Article 50 [not just another Brexit thread]

[Golf Boy]

Originally Posted by Mat ov CPFC

Absolutely. More than that in fact. Conned. Betrayed. Stabbed in the back.

And that hatred and loathing will only fester. There is no acceptance around this and I am confident that the same can be said for millions of others.

A failure to honour this decision will result in this country being divided in a way not seen in hundreds of years.

So we've been lied to and conned - how do you feel about the 350 million bus etc... etc..?

[Am Phibian]

Originally Posted by Mat ov CPFC

Absolutely. More than that in fact. Conned. Betrayed. Stabbed in the back.

And that hatred and loathing will only fester. There is no acceptance around this and I am confident that the same can be said for millions of others.

A failure to honour this decision will result in this country being divided in a way not seen in hundreds of years.

Not really unless you want to get into bed with the 600,000 and suchlike who voted BNP in 2010 and would have voted Brexit for obvious reasons.

I can't see Middle England Leave voters rising up over the EU. A few *tuts* and 'shocking behaviour' will be heard across the hedge but, at the end of the day, probably quite relieved i'll bet some of them. Too much upheaval.

[Mat ov CPFC]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

As will honouring it.

Well tough shit really. That is democracy. There was a vote. The vote was held without any hard evidence of corruption or rigging. It was a simple, straight forward question. With only two, clear cut options, backed up with a pledge from the Government that it would be abided by.

So for the Remain side, it really is a case of just swallowing and moving on. You lost. We won. As simple and straight forward as that.

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by Mat ov CPFC

Well tough shit really. That is democracy. There was a vote. The vote was held without any hard evidence of corruption or rigging. It was a simple, straight forward question. With only two, clear cut options, backed up with a pledge from the Government that it would be abided by.

So for the Remain side, it really is a case of just swallowing and moving on. You lost. We won. As simple and straight forward as that.

You won a non-binding vote, which is also simple and straightforward. So if it isn't implemented, then tough shit really.

If it is implemented in a way that meets the terms of the vote but you don't like, then also tough shit really.

Also from a financial perspective it is only good news for me if we do leave, so whatever happens I win

[Maz]

Originally Posted by Mat ov CPFC

Well tough shit really. That is democracy. There was a vote. The vote was held without any hard evidence of corruption or rigging.

Is lying to the voters not corruption?

BrEXit hopefully will never happen.

[Max_Power]

As outraged as Mat ov seems to be - I actually don't see how Article 50 ever gets triggered.

The referendum was fought and lost on the issue of free movement of people. The main focus of the EU is free trade. Europe can't give us trade deals without free movement of people without setting an example and risking the complete break up of the EU. The British government can't risk severing trade ties with the EU merely for the sake of shutting down free movement as it would be terrible for our economy.

The government will negotiate an exit deal for a while, come back and tell us what shit storm it would be if we actually left, and everything will go back to normal. We have a representative and not a direct democracy after all - our MPs are perfectly within their rights to vote on any deal as they see fit. They won't make the mistake of another referendum. Triggering Article 50 against all economic advice would be political suicide - face it - if the government were going to trigger it, they would have just done it and made all the negotiations in the two years leading up to our exit.

I'm not saying it's right, by the way, it's just how I see it. Cameron has left his party in the shit, big time, basically. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[willcpfc]

What's this thread become? The Remainiacs w### rag? Have some cold water.

[mik59]

We seem to have gone off piste so let me try to bring this back on track. This is about:

a) the legalities of invoking Article 50 and the Courts will decide whether the Government has the power under royal prerogative to do this by itself or whether Parliament must do so because it passed the Act under which we joined and therefore it may be that only Parliament can start a process under which we leave i.e. end up repealing that Act; and

b) the need to repeal or replace all the other legislation which if only done by Parliament could take 10 years or if not then the process could be deemed to weaken, at least, the sovereignty of Parliament. If not done before we leave then we could have laws that don't apply and so could not be enforced.

Now, Will, I'll address you as the last poster: this is not about the referendum result but one aim of that was to "regain sovereignty" so now you need to deal with the issues arising based on the assumption that A50 must be invoked. It's no good repeating what a Government said when that Government was dissolved and it's promise has no bearing on this current Government. Nor is there any point if your own sovereign Courts decide that it isn't a decision for Government.

[mik59]

This goes beyond Article 50 but this thread is as good a place for it as the other: for those who want to plough through it, the proposal by a group associated with the Bruegel thinktank on To view the link you have to Register or Login

[Mat ov CPFC]

Originally Posted by mik59

This goes beyond Article 50 but this thread is as good a place for it as the other: for those who want to plough through it, the proposal by a group associated with the Bruegel thinktank on To view the link you have to Register or Login

Its a non starter. The UK cannot be a direct financial contributor to the EU for a variety of reasons but primarily because no politician would want to have to carry that into an election with them. And I would argue that this notion of a two circle EU exists already because of the single currency project. It might not have been formalised but effectively it existed from the moment the Euro came into existence.

What they are proposing is not Brexit. Brexit means we are departing from a partnership. Friends with the EU, then yes. Good neighbours, absolutely. But not partners. This is about a clean, and hopefully amicable, break.

[rhino_mik]

Originally Posted by mik59

We seem to have gone off piste so let me try to bring this back on track. This is about:

a) the legalities of invoking Article 50 and the Courts will decide whether the Government has the power under royal prerogative to do this by itself or whether Parliament must do so because it passed the Act under which we joined and therefore it may be that only Parliament can start a process under which we leave i.e. end up repealing that Act; and

b) the need to repeal or replace all the other legislation which if only done by Parliament could take 10 years or if not then the process could be deemed to weaken, at least, the sovereignty of Parliament. If not done before we leave then we could have laws that don't apply and so could not be enforced.

Now, Will, I'll address you as the last poster: this is not about the referendum result but one aim of that was to "regain sovereignty" so now you need to deal with the issues arising based on the assumption that A50 must be invoked. It's no good repeating what a Government said when that Government was dissolved and it's promise has no bearing on this current Government. Nor is there any point if your own sovereign Courts decide that it isn't a decision for Government.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by Mat ov CPFC

Its a non starter. The UK cannot be a direct financial contributor to the EU for a variety of reasons but primarily because no politician would want to have to carry that into an election with them. .

That would surely depend on what we got in return.

It's quite normal nowadays to pay for things, if they are useful.

[Golf Boy]

Mat's new catchphrase seems 'for a variety of reasons'.

[swissroll]

Originally Posted by mik59

We seem to have gone off piste so let me try to bring this back on track. This is about:

a) the legalities of invoking Article 50 and the Courts will decide whether the Government has the power under royal prerogative to do this by itself or whether Parliament must do so because it passed the Act under which we joined and therefore it may be that only Parliament can start a process under which we leave i.e. end up repealing that Act; and

Would have thought Theresa would put this before Parliament anyway irrespective of the legal argument - why risk a load of aggro - and spreads the blame a bit. Of course if Parliament voted not to, well our Parliament has then exercised democratic control - everybody happy surely.....

[mik59]

Originally Posted by swissroll

Would have thought Theresa would put this before Parliament anyway irrespective of the legal argument - why risk a load of aggro - and spreads the blame a bit. Of course if Parliament voted not to, well our Parliament has then exercised democratic control - everybody happy surely.....

It's one of the many tensions in following up the Referendum. Theresa May is asserting her Government's right to set the policy and rightly so, but this situation is like no other that this country has faced since the end of WW2. This is not a post-Election scenario. This bares some fundamental issues at the heart of having a Constitution that is not codified. So, if nothing else, it's going to provide for a fascinating chapter in future history books. Hopefully, one of the outcomes will be that our constitution survives. No, more than that, I hope it asserts itself and stops largely ideological governments thinking they can not only play the game but redesign the game to suit themselves.

[SE25 exile]

Originally Posted by willcpfc

What's this thread become? The Remainiacs w### rag? Have some cold water.

How many more times. We are leaving, but what we are going to get in it's place is unknown.

Stop this constant daft posting that leave won, we know that, and we have moved on to more important matters.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by SE25 exile

.
Stop this constant daft posting that leave won, we know that, and we have moved on to more important matters.

It would seem that, like UKIP, victory is all the little poisonous toad cares about ; not the consequences of victory.

[SE25 exile]

After May's Chequers cabinet meeting, it is being reported that she now thinks that a deal outside the single market that is all the poorer with tariff barriers etc, for our trade, is a price worth paying, to control EU immigration.

Apparently, the view at the meeting was that we need a return to "Victorian energy" to achieve a great future for Britain.

Well there is certainly plenty of Victorian bigotry around these days.

So far from May there has been plenty of hot air and words, but very little action and she is now sounding more like Cameron with her "pledges". Her statement today means she has given up on an effective trade deal with the EU for Britain, and is preparing business to shoulder the future burden of that failure under the guise of giving the foreigner haters what they want.

However, as Home Secretary, she also failed to control non EU immigration, so why should we think she can do any better with the EU. It seems we are destined to get the worst of both worlds.

[Biggineagle]

Originally Posted by SE25 exile

After May's Chequers cabinet meeting, it is being reported that she now thinks that a deal outside the single market that is all the poorer with tariff barriers etc, for our trade, is a price worth paying, to control EU immigration.

May talking sense for a change whatever next ?? That will please us #Brexiteers.

[willcpfc]

Originally Posted by Maz

It would seem that, like UKIP, victory is all the little poisonous toad cares about ; not the consequences of victory.

School playground stuff Maz. Did you not say something to me about the weakness in argument of resorting to name calling? You are the most accomplished hypocrite though, I will give you that.