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

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	For the third time now, what is there to be worried about?

Worried is probably the wrong word. Any country's government has a responsibility to ensure and maintain the security of the nation's food and fuel resources. It could be alleged that this is being compromised.

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Bit of a difference between a bit of chocolate and the national grid. My query would be, with projects like the EastMed Pipeline nearing completion and possibly being extended in the future, will future diplomatic relations between China & Qatar and Russia affect the UK's power supply?

"the EastMed Pipeline" Carefully bypassing Turkey and originally planned to be completed next year but that is now unlikely

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	EU negotiators will offer Brits an individual opt-in to remain EU citizens, chief negotiator confirms Exclusive: Guy Verhofstadt has fast-tracked the plan and will include it in his mandate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7465271.html

[Jim2007]

Very quietly, Liam Fox admits the Brexit lie

	Quote:
	In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations.[italics added]

Source

This is not surprising since if you want to be a WTO member then you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7465271.html

Good idea but I assume the Brexiteers will oppose it simply because it is an EU idea.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Very quietly, Liam Fox admits the Brexit lie Source This is not surprising since if you want to be a WTO member then you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Real Politik, sad but true.
Let us sit together in March 2019 and list the positive Brexit changes; hopefully a long list!

[Jim2007]

Funds sought for Brexit court case in Ireland

	Quote:
	By bringing this case in Ireland, Mr Maugham believes the EU's highest court in Luxembourg will have to consider the issue.

If he succeeds in raising the money and if the Irish High Court agrees to hear the case then, it is almost certainly heading for the ECJ as it clearly not a matter the Irish courts can rule on. And of course if they don't rule on it presumably he will pick another jurisdiction and start all over again.

Mind you the idea of both the Irish and UK governments having to defend themselves in an Irish court could get interesting.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Funds sought for Brexit court case in Ireland If he succeeds in raising the money and if the Irish High Court agrees to hear the case then, it is almost certainly heading for the ECJ as it clearly not a matter the Irish courts can rule on. And of course if they don't rule on it presumably he will pick another jurisdiction and start all over again. Mind you the idea of both the Irish and UK governments having to defend themselves in an Irish court could get interesting.

Link:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38271287

Seems a bit of a waste of time and money to me. It's already clear in the rules that if there's no deal then the UK leaves without one. Would be the same if Parliament rejects any deal.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38271287 Seems a bit of a waste of time and money to me. It's already clear in the rules that if there's no deal then the UK leaves without one. Would be the same if Parliament rejects any deal.

Sorry I forgot the link.

That is not the key to this, it's his claim that the A50 has already been invoked and that the commission is in breach of the agreement by not starting the negotiations or alternatively it has not been invoked in which case UK MEPs etc should not be excluded from meetings are they are now.

Either way by trying to have the case held outside the UK jurisdiction, makes it almost a certainty that it will be referred to the ECJ.

[marton]

	Quote:
	Theresa May faces a new challenge to her bid to start the process to take Britain out of the European Union after it emerged that opponents plan to launch a fresh legal action on Monday. Campaigners are planning to write to the government to say that they are going to launch a High Court action to keep Britain in the single market. The claimants will argue that the government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because it was not on the referendum ballot paper on June 23and was not part of the Conservative Party manifesto for last year’s general election.

Source

Nightmare, like watching another poor B film.

I suppose many people here will not understand the term "B film"?

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Sorry I forgot the link. That is not the key to this, it's his claim that the A50 has already been invoked and that the commission is in breach of the agreement by not starting the negotiations or alternatively it has not been invoked in which case UK MEPs etc should not be excluded from meetings are they are now. Either way by trying to have the case held outside the UK jurisdiction, makes it almost a certainty that it will be referred to the ECJ.

The legal cases are certainly stacking up. At this rate one of them is bound to make it through and derail the leaving process significantly. Then it can be champagne all round on the South Bank or something suitably swanky by means of a suitable celebration. Might even get a bank or Investment Fund to sponsor it, who knows!

	Quote:	Mikers
	The legal cases are certainly stacking up. At this rate one of them is bound to make it through and derail the leaving process significantly. Then it can be champagne all round on the South Bank or something suitably swanky by means of a suitable celebration. Might even get a bank or Investment Fund to sponsor it, who knows!

I've been saying all along that Brexit isn't going to happen.

You can't pull a pig from a trough.

I really, really hope I'm wrong, though.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:
	I've been saying all along that Brexit isn't going to happen.

The legal cases simply argue that the referendum was insufficient - a direct result of Cameron having called it believing that its legality was moot because it would never be carried - and that an act of British Parliament is required.

If the political momentum (and competence) is there, then it may be a severe inconvenience, but they will eventually pass it, and as things stand the referendum result is sufficient to give it political momentum, at least for leaving the EU. Leaving the EEA or abandoning free moment of labour is more open to speculation.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	The legal cases simply argue that the referendum was insufficient - a direct result of Cameron having called it believing that its legality was moot because it would never be carried - and that an act of British Parliament is required. If the political momentum (and competence) is there, then it may be a severe inconvenience, but they will eventually pass it, and as things stand the referendum result is sufficient to give it political momentum, at least for leaving the EU. Leaving the EEA or abandoning free moment of labour is more open to speculation.

Whats truly amazing though is that no one mentioned this during the whole campaign! Really extraordinairy. You've all these people, The Gina Millers, Nick Clegg, loads of people bringing law cases, all of them seem to have suddenly woken up and though "hold on, they can't do that, it's illegal" at the same time! Isnt that just an amazing coincidence ? that not any one of the thousands and thousands of remain lawyers and specialists actually realized that what the government was trying to do was impossible legally during the campaign and so no one said a thing about this during the entire referendum, then as if by magic, they've all realized now that it needs lots more legal backing and they've all raised lots of legal cases against it - not to stop it of course, no one is suggesting that - no just to help it along, make sure 'due process is followed'.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Whats truly amazing though is that no one mentioned this during the whole campaign!

Hubris.

Even Farage admitted that at the onset of the campaign he though the yes campaign had little chance of winning. In reality, the political establishment (on both sides) had not really realised the seismic shift in public opinion that has taken place since 2008. The system that has been the bedrock of Western economic policy, which included free trade Capitalism and globalisation, had been seen to fail spectacularly 2008 and this (and the bailouts that followed) was a final straw for a middle class (and I use the term flexibly) that had already seen their standard of living either remain stagnant against rising prices or even drop for twenty years.

The support for radical far left parties after the credit crisis should have been a warning. Brexit was a bucket of water, some noticed in the UK, but that's it. But if any doubt remained, Trump clinched it.

Have you noticed how almost no one talked about the disaffected working / middle classes before Trump won? They were simply uneducated dolts. Well, they all forgot the oldest and most important lesson of democracy; vox populi, vox dei.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Whats truly amazing though is that no one mentioned this during the whole campaign! Really extraordinairy. You've all these people, The Gina Millers, Nick Clegg, loads of people bringing law cases, all of them seem to have suddenly woken up and though "hold on, they can't do that, it's illegal" at the same time! Isnt that just an amazing coincidence ? that not any one of the thousands and thousands of remain lawyers and specialists actually realized that what the government was trying to do was impossible legally during the campaign and so no one said a thing about this during the entire referendum, then as if by magic, they've all realized now that it needs lots more legal backing and they've all raised lots of legal cases against it - not to stop it of course, no one is suggesting that - no just to help it along, make sure 'due process is followed'.

"what the government was trying to do was impossible legally" But Brexit is not impossible legally
It is simply that the route May has chosen has opened up the possibilities for legal cases.

You could also write that before the Referendum it was not clearly stated;

• we will not consult the UK Parliament or the Scottish, Welsh and N. Ireland ones during the Brexit process
• we will also leave the EEA
• we will also leave the single market

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Whats truly amazing though is that no one mentioned this during the whole campaign! Really extraordinairy.

I find it amazing that you're not blaming the Leave proponents for not thinking their case thru and ensuring that the path forward is clear. There's a reason so many went silent after the vote who had been making headlines virtually daily up until then. While this is the custom for those who lost it's quite unusual for the winners. The reason is: They themselves had no plan, no concept on what was to follow.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	I find it amazing that you're not blaming the Leave proponents for not thinking their case thru and ensuring that the path forward is clear.

In fairness they didn't organise the referendum or choose its wording.

	Quote:
	The reason is: They themselves had no plan, no concept on what was to follow.

That would be largely because Eurosceptics have long followed the principle that the principle of sovereignty supersedes all other arguments - that is, even if it destroyed a nation, it would be worth it on principle.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	I find it amazing that you're not blaming the Leave proponents for not thinking their case thru and ensuring that the path forward is clear. There's a reason so many went silent after the vote who had been making headlines virtually daily up until then. While this is the custom for those who lost it's quite unusual for the winners. The reason is: They themselves had no plan, no concept on what was to follow.

Remain or Leave, campaign participatant, lawer, Hedge Fund owner, its the same. The expectation when people democratically agree on something is that is that the Government will implement it. It's really as simple as that.

Funny thing is, that by continuously using microscopic detail you'll get there in the end. It reminds me of OJ Simpson really. The prosecution relentlessly pushed the point that you had to be certain he was guilty of every aspect in such infinite detail that in the end, they got the result they wanted, when its obvious he did it to the layman.

[marton]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Hubris. ..... The system that has been the bedrock of Western economic policy, which included free trade Capitalism and globalisation, had been seen to fail spectacularly 2008 and this (and the bailouts that followed) was a final straw for a middle class (and I use the term flexibly) that had already seen their standard of living either remain stagnant against rising prices or even drop for twenty years......

True, I am one of those very annoyed by the whole business. At one extreme you have people who were fired for taking home a few pens and paper, at the other extreme people complicit in the theft of billions still got their annual bonuses
When I first joined EF there were many people here defending their employers but not anymore for a long time.
Diane Abbott quotes - You can't defend the indefensible - anything you say sounds self-serving and hypocritical.

But I did not see voting for Brexit as a solution; do you know the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

	Quote:	Aeneas
	In fairness they didn't organise the referendum or choose its wording. That would be largely because Eurosceptics have long followed the principle that the principle of sovereignty supersedes all other arguments - that is, even if it destroyed a nation, it would be worth it on principle.

"In fairness they didn't organise the referendum" The Referendum Bill was debated in Parliament where many Eurosceptics sat and could amend if so inclined?

"the principle of sovereignty supersedes all other arguments" The same people who complain about the wish that Parliament is involved in the Brexit process?