(27-06-2016 12:11 )SecretAgent Wrote: [ -> ]I'll ignore the insult to Silent Majority (I'm sure he's mortified at the thought of having a mini me)
You'll really don't know Silent Majority well then, he was a hanger on to a group a few years back that thought they own the place who's mo was to gang up on poeple, get really quite vicious and then try and get them band. Pretty much every responce on this thread to my post have been more to do with trying to put me down, belittle me, question my intelligence and goodness knows what, they are all there is you care to go back. Thanking every post that does likewise. Even still, I rep him for information recieved, becasue I'm not that childish to get overly resentful against user names and avatas.
Quote: Well the problem is that we are reading what you are actually writing and commenting on it. I always do.
You claim I was saying a new governmant couldn't over turn decissions by an old government, I said no such thing.
Quote:PS if you are apolitical (not interested or involved in politics) you do seem to like this thread
As pointed out several times, this is a monumental decisison that could have remifications, good or bad, for the remainder of my life, not just every four years.
(27-06-2016 11:48 )301 Wrote: [ -> ]Negotiations can only start once Article 50 is triggered.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.
However, I don't blame you for being wrong, because the whole issue of the negotiations is pretty confusing.
Let's look at what article 50 says: "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".
So the negotiations which begin after article 50 is triggered are the negotiations of transitional arrangements when a state is withdrawing, taking into account that state's future relationship with the EU, which presumably has already been negotiated?
Since the future relationship has to be taken into account when the transitional arrangements are being negotiated, it follows logically that the future relationship may have been decided already.
Anyway the main point here is that nowhere in article 50 does it say that negotiations can only start once Article 50 is triggered.
Article 50 lays down a procedure for the negotiation of transitional arrangements. Nothing more. It sets out the timetable how a withdrawal may be arranged, and does not give any indication of when or how any future relationship between the withdrawing state and the EU should be negotiated.
Article 50
envisages an agreement on the future relationship between the EU and the departing state, but clearly sees that as a separate matter, which is not in itself governed by article 50.
(27-06-2016 09:58 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ] (27-06-2016 08:17 )SecretAgent Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm listening to Radio 5 at the moment & the claim is that Labour voters who voted Leave did so as a vote against the Conservatives and austerity.
Its a nice story but I think they're miles away from the truth.
As I've said before and I'm willing to maintain, I believe the public majority voted leave because that's what their hearts told them, not because of political party shenanigans.
I'm sure the 'In' crowd would like to believe this because it contributes towards making a mockery of the outcome.
Yes Jeremy Corbyn is a total fucking wet-end, but that isn't the reason the Labour regions of the UK didn't listen to him.
They didn't listen to him because they wanted to vote leave (for themselves) it really is that simple.
What the media and Westminster can't fully accept on this one is that this was, if anything, a vote against the lot of them. It went beyond all party lines for a majority of the people that were voting out I think.
If there's one word that sums up the result on Thursday I believe it's dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the system, bureaucracy and the establishment. People voted for change. Unfortunately I don't believe they'll let those that voted for it get it. They will pander to the result, and in soundbites to the media, but will rebuild things much as it was before. They all have too much invested to do otherwise.
Personally, I find this result a refreshing kick in the pants for the politicians (even some on the Leave side it turns out!) - even though I was initially angry with it as I voted Remain.
But ultimately, any form of Brexit will be bad for this country IMO. Worse still, all this vote has succeded in doing is lurching this country a little more to the right in its Westminster power base.
(26-06-2016 22:46 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ] (26-06-2016 22:34 )straw man Wrote: [ -> ]Are the Liberal Democrats making a comeback? Since the referendum result, the Lib Dems have recorded thousands of new members. They have announced that they will fight the next general election on a pledge to cancel or reverse any Brexit and maintain UK membership of the EU.
So a pledge against democracey then.
So Wackawoo I'll say my final point on this and then we can agree to disagree.
The quote above is what you said. Quite clearly you say that what the Lib Dems have said is a pledge against democracy. Yet what they are saying is they will seek election in this wonderful democratic country with a pledge to cancel or reverse Brexit. They will abide by the lawful democratic decision of the electorate of this country at that point. You say this is a pledge against democracy. I disagree.
(27-06-2016 12:09 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry but the yanks are only concerned about the Yanks
Maybe for the fact im a barclays customer i might be worried they have had to suspend trading on Barclays stock twice and its down over 30% since friday
Yes, they are, but what happens here can have a knock on affect to them, so you tend to get a more balanced view, rather that the hysteria goign on here, which the remain camp are fueling and making the hysteria worse rather than think, well the decission is made now lets see whats the best way forward.
I know what we said, but can't we change our minds now, that would be horredous, the UK would be nothing. At least if it goes down having now voted out, it will go down as Britian should, not being coward by any one, rather than come creeping back humiliated like a kid who's had a strop and stormed off.
Markets and shares will recover, we all knew this was going to happen.
(27-06-2016 12:32 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]They still have to vote, that can block the UK leaving if the UK doesn't get the right terms, thats why it can take 2 years or many years.
Wrong.
The EU doesn't have to vote. After article 50 is triggered the EU treaties will eventually expire as far as the UK is concerned whether the EU have taken any vote on the matter or not.
Article 50
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) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, 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.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
From Reuters, attributed to European Council spokesman:
"The notification of Article 50 is a formal act and has to be done by the British government to the European Council," the spokesman said. "It has to be done in an unequivocal manner with the explicit intent to trigger Article 50.
"Negotiations of leaving and the future relationship can only begin after such a formal notification. If it is indeed the intention of the British government to leave the EU, it is therefore in its interest to notify as soon as possible."
Make of that what you will.
Referred to in Article 50:
Article 218
1. Without prejudice to the specific provisions laid down in Article 207, agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with the following procedure.
2. The Council shall authorise the opening of negotiations, adopt negotiating directives, authorise the signing of agreements and conclude them.
3. The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team.
4. The Council may address directives to the negotiator and designate a special committee in consultation with which the negotiations must be conducted.
5. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision authorising the signing of the agreement and, if necessary, its provisional application before entry into force.
6. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision concluding the agreement.
Except where agreements relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, the Council shall adopt the decision concluding the agreement:
(a) after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in the following cases:
(i) association agreements;
(ii) agreement on Union accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(iii) agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures;
(iv) agreements with important budgetary implications for the Union;
(v) agreements covering fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies, or the special legislative procedure where consent by the European Parliament is required.
The European Parliament and the Council may, in an urgent situation, agree upon a time-limit for consent.
(b) after consulting the European Parliament in other cases. The European Parliament shall deliver its opinion within a time-limit which the Council may set depending on the urgency of the matter. In the absence of an opinion within that time-limit, the Council may act.
7. When concluding an agreement, the Council may, by way of derogation from paragraphs 5, 6 and 9, authorise the negotiator to approve on the Union's behalf modifications to the agreement where it provides for them to be adopted by a simplified procedure or by a body set up by the agreement. The Council may attach specific conditions to such authorisation.
8. The Council shall act by a qualified majority throughout the procedure.
However, it shall act unanimously when the agreement covers a field for which unanimity is required for the adoption of a Union act as well as for association agreements and the agreements referred to in Article 212 with the States which are candidates for accession. The Council shall also act unanimously for the agreement on accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the decision concluding this agreement shall enter into force after it has been approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
9. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt a decision suspending application of an agreement and establishing the positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt acts having legal effects, with the exception of acts supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.
10. The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure.
11. A Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised.
(27-06-2016 13:22 )Censorship :-( Wrote: [ -> ]From Reuters, attributed to European Council spokesman:
"The notification of Article 50 is a formal act and has to be done by the British government to the European Council," the spokesman said. "It has to be done in an unequivocal manner with the explicit intent to trigger Article 50.
"Negotiations of leaving and the future relationship can only begin after such a formal notification. If it is indeed the intention of the British government to leave the EU, it is therefore in its interest to notify as soon as possible."
Make of that what you will.
Thanks for posting that. It's interesting but I'm not sure that it can be correct. It's certainly not what people such as Boris Johnson and Michael Heseltine think.
There does not appear to be anything in article 50 itself to justify the claim that negotiations on a future relationship can only begin after formal notification.
Was interesting peice on CNN before interview with john bruton form Irish PM who helped set up the Lisbon treaty said that possibley could have the norway model on going while we negoitate for the 2 years said would take 3 months to implement the norway model. said the swiss model would take nearly a decade to set up and the canada one about the same
Always said the trade deal would be done at the same time as the divorce deal the divorce deal will be a majority vote but the trade deal will be that 27 states will have to agree which might not be possible