Brexit thread - what happens next

LOAM · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:26

Burnsy2023 said:
That's assuming that A50 hasn't been withdrawn. If it hasn't then we'd default to WTO rules if no agreement has been reached.

This is the relevant part:

From reading bits from other constitutional and EU lawyers, they seem pretty happy that a A50 withdrawal is legal (as long as it's not abused).

From reading that it seems its reliant on an interpretation based on a lack of wording within A50 and the option to withdraw from a withdraw process.

"Well you didn't say we couldn't do this" That could rumble on for years. :eek:

Greebo · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:26

Judgeneo said:
At a charity event attending by many many people. Photographed/tweeted by Lilly Allen, who was also at the event. Lizard woman confirmed.

Sat either side of him during the meal..............you cant tell me stuff wasnt talked about.

joeyjojo · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:26

Burnsy2023 said:
Not just laws, but there are many other documents that are included in our constitution.

Not even just documents - the entire body politic - unwritten stuff like parliamentary conventions, etc., but I was trying to use simple words.

Greebo · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:28

Burnsy2023 said:
It's also worth noting that the general legal consensus is that A50 can be rescinded.

This is how I see things panning out:

The gov works out the impact of A50, it does a notification and starts negotiations.

We work out that any future plan is economically disastrous or simply puts us at such a disadvantage it's not workable (such as joining the EEA).

The deal negotiated it put to a referendum and defeated.

The economic picture is such that the public lose the will to carry on as it's hurting jobs, income and growth.

We decide to rescind A50.

Any rescind of A50 has to be voted in by all 27 eu countries though. Not sure one of them wouldnt veto it.

LOAM · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:30

All of this simply confirms my reasoning behind wanting to remain, I trust Europe more than I trust our own shower that reside in Whitehall.

bayo000 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:31

So the last quiter has quit. Do we still think this will go ahead?

deuse · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:33

Burnsy2023 said:
Ok, just from the top 4 of my bookmarks:

Dr Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House - https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/mutual-misunderstandings-risk-compounding-uk-eu-split
Prof Mark Elliott, University of Cambridge - https://publiclawforeveryone.com/
Prof Michael Dougan, University of Liverpool - Videos from UoL and Treasury Comittee
Prof Alison Young, University of Oxford - https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/201...a-flexible-evolving-un-codified-constitution/

All pro stay. No agenda there ...noooooooo
But from Dr Robin Niblett "I tended to conclude, however cautiously, that Remain would win a tight race" so the expert got the first hurdle wrong

So you never read both sides? strange.

Roar87 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:35

bayo000 said:
So the last quiter has quit. Do we still think this will go ahead?

Yes. That reporter basically did a job on her though

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:37

Greebo said:
Any rescind of A50 has to be voted in by all 27 eu countries though. Not sure one of them wouldnt veto it.

That's not my understanding. Can you link me to something that supports that?

deuse said:
All pro stay. No agenda there ...noooooooo
But from Dr Robin Niblett "I tended to conclude, however cautiously, that Remain would win a tight race" so the expert got the first hurdle wrong

So you never read both sides? strange.

Find me someone who is as qualified as the people listed above and I'll read their legal opinions.

I read their work because they're some of the most respected people in their field of work, not because of their beliefs.

estebanrey · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:42

yonderblue said:

Apples and Oranges, there is a difference between share valuations (a barometer of confidence measured in £s) and actual spending.

Saying the UK "lost" £10.8bn due to Brexit is like claiming if Wayne Rooney were to sprain his ankle then Man Utd have "lost" tens of millions of pounds due to the fact if they were to sell him at that point in time they wouldn't be able to get what he did before the injury.

But like with shares, no one has actually paid any money out, there's been no transaction, someone else hasn't taken that money, and when they recover the valuation rises again.

deuse · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:42

Burnsy2023 said:
Find me someone who is as qualified as the people listed above and I'll read their legal opinions.

I read their work because they're some of the most respected people in their field of work, not because of their beliefs.

Again all pro stay with a agenda that matches yours. Hook...line sinker. They got you.

But you of all people never read for and against. Shocking.
And you did say you wanted to stay before getting your UK citizenship.

Dr Jack · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:44

Roar87 said:
Yes. That reporter basically did a job on her though

"Did a job on her"? By reporting the exact words she said?

Come on. It was Leadsom's naivety that led her to be so stupid as to say those things to the reporter; the reporter just did her job by reporting it.

Roar87 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:45

deuse said:
Again all pro stay with a agenda that matches yours. Hook...line sinker. They got you.

But you of all people never read for and against. Shocking.
And you did say you wanted to stay before getting your UK citizenship.

The experts on the committee were clearly on favour of Remain, but their answers weren't biased, they pretty much told it how it is. It is going to be very difficult, and they went to great lengths to say that, but it's not impossible.

Mr Jack said:
"Did a job on her"? By reporting the exact words she said?

Come on. It was Leadsom's naivety that led her to be so stupid as to say those things to the reporter; the reporter just did her job by reporting it.

Saying something off the record in an informal discussion to then see it appear on the headline of a newspaper isn't doing a job on someone? She was naive, but they still did a job on her.

Greebo · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:45

Cern said:
Where's the money going to come from to pay for all the legal costs and extra civil sevants needed to to handle this vast task?

I guess most of that £350m we were going to spend on the NHS will now get spent on lawyers instead.

Worse than that. Until we leave the EU in 2 years we will still be paying our "£350m" per week and at the same time paying to set up infrastructure to take over when we leave so in affect paying double.

At the same time NHS will be paying 10% to 20% more for its medicines so will need a much bigger influx of money.

This is the budget that Osborne warned about, the one after we invoke A50.

Leavers will say its only for a few years which it may be but 2 to 3p tax rises on some of the less well off people in the country when they are paying up 20% more for their food which will also lead to a slowing economy is going to hurt..........a lot.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:45

deuse said:
Again all pro stay with a agenda that matches yours. Hook...line sinker. They got you.

But you of all people never read for and against. Shocking.
And you did say you wanted to stay before getting your UK citizenship.

I'm still waiting for the links of other people I should look at with similar qualifications and experience. I'm honestly open to looking at other's views.

Just make sure they are actual experts and not opinionated activists with no legal qualifications.

FrenchTart · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:47

Burnsy2023 said:
I'm still waiting for the links of other people I should look at with similar qualifications and experience. I'm honestly open to looking at other's views.

Just make sure they are actual experts and not opinionated activists with no legal qualifications.

You'll be waiting for a bit as he is suspended

MichaelAwkward · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:48

yonderblue said:

I don't understand what point this is trying to make. Besides the fact that share prices are volatile anyway (how much have we lost in total on the £45bn bailout?), our total EU contributions are £380bn.

bayo000 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:49

Mr Jack said:
"Did a job on her"? By reporting the exact words she said?

Come on. It was Leadsom's naivety that led her to be so stupid as to say those things to the reporter; the reporter just did her job by reporting it.

Come on, it's always someone else's fault. Haven't you learned even that much from Leave side by now?

Roar87 said:
Saying something off the record in an informal discussion to then see it appear on the headline of a newspaper isn't doing a job on someone? She was naive, but they still did a job on her.

So saying inappropriate things off the record should be ignored?

By that logic these guys should not have been sacked either then? https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jan/25/andy-gray-sacked-sky

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:50

FrenchTart said:
You'll be waiting for a bit as he is suspended

I'm sure he'll use that time wisely, constructing logical and reasoned arguments to counter my points. I think it'll be enlightening to read about experts of the opposing opinion too.

Dr Jack · 11 Jul 2016 at 15:51

Roar87 said:
Saying something off the record in an informal discussion to then see it appear on the headline of a newspaper isn't doing a job on someone? She was naive, but they still did a job on her.

"Off the record"? She was being interviewed!