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

[Jim2007]

Brexit divorce talks will be in French? EU are kidding, right?

Oh dear!

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	No, no contradiction. The PM/Government can use their powers to trigger Article 50 and then Parliament does what's needed to change UK laws to implement any subsequenty deals/treaties

So that other members can read the content of your post from the source and in context...

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-to-legislate/

	Quote:	Jim2007
	What would be the basis for petitioning the ECJ, decisions on accepting treaty changes and presumably a decision to break the treaty are left to each member state according to their domestic law.

I confess that I read this on my phone whilst in the departures lounge of Manchester airport the other day, (which narrows the source down to BBC, Sky News or Reuters) and can't find it now, but I have found this...

	Quote:
	Lord Chief Justice Thomas, the most senior judge in the country, said he was "baffled" by this arrangement and suggested that EU citizenship rights, which will be lost once Article 50 is invoked, are a matter for parliamentary consultation. "I'm baffled," Lord Thomas said. "These rights are under treaty. If amending the treaty, parliamentary approval is needed. So, I don't understand why the content of these rights are not controlled by parliament?"

http://uk.businessinsider.com/suprem...uments-2016-10

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	So which part of my analysis do you disagree with and why??? As for reversal, why would you fear reversal. If parliament was to reject the invocation of article 50, then the PM could call a general election and based on the referendum presumably she would return with the majority needed to proceed. That would give her both the mandate and the legal standing to proceed.

There was a referendum on leaving the eu. The government said it would do the voters wishes. The voters voted to leave the eu. The government will now proceed to do that.

I'm no fan of leaving the EU, it will hurt us economically. But it is important the government performs the will of the people. Trying to reverse it by injecting legal arguments, saying it must be up to mp's, announcing its unconstitutional, all of that will be ignored and rightly so. The people asked the government to do something and the government is going to do it. In a democratic society that is very very important.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Brexit divorce talks will be in French? EU are kidding, right? Oh dear!

You could have guessed they would though really.

Theresa May said today that the eu must start acting maturely and she's right, this is isn't some moral grandstanding it's a huge business decision. In the end money should talk so that idiots who talk of giving Britain a hard time will be correctly ordered to get in with some proper negotiation of business deals.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	For once, just read to what I was replying to.

You mean that I should ignore your reply

If that is what you want then

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	You could have guessed they would though really. Theresa May said today that the eu must start acting maturely and she's right, this is isn't some moral grandstanding it's a huge business decision. In the end money should talk so that idiots who talk of giving Britain a hard time will be correctly ordered to get in with some proper negotiation of business deals.

""some proper negotiation of business deals" The problem here is the Brexit campaign has always referred to "the EU", this gives the false impression that the EU is a hierarchical organisation with one (or a limited number of) decision makers at the top of the pyramid.

The reality is that any decisions about Brexit will be made by 27 countries each of whom have a veto (plus some obscure entities within the countries who also have a veto).

As the Waloons clearly demonstrated this week with their veto of the Canadian free trade agreement, an obscure entity who cares less about, for example, German car exports can veto any deal.
So anybody who claims the EU will make a good deal because they cannot afford to lose UK exports clearly fails to understand the weird EU decision making process.

When Theresa May said today that the EU must start acting maturely she clearly also does not understand the weird EU decision making process.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	""some proper negotiation of business deals" The problem here is the Brexit campaign has always referred to "the EU", this gives the false impression that the EU is a hierarchical organisation with one (or a limited number of) decision makers at the top of the pyramid. The reality is that any decisions about Brexit will be made by 27 countries each of whom have a veto (plus some obscure entities within the countries who also have a veto). As the Waloons clearly demonstrated this week with their veto of the Canadian free trade agreement, an obscure entity who cares less about, for example, German car exports can veto any deal. So anybody who claims the EU will make a good deal because they cannot afford to lose UK exports clearly fails to understand the weird EU decision making process. When Theresa May said today that the EU must start acting maturely she clearly also does not understand the weird EU decision making process.

Yes exactly. So the lesson is clear: unless they get their act together and focus on enabling business and not whose got the best language, they will eventually sink, as Canada has more or less said today with much frustration.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes exactly. So the lesson is clear: unless they get their act together and focus on enabling business and not whose got the best language, they will eventually sink, as Canada has more or less said today with much frustration.

"unless they get their act together " well that is the problem; you are still thinking about "the EU" getting their act together as a single organisation - you need to think about it as a group of 27 very different countries each with a veto that each one can invoke for any daft reason and nobody can stop them.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Mikers
	The people asked the government to do something and the government is going to do it. In a democratic society that is very very important.

In a democracy the rule of law is very important if we are to have a fair and just society. Just because something is popular today is not a good enough reason to ignore the rule of law. The parliament, elected by the people, gave it's consent for an advisory referendum nothing more. If a precedent is set where by the PM is free to use the Queen's prerogative in situations where she does not enjoy a parliamentary majority on a matter, then who is to say where that power ends??? Could the PM use the same argument for instance to push through unpopular trade deals for instance?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes exactly. So the lesson is clear: unless they get their act together and focus on enabling business and not whose got the best language, they will eventually sink, as Canada has more or less said today with much frustration.

People have been complaining about the power of the EU and when the limits of that power is demonstrated it becomes a problem for them as well! Presumably if it was a deal the U.K. did not want we'd be hearing all the usual objections!

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	In a democracy the rule of law is very important if we are to have a fair and just society. Just because something is popular today is not a good enough reason to ignore the rule of law. The parliament, elected by the people, gave it's consent for an advisory referendum nothing more. If a precedent is set where by the PM is free to use the Queen's prerogative in situations where she does not enjoy a parliamentary majority on a matter, then who is to say where that power ends??? Could the PM use the same argument for instance to push through unpopular trade deals for instance?

The referendum wasn't advisory. They said on the form 'the government will implement what you decide '.

So they will implement it.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	The referendum wasn't advisory. They said on the form 'the government will implement what you decide '. So they will implement it.

Again!

Here is a relevant quote from the House of Commons Briefing Paper, European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16.

"It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions.

The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution."

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	Again! Here is a relevant quote from the House of Commons Briefing Paper, European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16. "It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution."

I'm not really into all the technical stuff. From what I remember the piece of paper that everyone in Britain would have been using to indicate their vote said in it 'the government will implement what you decide'. It's simple.

Simple question Mikers- do you intend to go back and live in UK?

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I'm not really into all the technical stuff. From what I remember the piece of paper that everyone in Britain would have been using to indicate their vote said in it 'the government will implement what you decide'. It's simple.

They had no legal right to make that promise and anyway Cameron and half his Ministers are gone so who will you finger to keep that promise?

BTW the Tories kept Cameron's seat but Robert Courts won by only 5,702 votes, with the party's vote share falling from 60% in 2015 to 45%, as the Lib Dems surged past Labour into second.
Liz Leffman polled 11,611 votes as the Lib Dems' share rose from 7% to 30%

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	Simple question Mikers- do you intend to go back and live in UK?

I don't know. Not in the immediate future but when the kids are a bit older probably yes.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	They had no legal right to make that promise and anyway Cameron and half his Ministers are gone so who will you finger to keep that promise? BTW the Tories kept Cameron's seat but Robert Courts won by only 5,702 votes, with the party's vote share falling from 60% in 2015 to 45%, as the Lib Dems surged past Labour into second. Liz Leffman polled 11,611 votes as the Lib Dems' share rose from 7% to 30%

OK so it was a big waste of money then really. We shouldn't have bothered.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I'm not really into all the technical stuff. From what I remember the piece of paper that everyone in Britain would have been using to indicate their vote said in it 'the government will implement what you decide'. It's simple.

Except that right now it is that technical stuff that really matters! I am surprised at how little the British people understand about how their country is governed and the fundamental question being decided in the courts right now.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	OK so it was a big waste of money then really. We shouldn't have bothered.

I believe the referendum was OK and was not a bad idea.

Problem for me was the complete lack of professionalism by both sides in their campaigns and the lies told by both sides.
It became clear that neither side really understood how the EU operated and sadly our current UK Government also do not.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill "a travesty wrapped in black humour wrapped in a Greek tragedy"

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Except that right now it is that technical stuff that really matters! I am surprised at how little the British people understand about how their country is governed and the fundamental question being decided in the courts right now.

Well the basic issue is sadly many UK people have not progressed beyond "the ones in white hats are good" and "the bad ones have black hats"

Now we are reduced to negotiating a new deal with the EU where the whole process can be blocked by an obscure part of industrial Belgium trying to reduce their 20+% unemployment rate.
It is like the UK Brexit negotiation position being controlled by Ebbw Vale!!