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

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	Anyway sterling is up after today's news; "Parliament has the right to reject the final Brexit deal, No.10 has indicated for the first time – raising the possibility that Britain’s EU exit could yet be halted.

So how would that work? The UK invokes article 50 and there is no provision for a withdrawal in treaty. That is exactly why the EU require it to be invoked before the negotiation starts.

The EU intends to establish it own military capability, it's border force (which I think has already kicked off) etc.... do you really thing they will be happy to let the UK back in only to have start objecting and holding up their progress????

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	marton
	I doubt the UK's revered leaders could organise a piss-up in a brewery? Anyway sterling is up after today's news; "Parliament has the right to reject the final Brexit deal, No.10 has indicated for the first time – raising the possibility that Britain’s EU exit could yet be halted. Downing Street agreed it is “very likely” that MPs and peers will be given a vote once the withdrawal negotiations are finished, after the issue arose in the High Court." Source

It won't be halted whether any deal is rejected or not. Once Article 50 is invoked the UK is out in 2 years with or without a deal.

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.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html

I can't see them unanimously agreeing to extend the period unless they're very close to an agreement. Certainly if Parliament rejects any deal, they won't bother.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

And the single market might not even be part of the agreement. Divorce first, trade agreement second.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37703670

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	So how would that work? The UK invokes article 50 and there is no provision for a withdrawal in treaty. That is exactly why the EU require it to be invoked before the negotiation starts. The EU intends to establish it own military capability, it's border force (which I think has already kicked off) etc.... do you really thing they will be happy to let the UK back in only to have start objecting and holding up their progress????

I assume the newspaper got confused between the UK Parliament being allowed to vote before Art. 50 is invoked; which is the topic of the court case mentioned.
And the UK Parliament being allowed to vote on the result of the negotiations.

The first case could stop Brexit, the second case would just make the mess even deeper

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	It won't be halted whether any deal is rejected or not. Once Article 50 is invoked the UK is out in 2 years with or without a deal.

§50(1). If it is agreed nationally that parliament approval is necessary, it can be claimed that the invoking isn't in accordance with the (luckily unwritten) constitution until approval has been given.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Back to Parliament going against the will of the people again. We said out and we mean out! Enough for me to say the PM can invoke without Parliament's interference.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Back to Parliament going against the will of the people again. We said out and we mean out! Enough for me to say the PM can invoke without Parliament's interference.

Well it was a non binding referendum so the PM possibly risks being impeached if she invokes Art. 50 without Parliament.
Will be interesting to see the result of the court case currently underway on this topic.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

And MPs risk deselection.

[Phil_MCR]

https://www.ft.com/content/36a2296c-...e-bcd69f323a8b

Berlin and Paris want to start talks early, but stubbornly refuse to start talks before notification is given

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	https://www.ft.com/content/36a2296c-...e-bcd69f323a8b Berlin and Paris want to start talks early, but stubbornly refuse to start talks before notification is given

Why the rolling eyes? As you must by now know (as it's been stated in this thread multiple times) it is legally forbidden.

[amogles]

	Quote:
	Why the rolling eyes? As you must by now know (as it's been stated in this thread multiple times) it is legally forbidden.

Maybe it isn't legally forbidden to demand another country invoke article 50, but it's not really good style either.

Especially seeing, as has also become clear on this thread, that it's not that simple and that both houses of parliament are going to have to debate and approve first.

[Phil_MCR]

I'm wonder what makes Mr Holland thinks that the UK owes him any favours after stating that Britain should be threatened and made to pay a price for Brexit?

I rather think that the Brexit timing should be to damage his chances as much as possible and support Le Pen who congratulated the UK on Brexit and may be better for the UK in the upcoming negotiations.

[Phil_MCR]

	Quote:
	Why the rolling eyes? As you must by now know (as it's been stated in this thread multiple times) it is legally forbidden.

where has this been stated?

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	I'm wonder what makes Mr Holland thinks that the UK owes him any favours after stating that Britain should be threatened and made to pay a price for Brexit? I rather think that the Brexit timing should be to damage his chances as much as possible and support Le Pen who congratulated the UK on Brexit and may be better for the UK in the upcoming negotiations.

Oh I think he's managed to do that quite well all on his own.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37702917

"A President Should Not Say That" - no, they really shouldn't. Certainly not to journalists planning to write a book.

[Phil_MCR]

I would suggest notification on 25 March 2017

[Capo]

Working-class UK: will Brexit bring change? | Focus on Europe

youtube.com/watch?v=K-99GrQa5m4

How does this work?

[josquius]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Back to Parliament going against the will of the people again. We said out and we mean out! Enough for me to say the PM can invoke without Parliament's interference.

: and what does out mean?

Are you quite sure everyone who voted leave looked at it the same way as you?

Parliament needs full control over procedings and then once a deal is reached we need another referendum to confirm that this is what we want.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	And MPs risk deselection.

Funny, some people claim Brexit was about sovereignty not immigration.
Now we are facing possibly the most important decision of the century and you want to avoid the formal involvement of Parliament.

So what did you vote for exactly?

Probably many anti Corbyn MPs are facing deselection despite Brexit!

Anyway the next general election is four years away and people have short memories

	Quote:	amogles
	Maybe it isn't legally forbidden to demand another country invoke article 50, but it's not really good style either. Especially seeing, as has also become clear on this thread, that it's not that simple and that both houses of parliament are going to have to debate and approve first.

Why should the rest of Europe have to put up with all the uncertainty around Brexit and wait? The rules re negotiations have always been crystal clear- long before the vote.

Bad news - chocolate money is now stronger than GBP...