31–40 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bone-headed move by its people By a minority I'd like to clarify. 51.8% voted for it, of a 72% turnout, of an electorate that is only around 69% of the population. That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it.
> of a 72% turnout If the other 28% disagree, then they really should have voted against...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This news doesn't mean it's reversible. If the parliament rejects the deal PM negotiates, UK will still leave the EU - just without said deal.
That isn’t what I said... rather that this is already a reversible process, and this is meant to make it look as though it is not, or make it irreversible.
This is only useful if the binding vote is to decide whether to accept the deal or revert Article 50.
EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted. The binding vote is between accepting the deal and a hard drop.
This is only useful if the binding vote is to decide whether to accept the deal or revert Article 50.
Sorry, no can do: The process for withdrawing from the European Union, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, HM Government https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, February 2016 2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. Government would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn’t what I said... rather that this is already a reversible process, and this is meant to make it look as though it is not, or make it irreversible.
But it's not reversible. Triggering article 50 means leaving in 2 years or less, it has no provisions to pause or revert the process. The only way to rejoin is with the agreement of all other member states, on new and very likely less favorable terms.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date...
More nuance: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en
In short, the author of Article 50 disagrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practically speaking, if the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2019 declares its previous Article 50 declaration was unlawfully issued, I have a hard time seeing the EU gathering the stomach to essentially enforce sanctions against the United Kingdom. This could all end up being a weird "did you know Britain isn't technically in the EU?" factoid in a hundred years.
>> Practically speaking, if the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2019 declares its previous Article 50 declaration was unlawfully issued I'm not quite sure how that would work, given article 50 was issued after an act of parliament.
I think everyone believes the Article 50 declaration was properly done. But proper isn't politics. Parliament can say whatever it wants. If on March 30th, 2019 Britain says it's in the EU, a disagreeing EU member would need to begin enforcing customs, tariffs, et cetera. If nobody, or nobody who matters, does that the rule goes unenforced.
It reminds me of an oversight in the North Dakota Constitution, which did not contain a clause required for accession [1]. (It was later added.) Laws are just codified conventions; the EU has an enforcement problem in that it cannot enforce, only its member states can.
[1] http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/14/because-of-constitution-...
This is only useful if the binding vote is to decide whether to accept the deal or revert Article 50.
The only time you would revert A50 would be if the EU refused re-entry to the club and you were trying to get in anyway.
Corbyn may by a bit of a Marxist, but it is Karl, not Groucho.
Interesting times indeed. In a sense, social media et al. are fulfilling the place that widespread newspapers first, and later radio, played in the marxist and national socialist revolutions already a century and change ago.
It seems to me more true that ever that societies that forget the History of Europe (that's of course my own take on the old adagio) are condemned to repeat it. What only remains to be determined now is if Brexit is the drama or the farçe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted Those rules can be changed by the unanimous opinion of European states. Practically speaking, the deal Britain had before is gone. It might be able to re-enter if it gives up its asterisks, though. Bone-headed move by its people, either way.
> Bone-headed move by its people By a minority I'd like to clarify. 51.8% voted for it, of a 72% turnout, of an electorate that is only around 69% of the population. That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it.
Correct, newborn babies were denied a vote. What percentage of the British population voted to Remain in the EU, out of curiosity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted Those rules can be changed by the unanimous opinion of European states. Practically speaking, the deal Britain had before is gone. It might be able to re-enter if it gives up its asterisks, though. Bone-headed move by its people, either way.
> Bone-headed move by its people By a minority I'd like to clarify. 51.8% voted for it, of a 72% turnout, of an electorate that is only around 69% of the population. That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it.
Two can play stupid percentage games.