Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Ive often wondered about that, and I think I asked basically that question the other day, in terms of what it means to have Parliament debate the final settlement. Wont it all be too far gone by then?

I think its an open question. OK Lord Kerr says it is not irrevocable but others in the EU seem to take a different view. Like most things in the EU it is intentionally vague and will ultimately come down to political will, not clear written rules and obviously not precedent. I think it could go either way. So yes, whether it was a referendum or a decision taken by MPs, I think it could well end up being completely irrelevant and we could end up being pushed out anyway.
 
nope -well not according to the chap that actually wrote it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
and I suspect he knows a lot more about it than most

The only problem being that he has no legal arguments and he didn't wrote it that way. Maybe he interprets it that way but he should have added a phase after the notification to make his point valid, as it is today there is nothing after the notification and the notification is therefore the last step.
 
The only problem being that he has no legal arguments and he didn't wrote it that way. Maybe he interprets it that way but he should have added a phase after the notification to make his point valid, as it is today there is nothing after the notification and the notification is therefore the last step.
so you know more than the fellow that actually wrote it - well I guess Gove was right - we seeming have had enough of "experts"

also FYI

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-how-does-article-50-work-2016-7

But the House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)

Here is what their advice said:

Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?

We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.” Professor Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:

“There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.”

... There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial.

So, to sum up, even if the UK triggers Article 50 we can still cancel that decision if, for instance, there was a change of government. But the government would be up against the clock: It would have to make that U-turn before the rest of the EU voted on the Article 50 request, and before the two-year deadline elapsed.

Given how long the exit process is likely to take, and how unpredictable UK politics has suddenly become, don't rule out a change of government or a change of heart.
 
so you know more than the fellow that actually wrote it - well I guess Gove was right - we seeming have had enough of "experts"

I see what you are saying but I'm merely using my formation and interpreting a text of law. He wrote it in a way that doesn't correspond to his interpretation and the absence of precedents forces me to only interpret the letter of the law, I can't use the interpretation that he didn't wrote, that's not how law works.
 
Well his use of the phrase 'they might try to extract a political price' is as long as a piece of string and doesn't inspire me with confidence for a kick off.
Take in our fair share of refugees. Join the euro. Introduce mandatory German classes in all primary schools. Every Brit, at least once in his or her lifetime, must make a pilgrimage to Brussels where we will be forced to publicly fellate French farmers.
 
Take in our fair share of refugees. Join the euro. Introduce mandatory German classes in all primary schools. Every Brit, at least once in his or her lifetime, must make a pilgrimage to Brussels where we will be forced to publicly fellate French farmers.

This reminds me of the Cantona advert, in a disturbing way.
 
I see what you are saying but I'm merely using my formation and interpreting a text of law. He wrote it in a way that doesn't correspond to his interpretation and the absence of precedents forces me to only interpret the letter of the law, I can't use the interpretation that he didn't wrote, that's not how law works.

fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?
 
fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?
To be fair he isnt the only person saying that, there are plenty of people on the EU side with legal / political credentials saying the same thing. Though Donald Tusk is also on the record that the UK would have the right to accept the terms of its departure, or stay, at the end of the process.



Which is encouraging.
 
fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?

I'm a nobody that's a given.

Now I'm going to be completely honest, Sir Kerr interpretation isn't legal it's political and he is right because the EU has for principal to not force any decisions on a member, so if the UK wanted to backtrack the other members would accept because there is nothing in the text that says that they are unable to forget the notification. But the UK can't force the other member to forget about it, they can consider that no agreement has been found and according to Sir Kerr's article, the absence of agreement doesn't cancel the notification.

Edit: And aren't they all consulting Sturgeon and all remainers?
 
Last edited:
fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?

Isn't this a bit of a fallacious argument?

So and so says 'X' so and so is 'Y' therefore 'X' must be right.

They may have the right of it, but they may not. Either way, if the situation arose, its inevitably going to court.
 
I think this whole debate about cars - which is one example of a broader issue - is missing an important point which I mentioned off hand a couple of days ago but want to reiterate. As we move into a far more protectionist world, where the assumption that free trade benefits both sides, which has existed for many years now, goes out the window, it will not just be about the price of your Merc or BMW going up by 20% or whatever, and will rich people still buy them. There will also be at least an element of economic nationalism, where it is seen as a duty, or at least a virtue, to buy goods manufactured in your own country. That is the whole argument behind shunning free trade.

This is more overt in the US, but I think it will become more overt here as well. All this talk about bringing jobs back to the US will generate pride in the "American made" label and it is likely to become increasingly fashionable to buy US made goods. And people will need to buy US made goods, and be happy about the fact they cost more to produce because Labour costs are higher, even if they are cheaper than, or competitive with, foreign goods that have lower labour costs but high taxes slapped on them when they are imported. In order for people to accept that new paradigm of higher prices, it will have to be sold as a virtuous thing and a price that is worth paying for repatriating jobs. And maybe it is.

The UK is in a slightly different situation but there are similarities. There has been a lot of talk about rebalancing the economy, about the need to boost manufacturing, about the fact that "we dont make anything in this country anymore." By ending our free trade arrangement the cost of imported goods from Europe will go up, that may start to make it economical to make things here again that we used to import from countries that, under the globalisation model, specialised in those industries. When I brought this up before I was talking about cars and Nissan. I can see it becoming quite fashionable to buy Nissan, or any car that is British made, which could come to be seen as patriotic, supporting UK jobs, at a time when the UK is basically in a trade war with the EU. Ditto Vauxhalls, Hondas and Toyotas. At the higher end, people who might have bought a Merc might go with a Jag, or an Aston Martin.

Otherwise what is the justification for all of this? If this is all a backlash against globalisation, what is the rational antidote to that? Bring jobs back and buy local to justify that. There is no point in bringing jobs back to the UK and paying Brits more to build things than an Asian or Eastern European or South American could do it for, unless you encourage people to buy stuff that is made locally, by creating a sense of economic nationalism. As I said this is further along in the US but I think as usual the UK will travel in the same direction and it fits in nicely with what is happening here where we are erecting barriers between ourselves and our neighbours that will make it more expensive to trade. AND, on the surface at least, it creates jobs, which is a vote winner, and serves to justify the rising prices that will come alongside it. More money for workers via more jobs, but higher prices. It remains to be seen, all things taken into account, whether that leaves people better off or not.

Obviously there are a lot of other elements to this, a lot of other forces pulling things in other directions, and it may not pan out like that at all. But I can see this happening to some extent. I just think it is worth bearing that in mind. Its not just, Mercs are 20% more expensive, but Mercs are awesome and I am rich and want people to know Im rich, so Im going to buy it anyway. Its, Mercs are more expensive but they are also German, and the Germans have treated us horribly with the whole Brexit settlement, so screw them, and screw the French and their Renaults, and the Italians and their Fiats, Im going to buy a car that was made here, in the UK, by British workers, who after all are the best in the world at operating largely automated machines. This will be encouraged from the top down in all sorts of ways.

Good post!
 
Isn't this a bit of a fallacious argument?

So and so says 'X' so and so is 'Y' therefore 'X' must be right.

They may have the right of it, but they may not. Either way, if the situation arose, its inevitably going to court.

Calling that fallacious is the same sort of rejection of experts that got you in this shit in the first place!
 
They said Brexit would tie the UK closer to the States.

Good stuff. This won't go badly at all. :lol:
 
Calling that fallacious is the same sort of rejection of experts that got you in this shit in the first place!

I can see how it would be seen that way, especially in light of recent events, but it is slightly different.

Thats a classic example of an argument from authority. An assumption that because of who they are they are right and the other person is wrong. For example, I have no idea why Sir David Edward thinks that, but just that he does. His argument might be absolutely terrible, but we don't know either way because we haven't seen it.

Ultimately whether the people Sun_Tzu has referenced are right or not is dependent on what they have said, an opinion that is surely informed by years of experience in the field, but not because of who said it.

I spend my life disagreeing with established historians who, despite generally being right, are sometimes wrong. If I spent my life thinking 'well if JH Round said it then it must be true' I'd have nothing to do!
 
fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?
"Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance"

Did Sun Tzu meet Trump in a previous incarnation ?
 
Its funny to see Brexiters on the express thrilled that Trump had said he'll put the US first. They think its the foundations for a great trade deal for the UK
 
This is a great example of why the referendum was such a ridiculous idea. The Tories have retrospectively decided that this is the biggest issue for everyone who voted. Because that's the best way they can try and prevent swing votes to UKIP. Now that may well have been the biggest issue for a lot of voters but there will be an awful lot of people out there who voted for completely different reasons. Because they felt that the UK was being asked to financially prop up failing states like Greece or because they think the whole eurozone project is going to collapse and they figured that the more distance they can put between the British economy and the rest of Europe the better. Basically, the reasons for voting Leave were many and varied but Teresa May and her cronies have decided that they have carte blanche to decide what is and isn't a red line issue when it comes to negotiating your way out. And that is a shocking state of affairs for everyone in Britain, whether you voted for Remain or Leave.

I think your hatred for the Tories seems to be sounding out loud and clear on this issue, fair play. The financial contribution and propping up Greece etc isn't front of mind for UK people though, uncontrolled immigration is by far the biggest issue for UK voters. Pumping in massive amounts of money with little return does seem an issue.
 
I think your hatred for the Tories seems to be sounding out loud and clear on this issue, fair play. The financial contribution and propping up Greece etc isn't front of mind for UK people though, uncontrolled immigration is by far the biggest issue for UK voters. Pumping in massive amounts of money with little return does seem an issue.

How can you speak for all UK voters?
 
Majority then if you want to nitpick

That's it, though. I am nit-picking. The referendum was won by a tiny minority. With varied motivations for voting Leave. Now Teresa May is saying that freedom of movement is the one issue that is non-negotiable. Which is why a simple referendum is a stupid way to deal with a complex situation.
 
Majority then if you want to nitpick

The only opinion polls I saw after Brexit suggested that the rather vague aspiration to "take back control of our country" placed ahead of immigration as the driving factor amongst Brexiters. Which really casts doubt on the idea that immigration was the biggest issue amongst the majority of UK voters in general given that Remainers were hardly driven by a demand for more immigration.

There are certainly quite a few pro-Brexit posters here who insisted it wasn't about immigration. In fact they objected to that very notion when Remainers suggested it.
 
The only opinion polls I saw after Brexit suggested that the rather vague aspiration to "take back control of our country" placed ahead of immigration as the driving factor amongst Brexiters. Which really casts doubt on the idea that immigration was the biggest issue amongst the majority of UK voters in general given that Remainers were hardly driven by a demand for more immigration.

There are certainly quite a few pro-Brexit posters here who insisted it wasn't about immigration. In fact they objected to that very notion when Remainers suggested it.

Yeah, but expecting a consistent position on this from them is silly.

It's never been about immigration until it is, and then it isn't again. It's very hard to keep up with.
 
That's it, though. I am nit-picking. The referendum was won by a tiny minority. With varied motivations for voting Leave. Now Teresa May is saying that freedom of movement is the one issue that is non-negotiable. Which is why a simple referendum is a stupid way to deal with a complex situation.

It was a small majority, decision done. Shall we go back because it wasn't the decision wanted???!!??
 
It was a small majority, decision done. Shall we go back because it wasn't the decision wanted???!!??

By that logic, shall we cancel General Elections?

After all, the Conservatives won. Decision done, no point having another one.
 
It was a small majority, decision done. Shall we go back because it wasn't the decision wanted???!!??

My point is that the referendum was an incredibly stupid idea. Obviously you're stuck with it now but the Tories deciding what is and isn't the key issues for voters on their behalf is compounding the problem. The Leave voters were a diverse bunch, with diverse issues that matter most to them. The anti-immigration rhetoric is an attempt to win back UKIP voters, not the most important issue for everyone who wanted to leave.
 
Brexit will destroy Good Friday Agreement - Adams
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0121/846744-gerry-adams-brexit/

Taking Northern Ireland out of the EU will "destroy" the Good Friday Agreement peace deal, Gerry Adams has said.

The Sinn Féin President claimed fundamental human rights enshrined in the 1998 accord to end violence could be undermined.

The top legal adviser to Stormont ministers, however, has said not one word in the Agreement would be affected.

Mr Adams said Northern Ireland should enjoy special status within the union of 27 states after Brexit and claimed that would not affect the constitutional settlement which secures its status as part of the UK.

He said: "Taking the North out of the EU will.

"It will destroy the Good Friday Agreement."

Mr Adams addressed a conference on achieving a united Ireland in Dublin.

He added: "The British government's intention to take the North out of the EU, despite the wish of the people there to remain, is a hostile action.

"Not just because of the implications of a hard border on this island but also because of its negative impact on the Good Friday Agreement.

"The British Prime Minister repeated her intention to bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court.

"Along with her commitment to remove Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights this stand threatens to undermine the fundamental human rights elements of the Good Friday Agreement."

He claimed ending partition between Northern Ireland and the Republic had taken on a new importance.

"As the dire economic implications of Brexit take shape there is an opportunity to promote a new agreed Ireland."

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU referendum by a majority of 56% to 44%.

Mr Adams added: "The speech by Theresa May will have reinforced this.

"The dangers of a hard Brexit are now more obvious than before.

"The North needs a special designated status within the EU.

"The Irish government needs to adopt this as a strategic objective in its negotiations within the EU 27 as they negotiate with the British Prime Minister."

He claimed there was no strategic plan from the Irish Government.

The Government has already convened an all-Ireland forum on Brexit and agreed with British Prime Minister Theresa May that there should be no return to the borders of the past.

Its priorities remain its economic and trading arrangements, the peace process and border issues as well as the common travel area.

Mr Adams added: "The British position also fails to take account of the fact that citizens in the North, under the Agreement, have a right to Irish citizenship and therefore EU citizenship."
 
The UK use tarrif with the rest of the world, you are the ones who are leaving the Custom Union and the only one to blame if you don't want to pay tarrif.

We are forced to implement the tariffs set by the EU as of members of it.

You are like the kidnapper who blames the victims family for not paying the ransom. If you choose to link two things that are not directly causal that is your choice.

The UK doesn't want to put up a tariff wall between it and the EU if one goes up that is the EU's doing and they are the ones making that decision, blame them for the consequences.
 
And to think people are seriously trying to argue that Brexit isn't just Britain trying to have its cake and eat it.


Right now we couldn't wish people in the EU good morning without being criticized for cherry picking only the good mornings.

At some point over the next 12 months minds will focus on doing what is best given we are leaving.
 
We are forced to implement the tariffs set by the EU as of members of it.

You are like the kidnapper who blames the victims family for not paying the ransom. If you choose to link two things that are not directly causal that is your choice.

The UK doesn't want to put up a tariff wall between it and the EU if one goes up that is the EU's doing and they are the ones making that decision, blame them for the consequences.

You are right, it was stupid from me.
 
I'm not sure Brexiters in GB particularly cared about or even considered the effect their vote would have in NI.[/QUOTE

They had a vote equal in weight to anyone else in the referendum and a chance to discuss the issues important to them just as much as anyone. What you seem to want is for them to have a right of veto over the decision.
 
@Don't Kill Bill

No, I wanted people who weren't from NI to actually consider the negative effect Brexit would have on the progress made there, or the contradictions between taking NI out of the EU and prior policy on citizenship and borders. Hardly too much to ask for, I'd have thought.

In another thread @Stanley Road said that whatever comes next can't be worse than the way things are now. Well in NI it very easily could.
 
The UK doesn't want to put up a tariff wall between it and the EU if one goes up that is the EU's doing and they are the ones making that decision, blame them for the consequences.

Bullshit, it is the UK´s doing by laying down their EU membership status and then not meeting the standart (respecting the four freedoms) to get access to the single market via a trade deal.

Tariffs are not some kind of wall or tool of punishment, they are the norm in International trade. The single market creates a special trading zone, where said tariffs are exempted. Gaining access to the single market can be accomplished via two ways:

a) Being part of the European Union, which the UK does not want to be anymore

b) A trade deal for non members (e.g. Norway, Switzerland) which gives access if certain conditions are met. The UK is not ready to meet said conditions. It wants special treatment to be not bound by the same standarts which every other current participant respects.

To put it very simply: The UK is a person who decided (Brexit) to leave a room full of people (EU/single market) and now complains before exiting the room (triggering article 50) that the remaining people don´t build him/her a special door, that only (s)he can use, to come back in. Surely the remaining people are the ones to blame here....
 
@Sphaero

If we are strict, he is right. The EU and almost all the countries in the world use tarrifs and we can't claim that the UK will put tarrifs until they actually do. We all know that they are going to do it for very obvious reasons, like China having a labour cost far inferior for example.
 
Bullshit, it is the UK´s doing by laying down their EU membership status and then not meeting the standart (respecting the four freedoms) to get access to the single market via a trade deal.

Tariffs are not some kind of wall or tool of punishment, they are the norm in International trade. The single market creates a special trading zone, where said tariffs are exempted. Gaining access to the single market can be accomplished via two ways:

a) Being part of the European Union, which the UK does not want to be anymore

b) A trade deal for non members (e.g. Norway, Switzerland) which gives access if certain conditions are met. The UK is not ready to meet said conditions. It wants special treatment to be not bound by the same standarts which every other current participant respects.

To put it very simply: The UK is a person who decided (Brexit) to leave a room full of people (EU/single market) and now complains before exiting the room (triggering article 50) that the remaining people don´t build him/her a special door, that only (s)he can use, to come back in. Surely the remaining people are the ones to blame here....

The UK is perfectly happy to leave trade tariff-free and not link it with all the rest of the EU bullshit. If the EU isn't prepared to do so that is their prerogative but one which they have to take the responsibility for.

There is no causal link between free trade and settlement rights they don't have to be paired.
 
@Sphaero

If we are strict, he is right. The EU and almost all the countries in the world use tarrifs and we can't claim that the UK will put tarrifs until they actually do. We all know that they are going to do it for very obvious reasons, like China having a labour cost far inferior for example.

No, but I claim that the EU will do so, for the simple reason as it does so for every country outside the single market.