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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. " I think you're forgetting that the level of the debate is unlikely to rise above Brexit means Brexit, Leave means Leave and cake and eat it. For the plan to work, some adults would need to be in the room... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. " Very admirable, but if the reports are negative - project fear all over again! The EU will rewrite A50 to safeguard that they have a say in a country abandoning A50. We are the guinea pigs so learn from hindsight. The UK has spent a lot of money on brexit - so too the EU and they would look to stopping a country starting then stopping and starting again in the future. Just an opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Very admirable, but if the reports are negative - project fear all over again! The EU will rewrite A50 to safeguard that they have a say in a country abandoning A50. We are the guinea pigs so learn from hindsight. The UK has spent a lot of money on brexit - so too the EU and they would look to stopping a country starting then stopping and starting again in the future. Just an opinion." I agree with you on the Article 50 redrawing, although that's more easily said than done. However I don't think it's relevant. Under my suggestion we would only trigger Article 50 again if we were definitely Leaving with a clear plan of what leaving actually was and how to implement it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers I have solved the Brexit Paradox. Accept the PMs deal and agree to have a referendum in 2 years time. It honours the result of the last referendum. It means we have a couple of years to sort things out more fully with the EU. It means it restores some certainty for a couple of years. If the new referendum decides to leave the 560 page document just becomes a paper noose with no strength at all. The EU’s Bluff is neutralised by the nation ? It means the irish problem is kicked into long grass for a couple of years. It cools the clamour for another immediate referendum There all sorted" Aren't you tired of kicking the can down the road? All of what is going on (May rushing round to renegotiate) is because the can has been kicked down the road and we've reached a cul-de-sac. Now we are kicking the can around the cul-de-sac. I'm tired. I'm tired of all the posturing, the back stabbing, the great 'I ams' who know Jack and have gone very very quiet... The Conservative party have had this feud for decades. It's full public view now and they are holding the country to ransom over this. They need to sort it, and not kick the can down the road. It's affecting people's livelihoods, causing fear and confusion and I'm pretty much sick of it. Bah! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. I think you're forgetting that the level of the debate is unlikely to rise above Brexit means Brexit, Leave means Leave and cake and eat it. For the plan to work, some adults would need to be in the room..." This is where the People's jury comes in. They did something similar in Ireland in their recent abortion referendum. How the jury is selected would have to worked out. It could be by random selection of one person from each constituency. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What tick boxes would you put on the ballot paper?" Royal commission sorts it which means the ultimate sovereign in our country, i.e the queen has the final say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Simple idea to solve a complex problem! Here are the objections - positives first: UK is booming and "we have never had it so good" - well maybe we have. 2yrs is not enough time to see if it will get better How do you word the questions on the ballot and how do you stop the cheating? " Yep if Britain booms we can easily afford any fines they inflict on us for non compliance. 2 years is all they are giving us. Royal commission with Queen, the ultimate sovereign having the final say. How ironic would that be  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are all missing the point. The politicians need a way out to save face. You lot are just typical of what is going on in Parliament. They need some way to do it and a referendum in 2 years time at the end of the transition puts the boot back on the peoples feet. " No. I'm not. These politicians have been given time. They have been given two years from the referendum, and you want to give them another two years? No. They need to face up to the responsibility and realise they fucked up. It appears once they get their vote into Parliament, they enter this Westminster bubble and play yippy yah yea. I'm not saying all are like that, but I don't think I'm the only one waiting and tapping my fingers waiting for the ballot box to be open... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers I have solved the Brexit Paradox. Accept the PMs deal and agree to have a referendum in 2 years time. It honours the result of the last referendum. It means we have a couple of years to sort things out more fully with the EU. It means it restores some certainty for a couple of years. If the new referendum decides to leave the 560 page document just becomes a paper noose with no strength at all. The EU’s Bluff is neutralised by the nation ? It means the irish problem is kicked into long grass for a couple of years. It cools the clamour for another immediate referendum There all sorted" If only it was that simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What tick boxes would you put on the ballot paper? Royal commission sorts it which means the ultimate sovereign in our country, i.e the queen has the final say." I'm afraid my knowledge of constitutional law isn't any where near good enough to know if that can be done? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers I have solved the Brexit Paradox. Accept the PMs deal and agree to have a referendum in 2 years time. It honours the result of the last referendum. It means we have a couple of years to sort things out more fully with the EU. It means it restores some certainty for a couple of years. If the new referendum decides to leave the 560 page document just becomes a paper noose with no strength at all. The EU’s Bluff is neutralised by the nation ? It means the irish problem is kicked into long grass for a couple of years. It cools the clamour for another immediate referendum There all sortedIf only it was that simple" It is actually. Absolutely everyone wins | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What tick boxes would you put on the ballot paper? Royal commission sorts it which means the ultimate sovereign in our country, i.e the queen has the final say. I'm afraid my knowledge of constitutional law isn't any where near good enough to know if that can be done?" Sorry... my black sense of humour just kicked in and I'm chuckling here.... I just imagined we went through this.... sorted out all the constitutional hurdles, got everyone behind the plan.... two years of legal gymnastics... ...the day comes... ...May makes her way to Bucky Palace to ask the Queen for her formal edict.... ...the door opens... "Sorry, Mrs May, there's been a bit of bad news.... Her Majesty has just....er.... well... she is an ex-Majesty..... pining for the fjords and all that" -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What tick boxes would you put on the ballot paper? Royal commission sorts it which means the ultimate sovereign in our country, i.e the queen has the final say. I'm afraid my knowledge of constitutional law isn't any where near good enough to know if that can be done? Sorry... my black sense of humour just kicked in and I'm chuckling here.... I just imagined we went through this.... sorted out all the constitutional hurdles, got everyone behind the plan.... two years of legal gymnastics... ...the day comes... ...May makes her way to Bucky Palace to ask the Queen for her formal edict.... ...the door opens... "Sorry, Mrs May, there's been a bit of bad news.... Her Majesty has just....er.... well... she is an ex-Majesty..... pining for the fjords and all that" -Matt" Yes I can see the funny side too. Norway solution it is then Ma'am | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What tick boxes would you put on the ballot paper? Royal commission sorts it which means the ultimate sovereign in our country, i.e the queen has the final say. I'm afraid my knowledge of constitutional law isn't any where near good enough to know if that can be done? Sorry... my black sense of humour just kicked in and I'm chuckling here.... I just imagined we went through this.... sorted out all the constitutional hurdles, got everyone behind the plan.... two years of legal gymnastics... ...the day comes... ...May makes her way to Bucky Palace to ask the Queen for her formal edict.... ...the door opens... "Sorry, Mrs May, there's been a bit of bad news.... Her Majesty has just....er.... well... she is an ex-Majesty..... pining for the fjords and all that" -Matt Yes I can see the funny side too. Norway solution it is then Ma'am "I don't think Norway would have us in EFTA. I think we've more chance of Junker saying tomorrow we can have have a FTA, no NI border and £50 Billion in OUR pocket by Monday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What tick boxes would you put on the ballot paper? Royal commission sorts it which means the ultimate sovereign in our country, i.e the queen has the final say. I'm afraid my knowledge of constitutional law isn't any where near good enough to know if that can be done? Sorry... my black sense of humour just kicked in and I'm chuckling here.... I just imagined we went through this.... sorted out all the constitutional hurdles, got everyone behind the plan.... two years of legal gymnastics... ...the day comes... ...May makes her way to Bucky Palace to ask the Queen for her formal edict.... ...the door opens... "Sorry, Mrs May, there's been a bit of bad news.... Her Majesty has just....er.... well... she is an ex-Majesty..... pining for the fjords and all that" -Matt Yes I can see the funny side too. Norway solution it is then Ma'am
I don't think Norway would have us in EFTA.
I think we've more chance of Junker saying tomorrow we can have have a FTA, no NI border and £50 Billion in OUR pocket by Monday."You should have started with "once upon a time" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you think about it a 2nd referendum in 2 years time is the answer. What it would do is re enable our negotiators to secure a good trade deal post 29th March. OK the legal part is binding so if you accept that it is Binding that will be an issue but the EU trade negotiators will be on the back foot. But the political part is waffle about endeavouring and working towards Bla Bla Bla. So if they waffle and Prevaricate and the nation decides well The EU is a pile of not very genuine, undemocratic so and so's after all. The leavers were right, let's vote to leave we will have bought ourselves 2 years to prepare properly for no deal. They keep chuntering on that no one wants to use the back stop. Well that will be tested won't it. This is the answer peeps. You probably think I am mad but this is the ruddy answer to all those MPs prayers. How the fuck do I get them to see my emails about it amongst the many thousands they are probably seeing all the time at the moment." I think the proposal is an easy out for UK political parties for a couple of years. Like the leaver view on Brexit it defines all the benefits for us but identifies none for whom we're negotiating with. It just puts off the problem. Brexit is still undefined by us and the EU has no reason to change its position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you think about it a 2nd referendum in 2 years time is the answer. What it would do is re enable our negotiators to secure a good trade deal post 29th March. OK the legal part is binding so if you accept that it is Binding that will be an issue but the EU trade negotiators will be on the back foot. But the political part is waffle about endeavouring and working towards Bla Bla Bla. So if they waffle and Prevaricate and the nation decides well The EU is a pile of not very genuine, undemocratic so and so's after all. The leavers were right, let's vote to leave we will have bought ourselves 2 years to prepare properly for no deal. They keep chuntering on that no one wants to use the back stop. Well that will be tested won't it. This is the answer peeps. You probably think I am mad but this is the ruddy answer to all those MPs prayers. How the fuck do I get them to see my emails about it amongst the many thousands they are probably seeing all the time at the moment. I think the proposal is an easy out for UK political parties for a couple of years. Like the leaver view on Brexit it defines all the benefits for us but identifies none for whom we're negotiating with. It just puts off the problem. Brexit is still undefined by us and the EU has no reason to change its position." Which is what they need to break the deadlock. Otherwise we fall out with no deal. Is that what the 52% voted for. The answer is yes....... But are they prepared to pay the price in jobs and inflation. No......... There will be civil unrest and a shit storm in no time. The deal on the table delivers. It just needs someone to think a little bit outside the box a bit and realise there is a golden opportunity here to satisfy everybody. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you think about it a 2nd referendum in 2 years time is the answer. What it would do is re enable our negotiators to secure a good trade deal post 29th March. OK the legal part is binding so if you accept that it is Binding that will be an issue but the EU trade negotiators will be on the back foot. But the political part is waffle about endeavouring and working towards Bla Bla Bla. So if they waffle and Prevaricate and the nation decides well The EU is a pile of not very genuine, undemocratic so and so's after all. The leavers were right, let's vote to leave we will have bought ourselves 2 years to prepare properly for no deal. They keep chuntering on that no one wants to use the back stop. Well that will be tested won't it. This is the answer peeps. You probably think I am mad but this is the ruddy answer to all those MPs prayers. How the fuck do I get them to see my emails about it amongst the many thousands they are probably seeing all the time at the moment. I think the proposal is an easy out for UK political parties for a couple of years. Like the leaver view on Brexit it defines all the benefits for us but identifies none for whom we're negotiating with. It just puts off the problem. Brexit is still undefined by us and the EU has no reason to change its position. Which is what they need to break the deadlock. Otherwise we fall out with no deal. Is that what the 52% voted for. The answer is yes....... But are they prepared to pay the price in jobs and inflation. No......... There will be civil unrest and a shit storm in no time. The deal on the table delivers. It just needs someone to think a little bit outside the box a bit and realise there is a golden opportunity here to satisfy everybody." I think you’re saying that the deal delivers brexit (as defined by the referendum) but in two years people will regret it. But we’d have lost our ability to retract article 50 so we’d be coming in afresh (it in a negotiated position). Have I read this right ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you think about it a 2nd referendum in 2 years time is the answer. What it would do is re enable our negotiators to secure a good trade deal post 29th March. OK the legal part is binding so if you accept that it is Binding that will be an issue but the EU trade negotiators will be on the back foot. But the political part is waffle about endeavouring and working towards Bla Bla Bla. So if they waffle and Prevaricate and the nation decides well The EU is a pile of not very genuine, undemocratic so and so's after all. The leavers were right, let's vote to leave we will have bought ourselves 2 years to prepare properly for no deal. They keep chuntering on that no one wants to use the back stop. Well that will be tested won't it. This is the answer peeps. You probably think I am mad but this is the ruddy answer to all those MPs prayers. How the fuck do I get them to see my emails about it amongst the many thousands they are probably seeing all the time at the moment. I think the proposal is an easy out for UK political parties for a couple of years. Like the leaver view on Brexit it defines all the benefits for us but identifies none for whom we're negotiating with. It just puts off the problem. Brexit is still undefined by us and the EU has no reason to change its position. Which is what they need to break the deadlock. Otherwise we fall out with no deal. Is that what the 52% voted for. The answer is yes....... But are they prepared to pay the price in jobs and inflation. No......... There will be civil unrest and a shit storm in no time. The deal on the table delivers. It just needs someone to think a little bit outside the box a bit and realise there is a golden opportunity here to satisfy everybody." It is also an opportunity to continue to satisfy nobody. Bear in mind that only leave position I can seem to make out is that the only acceptable outcome is the one that is impossible to achieve in large part because it's unknown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you think about it a 2nd referendum in 2 years time is the answer. What it would do is re enable our negotiators to secure a good trade deal post 29th March. OK the legal part is binding so if you accept that it is Binding that will be an issue but the EU trade negotiators will be on the back foot. But the political part is waffle about endeavouring and working towards Bla Bla Bla. So if they waffle and Prevaricate and the nation decides well The EU is a pile of not very genuine, undemocratic so and so's after all. The leavers were right, let's vote to leave we will have bought ourselves 2 years to prepare properly for no deal. They keep chuntering on that no one wants to use the back stop. Well that will be tested won't it. This is the answer peeps. You probably think I am mad but this is the ruddy answer to all those MPs prayers. How the fuck do I get them to see my emails about it amongst the many thousands they are probably seeing all the time at the moment. I think the proposal is an easy out for UK political parties for a couple of years. Like the leaver view on Brexit it defines all the benefits for us but identifies none for whom we're negotiating with. It just puts off the problem. Brexit is still undefined by us and the EU has no reason to change its position. Which is what they need to break the deadlock. Otherwise we fall out with no deal. Is that what the 52% voted for. The answer is yes....... But are they prepared to pay the price in jobs and inflation. No......... There will be civil unrest and a shit storm in no time. The deal on the table delivers. It just needs someone to think a little bit outside the box a bit and realise there is a golden opportunity here to satisfy everybody. I think you’re saying that the deal delivers brexit (as defined by the referendum) but in two years people will regret it. But we’d have lost our ability to retract article 50 so we’d be coming in afresh (it in a negotiated position). Have I read this right ?" We re apply to join if the terms offered are that marvellous. The referendum result requires us to leave. Article 50 has been delivered. We have moved down the conveyor belt and are about to drop off the end. The referendum result needs to be delivered or article 50 rescinded. Of course the MPs could decide to do that, but come on are they likely to do that. I take it you voted remain, as did I, however I do recognise that the result of the referendum does need to be respected and this half in-half out way will enable us to do it. Agreed there is the all consuming backstop at the end of it but right now something needs to be sorted out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you think about it a 2nd referendum in 2 years time is the answer. What it would do is re enable our negotiators to secure a good trade deal post 29th March. OK the legal part is binding so if you accept that it is Binding that will be an issue but the EU trade negotiators will be on the back foot. But the political part is waffle about endeavouring and working towards Bla Bla Bla. So if they waffle and Prevaricate and the nation decides well The EU is a pile of not very genuine, undemocratic so and so's after all. The leavers were right, let's vote to leave we will have bought ourselves 2 years to prepare properly for no deal. They keep chuntering on that no one wants to use the back stop. Well that will be tested won't it. This is the answer peeps. You probably think I am mad but this is the ruddy answer to all those MPs prayers. How the fuck do I get them to see my emails about it amongst the many thousands they are probably seeing all the time at the moment. I think the proposal is an easy out for UK political parties for a couple of years. Like the leaver view on Brexit it defines all the benefits for us but identifies none for whom we're negotiating with. It just puts off the problem. Brexit is still undefined by us and the EU has no reason to change its position. Which is what they need to break the deadlock. Otherwise we fall out with no deal. Is that what the 52% voted for. The answer is yes....... But are they prepared to pay the price in jobs and inflation. No......... There will be civil unrest and a shit storm in no time. The deal on the table delivers. It just needs someone to think a little bit outside the box a bit and realise there is a golden opportunity here to satisfy everybody. I think you’re saying that the deal delivers brexit (as defined by the referendum) but in two years people will regret it. But we’d have lost our ability to retract article 50 so we’d be coming in afresh (it in a negotiated position). Have I read this right ? We re apply to join if the terms offered are that marvellous. The referendum result requires us to leave. Article 50 has been delivered. We have moved down the conveyor belt and are about to drop off the end. The referendum result needs to be delivered or article 50 rescinded. Of course the MPs could decide to do that, but come on are they likely to do that. I take it you voted remain, as did I, however I do recognise that the result of the referendum does need to be respected and this half in-half out way will enable us to do it. Agreed there is the all consuming backstop at the end of it but right now something needs to be sorted out. " Actually I disagree with that false dichotomy. If the facts have changed then it is perfectly acceptable to change tour mind. The first referendum result has been respected. The government has a "deal". It is a crap one which apparently nobody likes. Parliament decides what happens next. That is how the process works. Do better is not an option. No deal is not an option. Cancel Brexit is not an option. Another referendum is no more or less legitimate than the first. It is impossible to argue either way on that. It won't necessarily clarify anything except that we're screwed as a country. The biggest division is generational. Those who have finished their working lives or drawing towards the end of them wish to leave. Those starting their working and family lives wish to remain. The future is being defined by those with the smallest stake in it. Happy days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. " Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore" I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore" I can't see how that works to be honest, needing a majority of EU states to approve to let another state invoke Article 50. A link to this source is needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore" The ECJ ruled the UK can revoke A50 as long as it's a legal democratic process - parliament or another referendum. It would retain all its current terms - veto, rebate & shengen. There is nothing the other 27 can do about it! Hence they will probably amend A50 for future events - should they happen. If your suggesting that a country would be stupid enough to go through brexit again then your surely deluded! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? " Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. " "May was challenged by Liz Saville Roberts, a Plaid Cymru MP, who said the European court ruling meant it was in the prime minister’s gift to personally take Brexit off the table. The prime minister indicated that was true but made clear she had no plans to do such a thing. It would be a short-term fix, she said, but would betray voters who won the 2016 referendum. “Revoking article 50 would mean going back on the vote of the referendum and remaining in the EU,” May said."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. " Okay. Not seen this yet. Will keep a look out if it just happened. (My google skills are failing. Again.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"nobody has managed to find anything by googling it .... most likely because google has not included the russian bot factory websites pushing out this particular piece of fake news in their search results" Alternative facts! I read recently that the EU didn't want to extend the time of A50 unless it was for a referendum. They didn't want the UK to stop & start several times until they had sorted their position. The time period of 2 yrs was there as a definitive conclusion point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. " Still no links to anything remotely official. If it's just May that has said this then we know it's a lie, it's just posturing to force MP's to do the right thing and vote for her BREXIT agreement, nothing more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"nobody has managed to find anything by googling it .... most likely because google has not included the russian bot factory websites pushing out this particular piece of fake news in their search results" It's like his million signatures against the Government referendum leaflet. 250,000 was quite a lot , but no, he had to embellish ot. You are probably right though, it's Centaur's highly personalised news stream. Do you think he knows how Google works? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"nobody has managed to find anything by googling it .... most likely because google has not included the russian bot factory websites pushing out this particular piece of fake news in their search results It's like his million signatures against the Government referendum leaflet. 250,000 was quite a lot , but no, he had to embellish ot. You are probably right though, it's Centaur's highly personalised news stream. Do you think he knows how Google works?" farmer palmer reads the same fake news websites so it seems | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? " I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. "May was challenged by Liz Saville Roberts, a Plaid Cymru MP, who said the European court ruling meant it was in the prime minister’s gift to personally take Brexit off the table. The prime minister indicated that was true but made clear she had no plans to do such a thing. It would be a short-term fix, she said, but would betray voters who won the 2016 referendum. “Revoking article 50 would mean going back on the vote of the referendum and remaining in the EU,” May said." "Try using yahoo and look for the rule change, I put a link up yesterday and it was removed by the mods, but Im afraid its true art 50 can only be invoked if a qualified majority agree it can be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"nobody has managed to find anything by googling it .... most likely because google has not included the russian bot factory websites pushing out this particular piece of fake news in their search results It's like his million signatures against the Government referendum leaflet. 250,000 was quite a lot , but no, he had to embellish ot. You are probably right though, it's Centaur's highly personalised news stream. Do you think he knows how Google works? farmer palmer reads the same fake news websites so it seems" Od dear another one who is going to have to eat humble pie when they look properly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it " It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point." What ECJ ruling? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point. What ECJ ruling? " Seriously? 
You pointed to an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence". They also think that climate change is an EU conspiracy I noticed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point. What ECJ ruling? Seriously?
You pointed to an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence". They also think that climate change is an EU conspiracy I noticed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643"THAT was the ruling that said we can cancel brexit no one is saying we cant revoke it. what we cant now do( or any other country) is invoke it again that is why we had to do it when we did, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point. What ECJ ruling? Seriously?
You pointed to an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence". They also think that climate change is an EU conspiracy I noticed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
THAT was the ruling that said we can cancel brexit no one is saying we cant revoke it. what we cant now do( or any other country) is invoke it again that is why we had to do it when we did,"You talk in riddles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point. What ECJ ruling? Seriously?
You pointed to an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence". They also think that climate change is an EU conspiracy I noticed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
THAT was the ruling that said we can cancel brexit no one is saying we cant revoke it. what we cant now do( or any other country) is invoke it again that is why we had to do it when we did,
You talk in riddles."Well as I said. If after all this sort of stuff goes on and a referendum result is leave and it's all been carefully planned, bla bla bla, what on earth could they do to stop us. I don't think waving foul over article 50 will do much good. Take Russia and the Ukraine at the moment, one is a nuclear superpower and the other is a small independent nation. The last resort for Russia to reunite it's ethnic Russians is an invasion so gord help us if that happens. What could the EU army do........ Invade us and conquer us. Make us a colony of the EU. Perish the thought. brrrrrrrrr ???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers I have solved the Brexit Paradox. Accept the PMs deal and agree to have a referendum in 2 years time. It honours the result of the last referendum. It means we have a couple of years to sort things out more fully with the EU. It means it restores some certainty for a couple of years. If the new referendum decides to leave the 560 page document just becomes a paper noose with no strength at all. The EU’s Bluff is neutralised by the nation ? It means the irish problem is kicked into long grass for a couple of years. It cools the clamour for another immediate referendum There all sorted" Problem is though, if May's deal goes through, we can't leave the eu unless all countries agree we can leave. We could then be held to randsom by spsin, wanting Gibraltar back etc.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Problem is though, if May's deal goes through, we can't leave the eu unless all countries agree we can leave. We could then be held to randsom by spsin, wanting Gibraltar back etc.. " If we can sort out the NI border issue before the end of the transition period then the backstop does not even come into play and we leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers I have solved the Brexit Paradox. Accept the PMs deal and agree to have a referendum in 2 years time. It honours the result of the last referendum. It means we have a couple of years to sort things out more fully with the EU. It means it restores some certainty for a couple of years. If the new referendum decides to leave the 560 page document just becomes a paper noose with no strength at all. The EU’s Bluff is neutralised by the nation ? It means the irish problem is kicked into long grass for a couple of years. It cools the clamour for another immediate referendum There all sorted Problem is though, if May's deal goes through, we can't leave the eu unless all countries agree we can leave. We could then be held to randsom by spsin, wanting Gibraltar back etc.. " good give Gibraltar back give the faulklands back aswell it’s only a matter of time anyway | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers Problem is though, if May's deal goes through, we can't leave the eu unless all countries agree we can leave. We could then be held to randsom by spsin, wanting Gibraltar back etc.. " I don’t think that is true. May’s proposal is a stepping stone to take us into talks about something permanent. For both parties to conclude those talks, both the UK and Ireland need to be satisfied the Good Friday Agreement is protected. If it is not, the rUK can walk away but Northern Ireland remains aligned with the single market, i.e the regulatory border is in the Irish Sea. Gibraltar is a card yet to be played by Spain and the EU on its behalf. It does not need to play it at the moment because Ireland already has the UK by the short and curlies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" " It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers I have solved the Brexit Paradox. Accept the PMs deal and agree to have a referendum in 2 years time. It honours the result of the last referendum. It means we have a couple of years to sort things out more fully with the EU. It means it restores some certainty for a couple of years. If the new referendum decides to leave the 560 page document just becomes a paper noose with no strength at all. The EU’s Bluff is neutralised by the nation ? It means the irish problem is kicked into long grass for a couple of years. It cools the clamour for another immediate referendum There all sorted Problem is though, if May's deal goes through, we can't leave the eu unless all countries agree we can leave. We could then be held to randsom by spsin, wanting Gibraltar back etc.. good give Gibraltar back give the faulklands back aswell it’s only a matter of time anyway " What about their sovereignty? They don't want to be "handed back" to anyone. Can you only be British if it's not too much trouble? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? I posted the link but it was taken down its on a site called euro probe and published 28 feb 2015, its funny how it comes up very quickly on yahoo but if you try and find any mention ofthis rule on google you wont find it It was an opinion then. The ECJ ruling clarified this. That was the entire point. What ECJ ruling? Seriously?
You pointed to an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence". They also think that climate change is an EU conspiracy I noticed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
THAT was the ruling that said we can cancel brexit no one is saying we cant revoke it. what we cant now do( or any other country) is invoke it again that is why we had to do it when we did,"No. It is the ruling that Article 50 can be UNILATERALLY withdrawn. That means without anyone else's approval | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. Okay. Not seen this yet. Will keep a look out if it just happened. (My google skills are failing. Again.) " I was watching the BBC Parliament channel live on television yesterday when Theresa May said it. We can withdraw article 50 unilaterally now without anyone's permission but the ECJ ruling showed we wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU gave us their approval. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce." No it doesn't all have to be done in 3 months. The planning stages have already been completed. Planning takes time and that has already been done. We now have 3 months to put the plans into practice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce. No it doesn't all have to be done in 3 months. The planning stages have already been completed. Planning takes time and that has already been done. We now have 3 months to put the plans into practice. " I think this no deal "preparation" is just posturing to try and get the MP's to do their bloody job & back BREXIT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce. No it doesn't all have to be done in 3 months. The planning stages have already been completed. Planning takes time and that has already been done. We now have 3 months to put the plans into practice. " Too late. Where is the infrastructure at the ports? Who has bought up the warehousing capacity to hold the government to ransom? Why is police leave being cancelled? Why has Kent asked Whitehall for £20m to do emergency roadworks? This is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. And when the supermarket shelves of Northern Ireland are emptied of food, no prizes for guessing who will step in to help with the weight of the EU behind it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. Okay. Not seen this yet. Will keep a look out if it just happened. (My google skills are failing. Again.) I was watching the BBC Parliament channel live on television yesterday when Theresa May said it. We can withdraw article 50 unilaterally now without anyone's permission but the ECJ ruling showed we wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU gave us their approval. " Seems no one has picked up on this yet. Would have thought the brexit papers would be all over this. Will carry on watching this space | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce. No it doesn't all have to be done in 3 months. The planning stages have already been completed. Planning takes time and that has already been done. We now have 3 months to put the plans into practice. Too late. Where is the infrastructure at the ports? Who has bought up the warehousing capacity to hold the government to ransom? Why is police leave being cancelled? Why has Kent asked Whitehall for £20m to do emergency roadworks? This is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. And when the supermarket shelves of Northern Ireland are emptied of food, no prizes for guessing who will step in to help with the weight of the EU behind it." There doesn't need to be extra infrastructure at the ports immediately as the EU's own no deal planning shows they intend to keep traffic flowing through pinch points like Dover/Calais as normal for at least 6 to 12 months even in the event of no deal. French officials also know if they start playing silly buggers deliberately holding things up at Calais then the UK can switch some traffic to other ports in the Netherlands for example. Does France really want to lose UK trade to Netherlands and take that extra hit on the French economy? I don't think so. UK Ferry operators said on the news last night they are not under EU jurisdiction, they are under the jurisdiction of international maritime law so ferry crossings will go on as normal. As for your other points about the UK running out of food I just can't take you seriously when you come out with this project fear nonsense. UK trade experts have said the UK can cope with UK produced food and with food imports from the rest of the world outside of the EU very easily. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You voted for it. You own it. A clusterf^ck of epic proportions. Made entirely in England." You keep forgetting about Wales!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. Okay. Not seen this yet. Will keep a look out if it just happened. (My google skills are failing. Again.) I was watching the BBC Parliament channel live on television yesterday when Theresa May said it. We can withdraw article 50 unilaterally now without anyone's permission but the ECJ ruling showed we wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU gave us their approval. Seems no one has picked up on this yet. Would have thought the brexit papers would be all over this. Will carry on watching this space " I still don't believe it. Something this major would have been on every news outlet going I would of thought. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There doesn't need to be extra infrastructure at the ports immediately as the EU's own no deal planning shows they intend to keep traffic flowing through pinch points like Dover/Calais as normal for at least 6 to 12 months even in the event of no deal. French officials also know if they start playing silly buggers deliberately holding things up at Calais then the UK can switch some traffic to other ports in the Netherlands for example. Does France really want to lose UK trade to Netherlands and take that extra hit on the French economy? I don't think so. " EU countries will have a legal obligation to check goods coming in under law. As for the UK, are you suggesting you don't want to check anything? I thought this was all about 'taking back control of your borders'?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce. No it doesn't all have to be done in 3 months. The planning stages have already been completed. Planning takes time and that has already been done. We now have 3 months to put the plans into practice. Too late. Where is the infrastructure at the ports? Who has bought up the warehousing capacity to hold the government to ransom? Why is police leave being cancelled? Why has Kent asked Whitehall for £20m to do emergency roadworks? This is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. And when the supermarket shelves of Northern Ireland are emptied of food, no prizes for guessing who will step in to help with the weight of the EU behind it. There doesn't need to be extra infrastructure at the ports immediately as the EU's own no deal planning shows they intend to keep traffic flowing through pinch points like Dover/Calais as normal for at least 6 to 12 months even in the event of no deal. French officials also know if they start playing silly buggers deliberately holding things up at Calais then the UK can switch some traffic to other ports in the Netherlands for example. Does France really want to lose UK trade to Netherlands and take that extra hit on the French economy? I don't think so. UK Ferry operators said on the news last night they are not under EU jurisdiction, they are under the jurisdiction of international maritime law so ferry crossings will go on as normal. As for your other points about the UK running out of food I just can't take you seriously when you come out with this project fear nonsense. UK trade experts have said the UK can cope with UK produced food and with food imports from the rest of the world outside of the EU very easily. " I think your funny! Checks will be done at every European port whether it's France, Belgium or the Netherlands - that's the rules. Ok if your talking about volumes then yes Calais will not cope - nor will Dover so yes freight will be moved to other ports. The reason Dover-Calais is popular is it's the shortest and cheapest crossing! Guess what that will do? Yes increase prices to the consumer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the idea has some merit. However I think a better way forward now would be the following:- Revoke Article 50 now. Setup a working group or people's jury to look into all the possible ways of leaving the EU from EEA+ to WTO terms and report back with all the implications of each in terms of Sovereignty, Trade, Immigration, Security and Defence, and a recommendation as to which would be the most beneficial for Britain. Parliament, taking into consideration the report and recommendations from above, should then decide which of different leave scenarios it believes is best for the country. Parliament should then draw up a plan, including any legislation, that is required to implement the Leave scenario that it has decided is the best for the country. Parliament should then bring forward legislation for a binding referendum with the binary choice of the agreed Leave scenario (which would be a clear and detailed plan, with the necessary legislation already passed and a clear course of action to take if Leave won) and remain. This couldn't be done quickly. It could take 5 or more years but, if we're going to do Leave, let's at least do it properly and well rather than quickly and shambolically as we are trying to do now. Except of course if we revoke art 50 we need approval of a qualified majority of eu members to invoke it again,something remainers either dont know or deliberately ignore I don’t know this and would like to know more. What’s your source ? Theresa May just confirmed it while speaking in the House of Commons. She said the ECJ ruling stated we could revoke article 50, but wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU approved it. Okay. Not seen this yet. Will keep a look out if it just happened. (My google skills are failing. Again.) I was watching the BBC Parliament channel live on television yesterday when Theresa May said it. We can withdraw article 50 unilaterally now without anyone's permission but the ECJ ruling showed we wouldn't be able to trigger it again unless the EU gave us their approval. " Oh bless. Do you now believe everything the closet-remain Brexit traitor says? 
Search "ecj ruling article 50 curia jcms" and you'll get the ECJ press release. Take the "jcms" off and you'll get the entire judgement.
There was no ruling on triggering Article 50 again because there was no such question tabled.
They only ruled on the question of revoking Article 50.
You really are down a very odd cul-de-sac of belief.
Better luck next time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On the news today it seems as though they are fully preparing for a "no deal" It’s the only outcome that’s ever been in the control of the UK to deliver. But now it has to do in three months what would take three years to implement. It’s a farce. No it doesn't all have to be done in 3 months. The planning stages have already been completed. Planning takes time and that has already been done. We now have 3 months to put the plans into practice. Too late. Where is the infrastructure at the ports? Who has bought up the warehousing capacity to hold the government to ransom? Why is police leave being cancelled? Why has Kent asked Whitehall for £20m to do emergency roadworks? This is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. And when the supermarket shelves of Northern Ireland are emptied of food, no prizes for guessing who will step in to help with the weight of the EU behind it. There doesn't need to be extra infrastructure at the ports immediately as the EU's own no deal planning shows they intend to keep traffic flowing through pinch points like Dover/Calais as normal for at least 6 to 12 months even in the event of no deal. French officials also know if they start playing silly buggers deliberately holding things up at Calais then the UK can switch some traffic to other ports in the Netherlands for example. Does France really want to lose UK trade to Netherlands and take that extra hit on the French economy? I don't think so. UK Ferry operators said on the news last night they are not under EU jurisdiction, they are under the jurisdiction of international maritime law so ferry crossings will go on as normal. As for your other points about the UK running out of food I just can't take you seriously when you come out with this project fear nonsense. UK trade experts have said the UK can cope with UK produced food and with food imports from the rest of the world outside of the EU very easily. " Look up "country of origin" and then explain how you can honour a trade agreement whilst allowing free movement of goods from a third country without any checks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabbers Problem is though, if May's deal goes through, we can't leave the eu unless all countries agree we can leave. We could then be held to randsom by spsin, wanting Gibraltar back etc.. I don’t think that is true. May’s proposal is a stepping stone to take us into talks about something permanent. For both parties to conclude those talks, both the UK and Ireland need to be satisfied the Good Friday Agreement is protected. If it is not, the rUK can walk away but Northern Ireland remains aligned with the single market, i.e the regulatory border is in the Irish Sea. Gibraltar is a card yet to be played by Spain and the EU on its behalf. It does not need to play it at the moment because Ireland already has the UK by the short and curlies." Thanks Sophie, for your balanced and sensible reply | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Seems no one has picked up on this yet. Would have thought the brexit papers would be all over this. Will carry on watching this space " Its certainly very hard to find on google, I found it on yahoo,but im sure there was a fair bit about it in the papers etc when we triggered art 50 in 2017 saying we had to do it or miss the chance. As fas as I can see there are three possibilities 1 its bollocks and we/other countries could trigger it still and its made up 2 its true but nobody has thought it worth mentioning 3 its been deliberately buried so the uk voter doesnt find out so we can revoke art50 to continue the argument about the deal and then when it gets rejected we suddenly find we cant leave. which is correct I dont know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could understand there being a timeframe that must elapse once revoking A50 before invoking it again but I highly doubt this is already in the text but may well get added for future occurrences." I think thats what the EU want. Uncertainty and chaos to damage our exit. I would call their bluff as they arnt being acrimonious in letting us leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could understand there being a timeframe that must elapse once revoking A50 before invoking it again but I highly doubt this is already in the text but may well get added for future occurrences. I think thats what the EU want. Uncertainty and chaos to damage our exit. I would call their bluff as they arnt being acrimonious in letting us leave. " They are damaging our exit by saying they should amend the article to cover what happens if a country triggers article 50 in the future. So not us. This time. I don’t get your position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh right that old chestnut resurfaces from 200 years ago. Someone I know mentioned that to me the other day. I dunno....... I just shake my head in despair at the excuses for not pushing on and trying something new. You never know we might like it and it is what 52% of the nation voted for so we really ought to have a little go at it. What are we frightened of. A new Spanish Armada." Oh really? The backstop plan by may would mean all dorts of demands by any eu country before we could exit from the backstop deal. I just gave an example of a potential demand. I could be right, i could be wrong. So, instead of eye rolling sarcy replis, How about putting forward your retort objectively? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could understand there being a timeframe that must elapse once revoking A50 before invoking it again but I highly doubt this is already in the text but may well get added for future occurrences. I think thats what the EU want. Uncertainty and chaos to damage our exit. I would call their bluff as they arnt being acrimonious in letting us leave. They are damaging our exit by saying they should amend the article to cover what happens if a country triggers article 50 in the future. So not us. This time. I don’t get your position. " Im referring to the current A50 submitted by May. If we retract it now, i reckon the uncertainty would drag on. If were leaving it would be better to hold our course and exit, instead of constantly wavering | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could understand there being a timeframe that must elapse once revoking A50 before invoking it again but I highly doubt this is already in the text but may well get added for future occurrences. I think thats what the EU want. Uncertainty and chaos to damage our exit. I would call their bluff as they arnt being acrimonious in letting us leave. They are damaging our exit by saying they should amend the article to cover what happens if a country triggers article 50 in the future. So not us. This time. I don’t get your position. Im referring to the current A50 submitted by May. If we retract it now, i reckon the uncertainty would drag on. If were leaving it would be better to hold our course and exit, instead of constantly wavering " But if we retract we are not exiting. Therefore the uncertainty only happens if we aren’t leaving. Leaving is still as clear as it was. So surely this should be a good thing from a leavers POV. Not damaging at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Seems no one has picked up on this yet. Would have thought the brexit papers would be all over this. Will carry on watching this space Its certainly very hard to find on google, I found it on yahoo,but im sure there was a fair bit about it in the papers etc when we triggered art 50 in 2017 saying we had to do it or miss the chance. As fas as I can see there are three possibilities 1 its bollocks and we/other countries could trigger it still and its made up 2 its true but nobody has thought it worth mentioning 3 its been deliberately buried so the uk voter doesnt find out so we can revoke art50 to continue the argument about the deal and then when it gets rejected we suddenly find we cant leave. which is correct I dont know " I've searched high and low for this thing about needing a qualified majority to trigger Article 50 and can't find anything. I also don't know how it could of been changed 'on the quiet' as that would have required a treaty change and ratification by all member states, including the UK. The only thing I can find that comes anything like close to what you're talking about is this:- "Article 50 provides an invocation procedure whereby a member can notify the European Council and there is a negotiation period of up to two years, after which the treaties cease to apply with respect to that member—although a leaving agreement may be agreed by qualified majority voting." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could understand there being a timeframe that must elapse once revoking A50 before invoking it again but I highly doubt this is already in the text but may well get added for future occurrences." I think the ECJ ruling also said something about the revoking be genuine. We wouldn't be able to revoke article 50 on the 28-March-2019 and then send a letter triggering it again 1-April-2019. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh right that old chestnut resurfaces from 200 years ago. Someone I know mentioned that to me the other day. I dunno....... I just shake my head in despair at the excuses for not pushing on and trying something new. You never know we might like it and it is what 52% of the nation voted for so we really ought to have a little go at it. What are we frightened of. A new Spanish Armada. Oh really? The backstop plan by may would mean all dorts of demands by any eu country before we could exit from the backstop deal. I just gave an example of a potential demand. I could be right, i could be wrong. So, instead of eye rolling sarcy replis, How about putting forward your retort objectively? " We either leave the EU on the 29-March-2019 or we don't. If we Leave, whether by May's deal, 'no deal', 'in name only' or some other deal, we will have left and Article 50 will not apply to any arrangements we have with the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could understand there being a timeframe that must elapse once revoking A50 before invoking it again but I highly doubt this is already in the text but may well get added for future occurrences. I think the ECJ ruling also said something about the revoking be genuine. We wouldn't be able to revoke article 50 on the 28-March-2019 and then send a letter triggering it again 1-April-2019. " I can understand that as it's taking the piss to a whole new level but I wonder if there's anything in A50 that gives any timeframe ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Seems no one has picked up on this yet. Would have thought the brexit papers would be all over this. Will carry on watching this space Its certainly very hard to find on google, I found it on yahoo,but im sure there was a fair bit about it in the papers etc when we triggered art 50 in 2017 saying we had to do it or miss the chance. As fas as I can see there are three possibilities 1 its bollocks and we/other countries could trigger it still and its made up 2 its true but nobody has thought it worth mentioning 3 its been deliberately buried so the uk voter doesnt find out so we can revoke art50 to continue the argument about the deal and then when it gets rejected we suddenly find we cant leave. which is correct I dont know I've searched high and low for this thing about needing a qualified majority to trigger Article 50 and can't find anything. I also don't know how it could of been changed 'on the quiet' as that would have required a treaty change and ratification by all member states, including the UK. The only thing I can find that comes anything like close to what you're talking about is this:- "Article 50 provides an invocation procedure whereby a member can notify the European Council and there is a negotiation period of up to two years, after which the treaties cease to apply with respect to that member—although a leaving agreement may be agreed by qualified majority voting." " Try using yahoo or search the papers from around the time we invoked it, I did put up the link but it got taken down and I was banned for a day . I will post the article in the next post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the article from euro probe After 31st March 2017 we lose right to use Article 50 to unilaterally leave the EU and the right to Repeal European Communities Act 1972. Qualitative voting kicks in then and we will need 14 countries to agree we can leave. If they do not agree then we cannot leave UK will then be completely hog tied by the EU. see 2013 – 013 How the Lisbon Treaty was voted through when none of the MPs had seen it. Comment: I too have wrote a piece on this, as the rules of QMV have now been rewritten? Originally we were to ask 27 members and we needed 255 votes, as all members would have been ‘weighted’, this has now changed. We now need 20 countries to agree and their populations must add up to 65% of the population of the Union? http://t.co/1HhnvYsoyU all links included. We become FULLY INTEGRATED after 31st March 2017, which is why Cameron said LATE 2017 also on this date, we lose right to use Article 50 and the right to Repeal European Communities Act 1972? " You are quoting the opinions of random people from an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence" of something. I know that expertise no longer holds any validity, but do you think believing people about which you know nothing is helpful? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the article from euro probe After 31st March 2017 we lose right to use Article 50 to unilaterally leave the EU and the right to Repeal European Communities Act 1972. Qualitative voting kicks in then and we will need 14 countries to agree we can leave. If they do not agree then we cannot leave UK will then be completely hog tied by the EU. see 2013 – 013 How the Lisbon Treaty was voted through when none of the MPs had seen it. Comment: I too have wrote a piece on this, as the rules of QMV have now been rewritten? Originally we were to ask 27 members and we needed 255 votes, as all members would have been ‘weighted’, this has now changed. We now need 20 countries to agree and their populations must add up to 65% of the population of the Union? http://t.co/1HhnvYsoyU all links included. We become FULLY INTEGRATED after 31st March 2017, which is why Cameron said LATE 2017 also on this date, we lose right to use Article 50 and the right to Repeal European Communities Act 1972? You are quoting the opinions of random people from an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence" of something. I know that expertise no longer holds any validity, but do you think believing people about which you know nothing is helpful?" If you ever bothered to read what people post you would have seen in a previous post that there could be three options on this, someone asked what the article was I believe there was a lot of talk about this new rule before we triggered art 50 so I believe it is correct can you show any evidence that it isnt ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the article from euro probe After 31st March 2017 we lose right to use Article 50 to unilaterally leave the EU and the right to Repeal European Communities Act 1972. Qualitative voting kicks in then and we will need 14 countries to agree we can leave. If they do not agree then we cannot leave UK will then be completely hog tied by the EU. see 2013 – 013 How the Lisbon Treaty was voted through when none of the MPs had seen it. Comment: I too have wrote a piece on this, as the rules of QMV have now been rewritten? Originally we were to ask 27 members and we needed 255 votes, as all members would have been ‘weighted’, this has now changed. We now need 20 countries to agree and their populations must add up to 65% of the population of the Union? http://t.co/1HhnvYsoyU all links included. We become FULLY INTEGRATED after 31st March 2017, which is why Cameron said LATE 2017 also on this date, we lose right to use Article 50 and the right to Repeal European Communities Act 1972? You are quoting the opinions of random people from an anti-EU conspiracy site as "evidence" of something. I know that expertise no longer holds any validity, but do you think believing people about which you know nothing is helpful? If you ever bothered to read what people post you would have seen in a previous post that there could be three options on this, someone asked what the article was I believe there was a lot of talk about this new rule before we triggered art 50 so I believe it is correct can you show any evidence that it isnt ?" It's not possible to prove something isn't true. It's not like there's going to be news items saying the EU isn't going to change the rules to trigger Article 50, unless there had been a lot of news about a possible change before hand. There hasn't been. I don't remember this issue being raised at the time Article 50 was triggered either. I guess one of us must be misremembering. I've tried yahooing and couldn't find anything. I even went to that Euro Probe site and searched for Article 50 and couldn't find it. Maybe you could message me the address? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It probably would need to go to ECJ for a ruling so until the scenario is raised there is no precedence for it as it is all uncharted territory anyway. I think my main point is that the EU has a legal document in place which seems pretty water tight but also the woolly political declaration that says that negotiations will take place in good faith. If the British electorate in 2 years time decide otherwise then they would have potentially 65 Million disgruntled members that not only have no say in their parliament but are very unhappy with the whole project. Doesn't sound much like keeping us in is much of an option does it with their backstop that no one actually wants to use." A50 has pretty much been achieved, in so much as a withdrawal agreement has been negotiated and now it's about ratification. If it can't be then there is no agreement as a result of running out of time. A declaration about the future relationship has also been delivered - job done A50 has met its objective! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
