Forum menu
Farage had nothing to do with Vote Leave just in case you forgot. He was instrumental raising issues others tried to ignore and in getting a Referendum thus making him the most successful and influential British politician of the last 50 years
[img] 
/revision/latest?cb=20170511200512[/img]
Nice try, but we all know whose side he was on!
making him the most successful and influential British politician of the last 50 years
Next you'll be telling us how compassionate Thatcher was..
Grieve etc are downright liers
Please explain.
What's happened is Parliament will now have a say on the final deal, which is only democratic.
I 100% support his & others stance since it prevents one party railroading the country.
You'd be spitting teeth if it were labour running the show demanding parliamentary oversight left, right & centre rather than the tawdry shower of sh1te that are the Tories.
At least you'll have someone else to blame when the country goes tits up.
The good news is the EU have said no renegotaition, the bad news is if Grieve, Labour etc vote down the deal we will get WTO with just a few short months to prepare, perhaps less.
If no deal is agreed the brexit process stops and could default back to full membership, as long as the leaving date is not enshrined by parliment vote next week, no way would parliment uphold a 'no deal' WTO scenario.
[i]"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."[/i]
That’s an imaginative interpretation
More realistically- no deal = WTO not the status quo
It's not imaginative, therrs not much to interprit, it's written:
[i]"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."[/i]
If parliment keeps booting out the agreement, we could well see a perpetual extension.
Is that an a-b=c equation THM? 😉
Nice assertion but it remains to be seen - we can wait to find out.
No one wants the WTO option save a handful of lunatics, so faced with that option a fudge will be found.
#Brinksmanship
No deal = unilateral revocation of A50 and we start from scratch.
@matty and @thecaptain that’s what the amendment was really about, an attempt to create that option, that’s why Grieve etc are liars. He is a Barrister / QC and knows exactly what he is doing. However the route does not exist.
No negotiated deal = WTO most favoured nation status
@matty, thecaptain amd mrleb did you watch the QT clip ?
that’s what the amendment was really about
And here was I thinking it was about parlementary sovereignty, this is what, the second time now May has tried to bypass parliment?
jamba, just the pointless rambling of one voter who represents precisely one vote and one opinion. What about it? If the route to revoking A50 does not exist then you have nothing to worry about.
I am as confused as you seem to be he is a liar but what he lied about cannot happen [ in which case why do you care?]
As for what happens if they reject its speculation which ever view you go with
WHo knows it will all depends on the political winds at the time as they cannot make us stay but they may agree to extend if we dont want to leave on those terms. I dont think its possible to be definitive but we all agree the EU is anti democratic and likes fudges so that tips it slightly to stay [ if we want to ] 😉
@matty, thecaptain amd mrleb did you watch the QT clip ?
& your point is?
What I took from that clip is that gent doesn't quite understand how a. parliament works & b. what democracy is.
If he thinks he's going to be better off under the Tories post a a bonfire of regulations protecting him, then he's in for a massive shock.
If that gent really believes it's ok, safe & wise to let the Tories dictate the direction of our country without any oversight from Parliament, then he is probably the most naive man I've ever come across.
But if you want to run it up the flag as being demonstrative of the current sentiment in the UK.....you're in for, what I can only describe as, a seismic shock..
Careful, your comments could be taken as implying that he's not the sharpest tool in the box and we all know what that means...
So I have a theory which meets the known facts and my own experience and you have one that doesn’t.Discuss.
So you didn't produce any numbers, [url= https://data.oecd.org/youthinac/youth-not-in-employment-education-or-training-neet.htm ]a comparison of NEETS[/url] is here so that deals with education which shows whilst the gap between the UK and France and the other Southern European countries closes, it is still very significant. When you add in the fact the high proportion of the jobs eventually secured are temporary and it is reasonable to say we are in a relatively good position, but still plenty to do.
[img] 
[/img]
No deal = unilateral revocation of A50 and we start from scratch.
Not a safe assumption, extracts from Supreme Court judgement in Miller case.
Para 36
The applicants’ case in that connection is that when Notice is given, the United Kingdom will have embarked on an irreversible course that will lead to much of EU law ceasing to have effect in the United Kingdom, whether or not Parliament repeals the 1972 Act. As Lord Pannick QC put it for Mrs Miller, when ministers give Notice they will be “pulling … the trigger which causes the bullet to be fired,with the consequence that the bullet will hit the target and the Treaties will cease to apply”. In particular, he said, some of the legal rights which the applicants enjoy under EU law will come to an end. This, he submitted, means that the giving of Notice would pre-empt the decision of Parliament on the Great Repeal Bill. It would be tantamount to altering the law by ministerial action, or executive decision,without prior legislation, and that would not be in accordance with our law
We start by addressing the fact that the EU Treaties contained no provision entitling a member state to withdraw at the time of the 1972 Act, and that such a provision, article 50, was introduced by the TFEU in 2008. Although its invocation will have the inevitable consequence which Lord Pannick described (as mentioned in para 36 above), article 50 operates only on the international plane, and is not therefore brought into UK law through section 2 of the 1972 Act, as explained in para 79 above.
Mefty - thank you. You just produced figures that show in the 2014 to present range France and the UK are virtually identical. Which backs up the figures I posted previously (which you said I didn’t).
Did you look at your link? Click on your link. Highlight UK and France. Set to 2014 onwards. Try and spot difference.
I agree that France shows more temporary employment. Does UK zero hours count as temporary or permanent on that graph?
when Notice is given, the United Kingdom will have embarked on an irreversible course
That's the UK supreme Court opinion though, in the context of that case, the European Court is the highest court in this particular context, as membership is a matter between the EU and the UK? If the European Court agrees its reversible, then surely its reversible?
The UK supreme Court cannot really judge international cases.
article 50 operates only on the international plane
End of the day, these are all uncharted legal waters, if all concerned parties agree, I. E. The EU commission and the UK, there is not really a legal case to answer anyway in my view. They can just do it.
[quote=jambalaya ]@matty, thecaptain amd mrleb did you watch the QT clip ?
I tried, but sadly found it impossible to pay any attention to somebody describing MPs acting as part of a democracy as "treacherous". He's just another vocal Brexiteer who doesn't understand, and far from typical even of Leave voters.
In 15-19 yes, but not 20-24.
The UK supreme Court cannot really judge European cases.
The Supreme Court is more than capable of interpreting International Treaties it is part of their role and frankly, most lawyers would say it has better judges than the ECJ - this isn't a "we are best point", Germans would probably say the same about their highest court judges, it is just the judges will generally have much more influence in their home jurisdiction.
If all EU countries agree then it can be revoked, but it is unsafe to assume this can be done unilaterally.
[i]What's happened is Parliament will now have a say on the final deal, which is only democratic.[/i]
We should have a Referendum on the final deal . . . .
Meanwhile back in Brussels....
At least some people are looking forwards not backwards
We're all looking forwards. I'm not quite sure what you're saying THM. We are looking forward to solve our problems.
We should have a Referendum on the final deal . . . .
No. Will of the people must be obeyed.
Oh.. hang on...
Yes,we're not all looking back to before 1974 😯
Given that a large %age of remoaners argue that we don’t have a sufficiently informed electorate - and providing evidence to prove this - why would anyone be proposing another referendum? Illogical
[quote=mefty ]If all EU countries agree then it can be revoked, but it is unsafe to assume this can be done unilaterally.
That's a fair point, it can't be unilateral, the court was correct in their judgement about that. However they didn't make any ruling on the politics - just to borrow a Leaver's argument, WTO Brexit is bad for the EU and they won't let that happen if they can avoid it. If MPs vote against the deal then that certainly isn't what we'll get, which is why jamba is upset about the rebellion (if it really would result in WTO then he'd be jumping for joy).
Mefty - fair play.
Of course split men and women and you get a different answer again.
Checking the minimum school leaving age doesn’t answer the question - appears to be identical - though that isn’t the average school leaving age of course.
Checking the trends, France has slightly lower NEETs in the 15-19 throughout, and slightly higher (but similar to the UK) 20-24 until 2015. By eye it looks like France is better off overall than the UK until 2015.
Then there is s step change - maybe 5% higher overall in France.
Did something happen in a France in 2014/15?
Also the discrepancy between the Eurostat data and the OECD data is interesting - the Eurostat data only had a 1.6% difference, not around 5%. I wonder what the collection methodologies are like.
Given that a large %age of remoaners
What’s “large”?
What evidence do you have for this statement?
The Supreme Court is more than capable of interpreting International Treaties it is part of their role
IS it really ?
Genuine Q FWIW
“the general rule is that the power to make or unmake treaties is exercisable without legislative authority and that the exercise of that power is not reviewable by the courts - see Civil Service Unions case cited above, at pp 397-398.” 3. But it went on to explain: “This principle rests on the so-called dualist theory, which is based on the proposition that international law and domestic law operate in independent spheres. The prerogative power to make treaties depends on two related propositions. The first is that treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state. …. The second proposition is that, although they are binding on the United Kingdom in international law, treaties are not part of UK law and give rise to no legal rights or obligations in domestic law.
Goes on to cite cases where they dont rule on International law - seems fairly obvious UK courts cannot rule on international law
Lord Mance current deputy chair of Supreme court giving a lecture - no expert but did read the judgement Re Miller
EDIT: Reading on my own ink 😳 you are correct
Dualism does not therefore mean that international law issues never come before domestic courts. Increasingly over the last two or so decades, they have done so. In the United Kingdom, this is in part due to the European Convention on Human Rights (the “ECHR”), which only became part of our domestic law in October 2000. I shall return to the ECHR later in this talk, But, even apart from the ECHR, there has been a striking increase in reliance on and the potential relevance of international law in domestic courts.
This thread DD with the IB being particularly vociferous
The good news is the EU have said no renegotaition, the bad news is if Grieve, Labour etc vote down the deal we will get WTO with just a few short months to prepare, perhaps less.
Ah, so this is the starting point for blaming the likely bit of a mess on remainers ? I thought leavers thought wto would be ace?
IS it really ?
Yes because we import alot of treaties into domestic law, double tax treaties, echr etc.
Did something happen in a France in 2014/15?
Their recovery isn't creating jobs to the same extent that ours has, however their productivity is higher but at what cost?
@spekkie “we” ? You are eligible and registered to vote in the UK ?
Re QT I think the speaker managed to challange all the STW Remain steriotypes and made a clear and simple point. A50 is irreversible and works to a specific schedule, MPs voted 498 vs 114 to Leave the EU. That was the moment democracy spoke at Westminster, the deal is irrelevant to triggering the exit. Grieve et al are being highly duplicitous.
@Horatio yes hugely divisive. I read a piece recently on fall out from the Scottish Indy Ref where the fall out in social groups is still being felt. That’s the reason the vast majority of people in the UK don’t want a second referendum. As for the WTO option one of the reasons that is my preferemce is it guarantees a genuine [b]clean Brexit[/b]. I have little trust that May will deliver anything other than a fudge. Payment for a transition we’ve already seen and I have no doubt we will see more messy “compromises”. Short sharp shock of switch to WTO then get on with focusing globally.
Good to see Boris in Japan drinking Fukushima fruit juice, powerful and highly visible international statement of support. A few US steaks and some KFC next will do nicely.
[quote=chestrockwell ]I thought leavers thought wto would be ace?
The hardcore like jamba would, which is why I know he's [s]lying[/s] using alternative facts here, because he doesn't appear to be happy with the rebellion.
[quote=jambalaya ]Re QT I think the speaker managed to challange all the STW Remain steriotypes
By describing democratically elected MPs having a democratic vote as "treacherous"? 😆 - yep, that's really knocking down the Brexiteer stereotype.
A50 is irreversible
Until it isn't. If that really is the case, why are you and he so upset?
That was the moment democracy spoke at Westminster
we understand that to Brexiteers democracy is a one time only thing.
Good to see Boris in Japan drinking Fukushima fruit juice, powerful and highly visible international statement of support. A few US steaks and some KFC next will do nicely.
It's nice to agree with you on something - I'd also like to see Boris spending more time eating and drinking, best use for his mouth I can think of.
"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
There's no legal issue here a 50 states it.
the starting point for blaming the likely bit of a mess on remainers ?
Well they are are already blaming parliament for parliaminting. Judges for judging, I don't imagine that landscape will change.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/dacre-proud-of-himself-for-trousering-half-a-million-in-eu-subsidies-while-branding-people-traitors-20171214141024 ]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/dacre-proud-of-himself-for-trousering-half-a-million-in-eu-subsidies-while-branding-people-traitors-20171214141024[/url]
WTO makes sense if you prepare for it - hence all the anger at Hammond dragging his feet - if the deal gets voted down on say March 15 what happens then ?
The rebels are deeply untrsutworthy.
There's no legal issue here a 50 states it.
Well it is a statement of the obvious, if all parties to an agreement agree to change it then they always can.
That was the moment democracy spoke at Westminster
To me that reads a lot like you are saying that democracy had had its one chance to speak and now it should shut up and get out the way so ministers can roll through new laws unchallenged and decide the future of the country without parliamentary scrutiny and democratic voting messing things up.
[quote=mefty ]Well it is a statement of the obvious, if all parties to an agreement agree to change it then they always can.
Glad to see you agree. What do you think the chances are of everybody agreeing to do something which is in all of their interests?
Given that a large %age of remoaners argue that we don’t have a sufficiently informed electorate - and providing evidence to prove this - why would anyone be proposing another referendum? Illogical
Perhaps, but also illogical to use that fact to rule out a second referendum (where people are now somewhat more informed about the issues) whilst sticking to the result of the first one, no?
Also ludicrous to keep banging on about democracy as if it's one single thing. I can't understand why otherwise intelligent people don't get this. We don't have a democracy. We have a system of government that has elements that are described as democratic. Like everywhere else. Democracy is a concept that has to be implemented. Like freedom. Or capitalism, or socialism.