Article 50 Discussion

[Guest]

Boris johnson new Foreign Secretary .

no, hope not. had thought he had gone off with farage on one of his no return tandem bikes

[citizenB]

no, hope not. had thought he had gone off with farage on one of his no return tandem bikes

 

 

Yes - that is what he is.

 

 

Phillip Hammond - Chancellor

Amber Rudd - Home Office

David Davis - Minister for leaving Europe

Liam Fox - International Trade

George Osborne - resigned

Michael Fallon remains at Defence.

[obiter dictum]

Well there was no love lost between Gideon and May.

[unclebulgaria67]

Boris will get the world laughing at his expense. See article reminding us of some of the gaffes.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/boris-johnsons-name-brings-big-smile-to-us-state-department-spokesmans-lips-20160713-gq5acb.html

[snowdragon]

hope there is a method behind her madness to appoint Boris, ( Buffoon ) was she hypnotised to appoint him?? And why have most of the top jobs gone to men? This was bought up on the news this morning

[Old Cogger]

Interesting article, SF.

 

Another aspect raised is that the farmer was getting EU subsidies. Are they going to be replaced by the UK government?

 

HB

 

 

going back decades - farms bankrupt no doubt, where will any money come from for subsidies = cheap imports no doubt = bye bye farming?

[tobyjugg2]

Boris johnson new Foreign Secretary They won't understand him. Bet May gave him the job, so he spends most of the time out of the country and not in London where he can cause trouble.

 

Could you imagine Boris making a speech at the UN, being met with a lot of confused faces as none of the interpreters have a clue what he has said.

 

 

Had to drop back to see any reaction to this.

May is actually being very very smart, and learning from Maggie.

 

May realises she needs a War to take the electorates eyes of the politicians and politics utter failings and the disasters yet to come.

 

.. and Boris Johnson as foreign secretary is probably Britain's best hope for a war, without us having to actually send our military against someone

(Which we cant really afford now without EU subsidies and support. Half a dozen Typhoons on their own wouldn't get very far against anyone really - even Syria would have made short work of those if the UK Typhoons had been on their own).

 

With Farage it would have simply been too difficult to claim 'it was self-defense' as an excuse at the security council.

 

 

Spain and Turkey being the prime contenders for pushing at the moment, although we would probably lose against Turkey with its Saudi Allies (Saudi Arabia on its own have more Typhoons and Brimstones than we do), so she might just have another go at Argentina as the safe option.

 

an on that bombshell ....

[citizenB]

hope there is a method behind her madness to appoint Boris, ( Buffoon ) was she hypnotised to appoint him?? And why have most of the top jobs gone to men? This was bought up on the news this morning

 

 

Amanda Rudd has one of the top jobs, snowdragon !

 

 

I imagine TM's thinking on Boris was .. you caused the problems, now deal with them. I suspect that she knows exactly what she is doing - I have long suspected that the Boris we see is not the Boris that will now launch himself into diplomatic circles.

[honeybee13]

Boris was a good journalist IMO and is a bright man. He was also Europe correspondent for one of the major papers, so at least he understands how Europe works.

 

I just hope he doesn't make us a laughing stock.

[AndyOrch]

Thread is veering away from Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty..if you wish to discuss the new cabinet please start a seperate thread.

 

Andy

[citizenB]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court

 

 

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/07/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court/

 

 

It would appear the challenge is going to focus on the fact that the referendum was only advisory and only Parliament - not the Prime Minister can trigger Article 50.

 

 

Whether you voted in or out, it would be a great contempt for the UK voter if it was decided that this was indeed only advisory and if so, surely the voter should have been informed of this before they cast their vote ?

[hightail]

Whether you voted in or out, it would be a great contempt for the UK voter if it was decided that this was indeed only advisory and if so, surely the voter should have been informed of this before they cast their vote ?

It was no secret before the vote that the result of the referendum was not binding. It was in the papers and discussed on TV and radio. It was one of the very few indisputable 'facts' of the whole debacle.

[determindator]

It feels like we are an experiment by default, what happens when you wish to pull out of the EU.

[unclebulgaria67]

It was no secret before the vote that the result of the referendum was not binding. It was in the papers and discussed on TV and radio. It was one of the very few indisputable 'facts' of the whole debacle.

 

Agree. It was clear the referendum was advisory only. Government never made it clear what would happen if Brexit won.

 

I think the Judges will say that parliament must decide. It cannot be left to Royal Prerogative to trigger a EU article to change an international relationship that has existed for 40 years. If government had wanted Royal Prerogative to apply, they could have put a bill through parliament.

[citizenB]

Agree. It was clear the referendum was advisory only. Government never made it clear what would happen if Brexit won.

 

I think the Judges will say that parliament must decide. It cannot be left to Royal Prerogative to trigger a EU article to change an international relationship that has existed for 40 years. If government had wanted Royal Prerogative to apply, they could have put a bill through parliament.

 

 

I don't think anyone every truly believed that Brexit would win !

[obiter dictum]

https://fullfact.org/law/ask-full-fact-brexit-in-court/

[cjcregg]

The referendum was never capable of being anything other than advisory. It was an exercise in establishing the view of the electorate hence the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

 

 

The general public don't have any standing to invoke article 50, only member governments do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court

 

 

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/07/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court/

 

 

It would appear the challenge is going to focus on the fact that the referendum was only advisory and only Parliament - not the Prime Minister can trigger Article 50.

 

 

Whether you voted in or out, it would be a great contempt for the UK voter if it was decided that this was indeed only advisory and if so, surely the voter should have been informed of this before they cast their vote ?

[honeybee13]

I wonder why they didn't tell us this before the referendum, cjcregg? And would things have been different if the vote had been to remain?

 

HB

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't think Brexit will happen and Theresa May is stringing the Brexiteers along knowing that there are so many hurdles in the way, that nothing is certain as we have never done this before. BUT Theresa May is not stupid and can only say that the referendum result must be implemented. The consequences of even raising doubts on Brexit would be damaging to financial markets who don't like uncertainty and you would have a political crisis with media attacking government.

 

In private, I suspect Theresa May is telling Merkel, Hollande, Sturgeon etc that they all have an interest in ensuring that the UK government is able to come to a negotiating strategy that is agreed and that they can take forward without any pressure being applied which might spook the financial markets. In the many years it would take to go through the process, it will be subject to parliamentary and legal processes, which might stop Brexit from happening. Or if it looks like any Brexit deal does not have support of UK parliament or UK public, it might be subject to another referendum where people could choose to continue under existing terms.

[citizenB]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-economic-consequences-may-never-happen-2016-7

 

The more time goes by, the more plausible it becomes that the UK may never actually leave the European Union.

 

Leaving the EU is so difficult, and the consequences are so economically damaging, that it may be easier for prime minister Theresa May's government to endlessly delay the process rather than to actually leave.

 

 

 

•The EU will not give the UK a deal in which Britain gets access to the single market but opts out of the "freedom of movement" requirement that lets EU migrants into the country. In fact, the EU cannot give this deal to the UK because it would represent an existential threat to the EU itself: If one country gets access to the single market while controlling its own immigration borders, then every country in the EU will want to do the same.

•Leaving the EU will cause such massive damage to the UK economy that it might be political suicide for any government to actually leave despite the fact that a majority of people voted Leave in the EU Referendum.

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-economic-consequences-may-never-happen-2016-7

 

Sums up my views.

 

Plus add in the vast complexities of the existing trading arrangements between companies based in the UK and EU mainland, which are covered by legislation and contracts agreed over many years. The UK government would have a duty to fully engage with all of the companies that could be affected by Brexit. Otherwise they risk a huge number of court actions that could go on for years and cost a fortune.

 

Also what about the 27 other countries within the EU that have their own issues. You can't just look at the UK and consider Brexit from a narrow view point.

[Guest]

re #195

that info was out there (and here) before the ref. why it was ignored...or maybe it wasnt and the result was more inherent?

its as per what that norwegion politician said; be in it to have a say, or out (but in the same mkt) without any say. otherwise, dont be in the mkt, and suffer the consequences. but, they all said/say that they want to still trade with the eu, and have the best trade agreement post. well, the best trade agreement wld involve free movement!

[hightail]

Also what about the 27 other countries within the EU that have their own issues. You can't just look at the UK and consider Brexit from a narrow view point.

Isn't that exactly what 52% of those who voted did?

[Consumer dude]

The majority voted to leave the EU and that should happen..

[buckthorn]

Sums up my views.

 

Plus add in the vast complexities of the existing trading arrangements between companies based in the UK and EU mainland, which are covered by legislation and contracts agreed over many years. The UK government would have a duty to fully engage with all of the companies that could be affected by Brexit. Otherwise they risk a huge number of court actions that could go on for years and cost a fortune.

 

Also what about the 27 other countries within the EU that have their own issues. You can't just look at the UK and consider Brexit from a narrow view point.

 

Could I have a link please.