FACT: If the UK doesn’t have a signed deal by April 2017, Brexit is in grave danger

AFTER READING THIS, EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THE chainlinkREAL DEADLINE AS MARCH 31st 2017

The Slog spent most of yesterday trying to separate fact from fiction on the subject of realising Brexit from the EU.My conclusion is that it is meant to work for the Fatties from Brussels, Frankfurt and NATO….but not for We The People….and the so-called leaders of Brexit are collaborating in an attempt to hide a crucial deadline.


At the moment, Article 50 allows an EU Member State to secede from the Union by giving two years notice to the relevant authorities.

However, as from March 31st 2017 – a date just nine months away next weekend – Article 50 will be subject to the dreaded Qualified Majority Vote (QMV)…that is to say, we will have to persuade a total of 14 EU Member States to support our decision to leave.


****

If you came to this post after July 3rd, I must stress that an understanding of the full legal situation require you to read the further posting here on 29th June.

YOU CAN READ IT HERE


 

A number of seemingly random events over the last five days now appear to form some kind of pattern.

  • Cameron resigns but delays triggering Article 50
  • Back in 2010, the EU rule was we could leave if we applied Article 50, or repealed the European Communities Act 1972. These two caveats still apply, but only till 31st March 2017, after which date these two pieces of legislation will require a QMV.
  • Boris Johnson calls a press conference to say there is “no need for haste” on Article 50
  • Michael Gove endorses Johnson’s view
  • The VoteLeave group freezes UKIP/Nigel Farage out of discussions about the process of Brexit
  • The Blairite wing of Labour moves swiftly against Jeremy Corbyn, whom they know full well is in reality deeply suspicious of the EU
  • The EC wakes up to the game plan, and Merkel suggests UK be given “as much time as possible” to decide when to trigger Article 50.

One doesn’t have to be a rabbit-hole conspiracist to suspect a unified Establishment strategy to dilute and even negate what 52% of the electorate voted for five days ago.

Like 25 million other Britons, I didn’t vote Leave to then be disenfranchised by either a rerun Referendum based on spurious Remain charges, or an attempt by Tory Party putchists using March 2017 to say, “awfully sorry, there’s nothing we can do”.

We voted Leave to be free from the EU, not to help Boris get the Tory leadership, or Labour to get rid of JeremyCorbyn.


But there is another factor that the site Constitution Unit points out….which I turn have checked out – and they’re right:

Parliament has no formal say over whether or when Article 50 is invoked, as this lies within the royal prerogative powers that are exercised by government. Government’s powers in matters of foreign policy are very extensive, and parliament has veto rights only in respect of treaties.’

Article 50 is a clause, not a treaty: the UK Parliament cannot veto Lisbon in its entirety, because it didn’t pass it. CU also opines – and if you read the linked piece, you’ll see that so far they’ve shown great prescience – the critical path of the timelines involved doesn’t compute:

Both sides in the referendum campaign agree that this whole process would take several years, during which the UK would remain in the EU. The Remain side has always argued that the negotiations would be lengthy; the Leave side has now indicated that it would like to complete the process by 2020. Until the negotiation process is complete, the UK remains fully subject to its obligations under EU law.’

Spelling it out: we are subject to EU law over the next four years, but the Article 50 window of opportunity is just nine months. In those extra 3+ years, the EC could easily introduce and pass a directive changing the secession process further to make it impossible for the UK to leave. Even without that, the Commission can demand we get a QMV before Brexit will be allowed.

I’d love to be able to say, “But apart from that, Brexit is plain sailing”. But it isn’t. The negotations with the EU/EC/ECB and Eurogrope will take place on trade, administrative and legal levels. There will then be a deal on the table and Parliament would be required to approve it, because that would be a treaty. Westminster MPs are 4-1 in favour of staying in the EU. Under our somewhat haphazard and scribbled down mélange of usage and convention we call the Constitution, MPs would have every right to overturn last week’s referendum by turning the deal down and then drafting a reapplication for membership.

Remember: by, say, July 2020 most Brits will have forgotten all about the popular vote four years previously. Any and all kinds of events may well have happened to change everything. And the real push to Leave  this time around lay with older respondents (some of whom will be dead) while the Remaindeers tended to be young (and more of them will have the vote).


I do not want to set hares running here: we knew all this stuff beforehand, but the assumption that most of we Brexiteers made in voting Leave was that Downing Street would move swiftly to invoke Article 50. Indeed, that is what the usual anti-UK MEP loudmouths were insisting on by Saturday morning.

However, only M. Plat Ecran Hollande of France has so far allowed vindictive emotions to continue that pattern of thought:

Hollandetwat

But Hollande is isolated now in the Brussels-am-Berlin power corridor, and the French electorate detests him. What we see above is more evidence of the widening rift between Germany and France.

The disturbing mainstream developments that put the spotlight on timetables now is that Merkel intervened to advise slowing down, Schäuble stayed silent, and Draghi at the ECB says he is “very sad” about the decision….while on this side of La Manche, Borisgove & Ptnrs, VoteLeave (justified doubts about their motives now) are umming and awing and delaying, Farage is frozen out of the Brexit talks, while Cameron and Osborne have been at pains to stress that this process will take time and nothing will happen until the Tories have a new leader in September.

That’s just six months before Article 50 changes from being a quagmire into a heavily mined field of quicksand. It’s as if we had all the time in the world. But time is the one thing we haven’t got.

mesnipThe vote is over, and The People won. What’s becoming clear is that the élites within the Establishment are hesitating with a purpose. I think it’s time for both Nigel Farage and Kate Hoey to become vocal, and ask why this is happening….and make a much larger percentage of the electorate aware of the deadlines.

The follow-up to this piece with further evidence is here

119 thoughts on “FACT: If the UK doesn’t have a signed deal by April 2017, Brexit is in grave danger

  1. I read somewhere that even the Queen is a subject of the EU under Lisbon. Am I right? That even she isn’t the Sovereign? The UK is waking up to what a mess they signed up to.

    Seems Brexit isn’t gonna happen. never.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I think for once, the British will be thankful for Germany. “Merkel hält Brexit für unumkehrbar” – that is to say, Merkel sees Brexit as irrevocable.

    http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-06/eu-gipfel-brexit-david-cameron

    This from the US-controlled German media too! (Either that, or yesterday, the boys overseeing the editors couldn’t speak German!)

    If there is one thing the Germans are good at, it is complex legalities. Rest assured that if Germany wants Britain out of the EU, and out of the EU in a way that doesn’t affect German exports, it will happen. It might take time, it will happen.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Ah look, I said they would find a way. Now looks like they have.

    @Gemma, Germany might WANT Britain out of the EU but, ultimately it’s what Washington wants, that’ll be the decider.

    If you were to believe the ‘alternative’ theories, the UK out of the EU might be just what’s required, the blame then can be firmly set at the UK’s doorstep, how convenient?
    You could imagine we are being setup.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. The New World Order were stung by the Brexit result. They will fight back. In typical EU style – which is to organise referendums till the result desired by TPTB is achieved.

    ” New World Order (conspiracy theory) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org http://bit.ly/28Z8fKo

    From the article –
    Many influential historical and present figures have been purported to be part of a cabal that operates through many front organizations to orchestrate significant political and financial occurrences as well as significant world events as steps in an ongoing plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.[3][4][5][6][7]

    Those political scientists were concerned that mass hysteria could have what they judged to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.[4][6][9]”

    Like

  5. Cameron has delayed any possible invocation of Art. 50 for about three months by passing ‘the task’ to his successor – despite declaring that he would carry out the wishes of the people which ever way the vote went. Assuming that said successor is secretly or overtly for ‘remain’, surely they will not be able to shilly-shally for more than another 6-8 weeks before the game plan becomes obvious?

    Unfortunately even delaying for a further couple of months leaves far too little time for comfort. But apart from writing to my MP (who marches in lockstep with the tory government of the day) I’m totally at a loss as to what I can do about this seeming stitch up.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Many thanks,John, for your fascinating and well articulated views. The above is shocking. How is this information to be disseminated outside of a weekly chat with the lads down at the local? Do you copy your writing to like minded bloggers may I suggest “The Corbett Report” and “boilingfrogspost.com, I feel sure there are hundreds,who may have a wider audience?
    The importance of and humour in your pieces should not be hidden under a bushel.

    Keep up the good work. It goes down very well with a morning cuppa.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Thanks for spelling that out, it’s a bleak picture for sure. Seems to me that if Royalty has any purpose left apart from Disneyland pomp, this would be its last chance to intervene and curb a government which is ignoring the democratic will of the British people. What may seem like a well scripted sound bite by JFK is inexorably true, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. Those remainders demonstrating in London were mostly young. Time at that age passes slowl, what they see as life experience was just a short spell of globalist indoctrination, they’re going to be pretty pissed off later on.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Brexit just is not going to take place. We have shown them the two fingers which is enough if they want to keep selling their cars to reluctant customers. Mine’s a Datsun thanks.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I’m not sure this article does have the facts right. My understanding is that Article 50 concerns terms of exit. It does not and could not compel a leaving state to negotiate a new relationship nor could it place any restrictions on that relationship if any.

    Ergo the scope of negotiations under Article 50 need be neither broad nor extensive.

    Secondly it is incorrect to say that Article 50 ‘allows an EU Member State to secede from the Union by giving two years notice to the relevant authorities.’ UK cannot say it will include in its notice a condition that it will leave with effect from some future date. It says negotiations are limited to two years unless all member states (including UK) agree to extend them. This enables UK to hold the EU against the ropes: agree or you get nothing. Also it means negotiations could be completed earlier.

    The Constitution Unit, from what I’ve seen of it, is a bit of a hot-bed of EU luvvies. So statements such as both sides agree that negotiations will take years need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

    UKG can do a lot without any discussion with the EU to relieve uncertainty, eg. guarantee UK funding will replace existing EU funding, guarantee existing work permits and residency status of non-UK EU citizens. It can begin negotiations with other countries on trade – if required.

    If relieving uncertainty is the absolute priority UKG can simply declare that UK will either 1) apply EU tariffs to all imports from the EU and zero tariffs to the rest of the world or 2) subject to EU agreement to reciprocate, zero tariffs on all imports.

    There really is no requirement under Article 50 to do any more than agree terms of exit. That is all.

    I recognise there are some complex areas such as financial regulations, eg., pass-porting. But again I suspect the difficulties are being exaggerated.

    Companies are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to adopt EU standards for their products and services, conditions of employment of non-UK citizens etc. There is no requirement for the Government to do anything other than to clarify which current EU regulations will be enacted into UK law. Again everyone is exaggerating the difficulty of this task.

    I do have one question. What is the evidence for the assertion that ” as from March 31st 2017 .. Article 50 will be subject to the dreaded Qualified Majority Vote (QMV)…that is to say, we will have to persuade a total of 14 EU Member States to support our decision to leave.’?

    There is nothing in the Treaty stating this unless it is buried somewhere in the TFEU. QMV applies to the agreement among EU member states to the terms of exit, not to the withdrawal from membership, as I understand it.

    Liked by 7 people

  10. JW

    mmmmhhhhmmm — I wonder what Marie le pen and Geert Wielders is thinking right now about article 50 bearing in mind they have not yet had a referendum! I translated the text into their native language (google translator) and mailed it directly to them this affects all nations I would think. We can all write text, translate it into his native tonuge and email it to Junkers.

    I wonder how many Poland and the like realise this same article 50 I am going to guess applies to them. Here is my thoughts on article 50 using smoke and mirrors and passing that date the EU commission was going to declare the EU superstate so I would suggest article 50 is the trap for all nations because if you get it wrong you would miss your prey.

    The EU commission has declared its hand it is formally taking sovereignty there are not other words to be put on a second referendum and the debate in parliament by the BREMAIN camp futile because the EU commission itself changed them. Parliament now to overturn for BREMAIN now commits treason every one of them and maybe we need to bring in the hangman for 650 politicians.

    The repealement of the european communities act is half complete and can be ratified and passed in a couple of days effectively bypassing the article 50 anyway. The finger is on the trigger so to speak and press it now Brussels goes up in smoke so I would prefer article 50 for the time given for other EU nations to consult their peoples on this.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. It has taken 6 years plus and still no Chilcot report. This is classic establishment cover up and fudge Mr A Blair should have been languishing in prison for at least 4 of these due to downright deceit and lies. I only refer to this to identify further the lengths which the establishment engage in order to deny democratic principles. We must not be lulled into constant debate and argument about Brexit the majority have spoken and those who now seek every method to overturn this one and only true method of the involvement of the electorate are in denial of the democratic process It is time for those who front this campaign to make loud and clear the implications of NOT carrying out the wishes of the majority. The presentations in the news by BBC and Jon Snow of Channel 4 are so biased and again the leaders of the campaign need to make serious noises over the extreme bias being shown. Leadership is now demanded and little being shown.

    Liked by 8 people

  12. Peruse this thought you may be asking it real soon.

    In an EU superstate where the EU commission is appointed and not democratically elected from the MEP’s once sovereignty is taken form the nation we can remove parliament to save money if anything. Over time as those leaders who ascended to the EU commission die, preferably as fast as possible how do you restock the commissioners for appointment.

    Over time the appointees will not be democratically elected politcians even like Junkers? Who is it going to be Hitler or Ghandi who knows, only the elites who appoint them know.

    You need to read around the concept of a law lord that “sovereignty takes precedence over all else” and that in effect the UK Parliament has committed treason now you know why they took treason off the statute book. Did not help the late Jane Cox because treason is in the minds of many now you can shove the above abomination that is democracy-lite = no democracy.

    Coming down to the wire now BREXIT or death.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I wonder what Boris Johnson thinks would happen to him if he tried the ‘Sorry, there’s nothing we can do’, line?

    I hope he has factored in execution, because he would undoubtedly have been a traitor of the first order…….

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Welcome to the Hotel C̶a̶l̶i̶f̶o̶r̶n̶i̶a̶ Europa
    Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    They livin’ it up at the Hotel C̶a̶l̶i̶f̶o̶r̶n̶i̶a̶ Europa
    What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)
    Bring your alibis

    Mirrors on the ceiling,
    The pink champagne on ice
    And she said “We are all just prisoners here, of our own device”
    And in the master’s chambers,
    They gathered for the feast
    They stab it with their steely knives,
    But they just can’t kill the beast

    Last thing I remember, I was
    Running for the door
    I had to find the passage back
    To the place I was before
    “Relax, ” said the night man,
    “We are programmed to receive.
    You can check-out any time you like,
    But you can never leave! “

    Liked by 4 people

  15. KFC
    America already controls the British government. Mention was made about the Chilcot enquiry: this should tell you all you need to know about British “democracy” – such that it isn’t.

    The point being that the US pulls the strings in Westminster, so any strings that are pulled in Brussels merely reinforce the fact. The European Union is an irrelevance in the case of Britain, as the government is already doing what the corporations want of it.

    The strikes in France should tell you that the plan isn’t going so well across the channel.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. There is at least another view of this situation because Constitutional Law is like spaghetti – tangled up with case law, statute law, and common law!

    This is from https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

    “More examples could be given, but the general point is plain. Our membership of the European Union has conferred a host of legal rights on British citizens, some through incorporating statutes, some granted directly in domestic law. Applying the common law principle found in The Case of Proclamations and Fire Brigades Union, the Government cannot remove or nullify these rights without parliamentary approval. Its prerogative power cannot be used to overturn statutory rights. Statute beats prerogative.

    This has significance not only in terms of our domestic law, but also for EU law. Article 50 specifies that a decision to leave the European Union must be made in conformity to a Member State’s constitutional requirements. If the Prime Minister sought to issue an Article 50 without parliamentary approval, it would not satisfy this test; it would not be effective in European Law.”

    Welcome to the world of Alice in Wonderland…

    Liked by 2 people

  17. A reply to my posting your comment on the Guardian site:What you are saying is not true. Even after March 2017 a member state would just need to invoke the article 50 if it wants to leave the union. What you are talking about is the qualified majority rule applies in the Council.

    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/
    Qualified majority
    A new rule from 1 November 2014

    From 1 November 2014 a new procedure for qualified majority voting applies in the Council. Under this procedure, when the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a qualified majority is reached if two conditions are met:

    55% of member states vote in favour – in practice this means 16 out of 28
    the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population

    This new procedure is also known as the ‘double majority’ rule.
    Blocking minority

    The blocking minority must include at least four Council members representing more than 35% of the EU population.
    Special cases

    When not all Council members participate in the vote, for example due to an opt-out in certain policy areas, a decision is adopted if 55% of the participating Council members, representing at least 65% of the population of the participating member states, vote in favour.

    When the Council votes on a proposal not coming from the Commission or the high representative a decision is adopted if:

    at least 72% of Council members vote in favour
    they represent at least 65% of the EU population

    Abstentions

    An abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against. Abstention is not the same as not participating in the vote. Any member can abstain at any time.
    The previous qualified majority rule

    Until 31 March 2017, member states can still request to use the previous rule for qualified majority voting. Under this rule, each member state representative has a certain number of votes, as set out in the EU treaties. The weighting of votes roughly reflects the size of population of each member state.

    The 352 votes are distributed as follows:

    France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom: 29 votes each
    Spain, Poland: 27 votes each
    Romania: 14 votes
    Netherlands: 13 votes
    Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal: 12 votes each
    Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden: 10 votes each
    Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland: 7 votes each
    Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia: 4 votes each
    Malta: 3 votes

    Under this previous rule, a qualified majority is reached in the Council if the following conditions are met:

    a majority of member states – 15 member states – vote in favour
    a minimum of 260 votes out of the total 352 votes are cast in favour

    A member state may ask for confirmation that the votes in favour represent at least 62% of the total EU population. If this is found not to be the case, the decision will not be adopted.

    What do you think?

    Like

  18. the 1972 Act should be repealed now and no delays. it was an act of treason to sign it as Heaths lawyer put into a letter at the time. It was hidden from the parliament and we were all no longer subjects of the queen. Repeal the original Act and make it fraud then ALL acts passed since on the basis of it are void. We now have the power to leave without the need of terms, help or permission of anyone.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. Shyster, Shyster and Flywheel couldn’t have made a more tangled knot of legal? gobbledygook. Just pull the f^&$*”!g pin, tear it all up and offer them the opportunity to do something about it.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. My apologies coming back for a second portion ! CRABB AND JAVID the blue collar ticket for Tory leadership – both voted Remain – Javid states that’s not a problem we are all Brexiteers now. Oh no you ain’t buddy ! Two excellent examples of snake in the grass candidates and opportunists one of which has serious baggage as outlined by JW. The sheer lack of quality and principle of parliamentarians and much of the establishment is staggering and I’m afraid does not bode well for the future. David Cameron talked about British values – out of touch matey – they got flushed down the pan in the 1960’s . The referendum has been the wake up call to start a clean up all round. Freedom as some supporters of the remain campaign think it is a do as you like when you like – much the same as their masters in Brussels . There is fear in the camp is it possible that more will follow – suddenly this large group which has silenced opposition and used single words to define and deprecate realises that the tiger is out its cage.

    Liked by 5 people

  21. The EU will disintegrate before any of this comes to pass.
    The Article 50 aspect of an unholy union between May and Hunt does make me nervous though.
    There are so many ways that this can be played out, but a delay in initiating Article 50, with obvious looming deadlines and someone to shout about them from the rooftops, would be a straightforward way of keeping the boat rocking.
    Other states would follow.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. In the Guardian a couple of days ago regarding the 1972 Act. Is this why Cameron was quick to step down.

    It’s not over yet. A law that passed last year to set up the EU referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force. “Sovereignty” – a much misunderstood word in the campaign – resides in Britain with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them. Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.
    Petition for second EU referendum may have been manipulated
    Read more

    It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.

    Britain, absurdly, is the only significant country (other than Saudi Arabia) without a written constitution. We have what are termed “constitutional conventions”, along with a lot of history and traditions. Nothing in these precedents allots any place to the results of referendums or requires our sovereign parliament to take a blind bit of notice of them.

    It was parliament that voted to enter the European Economic Community in 1972, and only three years later was a referendum held to settle the split in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of membership. Had a narrow majority of the public voted out in 1975, Wilson would still have had to persuade parliament to vote accordingly – and it is far from certain that he would have succeeded.

    Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment).

    Liked by 1 person

  23. @ Ray 12:44 pm , Are you saying Cameron baled out when he realised that he’d offered something he couldn’t come good on , that’s never bothered him in the past.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Can somebody help me please, I’ve been looking everywhere for the General Election that those in the labour party say is happening – can’t find it anywhere – does anybody else know where it is?

    Like

  25. No, Legal separation from the Legal Primacy of EU Control doesn’t have to take 2 years. Doesn’t anyone do documentary research any longer? Repeal of the enabling-Legal Instrument – the 1972 European Communities Act. – can be done inside 24hrs through an “Emergency Order in Council” which does NOT require debate. [This is a hang-over administrative mechanism from the Cold War Era, which has never been repealed or amended. The papers are in the National Archives, and have been open to the Public since the last RSG was de-classified and closed in 1992!]. It has actually been in place since around 1960, when the Regional Seats of Government were being built, and the Civil Service under the Cabinet Secretary Norman Brook was codifying the manner in which a government evacuated out of London, and split into 11 sections, – could continue to operate administratively in the face of a fast developing situation, – such as a Soviet attack which would have left neither time nor place for debating urgent administrative measures. The Civil Service Planners were assuming that Westminster and Whitehall would have been ground zero fo tactical Nukes. The Attorney General Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller signed-off on it then, and so did the whole Cabinet. On a conference phone call, it only needs a quorum of 3 Privy Councillors, the Lord President of the Council [if still alive and in Contact], and Her Majesty – to enact and Assent-to an Emergency Order in Council. .But because that Era is now considered “ancient history”, these things have been forgotten by all save political and military historians [such as myself]. So a legal mechanism making it possible to Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act without debate – [and save the Nation GB£8,800Millions over the next 2 years] is already part of the Law of the UK; if the current metro-Elite choose to activate it. Repeal of the 1972 Act returns legal primacy to the UK Parliament; it will not alter any UK Law copy-catting an EU Law; such matters will need to be separately-debated. But it would mean that matters the Voters deem to be of primary importance to their concerns – such as turning-off the Money-Valve To The EU could be done within a very short time by means of an “administrative Instrument” decided in Cabinet – a matter of hours rather than years.

    Liked by 6 people

  26. I have spent the past few hours trying to make sense of European law, and at this point I have to be honest: I’m not certain we have something to worry about, despite many commentators online possibly jumping the gun. I studied phillosophy and economics so making sense of legal definitions is not my forte.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT

    What I have been able to determine is that, as of 01 April 2017, any new motions will require approval of the member states by Qualified Majority Voting, which seems to be defined at 55% of members. Unless I am mistaken, the current model requires unanimous approval of the member states, so getting Brexit approved via the council after the date mention may actually be easier.

    AM I WRONG??

    Like

  27. Am I right in thinking that as Norman Tebbit stated, we do not have a constitution .- I take that to mean a kind of book of rights and laws – ours have been moulded and shaped since Magna Carta?

    Thus the EU rule which states the Members have to revert to their own Constitution doesn’t apply to the UK? We were led in under complete false pretences? That makes the present arrangement null n’est-ce pas?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. As far as I can see this is about the agreement of the subsequent status of the country withdrawing, not the decision to leave, that appears irrevocable once Art. 50 has been instigated. At present the withdrawal agreement requires ratification by the European Parliament, some say by unanimous vote others by a simple majority, after the 2017 deadline it will be by QMV, as would any extension of talks beyond the two years defined. The only danger I see is that this could cause the UK to leave without any formal agreement and would thus be subject to whatever the current default position the EU has with regard to particular items.

    As with most law that has never been implemented (especially a law that was never expected to be used and is seemingly little more than a note rather than a specific template) it is not exactly clear what is actually required or what any particular thing means.

    Like

  29. Hope you read this and I must say I enjoy ‘The Slog ‘. The information about the March 31st 2017 deadline is of VITAL importance. Can you get this to as many people as possible ?

    ======================================== Message Received: Jun 29 2016, 08:37 AM

    Like

  30. Interesting point seems to be not clarified but because of all the referendum abuse by Hitler they do not have referendum but the Afd are calling for a referendum too called Dexit.

    If you cannot get out by referendum how can you ever leave? So Germany may be the last one out now and picks up the euro bill.

    Turn off the lights as you leave.

    Even our referendum was not fair and honest as much by the BREMAIN camp was hiding but that you cannot have one at all does seem a tad unfair. Do they have a 31st March 2017 deadline too?

    Then Merkel … does she do drugs …

    She said: “This is the chance for a new Europe, one which maintains partnerships and respected national sovereignties.”

    Day before we get these kind of headlines “EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE”

    What part of national sovereignties will be left? NONE!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. @ Ray 12:44 pm , Are you saying Cameron baled out when he realised that he’d offered something he couldn’t come good on , that’s never bothered him in the past. Just a thought as 17 million including myself voted leave which I am sure the Cameron and his government really did not expect.

    Like

  32. Spain’s PM Rajoy has just said that he opposes any negotiation by Scotland with the EU adding that “If the UK leaves, Scotland leaves.”

    Like

  33. Defo rite lafarge should be able to voice opinion an we should use article 50 asap, we England need to leave the Eu now the sooner the better

    Like

  34. The result of the referendum appears to have hijacked reality and replaced it with a new ‘Alice in Wonderland’ paradigm.
    Without a written constitution who dictates that Parliament needs to ratify a referendum in order for it to be validated. The people have voted and the majority voted for out. In my humble view the referendum takes precedence and parliament needs to rubber stamp it immediately or lose their mandate. A government functioning without the consent of the majority no longer has legality and any action to counter the referendum results would be treason by reason of aiding foreigners to subvert the sovereignty of the UK. Dodgy Dave and his motley crew need to man up and get the show on the road or quit right now.. Wars have been fought over lesser matters.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. An interesting way “democracy” is being used by our politicians. On one hand, numerous MPs of all stripes tell us Parliament has the right to vote down the result of the Brexit Referendum. On the other, Corbyn’s colleague John McDonnell states “. In the Labour Party our members are sovereign. There was an election held and a decision made, and 172 people cannot outweigh a quarter of a million others. It would risk sending the worst possible message we could send as a party to the electorate – that Labour does not respect the democratic process.”
    Yet all these lip-servicing politicians collude in their promotion of the totally undemocratic EU.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. @ hubertdesouthchurch 1:37 pm, Thank you, that’s more like what I want to hear, a clean break, no strings, instant. The question are. Why is this point not being raised by our so called leave M.P.’s. Why have they not got their legal experts to confirm its validity or give cast iron reasons for its invalidity.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. Do you think that the whole lot of them have hoodwinked us, and we have been conned by all sides, left, right, and centre. Cameron with his big mouth and busting carotid artery has put his big foot in it, or has he, as he blames Corbin for his own short comings, his overly confident manner, and over powering speeches, and Jeremy, the poor sap becomes the fall guy, who everyone points a fingure at. Then the ITV news last night showed Fararge being booed and heckled, but didn’t show the end of speech, where people stood up and clapped him.
    Boris Johnson, the one who had all the answers has become quiet, and Angela Murkle turns around to say that we can only stay in the single market if we still allow freedom of movement, the very problem which got us in this mess in the first place. I am beginning to feel we have been led up the stream, and without a paddle, and all of these politicians who fall out amongst themselves in the houses of parliament, are rubbing shoulders by the bar, tapping each other on the back after once again conning the people. But I`m afraid you can only fool some of the people some of the time, and not all of the people all of the
    time.

    Liked by 4 people

  38. One of the problems with quoting FACTS is that the critical facts need to actually be correct.

    “One doesn’t have to be a rabbit-hole conspiracist to suspect a unified Establishment strategy to dilute and even negate what 52% of the electorate voted for five days ago.”

    Wrong – Less than 38% of the electorate actually voted LEAVE – Over 25% couldn’t even be bothered to vote.

    Like

  39. Many of us that voted to leave the EU did so because the EU was anti-democratic. It now looks like our own parliament is also anti-democratic. We’ve seen how devious Cameron was by spending £9m of our money lying to convince us to remain and when that failed, he resorted to project fear. Now that has failed and the people have made their wishes clear he and the political elite are resorting to subterfuge to deny the result because they do not like the will of the people.
    Talk about bad losers. This situation would not exist if the vote had been the other way!
    Nigel Farage has to make his voice heard again before the people are sold down the river.
    He is not an elected MP but speaks more for the people of this country than many paid to represent us!

    Liked by 3 people

  40. Ian Kidson,
    Not sure if you’re suggesting that the failure of 25% of the electorate to vote invalidates the result but in actual FACT, that 25% is the LOWEST percentage of voters not bothering to vote since 1992. At the last election in 2015, some 34% failed to vote, (http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm) – probably more if fraudulent votes were included, although it’s doubtful this number will ever be known.
    In 2005 barely 60 % of eligible voters turned out and less than 36% of them voted Labour. So, what is your point?

    Liked by 1 person

  41. How do you “Prevent” a Country from leaving the EU?
    What do they do if you refuse to pay them any money, do not communicate in any way.
    Ignore their courts and just continue dealing with the rest of the world?

    Liked by 1 person

  42. We remain in a strong position as a net contributor. There are not a lot of those, and there are going to be some large bills appearing in the in-trays of the 27 shortly. Perhaps at that point they will miss us. In any case, if we are in for a 4 year transition, we should keep our contributions in escrow until the very last day and release them if we are satisfied with the outcome of negotiations.
    As for Jeremy Stocks and the ‘mess [Lisbon] that we signed up for’, let’s remember that Brown slunk off alone to Lisbon to sign, without mentioning it to parliament. I was surprised that there was not more fuss at the time, but the Tories do seem to take an age to catch on to things. I hope they now understand what has been going on. It affects them as well as the common crowd.

    Liked by 2 people

  43. You are all making this way more complicated than it needs to be, we could just renege on the Lisbon Treaty. Job done.

    Like

  44. John,

    Is this more smoke and mirrors or is the point hiding in there somewhere?

    “The idea that Article 50 should be triggered immediately was always nonsense [why? ed.]. There is no legal imperative to trigger it immediately [not a reason not to do it immediately, ed] and it would be politically unwise [for whom, ed] to do so until there is an established negotiating position [sounds fishy, ed]. UK negotiators should seek to sound out EU governments [why? ed] – after they have calmed down [why, ed] – before triggering Article 50. Juncker and some states [specifically, ed] or even the EU as a whole [vague? ed] might [vague? ed] not countenance an informal negotiation [waffle, ed]. There is of course no obligation for the rest of the EU to begin negotiations on leaving until Article 50 has been triggered. The ticking clock is designed to give the EU an upper hand in the negotiations, the UK would be wise to only pull the trigger when the target is clear [what’s not unclear, ed].”

    Like

  45. More BS to try to make UK use it best tool and best weapon to get a good deal from the EU…possibly created by THE REMAIN CAMP to make us end up with a lousy deal….The President Jean-Claude Juncker has already stated that the EU will not stand in our way and that we are OUT…..he also said “the divorce will be unpleasant and it was never a happy romance”…so no EU country would stand in our way…..the rules you have changed to PISS off LEAVE Voters is all BS

    Like

  46. If this goes the way we suspect it will, ie the will of the people ignored, then all the people have to do is remember this treachery on the day of the next general election.

    17million+ votes for UKIP would serve the traitors right.
    Like him or loath him, Farage is about the only one you ever get a straight answer from.

    Like

  47. Ray
    One wonders what Britain’s internal politics have to do with an election-rigging Spanish flea who jumped on the horse called Austerity.

    Like

  48. alexei
    In 1965 I met a minor Nazi (the original lot) who told me, “Hitler’s ability to read an audience was uncanny….he could smell the mood”.
    This is what our politicians do now: tailor the message to the occasion.
    We’re just left smelling the bullsh*t.

    Like

  49. DEar Mr Kidson

    I stand corrected. I’m not sure it’s remotely relevant, but you are right and I was wrong.
    It now seems (according to one pollster) that the abstainers were very young-biased….that’s the Yoof that now needs counselling because they lost.

    Like

  50. Dear Rosie

    I am appalled to hear that you listen to your MP, and shocked you believe anything he or she says. As Bogart used to say, “They would say that”.
    Only kidding.

    Like

  51. John
    Is it because Rajoy knows that if Scotland is allowed to become independent and stay in the EU – then Catalonia and the Basque Country are next.

    Like

  52. In reply to Peter’s comment above, and the original article:

    The Communities Act is ours. We have sovereignty and our current government is by constitution not beholden to the promises of previous governments. We can repeal the act at any time, but it could be a rash move. It would be seen as the equivalent of making a large deal with everyone then walking out and sticking your nose up at them, maybe not a good way of winning the friends that we’ll need in the future. “UK goes back on deals. Can we trust them?”

    Once Article 50 is triggered, it looks like either side can choose to filibuster the negotiations. I’d have thought we were more vulnerable to that than Brussels. They sit around for two years, we leave with nothing.

    A lot of things in EU have required unanimous votes. Things like “Can Turkey Join” require unanimous votes for example, so the UK is always free to veto Turkey’s membership. I wonder what aspect of Article 50 you think is made harder by this new change. It’s our choice to apply it.

    Like

  53. This is completely wrong.

    The change to QMV does not mean we need permission to leave the EU.

    It is just a change (that actually came in in November 2014 with some transitional provisions that expire in March 2017) to the way the rest of the EU votes on any deal we reach with the Council under Article 50. It doesn’t involve us because we have no vote and no participation in EU deliberations about any deal we reach. It ONLY applies to the EU voting to accept or reject any deal and not to whether we are allowed to leave the EU.

    Like

  54. Off topic, but has anyone seen the article in yesterday’s Bild about the ams find? Over 600 guns and over 2 tons of ammunition were discovered next door to a mosque in Nordrhein-Westfalen. These folk are planning a war.

    Like

  55. i was channel hopping last night 30th june and happened on CNN news. They interviewed spokesmen from each of the banks which happened to back the remain campaign – Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Stanley Citibank and also our chancellor Mark Carney.

    From this its hard to conclude anything other than the four of them are colluding to overturn the brexit result. The Goldman spokesman alluded to a report they issued which is a computer simulation which witout a fact in it gave a terrible future for our wasteland economy going forwards. The other banks backed this assessment with Carney claiming we are in for a big recession because of brexit. A Russian bank boss based in London even stated a 2nd referendum would be needed

    The blamed continuing uncertainty and the drift in government plus a poor Brussels deal like the Norway one as the best we could hope for. Unless we stop listening to Camerons stupid timetable and seize rthe iniative plus sack Carney we are allowin them to reverse the will of the people by their plotting this revenge

    Like

  56. I think you maybe right, and I do feel that Nigel Farage needs to step in now a voice his opion with regards to all the people have voted to come out now. I have also read that we do not need this 50 to leave as it’s states in the magnacater an item that we could state to come out now. But I do not no if this Is true.

    Like

  57. I’m afraid the entire premise of this post is wrong:

    “However, as from March 31st 2017 – a date just nine months away next weekend – Article 50 will be subject to the dreaded Qualified Majority Vote (QMV)…that is to say, we will have to persuade a total of 14 EU Member States to support our decision to leave.”

    Not true. Article 50 is essentially unaffected by the move to QMV.

    *Whatever happens*, our decision to withdraw from the EU under the terms of Article 50 is unilateral – we have the right to withdraw without the approval of other states.

    QMV affects one thing, and one thing only: following negotiations, the terms of our withdrawal will have to be rubber-stamped by EU leaders and the European Parliament. That vote will take place under QMV. NB, even if we started negotiating today, we would not reach agreement with the EU in the next nine months. It is likely to take the full two years stipulated as a maximum.

    [Incidentally, QMV was in fact introduced in November 2014. Until April 2017 members have the right to request the old system if they prefer. But that’s irrelevant, since we would never have negotiated a deal by then.]

    In summary – there are no grounds for conspiracy theory here. It makes no difference whether we activate Article 50 today or in a year’s time. No difference whatever.

    Like

  58. I always felt the Establishment would make Brexit somewhat fraught with difficulties…and as a baby boomer who just wants a decent standard of living for my family and my kids and couldn’t care less about sovereignty (shareholders and financial institutions have the real power anyway) I in fact welcome the Establishment’s involvement. And don’t forget, the referendum was only so Cameron could win the 2015 Election – that was the only reason, and Johnson only supported it so he could further his own leadership dreams. I hate to say it, but in hindsight some might say we’ve all been conned…

    Like

  59. Still spreading the same rubbish and misleading your readers. I told you long ago before November 1st 2014 that this was completely wrong, a misinterpretation of what was going to happen, which was only a change to the details of the QMV system without any extension of its scope to new areas of decision making, and you chose not to publish my comments. Now you doing it again, distracting people from the real, important issue.

    Like

  60. Her Royal Majesty needs to dissolve parliament and call for a general election as I have fears May will get in power and then all out hope of leaving the EU will be just some bad dream.

    Like

  61. I have searched the Lisbon Treaty and the ONLY reference to 2017 I could find is below. While referring to QMV and voting in general I fail to see how you have arrived at a conclusion involving “14 votes” and “march 17 2017”. Is there specific subsequent legislation we need to know? please link to your source.

    The treaty has expanded the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers by having it replace
    unanimity as the standard voting procedure in almost every policy area. Moreover, taking effect in 2014, the
    definition of a qualified majority will change: A qualified majority is reached when at least 55% of all member
    states, who comprise at least 65% of EU citizens, vote in favour of a proposal. When the Council of Ministers is
    Treaty of Lisbon 9
    acting neither on a proposal of the Commission nor on one of the High Representative, QMV requires 72% of the
    member states while the population requirement remains the same. To block legislation, at least 4 countries
    (representing at least 35% of the EU population) have to vote against the proposal. Hence, the voting powers of the
    member states are based on their population, and are no more dependent on a negotiable system of voting points.
    The current rules for QMV, as set in the Treaty of Nice, require a majority of countries (50% / 67%), voting weights
    (74%), and population (62%). This rule remains in place until 2014. Between 2014 and 2017 a transitional phase will
    take place where the new QMV rules apply, but where the old Nice treaty voting weights can be applied when a
    member state wishes so. Moreover, from 2014 a new version of the 1994 “Ioannina Compromise” will take effect,
    which allows small minorities of EU states to call for re-examination of EU decisions.[29]

    Like

  62. Let’s make no mistake here.
    If we the majority are refused their democratic right and told they must remain within the EU then this country will most certainly see civil war.
    This will get very very nasty, very very quickly if people aren’t careful

    Like

  63. Factual correction: 26% of the population voted leave, 37.5% of the electorate voted leave. At least you’re being consistent with the Leave campaign’s standards. If Brexit doesn’t happen that will be why.

    Like

  64. “One doesn’t have to be a rabbit-hole conspiracist to suspect a unified Establishment strategy to dilute and even negate what 52% of the electorate voted for five days ago.”

    1. Yes, one does
    2. It was only 37.4% of the electorate
    3. I’m tired of arguing with closed-minded fantasists who won’t listen to financial, economic, legal or even constitutional experts.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. There is only one man fit to lead BREXIT Nigel Farage he is still a MEP so in the right place to sort exit Brussels wouldn’t get away with a thing and neither would our own government if he was overseeing things.

    Like

  66. The secession (withdrawal) process is laid down in a Treaty that can only be changed unanimously, including agreement by the UK and it would also take years. It cannot be changed by a Directive!

    The Treaty contains an unequivocal right to leave 2 years after invoking Article 50 TEU (Wikipedia is not always an authority – Art 49 is on joining). This period is not set in stone and can be varied by agreement; it is the precise terms of our negotiation with them that will be agreed by QMV.

    EU law is explicitly under International Law. If the EU does not negotiate with us in good faith, we can just leave (www.newalliance.org.uk/intlaw.htm) or take any blockage to the UN, whose Charter upholds national self-determination.

    While we are in the EU, we are subject to EU law, and thanks to the treachery of our governments, it can do nasty things to us. Common sense dictates fast-track leaving and a transitional ‘Partnership arrangement’ to resolve the unwind and evolve future co-operation inter-governmentally.

    Like

  67. The secession (withdrawal) process is laid down in a Treaty that can only be changed unanimously, including agreement by the UK and it would also take years. It cannot be changed by a Directive!

    The Treaty contains an unequivocal right to leave 2 years after invoking Article 50 TEU (Wikipedia is not always an authority – Art 49 is on joining). This period is not set in stone and can be varied by agreement; it is the precise terms of our negotiation with them that will be agreed by QMV. What is changing is the voting weightings not the principle!

    EU law is explicitly under International Law. If the EU does not negotiate with us in good faith, we can just leave (www.newalliance.org.uk/intlaw.htm) or take any blockage to the UN, whose Charter upholds national self-determination.

    While we are in the EU, we are subject to EU law, and thanks to the treachery of our governments, it can do nasty things to us. Common sense dictates fast-track leaving and a transitional ‘Partnership arrangement’ to resolve the unwind and evolve future co-operation inter-governmentally.

    Like

  68. https://medium.com/the-coffeelicious/brexit-was-not-a-triumph-of-democracy-788924aa5025#.xpf6a0b75 I have just come across this article; it might be worth a read for the people on this thread. I arrived at your thread by accident. I had to read right to the end before finding the one contribution that had stated what the actual situation is in regard to the opening (utterly wrong) statement. It is a demonstration, in one thread, of why this referendum was such a pitiful shambles: the facts, such as they are, utterly disregarded and the perspective narrowed to a pinhead. In so far as anyone is guilty of treason, the crime of betraying one’s country, it is David Cameron for putting his own party’s pitiful internal concerns ahead of the national interest, and Boris Johnson, for putting his own ambition ahead of not only his own personal view but also Britain’s best interests. Look at what they have achieved! A country divided in two; our own union in perilous danger of splitting up; investment in this country, its people and its skills, stalled; our politics in total disarray and our standing across the world woefully diminished. Whether you are Remain or Leave, this situation is undeniable. Although Leavers have been grinding on about exiting the Eu since the Maastricht Treaty, not only have they not even studied the mechanism for exiting, as your thread amply demonstrates, they have no plan. Should we be part of the single market (only our largest market – to which we currently have unfettered access) or not (let’s put up the trade barriers – that will really help our young to find jobs). If it were not so tragically contemptible it would be a joke.

    Like

  69. You have interpreted the wording incorrectly. The literal legal interpretation is that the words ‘concluded by’ refer not to the right to invoke Art. 50/notify withdrawal but to agree the exit terms. You could replace the word conclude with ratified.

    Furthermore, there are many other ways to Leave without invoking Art. 50.

    Like

  70. Which means that more power sits with the UK in negotiations to leave, by the way. Regardless, there seems to be a misconception that Art. 50’s 2 year period means that a deal has to be achieved in 2 years. This is not correct. In 2 years you have to draw up basically a timetable and some basic agreements as to how this is going o be achieved. It would state things such as:

    The direction of negotiations is towards a EEA/EFTA/CETA type arrangement.
    Art. 2 will be upheld in the spirit of any new relationship.
    Acquired rights will be provisionally agreed by x date.
    Timetable of negotiations.

    and so on. It is not a date to be signed up to all agreements. That could take 10 years or more.

    Like

  71. RE:
    Dan
    July 4, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Let’s make no mistake here.
    If we the majority are refused their democratic right and told they must remain within the EU then this country will most certainly see civil war.
    This will get very very nasty, very very quickly if people aren’t careful

    We have to be careful here. The nation is getting itself wound up on a notion of this ‘democratic right’. We held a democratic vote. We didn’t have a democratic debate to go with it, sadly. Pluralism and good faith were not part of the democratic process.

    In any event, the process has to be fluid. The Scott’s held a referendum for independence and settled the matter. Now the goalposts have moved and they are likely to have another. I don’t hear anyone shouting that it is undemocratic to do so. In fact the opposite. The situation has changed and new information has come to light. The

    To say that there will be a civil war is somewhat alarmist and naive. The public will want a chance to decide again on the deal that we are offered. Legally, they would win any right to do so as it is basic democracy. You cannot insist that the referendum is crystalised in time and the decision to Leave is regardless of not knowing the details of leaving. I for one want to be able to judge the facts when they are known to us. This notion that the referendum has frozen any debate, right to know what is next, right to change your mind, right to proceed cautiously is the antagonising factor in the public space.

    Let’s all try and think of life examples of how these things work for everyone and not become divided by being rigid.

    Like

  72. A C Osborn

    We are all still bound by international law.
    There are a million other ties to Europe that keep us closely connected.
    If we left tomorrow, the EU would still have a liability to finance several projects ongoing in the EU.
    The very real prospect is that we will still trade with the EU paying contributions anyway.
    Do you think other trading partners would trade with the UK if we took your advice.

    You show a classic case of not liking what you don’t understand. I feel that you’d be better served in political apathy.

    Like

  73. Pingback: ukgovernmentwatch

  74. Teresa May will eat her own words ( Brexit means Brexit ) and we will be stuck in the wretched EU for a millenium. Is there enough people power in the UK to bludgeon our way out. There seems mighty little political will.

    Like

  75. I’m so tired of reading how people have been suckered by the NWO conspiracy theory. Have you no sense, do you not do you own research, no you just watch youtube videos and spend your days trawling through Alex Jone’s website being filled to the brim with a load of bullshit. Wake up please, you are being tricked into making this world into a shit hole.

    Like

  76. B4D man
    If you’re tired of reading it, why TF do you come here?

    My word folks, but they’re out in force today.

    Banned on 3 counts.

    Like

  77. Pingback: Time To Throw The Scoundrels Out | rga

  78. The Qualified Majority may be necessary for the TERMS of the agreement but it is not, and will not be, even after 31/3/17, a requirement for the UK to leave the European Reich.
    And even if it were, just how could they stop us leaving? What are they going to do? Send in the Luftwaffe?

    Like

  79. Utter garbage and scaremongering … The vote is done and Theresa May has made it clear … The UK is out .. Stop being paranoid ..

    Like

  80. Pingback: Brexit panic: A gift from the market gods? | Humble Student of the Markets

  81. Absolute rubbish. Notice of EU withdrawal under Article 50 is unilateral and does not require the consent of the other EU Member States, or the EU Parliament, or consultation with the Commission.

    While it is true that other Member States could veto a withdrawal agreement, this would not prevent the UK leaving the EU two years from triggering Article 50. Article 50(3) TEU clearly states that a State can withdraw from the EU without a withdrawal agreement. The obligation to negotiate a withdrawal agreement lies with the EU, not with the withdrawing State.

    Like

  82. Pingback: The Bitches who are losing Time because, without telling you, they changed Article 50 during the Brexit campaign: by March 2017 the European Union has the veto on a country to leave. – Freeword and Friends World

  83. Theresa May will definitely leave,

    it’s the only way that people will believe how bad the UK will become after we leave the EU.

    My Dad voted leave because he thinks people have had it too easy in this country.

    Like

  84. The new voting rule does not apply to Article 50 because Article 50 is an option given to any member state wanting to leave. Nowhere in Article 50 does it say that its exercise must be in conformance with any other treaty terms. It simply must conform to the regulations of the constitution of the member state.

    Like

  85. Whilst I as keen as any to leave, this article is seriously flawed.

    We cannot be ‘stopped’ from leaving. The QMV issue applies only to the final proposals emanating from UK-EU negotiating teams in relation to our future interaction with the EU, which will be put forward to the remaining 27 countries to agree.

    If the proposals aren’t agreed to by the proscribed majority, then it’s either back to the negotiating table by the agreement of both parties, we are automatically out after a two year period after the date Article 50 is submitted or negotiations can continue after this two year period can be extended by agreement of both parties.

    Like

  86. This appears to be ‘project fear’ from the Leave campaign. Essentially this is utter bollocks. The EU may be annoyed at being left in limbo over when it might invoke Article 50 and enter formal negotiations, but there is no set time for Britain or any other state to invoke Article 50 after any declaration saying it intends to leave. Article 50 kick starts an up to 2 year negotiation and it is at the end of those negotiations that a vote is made by the remaining EU members. That vote has to be ratified by EVERY member however, meaning that should just one EU country veto any agreement the deal is off and either negotiations have to restart or be abandoned. In such a scenario Britain has a choice of staying in the EU under current rules or leave and adopt WTO rules unless an extension on negotiations are agreed upon by all EU states. However, upon a so-called ‘Hard Brexit’ the UK would have to renegotiate EVERY trade deal with EVERY country it country it currently trades with before any trade could take place – which could take many months or even years. Not to do so could get Britain expelled from the WTO which any economist would tell you is not desirable. On a flipside Britain could be forced to leave the EU by invoked a so-called Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty. However this was introduced to deal with states deemed to be in breach of basic principles of freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law – an issue which currently faces Hungary. Again Article 7 has to ratified by every member state. The issues that will stop a Brexit will be one of economics which is why May is having talks and discussions behind closed doors. A WTO route [hard Brexit] will prove to be economic suicide primarily due to years of instability as trade negotiations are ironed out. EU is unlikely to waver on the ‘four freedoms’. And thus the UK is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It will be up to May to either accept Britain’s remaining a part of the EU on whatever deal can be established and try to sell it to the electorate under the pretexts of economics – or she ant the strong arm Brexiteers have to take the long and economically risky WTO route.

    Like

  87. I know that I believe that I understand what I think you have all written. but I am not sure that I realise that what I read is not what you meant.
    Before I started reading i was uncertain, now I am not so sure.
    Anyone remember a man called Iain Smith, Governor General of Southern Rhodesia, he warned our government of impending civil disorder and on receiving no help at all issued a unilateral dedclaration of independence.
    Do we have politician with that kind of bravery.
    Especially when it depends on the kind of nut-case who may subsequently sieze power.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s