Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
Professor Steve Peers, from the University of Essex says "Issues about the future relationship could also be raised in separate proceedings, such as whether the UK can talk to the EU or non-EU countries about trade before Brexit Day." This reinforces the point that I have made several times before that trade will not be discussed until AFTER we have left the EU.
A brilliant quote from Liverpool's Prof Dougan "We have already witnessed the hysterical, vicious and ultimately anti-democratic reaction of Europhobic politicians and press to our own judges performing their legitimate constitutional role. So one can easily imagine the even more deranged and paranoid shrieking by the UKIP/Express/Daily Mail brigade when the first legal action is brought before the EU courts."
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course the process could be cancelled at any time between it being triggered and finalised.....which many believe will take far longer than the Two years, only the deluded think otherwise......if the country were to be considered to be heading for financial ruin there is no government of any current political persuasion that would allow this to happen. " I think if you check you will find that once article 50 is triggered that the process can only be stopped with the agreement of the EU. I am not sure that the EU would agree or if it would be in the EU's interests to allow us to remain a member. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course the process could be cancelled at any time between it being triggered and finalised.....which many believe will take far longer than the Two years, only the deluded think otherwise......if the country were to be considered to be heading for financial ruin there is no government of any current political persuasion that would allow this to happen. I think if you check you will find that once article 50 is triggered that the process can only be stopped with the agreement of the EU. I am not sure that the EU would agree or if it would be in the EU's interests to allow us to remain a member." As it says in the OP, its likely that the ECJ wil have to rule on the issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it says in the OP, its likely that the ECJ wil have to rule on the issue. " Funny how often I end up posting the treaties and laws you claim to know so much about because they contradict you. Have a read of Article 50, note how it says in taking close note of subsection 3 and then read article 49. I cant see anything there that would require a court ruling, in fact by triggering article 50 the UK will acknowledge that the UK is bound by the treaty and it makes clear that from once article 50 is triggered the UK will have no say in any further EU deliberations regarding UK membership of the EU. Article 49 Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. 33 The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Article 50 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 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. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it says in the OP, its likely that the ECJ wil have to rule on the issue. Funny how often I end up posting the treaties and laws you claim to know so much about because they contradict you. " I know what it say, I've read it. In the OP I have said that there are two legal opinions on this, the government's and Miller's that it's non-reversible, and the guy who wrote article 50 who says it is. The president of the ECJ thinks they will rule on it, and they can be asked by any member state to do so. From what I heard on the radio yesterday, it might be Ireland who asks for the clarification. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course the process could be cancelled at any time between it being triggered and finalised.....which many believe will take far longer than the Two years, only the deluded think otherwise......if the country were to be considered to be heading for financial ruin there is no government of any current political persuasion that would allow this to happen. I think if you check you will find that once article 50 is triggered that the process can only be stopped with the agreement of the EU. I am not sure that the EU would agree or if it would be in the EU's interests to allow us to remain a member." They would fall over themselves to assist our staying in the EU if it came to it..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course the process could be cancelled at any time between it being triggered and finalised.....which many believe will take far longer than the Two years, only the deluded think otherwise......if the country were to be considered to be heading for financial ruin there is no government of any current political persuasion that would allow this to happen. I think if you check you will find that once article 50 is triggered that the process can only be stopped with the agreement of the EU. I am not sure that the EU would agree or if it would be in the EU's interests to allow us to remain a member. They would fall over themselves to assist our staying in the EU if it came to it....." why? With all the extra banks and businesses they are supposedly going to get? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course the process could be cancelled at any time between it being triggered and finalised.....which many believe will take far longer than the Two years, only the deluded think otherwise......if the country were to be considered to be heading for financial ruin there is no government of any current political persuasion that would allow this to happen. I think if you check you will find that once article 50 is triggered that the process can only be stopped with the agreement of the EU. I am not sure that the EU would agree or if it would be in the EU's interests to allow us to remain a member. They would fall over themselves to assist our staying in the EU if it came to it....." Pity they couldn't even give David Cameron the pitiful reforms he asked for in full without any questions then. Even the crumbs Cameron asked for got watered down so really it ended up as a non renegotiation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what do Leave voters think about the government going to the ECJ if they lose in the Supreme Court? " The government don't want to go the the European Court of Justice. It's been suggested that the Supreme court themselves could refer the case to the ECJ if they are unable to make a clear ruling but if it does get referred to the ECJ it will play right into the Brexiters hands and prove the point that our own Parliament and our courts are over ruled by the EU institutions and EU law is Supreme over UK law while we remain members of the EU. Conservative MP Owen Patterson said today in an interview on sky news that it could be disastrous for the Remainers if this happens and wouldn't go down well with the public as it would reinforce the view that we are over ruled by the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So what do Leave voters think about the government going to the ECJ if they lose in the Supreme Court? The government don't want to go the the European Court of Justice. It's been suggested that the Supreme court themselves could refer the case to the ECJ if they are unable to make a clear ruling but if it does get referred to the ECJ it will play right into the Brexiters hands and prove the point that our own Parliament and our courts are over ruled by the EU institutions and EU law is Supreme over UK law while we remain members of the EU. Conservative MP Owen Patterson said today in an interview on sky news that it could be disastrous for the Remainers if this happens and wouldn't go down well with the public as it would reinforce the view that we are over ruled by the EU. " So that sounds a lot like the Leave campaigners would like to go to the ECJ then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Professor Steve Peers, from the University of Essex says "Issues about the future relationship could also be raised in separate proceedings, such as whether the UK can talk to the EU or non-EU countries about trade before Brexit Day." This reinforces the point that I have made several times before that trade will not be discussed until AFTER we have left the EU. " Further evidence from the guardian today "[Michel Barnier] also listed the main points that article 50 should cover: borders, settling Britain’s Brexit bill, and the status of EU citizens. European politicians are insisting that the questions of Britain’s trading and foreign policy status with the EU will need to be resolved separately." So if trade is not going to be negotiated until after the A50 talks are concluded, there will have to be a period of WTO tariffs before the new trading arrangement has been agreed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course the process could be cancelled at any time between it being triggered and finalised.....which many believe will take far longer than the Two years, only the deluded think otherwise......if the country were to be considered to be heading for financial ruin there is no government of any current political persuasion that would allow this to happen. I think if you check you will find that once article 50 is triggered that the process can only be stopped with the agreement of the EU. I am not sure that the EU would agree or if it would be in the EU's interests to allow us to remain a member. They would fall over themselves to assist our staying in the EU if it came to it....." I think not; Much as it is insane from a UK point of view to Leave; in the longer term, the EU will be better off without the UK; which has done nothing but destabilise it and be , basically, " a complete pain in the arse". If the UK does want to change its mind, then I have no doubt that the EU will insist that it doesn't just " return to status quo " as it was the day before the referendum, but in effect rejoins as if it is a new member. So all the discounts and special terms that the UK had, will disappear. Just please, hurry up and fuck off ; we are not interested in your stupid petty domestic squabbles, and your strange notion that the EU " needs your trade". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pity they couldn't even give David Cameron the pitiful reforms he asked for in full without any questions then. Even the crumbs Cameron asked for got watered down so really it ended up as a non renegotiation. " Wow! The UK's attitude and dealings with the EEC/EU have been like a petulant child whenever tories have been in power since time of the milk snatcher. Fact is that since the formation of the EEC/EU it has been in the ascendancy while the UK has been in decline and when we voted by 2 to 1 to stay in in 74 this country was on the verge of collapse and required bailing out by the IMF! Europe has been nothing but good for us. They have given us opt outs, qualified opt outs and special budgetary rebates but every time the tories are in power they want more special treatment. Seems this time the EU said no so our reply is to throw our toys out of the pram and flounce out! In not so long we will be out of the EU and reality will come calling. It is not going to be utopian, it will not even be pleasant, what we will find is we no longer have an empire, we no longer have a Commonwealth, we are a small island with small army a tiny navy and a smaller air force that has not the wherewithal to protect its foreign interests and the world is full of people who have been waiting patently to strip us of what is left of our wealth. The shame is some 52% (of those that voted) refuse to see this, in the same way as they refuse to see that it is tory right wing monetarist policy that has caused such a chasm to open up between the rich and poor in this country and others around the world. I am 60, I am a lot closer to my grave than to my birth, I think leaving the EU will probably reduce the amount of time I have left on Earth, but not as much as it will reduce the lifespan of the British youth of today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pity they couldn't even give David Cameron the pitiful reforms he asked for in full without any questions then. Even the crumbs Cameron asked for got watered down so really it ended up as a non renegotiation. Wow! The UK's attitude and dealings with the EEC/EU have been like a petulant child whenever tories have been in power since time of the milk snatcher. Fact is that since the formation of the EEC/EU it has been in the ascendancy while the UK has been in decline and when we voted by 2 to 1 to stay in in 74 this country was on the verge of collapse and required bailing out by the IMF! Europe has been nothing but good for us. They have given us opt outs, qualified opt outs and special budgetary rebates but every time the tories are in power they want more special treatment. Seems this time the EU said no so our reply is to throw our toys out of the pram and flounce out! In not so long we will be out of the EU and reality will come calling. It is not going to be utopian, it will not even be pleasant, what we will find is we no longer have an empire, we no longer have a Commonwealth, we are a small island with small army a tiny navy and a smaller air force that has not the wherewithal to protect its foreign interests and the world is full of people who have been waiting patently to strip us of what is left of our wealth. The shame is some 52% (of those that voted) refuse to see this, in the same way as they refuse to see that it is tory right wing monetarist policy that has caused such a chasm to open up between the rich and poor in this country and others around the world. I am 60, I am a lot closer to my grave than to my birth, I think leaving the EU will probably reduce the amount of time I have left on Earth, but not as much as it will reduce the lifespan of the British youth of today." Strange how people complain about how the UK behaves in the eu yet no one seems to moan about the dominance of germany and as we are the second biggest contributor I think we have every right to demand a fair deal, its odd that you mention MT with contempt yet it was her that turned the uk round from the sort of socialist mess that the eu is turning into, most of the eu is bust with enormous unemployment compared to us and as for defence I believe we are the highest spenders in the eu,I know its nearly xmas but think you have been reading a fairy tale to many | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Strange how people complain about how the UK behaves in the eu yet no one seems to moan about the dominance of germany and as we are the second biggest contributor I think we have every right to demand a fair deal." People are always talking about the dominance of Germany. The UK didn't have a fair deal, we had an exceptional deal, we had preferential treatment, we had a bespoke package, but even that wasn't good enough for some people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Strange how people complain about how the UK behaves in the eu yet no one seems to moan about the dominance of germany and as we are the second biggest contributor I think we have every right to demand a fair deal. People are always talking about the dominance of Germany. The UK didn't have a fair deal, we had an exceptional deal, we had preferential treatment, we had a bespoke package, but even that wasn't good enough for some people." A great deal. Unfortunately, a great deal in a crap organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Strange how people complain about how the UK behaves in the eu yet no one seems to moan about the dominance of germany and as we are the second biggest contributor I think we have every right to demand a fair deal. People are always talking about the dominance of Germany. The UK didn't have a fair deal, we had an exceptional deal, we had preferential treatment, we had a bespoke package, but even that wasn't good enough for some people. A great deal. Unfortunately, a great deal in a crap organisation." But above you were asking for a fair deal from that "crap organisation". A fair deal is worse than a great deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Strange how people complain about how the UK behaves in the eu yet no one seems to moan about the dominance of germany and as we are the second biggest contributor I think we have every right to demand a fair deal. People are always talking about the dominance of Germany. The UK didn't have a fair deal, we had an exceptional deal, we had preferential treatment, we had a bespoke package, but even that wasn't good enough for some people. A great deal. Unfortunately, a great deal in a crap organisation. But above you were asking for a fair deal from that "crap organisation". A fair deal is worse than a great deal." Nope. That was my first post to this thread. But I believe that it is better to be outside a crap organisation which is based on a political misconception which is bound to fail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Perhaps the government should have considered this first, because if the Article 50 notification is reversible, then they could have used prerogative powers to trigger it." I've lost track of the supreme court appeal details, but wasn't that the govt's justification for why they can use prerogative powers? ie. they claim that it *is* reversible and so they can do? And Miller et al claim that is it not reversible hence they can't? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Perhaps the government should have considered this first, because if the Article 50 notification is reversible, then they could have used prerogative powers to trigger it. I've lost track of the supreme court appeal details, but wasn't that the govt's justification for why they can use prerogative powers? ie. they claim that it *is* reversible and so they can do? And Miller et al claim that is it not reversible hence they can't? -Matt" No, both sides said that it wasn't reversible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think onc invoked that's it, no going back! Can you see the EU committee saying "ok no problem we will just cancel everything no strings" ? "My gut feeling is to think that it would be reversible, however we will have to see what Ireland's high court and the ECJ have to say on the matter. I bet the guy who wrote it wishes he had been a little bit clearer! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My gut feeling is to think that it would be reversible, however we will have to see what Ireland's high court and the ECJ have to say on the matter. I bet the guy who wrote it wishes he had been a little bit clearer!" But the law is clear... Once article 50 is triggered then it requires all the remaining nations to agree to any extension in the 2 year leaving process. Withdrawing the application to leave is the ultimate extension of the process and must therefore require all remaining states to agree. That will not happen, we have caused too much upset in Europe, once article 50 is triggered we are out. The question is how badly will our politicians behave in the out negotiations and how much will the EU punish us for their behaviour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
