election.

The entire legallity of the matter could be taken out of her hands. We have to accept that because the future of the country is bigger than any single person's career. May has a hand full of trump cards at the moment, so she has precious little excuse for not playing her strongest suit.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The bottom line is that Parliament is there to execute the will of the people. The people have spoken. End of.

Then you completely misunderstand the reality of British "democracy". Parliament is there to represent the people, not to execute their will.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	Then you completely misunderstand the reality of British "democracy". Parliament is there to represent the people, not to execute their will.

Why have a referendum then in the first place?

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:	marton
	From the link " “We're going to be able to make our own decisions on how we label our food.” So no possibility to export food to the EU if the labelling does not comply; circa £4.5 billion annually, source

Perhaps they'll continue labelling things in line with EU legislation, maybe sticking a Union Jack on it or something to convince people they've "taken back control".

	Quote:	Mikers
	Why have a referendum then in the first place?

Why was the referendum advisory and not binding?

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Why have a referendum then in the first place?

To placate the eurosceptics in the Tory party and prevent loss of votes to UKIP.

	Quote:
	Then you completely misunderstand the reality of British "democracy". Parliament is there to represent the people, not to execute their will.

Perhaps you didn't read the contract.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Perhaps you didn't read the contract.

If that were a legally binding contract, 48% of the voters would have a case. They conveniently missed out the word 'majority'.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	If that were a legally binding contract, 48% of the voters would have a case. They conveniently missed out the word 'majority'.

And is it written on the correct type of paper to be submitted as a contract ? And is the pen colour the correct shade of black ?

These and other major sticking points can be used to try and reverse the referendum decision.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Mikers
	And is it written on the correct type of paper to be submitted as a contract ? And is the pen colour the correct shade of black ? These and other major sticking points can be used to try and reverse the referendum decision.

Now you're being picky

As things currently stand, I do believe Brexit will happen.

Knowing a little of Theresa May's character, I do believe Article 50 will be triggered before the end of March 2017.

What I don't know is what will happen between now and then, and what will come afterwards. I do believe this needs to go to Parliament. I do believe there are forces within the Government who will try to guide / force her hand in this direction. We have absolutely no control over that, unless you happen to be an expert and practising in constitutional law.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	So they will hire some experts. Easy.

Announcing a plan without announcing how it will be implemented changes it from a plan to a wish.
And you know wishes are often not fulfilled.