[Politics] Brexit

[yxee]

Very strange, and to me illogical, argument.

I think the crucial difference is between triggering article 50 and leaving the EU. One does not automatically follow the other.

It is leaving the EU which will revoke rights granted to the people of the UK by parliament - and so this is the thing that requires a vote of MPs.

Invoking article 50 does not, in itself, do this.

So I *think* the argument is that, since invoking the article is not the same action as leaving the EU, it doesn't revoke rights granted by parliament, and therefore doesn't need a vote by MPs. Which presumably means the vote by MPs will have to come at the end of the article 50 process... once we've negotiated everything.

I think...?

 

[pb21]

I think the crucial difference is between triggering article 50 and leaving the EU. One does not automatically follow the other.

It is leaving the EU which will revoke rights granted to the people of the UK by parliament - and so this is the thing that requires a vote of MPs.

Invoking article 50 does not, in itself, do this.

So I *think* the argument is that, since invoking the article is not the same action as leaving the EU, it doesn't revoke rights granted by parliament, and therefore doesn't need a vote by MPs. Which presumably means the vote by MPs will have to come at the end of the article 50 process... once we've negotiated everything.

I think...?

Apparently you don't invoke Article 50? Someone once said:

Article 50 is not "invoked", article 50 describes a process of withdrawal starting with a notice of intention to leave, from the UK to the EU.

Anyway the exact text of Article 50 states:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force ofthe 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.

So after 2 years of invoking Article 50 we may automatically leave the EU and effectively invoking Article 50 is the same as leaving the EU, or we may not depending on something we don't know might happen.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think the crucial difference is between triggering article 50 and leaving the EU. One does not automatically follow the other.

It is leaving the EU which will revoke rights granted to the people of the UK by parliament - and so this is the thing that requires a vote of MPs.

Invoking article 50 does not, in itself, do this.

So I *think* the argument is that, since invoking the article is not the same action as leaving the EU, it doesn't revoke rights granted by parliament, and therefore doesn't need a vote by MPs. Which presumably means the vote by MPs will have to come at the end of the article 50 process... once we've negotiated everything.

I think...?

not really. the fact that invoking article 50 inevitably leads to leaving and therefore ending legal statutes passed by parliament is why you need to have a vote upfront. or use royal prerogative, that debate doesnt alter the sequence of events.

what this does mean is that a parlimentry vote on the final negotiated position is pretty redundant as its done by then and the alternative is to have no agreements.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

what this does mean is that a parlimentry vote on the final negotiated position is pretty redundant as its done by then and the alternative is to have no agreements.

This. That is how I see it. For that reason, I believe the challenge in court is either mischievous in that it is simply to hold things up, or futile in that it will not deliver the accountability to parliament that it supposes.

 

[redoubtable seagull]

This. That is how I see it. For that reason, I believe the challenge in court is either mischievous in that it is simply to hold things up, or futile in that it will not deliver the accountability to parliament that it supposes.

I'd vote with the holding things up argument as Govt has not got anywhere near to its strategy for exiting. I think we'll see a lot of distraction in the media (grammar schools, anyone. For example) to buy time whilst the plan is developed.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

British Pound Sees Stellar Climb Against Euro, US Dollar As Trade Deal Hopes Boost Sterling

Fears that the Eurozone could be the next place to witness a shock political disruption allowed the Pound Sterling to Euro (GBP EUR) exchange rate to trend bullishly.

With the UK and the US having had their ‘Brexit’ moments, the lens has fallen firmly on the Eurozone.

Euro exchange rates are weakening because markets are concerned that the wave of populist movements gaining momentum across the currency bloc - fuelled by anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment and fears of terrorism - could be empowered by Trump’s victory.

Speaking on how Trump’s electoral shock has changed the odds on populist leaders such as France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen coming into power, Eurasia Group risk-analyst Charles Lichfield explained;

‘A year ago a Trump victory seemed more unlikely even than a Le Pen victory. Now that it is happened, all bets are off.’

http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/news/16745/gbp-eur-usd-exchange-rate-trump-election-forecasts.html

I wonder how many of the numerous esteemed expert organisations and economists factored in Trump winning and the huge political and economic ramifications that could flow from this when they made their post Brexit predictions...

 

[beorhthelm]

This. That is how I see it. For that reason, I believe the challenge in court is either mischievous in that it is simply to hold things up, or futile in that it will not deliver the accountability to parliament that it supposes.

the intent of the Millar case is of course mischiveous as it brought in the hope that parliament will hold up or halt the process, though the verdict that parliament must pass legislation is fair. however Conservative and Labour have stated they would support the outcome of the referendum, so the impact will be to talk up the accountablility, when in reality they've shown their hand already. they either must support the referendum and article 50 proceeds with enabling legislation (and repeal of 1972 European act, possibly some others too), or go back on their word and reject the will of the population, before facing the electorate again. that could be carnage for Labour, challenging for Conservatives in some seats.

the other angle is the remainers attempt to use this to secure a version of Brexit they believe is minimal. problem here is you have a range of items to include/exclude and you get into Norway/Switzerland/Turkey/EFTA dicsussions. they were brushed over in the referendum itself, and frankly the conclusion we've arrived at is none of the above are acceptable, mostly due to impostion of free movement of labour in any deal which will be unacceptable to a large proportion of the leave camp.

i predict some fudge from EU there they offer free movement where EU citizens are only allowed to UK with work arrange in advance (or self-supporting) and only eligable to benefits comparable to those of their home country. of course this is technically already the official position, so it will be easy for the EU to offer as a "compromise" without treaty change - yes, the result of Brexit will be EU observe and follow their own rules.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I'm not aware of this. Where does it say there's no going back after giving notification of intent to leave? The article makes it clear that we will remain in the EU until the process is concluded, not as soon as the notification is given...

It doesn't say, as far as I am aware, that there is no going back, any more than it says we could call a halt to the process. I am partly working on the basis that it has already been said that, once Article 50 is triggered, it is an inexorable process. To be fair the rest of the European Union will need to organise to work without us, and so if they are doing the necessary groundwork alongside what we are doing - which will cost money - they may not be too happy if they were told to abandon the process or to go back. In other words, we just don't know!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

the intent of the Millar case is of course mischiveous

Ensuring people follow the law is mischievous? This is a new one on me.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Ensuring people follow the law is mischievous? This is a new one on me.

You and I and everyone knows that had the case not been brought, things would have carried on but they would not have been 'illegal'. The case brought clarity, which is fair enough, but my initial comment that it is mischievous is correct.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

We have people trying to derail Brexit, and now we have campaigns to get companies to stop advertising in the Daily Mail, so now they are trying to tell us all what to read as well. Stop fing telling people what to do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37962425

 

[The Clamp]

We have people trying to derail Brexit, and now we have campaigns to get companies to stop advertising in the Daily Mail, so now they are trying to tell us all what to read as well. Stop fing telling people what to do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37962425

In this instance I agree. No matter how misguided I think some things are, people are given choice and whatever the outcome they are free to do so within the law. Even buying the Mail. As for not advertising in the Mail? It's online edition is the most read in the WORLD, nobody is going to stop advertising in/on it!!

 

[Deleted member 22389]

In this instance I agree. No matter how misguided I think some things are, people are given choice and whatever the outcome they are free to do so within the law. Even buying the Mail. As for not advertising in the Mail? It's online edition is the most read in the WORLD, nobody is going to stop advertising in/on it!!

Very rare we give each other thumbs up here, but seriously how are we ever going to come together with all this rubbish going on.

 

[The Clamp]

Very rare we give each other thumbs up here, but seriously how are we ever going to come together with all this rubbish going on.

Well, colour me peaceful. Agreed, now really is not the time for civil unrest.

 

[studio150]

In this instance I agree. No matter how misguided I think some things are, people are given choice and whatever the outcome they are free to do so within the law. Even buying the Mail. As for not advertising in the Mail? It's online edition is the most read in the WORLD, nobody is going to stop advertising in/on it!!

Firms will look closely at the benefit of continuing to advertise in the Mail, if their brand values are at odds with the Mail (which you would expect they are) and they are likely to receive negative comments from their target customers or indeed a reduction in sales or profits the will follow the lead of Logo and stop advertising in the Mail.

This is not telling people what to read they are still free to read the Mail and agree or disagree with their content, all it means is that the Mail will have to work to pick up replacement advertisers. Maybe a paid for special feature on Trump or the KKK

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

In this instance I agree. No matter how misguided I think some things are, people are given choice and whatever the outcome they are free to do so within the law. Even buying the Mail. As for not advertising in the Mail? It's online edition is the most read in the WORLD, nobody is going to stop advertising in/on it!!

Personally I think the mail is an appalling rag but the kind of pressure bright by this group is IMO dangerous. It is giving a green light for all kinds of social media 'popular' causes, to exercise censorship etc for things they don't like. I feel very uncomfortable with this decision by Lego.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Firms will look closely at the benefit of continuing to advertise in the Mail, if their brand values are at odds with the Mail (which you would expect they are) and they are likely to receive negative comments from their target customers or indeed a reduction in sales or profits the will follow the lead of Logo and stop advertising in the Mail.

This is not telling people what to read they are still free to read the Mail and agree or disagree with their content, all it means is that the Mail will have to work to pick up replacement advertisers. Maybe a paid for special feature on Trump or the KKK

Expecting a muesli and sandal firms boycott then ..

 

[Steve in Japan]

As for not advertising in the Mail? It's online edition is the most read in the WORLD, nobody is going to stop advertising in/on it!!

Agreed; maybe number 1 for the Celebrity tits and bums, though, rather than their News and Opinion....?

 

[East Preston Gull]

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You and I and everyone knows that had the case not been brought, things would have carried on but they would not have been 'illegal'. The case brought clarity, which is fair enough, but my initial comment that it is mischievous is correct.

Not following British law is not "illegal?" Again, this is a new one on me.