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

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	A binding referendum would require a law change.

Actually requires a change in the Constitution which might not prove so easy as it would have a lot of implications around who has the ultimate UK Constitutional authority to make decisions.

[baboon]

	Quote:	marton
	Actually requires a change in the Constitution which might not prove so easy as it would have a lot of implications around who has the ultimate UK Constitutional authority to make decisions.

Actually not necessarily.

	Quote:
	...referendums can be de facto binding if the enabling legislation for a referendum not only sets out provisions regarding the referendum itself, but also contains the new rules that will come into being if the referendum is passed...

https://constitution-unit.com/2017/1...k-in-practice/

	Quote:	marton
	Actually requires a change in the Constitution which might not prove so easy as it would have a lot of implications around who has the ultimate UK Constitutional authority to make decisions.

As the UK doesn't have a codified constitution, a law change is all that is required.

UK economic growth for the quarter at 0.7% compared to 0.4% in France and 0.2% in the Eurozone.

I'll save you the time folks.

"BREXIT HASEN'T HAPPENED YET!!"

	Quote:	Loz1983
	UK economic growth for the quarter at 0.7% compared to 0.4% in France and 0.2% in the Eurozone. I'll save you the time folks. "BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET!!"

Your link's not working...

[marton]

	Quote:	baboon
	Actually not necessarily. https://constitution-unit.com/2017/1...k-in-practice/

From your link "The UK’s constitutional arrangements make it impossible to hold legally binding referendums: the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament cannot be bound in law. "

Definition "defacto",
existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right.

Anyway good luck to write a Brexit referendum containing the new rules that will come into being if the referendum is passed. Two years after the Brexit vote we still have no clue what the new rules will look like.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Crikey! There's loads of them, but you can begin with these... Thursday 26 July 2018 10:15 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8464341.html Many of the references have been tv interviews and statements... Thursday 27 September 2018 10:06 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8557126.html

That's Macron talking, not the EU as you said. Of course France carries considerable weight, nonetheless France is just one of 27 and as such Macron has no immediate say.

The references to statements by EU's top talking heads (Juncker or Barnier in particular) don't mention a date of any kind they were voiced at. That has me think they reference the statements from last year. Obviously a lot has happened since, thus what was Ok then may no longer be.

So no, those two links don't support your statement.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	baboon
	https://constitution-unit.com/2017/1...k-in-practice/

There are so many mistakes in this reference it is hard to take it serious. Even the one constitution that is written in English, is based on the same common law as their own and about which there are several texts available the get wrong! For example there is no provision for the president of Ireland to refer a matter to a referendum.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	As the UK doesn't have a codified constitution, a law change is all that is required.

On the contrary the constitution is based on precedence as confirmed by the Supreme Court and Law Lords before them. The Miller decision confirmed the that parliament is sovereign and any attempt to hold a binding referendum would be struck down by the courts. The Miller decision was over shadowed by BREXIT and it’s significance in terms of constitutional law has yet to be appreciated.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Are you talking to us or the mirror? Legally, Article 50 can be revoked. It's there in the text of the article. There is no question that it cannot be revoked. It's one of the few things that everybody involved in the process is very clear on.

There is no provision whatsoever for A50 to be revoked. A50 in its entirety reads:

	Quote:
	1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 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. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

And in that context the reference to A49 in A50.5 would indicate that framers of the article did not intent for it to be revoked as they referred to A49 as being the way back.

This is exactly why the matter has been referred to the ECJ by the Court of Session in Scotland. Until we have at least an AG’s option on the matter there is no legal basis to revoke A50, just a bunch of politicians and talking heads with opinions.

From the ruling:

	Quote:
	“If Members of Parliament are to cast their votes in a responsible manner, it is surely obvious that they should be properly advised as to the existing legal position so far as that may be relevant to their deliberations,” Lord Carloway said in his judgment.

[baboon]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	There is no provision whatsoever for A50 to be revoked.

...however this part clearly allows the notice period to be extended indefinitely:

	Quote:
	unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

As for this...:

	Quote:	Jim2007
	...And in that context the reference to A49 in A50.5 would indicate that framers of the article did not intent for it to be revoked as they referred to A49 as being the way back.

The wording clearly applies to the period after leaving the EU. No implications for any withdrawal of notice.

I agree that there is nothing explicit about withdrawal in A50 itself (or nothing forbidding it either). However the potentially infinite notice period allows a de facto withdrawal.

In the meantime, a bit of humour from a great Leicester girl, and Nish Kumar:

https://www.facebook.com/16803394048...5814451035480/

Not so funny is that the man in charge of border security admitted to House of Commons Committee that they do not have a single clue about border security in case of no deal

[aSwissInTheUS]

	Quote:	baboon
	However the potentially infinite notice period allows a de facto withdrawal.

Holly Sword of Damocles Batman! A suspended but lingering withdraw notice?
I do not think they really could define an arbitrary date in the far future. Means there would be regular extensions were an unanimously vote of the other members is needed. Or could they propose something like 99 years? That is a long time where the rules can change a lot and better solution could be found.

Really scary:

https://www.facebook.com/BBCPolitics...4878439190789/

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	baboon
	The wording clearly applies to the period after leaving the EU. No implications for any withdrawal of notice. I agree that there is nothing explicit about withdrawal in A50 itself (or nothing forbidding it either). However the potentially infinite notice period allows a de facto withdrawal.

We could debate it back and fourth, but in the end we will have to see were it goes at the ECJ.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I wonder if StirB & 22 yards have the balls to apologise.

Unfortunately your skepticism was well warranted, not everybody's got the spine to own up.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Unfortunately your skepticism was well warranted, not everybody's got the spine to own up.

I find it so galling that a moderator can speak in such a superior know it all tone, when we both know he was talking absolute nonsense in an attempt to win an argument, not for the first time either.

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Unfortunately your skepticism was well warranted, not everybody's got the spine to own up.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I find it so galling that a moderator can speak in such a superior know it all tone, when we both know he was talking absolute nonsense in an attempt to win an argument, not for the first time either.

Gents. It's a good effort, but I'm afraid you were / are both wrong. The claim by FMF is that Switzerland picks individual companies to give sweetheart deals to (as Ireland did with Apple), which was disproved pages ago, not sure why you are dragging it up again.

Even Lex Bonny, which UM flagged up, is applied to ANY company meeting the criteria.

Hope that clears things up.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	Gents. It's a good effort, but I'm afraid you were / are both wrong. The claim by FMF is that Switzerland picks individual companies to give sweetheart deals to (as Ireland did with Apple), which was disproved pages ago, not sure why you are dragging it up again.

I replied to your

"No Cantons allow Tax Forfait for companies, [..]
All companies will pay Federal Tax on top of this."

a claim that is just plain false. There's that.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Gents. It's a good effort, but I'm afraid you were / are both wrong. The claim by FMF is that Switzerland picks individual companies to give sweetheart deals to (as Ireland did with Apple), which was disproved pages ago, not sure why you are dragging it up again. Even Lex Bonny, which UM flagged up, is applied to ANY company meeting the criteria. Hope that clears things up.

I don't remember ever being able to write so eloquently, I maintained both personal & corporate tax deals are done, which clearly they are.
Your claim 'No Cantons allow Tax Forfait for companies' is false

Edit I see Urs Max has cleared this up already