|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 24 2019 19:43 Xophy wrote:
Just found an article (and a vid on YouTube) explaining why no-deal should actually not be seen as the default if no agreement is reached by 29 March (or 12 April or whatever):
Basically, the position of the author of the article is that withdrawal from the EU can only be lawful if parliament has "legislated to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal without any agreement". According to the author, this is not given by parliament legislating the Notification of Withdrawal.
In turn, that means, that if no agreement is reached by 12 April, Article 50 will simply lapse and the UK would remain in the EU.
I do not know to which extent this perspective will be accepted, but I found it to be a rather interesting point of view. The YouTube video basically summarizes the paper nicely for those who do not bother to read it. As per article 50 after the notification period expires all treaties cease to apply.
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. In my eyes the legality of leaving with no deal is purely a UK problem, as far as the EU is concerned the UK will no longer be an EU member.
I also highly doubt that no one else has noticed this for the last 2 years and its only now come to light, tho considering how the entire Brexit has been handled it seems possible.
|
On March 24 2019 20:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 19:43 Xophy wrote:
Just found an article (and a vid on YouTube) explaining why no-deal should actually not be seen as the default if no agreement is reached by 29 March (or 12 April or whatever):
Basically, the position of the author of the article is that withdrawal from the EU can only be lawful if parliament has "legislated to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal without any agreement". According to the author, this is not given by parliament legislating the Notification of Withdrawal.
In turn, that means, that if no agreement is reached by 12 April, Article 50 will simply lapse and the UK would remain in the EU.
I do not know to which extent this perspective will be accepted, but I found it to be a rather interesting point of view. The YouTube video basically summarizes the paper nicely for those who do not bother to read it. As per article 50 after the notification period expires all treaties cease to apply. Show nested quote +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. In my eyes the legality of leaving with no deal is purely a UK problem, as far as the EU is concerned the UK will no longer be an EU member.I also highly doubt that no one else has noticed this for the last 2 years and its only now come to light, tho considering how the entire Brexit has been handled it seems possible.
And that is the point which is not true: Art. 50(1) says: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." That is, since a no-deal Brexit would not be in accordance with UK's constitutional requirements (at least from the point of view of the author and several other legal experts), Art. 50 cannot be applied in the first case. Thus, UK would not leave the EU.
|
On March 24 2019 19:43 Xophy wrote:Just found an article (and a vid on YouTube) explaining why no-deal should actually not be seen as the default if no agreement is reached by 29 March (or 12 April or whatever): https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/03/19/no-deal-brexit-may-be-unlawful-a-view-from-rose-slowe/+ Show Spoiler +Basically, the position of the author of the article is that withdrawal from the EU can only be lawful if parliament has "legislated to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal without any agreement". According to the author, this is not given by parliament legislating the Notification of Withdrawal. In turn, that means, that if no agreement is reached by 12 April, Article 50 will simply lapse and the UK would remain in the EU. I do not know to which extent this perspective will be accepted, but I found it to be a rather interesting point of view. The YouTube video basically summarizes the paper nicely for those who do not bother to read it.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The legality of instituting a hard border between NI and RoI in the context of the British law has no bearing on how A50 works. If a hard border is against the British law, their parliament would be breaking it by not addressing the issue. That doesn't change the default outcome being a no-deal Brexit. It would simply mean that their parliament, in order not to break the law, would have to address the problem somehow (revoke A50 or pass a withdrawal agreement that prevents a hard border).
edit:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[12] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
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.
The UK notified the EU about its intentions to withdraw from the EU. The EU accepted the notification. Nobody seems to question the legality of the notification. The deadline is tied to the invocation of A50. The constitutional requirements is pertaining to things like requiring a referendum or qualified majority in the parliament or such. I guess the fact that the UK doesn't have a written constitution complicates this.
|
On March 24 2019 20:25 Xophy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 20:20 Gorsameth wrote:On March 24 2019 19:43 Xophy wrote:
Just found an article (and a vid on YouTube) explaining why no-deal should actually not be seen as the default if no agreement is reached by 29 March (or 12 April or whatever):
Basically, the position of the author of the article is that withdrawal from the EU can only be lawful if parliament has "legislated to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal without any agreement". According to the author, this is not given by parliament legislating the Notification of Withdrawal.
In turn, that means, that if no agreement is reached by 12 April, Article 50 will simply lapse and the UK would remain in the EU.
I do not know to which extent this perspective will be accepted, but I found it to be a rather interesting point of view. The YouTube video basically summarizes the paper nicely for those who do not bother to read it. As per article 50 after the notification period expires all treaties cease to apply. 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. In my eyes the legality of leaving with no deal is purely a UK problem, as far as the EU is concerned the UK will no longer be an EU member.I also highly doubt that no one else has noticed this for the last 2 years and its only now come to light, tho considering how the entire Brexit has been handled it seems possible. And that is the point which is not true: Art. 50(1) says: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." That is, since a no-deal Brexit would not be in accordance with UK's constitutional requirements (at least from the point of view of the author and several other legal experts), Art. 50 cannot be applied in the first case. Thus, UK would not leave the EU. At the point where a state decides to withdraw (aka invoke article 50) the UK is acting legally because it can secure a deal that falls within its own laws.
Leaving without a deal would then be the UK's problem for breaking their own laws and could lead to the people suing the government for breaking said law but as far as the EU is concerned the invocation was legal at the time.
the UK Supreme Court could rule that Parliament has to accept a deal or revoke article 50 before the deadline but that would still make it a purely UK matter.
|
On March 24 2019 20:25 Xophy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 20:20 Gorsameth wrote:On March 24 2019 19:43 Xophy wrote:
Just found an article (and a vid on YouTube) explaining why no-deal should actually not be seen as the default if no agreement is reached by 29 March (or 12 April or whatever):
Basically, the position of the author of the article is that withdrawal from the EU can only be lawful if parliament has "legislated to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal without any agreement". According to the author, this is not given by parliament legislating the Notification of Withdrawal.
In turn, that means, that if no agreement is reached by 12 April, Article 50 will simply lapse and the UK would remain in the EU.
I do not know to which extent this perspective will be accepted, but I found it to be a rather interesting point of view. The YouTube video basically summarizes the paper nicely for those who do not bother to read it. As per article 50 after the notification period expires all treaties cease to apply. 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. In my eyes the legality of leaving with no deal is purely a UK problem, as far as the EU is concerned the UK will no longer be an EU member.I also highly doubt that no one else has noticed this for the last 2 years and its only now come to light, tho considering how the entire Brexit has been handled it seems possible. And that is the point which is not true: Art. 50(1) says: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." That is, since a no-deal Brexit would not be in accordance with UK's constitutional requirements (at least from the point of view of the author and several other legal experts), Art. 50 cannot be applied in the first case. Thus, UK would not leave the EU.
Her whole argument is that giving notice of withdrawal and repealing the ECA require acts of parliament. This is true, but we're way past that point.
it was an Act of Parliament that brought the UK into the European Union thereby giving EU law domestic effect, and so only an Act of Parliament, rather than merely a meaningful vote, can undo this as a matter of constitutional law.
These acts exist and they're the basis of what we've been discussing for the past 2 years. I can't explain why she's ignoring them in that piece.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Notification_of_Withdrawal)_Act_2017
On Wednesday 28 March 2017 with the authority given by the act Prime Minister Theresa May signed a letter that, on the following day, 29 March 2017, was handed to the President of the European Council Donald Tusk in Brussels by Sir Tim Barrow, the Permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union which invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and started the withdrawal process of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community that was also mentioned in the letter, meaning that the UK has become due to leave the EU before midnight on 29 March 2019, UK time, when the two-year period for Brexit negotiations expires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018
Section 1 states that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day, defined in another section as 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (subject to possible modification due to a withdrawal agreement or agreed extension of the negotiating period).
The 2017 Act was required for the notice of withdrawal to be "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements", the timing of that act is the reason the 29th of this month is the exit date.
The 2018 Act as others have stated, was a domestic legal matter, exiting without passing that would have been fine as far as EU law is concerned but would have created a constitutional clusterfuck in the UK post exit.
|
On March 24 2019 02:32 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 21:49 Sent. wrote:
Your posts keep making it look like you're claiming Germany and the group it leads plans to protect its tangible interests now instead of just gradually increasing the cooperation inside the group that may or may not lead to to something helpful in the more distant future.
You also make it look like you're suggesting Germans being at it is something sinister. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, I'm saying that's how it looks in the eyes of "uninitiated". If you want to avoid the knee-jerk reaction posts you have to clarify Germans being at it means just them becoming an independent power instead of maintaining status quo. Or, if you believe it means something else, explain what you think it means. jerks will do what jerks will do, that's unavoidable. quoting world leaders: - "Mitterrand warned Thatcher that reunification would result in Germany gaining more European influence than Hitler ever had. His gloomy forecasts included a return of the "bad" Germans, according to previously secret notes made by Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, Charles Powell. - Mrs Thatcher to Mr Gorbachev: “I am convinced that reunification needs a long transition period. All Europe is watching this not without a degree of fear, remembering very well who started the two world wars.” or: “We do not want a united Germany,” she said. “This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.” - Politicians who met Mr Gorbachev's advisers around Europe “say in unison that nobody wants a unified Germany”. Astonishingly, he noted, in France Mr Mitterrand was even thinking of a military alliance with Russia to stop it, “camouflaged as a joint use of armies to fight natural disasters”. - In April 1990, five months after the wall came down, Mr Attali said that the spectre of reunification was causing nightmares among France’s politicians. The documents quote him telling Mr Mitterrand that he would “fly off to live on Mars” if this happened. there's no way that shit didn't or doesn't resonate with other politicians; past, present or future ones. it is a fear that will be long lasting and i didn't invent it. the blank, dismissive attitudes in here make for fodder for the ignore list and nothing more. to (some of)your points: France used its army to fuck with Mali insurgents, Italy used its military to defend some digs/dams in middle east; if Germany had an army(that could or that would be allowed to operate as standalone) it would've went in Syria, 100%(these days i'm thinking, Venezuela could be on the list too). for now, they're just making an army. the future will tell us what for but at the most basic level, armies kill people; there's just no way around that. they're preparing to kill people. (note: yes, in a corporate driven world, an EU army used as a deterrent is a futile non-issue here. you don't build an army to flex at the russians(especially when you're still making deals with them), you build one to use it.)
I read somewhere that about 70% of Bundeswehr equipment is broken or unusable cause we invest pretty much zero money in it.
Standing army in Germany is 62.000 while in France it's about 205.000 (numbers from wiki)
What exactly is the Norway deal? Never heard of it before
|
On March 25 2019 19:27 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 02:32 xM(Z wrote:On March 23 2019 21:49 Sent. wrote:
Your posts keep making it look like you're claiming Germany and the group it leads plans to protect its tangible interests now instead of just gradually increasing the cooperation inside the group that may or may not lead to to something helpful in the more distant future.
You also make it look like you're suggesting Germans being at it is something sinister. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, I'm saying that's how it looks in the eyes of "uninitiated". If you want to avoid the knee-jerk reaction posts you have to clarify Germans being at it means just them becoming an independent power instead of maintaining status quo. Or, if you believe it means something else, explain what you think it means. jerks will do what jerks will do, that's unavoidable. quoting world leaders: - "Mitterrand warned Thatcher that reunification would result in Germany gaining more European influence than Hitler ever had. His gloomy forecasts included a return of the "bad" Germans, according to previously secret notes made by Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, Charles Powell. - Mrs Thatcher to Mr Gorbachev: “I am convinced that reunification needs a long transition period. All Europe is watching this not without a degree of fear, remembering very well who started the two world wars.” or: “We do not want a united Germany,” she said. “This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.” - Politicians who met Mr Gorbachev's advisers around Europe “say in unison that nobody wants a unified Germany”. Astonishingly, he noted, in France Mr Mitterrand was even thinking of a military alliance with Russia to stop it, “camouflaged as a joint use of armies to fight natural disasters”. - In April 1990, five months after the wall came down, Mr Attali said that the spectre of reunification was causing nightmares among France’s politicians. The documents quote him telling Mr Mitterrand that he would “fly off to live on Mars” if this happened. there's no way that shit didn't or doesn't resonate with other politicians; past, present or future ones. it is a fear that will be long lasting and i didn't invent it. the blank, dismissive attitudes in here make for fodder for the ignore list and nothing more. to (some of)your points: France used its army to fuck with Mali insurgents, Italy used its military to defend some digs/dams in middle east; if Germany had an army(that could or that would be allowed to operate as standalone) it would've went in Syria, 100%(these days i'm thinking, Venezuela could be on the list too). for now, they're just making an army. the future will tell us what for but at the most basic level, armies kill people; there's just no way around that. they're preparing to kill people. (note: yes, in a corporate driven world, an EU army used as a deterrent is a futile non-issue here. you don't build an army to flex at the russians(especially when you're still making deals with them), you build one to use it.) I read somewhere that about 70% of Bundeswehr equipment is broken or unusable cause we invest pretty much zero money in it. Standing army in Germany is 62.000 while in France it's about 205.000 (numbers from wiki) What exactly is the Norway deal? Never heard of it before BBC's explanation of the Norway model.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46024649
|
On March 25 2019 19:27 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2019 02:32 xM(Z wrote:On March 23 2019 21:49 Sent. wrote:
Your posts keep making it look like you're claiming Germany and the group it leads plans to protect its tangible interests now instead of just gradually increasing the cooperation inside the group that may or may not lead to to something helpful in the more distant future.
You also make it look like you're suggesting Germans being at it is something sinister. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, I'm saying that's how it looks in the eyes of "uninitiated". If you want to avoid the knee-jerk reaction posts you have to clarify Germans being at it means just them becoming an independent power instead of maintaining status quo. Or, if you believe it means something else, explain what you think it means. jerks will do what jerks will do, that's unavoidable. quoting world leaders: - "Mitterrand warned Thatcher that reunification would result in Germany gaining more European influence than Hitler ever had. His gloomy forecasts included a return of the "bad" Germans, according to previously secret notes made by Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, Charles Powell. - Mrs Thatcher to Mr Gorbachev: “I am convinced that reunification needs a long transition period. All Europe is watching this not without a degree of fear, remembering very well who started the two world wars.” or: “We do not want a united Germany,” she said. “This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.” - Politicians who met Mr Gorbachev's advisers around Europe “say in unison that nobody wants a unified Germany”. Astonishingly, he noted, in France Mr Mitterrand was even thinking of a military alliance with Russia to stop it, “camouflaged as a joint use of armies to fight natural disasters”. - In April 1990, five months after the wall came down, Mr Attali said that the spectre of reunification was causing nightmares among France’s politicians. The documents quote him telling Mr Mitterrand that he would “fly off to live on Mars” if this happened. there's no way that shit didn't or doesn't resonate with other politicians; past, present or future ones. it is a fear that will be long lasting and i didn't invent it. the blank, dismissive attitudes in here make for fodder for the ignore list and nothing more. to (some of)your points: France used its army to fuck with Mali insurgents, Italy used its military to defend some digs/dams in middle east; if Germany had an army(that could or that would be allowed to operate as standalone) it would've went in Syria, 100%(these days i'm thinking, Venezuela could be on the list too). for now, they're just making an army. the future will tell us what for but at the most basic level, armies kill people; there's just no way around that. they're preparing to kill people. (note: yes, in a corporate driven world, an EU army used as a deterrent is a futile non-issue here. you don't build an army to flex at the russians(especially when you're still making deals with them), you build one to use it.) I read somewhere that about 70% of Bundeswehr equipment is broken or unusable cause we invest pretty much zero money in it. Standing army in Germany is 62.000 while in France it's about 205.000 (numbers from wiki) What exactly is the Norway deal? Never heard of it before
Norway deal is practically a EU membership with no representation. We're "not in EU" in name only.
|
ITV reports that the torys like Jonhson who voted against Mays deal are willing to accept the deal in exchange for May resigning.
|
That's what he actually said.
Writing in the Telegraph, he said: “If she cannot give that evidence of change – she should drop the deal, and go back to Brussels, and simply set out the terms that so many on both sides – remainers and leavers – now believe are sensible.
“Extend the implementation period to the end of 2021 if necessary; use it to negotiate a free trade deal; pay the fee; but come out of the EU now – without the backstop. It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus, and say to Pharaoh in Brussels – let my people go.”
Obviously pure bullshit from A to Z, absolutely non-realistic deluded bullshit which should make anyone question his understanding of the process or even sanity, but he's not voting for the deal.
Could you source where ITV states that? I seem to have trouble finding it.
|
Does he know that Moses had to travel the dessert for 40 years and died whiteout stepping foot in the promised land?
I somehow doubt he has tought much about this metaphor.
|
The EU is also not stopping the UK from leaving.
Its just entirely stupid all around.
|
"Let my people go!"
"OK you can go"
"But we don't want to!"
"just go"
"We don't know how"
"JUST GO"
...
"Let my people go!!"
|
Hmm its different I see now. I read it on "teletekst" but looking at itv now it seems that may said she would leave if they would support her,but not much credibility is given to that report.
my apologies. I would find it very weird if they would support the deal in exchange for may leaving but maybe its an out.
|
On March 26 2019 01:34 pmh wrote:
Hmm its different I see now. I read it on "teletekst" but looking at itv now it seems that may said she would leave if they would support her,but not much credibility is given to that report.
my apologies. I would find it very weird if they would support the deal in exchange for may leaving but maybe its an out. I can see people wanting to take that deal. They get a Brexit, and can still make it a hard brexit by ending the backstop, rather then the current possibility of a revoke of art 50. And they can still blame May for it.
|
On March 25 2019 22:58 Velr wrote:
Does he know that Moses had to travel the dessert for 40 years and died whiteout stepping foot in the promised land?
I somehow doubt he has tought much about this metaphor.
40-years extension into revocation of A50. That'd be hilarious. 
|
So Parliament has taken some measure of control of Brexit.
I eagerly await for none of their options to get a majority vote and everyone to have a big old facepalm.
|
They are taking back control! From May!
On a more serious note, I can't actually see any option that would command a majority. Possibly another referendum may have a majority, except that another referendum is problematic and way too late anyways.
|
Its non binding though or isn't it?
Am curious what the pm,s will put up for vote. There isn't much left. Mays deal has been voted on and they also voted against a no deal brexit already.
Referendum,hard brexit,norway option?
I am curious how a referendum would work,i doubt the eu is willing to extend for that. Maybe revoke article 50 first,then hold the referendum?
|
Obviously no option commands a majority. That's why they're having these votes, to force a majority for something.
edit: Just to expand on that. If the indicative votes is simple '2nd ref, yay or nay' followed by 'May's deal, yay or nay' etc. then there will indeed be no majority for anything. However, Letwin can opt for a voting system that knocks the least popular option off the table until there is only one left. It was quite clear in the exchange during the debate yesterday between Grieve, Letwin, Benn and Clarke that whatever system is used(and there are several variants) it has to be something that produces a majority result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
