Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[mongrel]

Macron wanted to punish Britain, but Tusk isn't having it. Tusk just could have told May to eff off, but I think he's hoping that the UK government will come to its senses and remember it is supposed to be in charge, and not the Murdoch papers, the Mail and others who have banged on about Brexit for the last 40 years.

It's interesting that May's fate was already sealed at the Battle of the Boyne.

[Muizer]

Britain must be punished for defying the EU, an example must be set

As if an organisation like the EU would be lead by the kind of petty vindictiveness that apparently guides your interpretations. And you are telling people to grow up?

[mongrel]

There are those who would also argue that May has never defied the EU, she has surrendered to it.

TMoved from $Euro election sub-thread. Taxes may not be enough, but if you can prove you've settled somewhere then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to vote there. Conversely, of course, if you move out of the country where you were born and settle somewhere else I don't see why you should be able to still vote in your country of origin. Other than being settled, what is there to your 'belonging' except sentimentality? A piece of paper with a stamp on it? And if that's all there is, what makes you think that's a solid foundation for making the best choices going forward?

Regarding the bit in bold. Talking about paper. The Treasury will probably have wasted a shedload of money on production of the Brexit British Passport (from October 2019) when it is possible that Brexit is unlikely to occur. I wonder what happened to the Brexit 50 pences that were supposed to be out in March?

[Exarch]

As if an organisation like the EU would be lead by the kind of petty vindictiveness that apparently guides your interpretations. And you are telling people to grow up?

All politics is personal, ever heard of that?

What incentive is there for the Eurocrats to display any sort of generosity towards ungrateful mealy mouthed perfidious albion? Granted the Uk's role in the EU was to act as a spoiler for the Anglo Hegemon in the US but still, this is a prime opportunity for the continentals to stick it to the britons.

Also, this just in:


Quite frankly, i regard the Bremainers as weak effete cowardly ....people. Their ancestors were raping and killing the world not 2 centuries ago, and yet their descendants lack the courage to stand on their own two feet. Are they men or are they mice?!

[mongrel]

All politics is personal, ever heard of that?

What incentive is there for the Eurocrats to display any sort of generosity towards ungrateful mealy mouthed perfidious albion? Granted the Uk's role in the EU was to act as a spoiler for the Anglo Hegemon in the US but still, this is a prime opportunity for the continentals to stick it to the britons.

Also, this just in:


Quite frankly, i regard the Bremainers as weak effete cowardly ....people. Their ancestors were raping and killing the world not 2 centuries ago, and yet their descendants lack the courage to stand on their own two feet. Are they men or are they mice?!

I don't think you, nor that office worker, have followed events that closely. Brexit is undeliverable as long as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The only way it can work if if the UK breaks up, something that a Conservative Party cannot do. What would take balls would be for someone to tell the British people the truth and call for the Government to revoke Article 50, thus ending the charade.

As for the EU's generosity, the only reason May is still in a job is because the EU continues to indulge her incessant demands for extensions.

[Muizer]

Quite frankly, i regard the Bremainers as weak effete cowardly ....people. Their ancestors were raping and killing the world not 2 centuries ago, and yet their descendants lack the courage to stand on their own two feet. Are they men or are they mice?!

They are doing the same thing as their ancestors: making a calculated decision as to what strategy is best for Britain in the present, not in the past.

[caratacus]

Following the Tilbrook legal challenge in the High Court concerning the illegality of the UK Government not leaving on 29th March, Bill Cash has raised the equally legitimate claim that the extension after the 12th April is of the same order. It is abysmal that we have a parliament that is not only ignoring the referendum result, but is also ignoring constitutional law.

Theresa May's Article 50 extension is illegal, and will be challenged in the courts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...lenged-courts/
After hours of discussions with QCs and former judges, I believe the British Government’s extension of Article 50 is unlawful.

It is a fundamental principle of UK constitutional law that the Government may not use its powers, including its powers to make international agreements, to frustrate the intention of Parliament. Parliament’s intention is to be found, and is only to be found, in the laws it makes. Resolutions of the House of Commons may sometimes be politically important, but they are of no legal effect unless an Act of Parliament expressly gives them legal effect.

[mongrel]

Following the Tilbrook legal challenge in the High Court concerning the illegality of the UK Government not leaving on 29th March, Bill Cash has raised the equally legitimate claim that the extension after the 12th April is of the same order. It is abysmal that we have a parliament that is not only ignoring the referendum result, but is also ignoring constitutional law.

It's a red herring .The UK's treaty obligations with the EU remain until we leave, so it's the EU who decides whether an extension applies and for how long.If May thought she was painted in a no deal corner, she would have revoked Article 50.

[caratacus]

It's a red herring .The UK's treaty obligations with the EU remain until we leave, so it's the EU who decides whether an extension applies and for how long.If May thought she was painted in a no deal corner, she would have revoked Article 50.

EU law des not yet overide UK law on such parliamentary matters, althugh it sees that MPs wish it did. Whatever the Article 50 does or does not allow, it doesnt escape the fact that any changes require full legal ratification by the UK parliament. Treaty obligations are not binding on a state that has left, which we did on 29th March. Theresa May isn't a president, she cannot go to Brussels and vary the dates without parliamentary authorisation using the prerogative powers afforded to her, which I'm pretty sure isn't binding as far as any treaty is concerned anyway.

And where was this parliament on the last momentus day when we were supposed to be leaving on 12th April, on holiday! One that had already been arranged even before she asked for an extension.

[mongrel]

Article 50 is not UK law. We don't leave until either we have an agreement with the EU or the UK and EU agree that isn't happening, or no agreement arises at the agreed time and the EU decide that there is no prospect of negotiation. We've had this conversation before.The wording of the relevant clause is very elementary.

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.

It is clear to everyone that Mrs May did agree an extension with the European Council, so Cash's argument is not compelling in the slightest.

[caratacus]

Article 50 is not UK law. We don't leave until either we have an agreement with the EU or the UK and EU agree that isn't happening, or no agreement arises at the agreed time and the EU decide that there is no prospect of negotiation. We've had this conversation before.The wording of the relevant clause is very elementary.

It is clear to everyone that Mrs May did agree an extension with the European Council, so Cash's argument is not compelling in the slightest.

"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned"
Lets see what the High Court decides, but I suspect the case will be deliberately extended for a longer period than Brexit. But May coud not agree this extension without getting it ratified by Parliamentary bill. They didn't even allow for this because there was no space alocated in the week of her visit for debate and on the very day of leaving on 12th Arpril the Commons all went on holiday!. To ratify the revised date, Article 50 makes reference that the procedures must be in accordance wih a country's own constitutional procedures, which this evidenty does not.

[QuintusSertorius]

I don't think you, nor that office worker, have followed events that closely. Brexit is undeliverable as long as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The only way it can work if if the UK breaks up, something that a Conservative Party cannot do. What would take balls would be for someone to tell the British people the truth and call for the Government to revoke Article 50, thus ending the charade.

The EU's own stated position in the event of no deal exposes the "Irish border question" for the fiction that it is.

[Exarch]

I don't think you, nor that office worker, have followed events that closely. Brexit is undeliverable as long as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The only way it can work if if the UK breaks up, something that a Conservative Party cannot do. What would take balls would be for someone to tell the British people the truth and call for the Government to revoke Article 50, thus ending the charade.

As for the EU's generosity, the only reason May is still in a job is because the EU continues to indulge her incessant demands for extensions.

Why shouldn't the UK 'break up' if the people vote for it? Is it not the right of the people for self determination?
The British had their vote on Brexit, now let the Irish have their vote on the outcome of Brexit.

They are doing the same thing as their ancestors: making a calculated decision as to what strategy is best for Britain in the present, not in the past.

Negative, Brexit happened because some stupid rich privileged dick decided to go Bullingdon club on the entire country.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinio...llan-1-4830637

[mongrel]

"unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned"
Lets see what the High Court decides, but I suspect the case will be deliberately extended for a longer period than Brexit. But May coud not agree this extension without getting it ratified by Parliamentary bill. They didn't even allow for this because there was no space alocated in the week of her visit for debate and on the very day of leaving on 12th Arpril the Commons all went on holiday!. To ratify the revised date, Article 50 makes reference that the procedures must be in accordance wih a country's own constitutional procedures, which this evidenty does not.

I think we all know that the will of Parliament is quite clear, no deal exit is not an option as long as the Government is commited to an agreement with the EU. There is no hidden agenda or conspiracy to expose.

Why shouldn't the UK 'break up' if the people vote for it? Is it not the right of the people for self determination?
The British had their vote on Brexit, now let the Irish have their vote on the outcome of Brexit.

Reasonable question. The answer is because the Conservative Party is supposed to be Unionist. The Goverment is also being propped up by the Democratic Unionist Party and would collapse without them.

Negative, Brexit happened because some stupid rich privileged dick decided to go Bullingdon club on the entire country.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinio...llan-1-4830637

True.

[QuintusSertorius]

Negative, Brexit happened because some stupid rich privileged dick decided to go Bullingdon club on the entire country.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinio...llan-1-4830637

Only in the immediate term, so far as getting a vote on it. Cameron didn't create the desire to leave the EU, nor for that matter did the "eurosceptic press" that Remainers like to bang on about, as though newspapers could make people believe something in a vaccuum.

Lots of people never wanted to join the EEC in the first place (and it's a matter of public record that Ted Heath, the PM of the time lied to the people - see FCO 30/1048), and have wanted out ever since. There's been a fairly stable 25-30% for leaving the EEC/EU for a very long time, they just never thought they'd get the chance to vote on it.

UKIP didn't manage almost 4 million votes in the 2015 general election (more than the Lib Dems and SNP combined) because of anything Cameron did.

[caratacus]

I think we all know that the will of Parliament is quite clear, no deal exit is not an option as long as the Government is commited to an agreement with the EU. There is no hidden agenda or conspiracy to expose.

To right it isn't hidden, how coud it be. A Withdrawl agreeent document prepared behind closed doors with help from the EU, which isn't really leaving at all, suddenly brought out of the closet and the British people told, either except it or we don't leave the EU.

UKIP didn't manage almost 4 million votes in the 2015 general election (more than the Lib Dems and SNP combined) because of anything Cameron did.

No, no you were quite wrong, "these people knew what they did" they are ignorant, racist, naive dreamers, little Englanders, thick Northerners, all the things Remainers and people interviewed on the media say they were. Lord forbid that they are people who wanted greater democracy, we have a parliament of MPs that takes care of that sort of thing.

On a side note. Does anyone think Donald Tusk sounds like the Huns in the diplomacy of Attila TW? Could it be him that narrated?
Even if you don't, the diplomatic stance appears to be the same.

[QuintusSertorius]

To right it isn't hidden, how coud it be. A Withdrawl agreeent document prepared behind closed doors with help from the EU, which isn't really leaving at all, suddenly brought out of the closet and the British people told, either except it or we don't leave the EU.

Let's not forget, this is a "Withdrawal Agreement" which doesn't actually allow the UK to leave the EU. It shunts us into an associate form of membership with all the obligations, but no voting rights, for 21-45 months, after which we will inevitably be knocked into the backstop. Which is forever.

It is also an international treaty, and lest anyone forget their power, the reason the UK holds Gibraltar is because of the Treaty of Utrecht, which is still in force even though Spain would like to tear it up. The double-speak from all the liars who clearly haven't read it, but claim it's 1) actually Brexit and 2) is a good deal is astonishing.

All according to the plan, of course. As Barnier told le Pointe magazine in an interview, it was always his intention to offer so bad a deal that we'd prefer to Remain rather than accept it. All the talking heads from the People's Vote have been saying since last November they want the options to be May's terrible "deal" or Remain. In other words Remain-minus or Remain, so they win either way. Knowing full well how hated May's deal is, that even committed Leavers would choose Remain over it. So obvious.

No, no you were quite wrong, "these people knew what they did" they are ignorant, racist, naive dreamers, little Englanders, thick Northerners, all the things Remainers and people interviewed on the media say they were. Lord forbid that they are people who wanted greater democracy, we have a parliament of MPs that takes care of that sort of thing.

I know, I keep finding myself being othered as the strange Leaver who is young, degree-educated, non-white and relatively affluent. Though I was born in the north, so perhaps that's the tipping point?

[Aexodus]

Only in the immediate term, so far as getting a vote on it. Cameron didn't create the desire to leave the EU, nor for that matter did the "eurosceptic press" that Remainers like to bang on about, as though newspapers could make people believe something in a vaccuum.

Lots of people never wanted to join the EEC in the first place (and it's a matter of public record that Ted Heath, the PM of the time lied to the people - see FCO 30/1048), and have wanted out ever since. There's been a fairly stable 25-30% for leaving the EEC/EU for a very long time, they just never thought they'd get the chance to vote on it.

UKIP didn't manage almost 4 million votes in the 2015 general election (more than the Lib Dems and SNP combined) because of anything Cameron did.

Wait, you’re telling me Ted Heath knew about the monetary union, loss of sovereignty etc? And yet he said this?

I’ve never heard of this ‘FCO 30/1048’, I’m wondering now why I hadn’t.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opi...-36219265.html

Edward Heath, the Conservative prime minister, had signed the Treaty of Rome in January 1973 and, at that point, the UK joined what was then usually called the Common Market. That was done on the basis of a commitment that we would retain our national sovereignty.

Indeed, in June 1971, a White Paper had been sent to every home in the UK, promising that, “there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty”.Then, in a television broadcast in January 1973 to mark the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Edward Heath went even further.

He said: “There are some in this country who fear that, in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Two years later, there was a referendum, on June 5, 1975, and the majority of voters supported the UK’s continued membership of the Common Market, now the European Union.

Moreover, with the passage of time and the release of Government papers under the 30-year rule, we now know that both Labour and Conservative governments had been briefed, time and time again, about the loss of national sovereignty. They were also warned that the ultimate aim was political union across Europe.

The loss of national sovereignty was confirmed by Judge Bruce Morgan on April 9, 2001. He said that, when the UK joined the Common Market in the 1970s, parliament and the British people “quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom”.

[caratacus]

Wait, you’re telling me Ted Heath knew about the monetary union, loss of sovereignty etc? And yet he said this?

Back then, most considered a European Common Market to be a great idea, so it was easy to sell to the public. All the stuff about European intergration was simply an aspiration. Since then of course that intergration has been considerably advanced without public consultation. The last big step, was of course the Lisbon treay which was approved under Gordon Brown's government without seeking a public endorsement. It was a complete reversal of the government's 2005 manifesto pledge to hold a plebiscite on the European Constitution..

EU BETRAYAL? How Tories claimed Gordon Brown 'was ASHAMED' as EU treaty was signed
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...liam-hague-spt
GORDON BROWN was accused of being “ashamed” by Conservative MPs when he signed the Lisbon Treaty without holding a referendum, as they suggested his refusal to let the British people have their say represented a stunning reversal of his government’s 2005 manifesto pledge. In particular, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was accused of having a "lack of courage" by former Foreign Secretary William Hague.

In 2005, the European Commission and the European Council were pushing for a European Constitution. However, voters in France and the Netherlands strongly rejected the proposed Constitution in two respective referendums. Despite the strong opposition in member states, eurocrats ignored the results and the European Constitution was subsequently rebranded as the Lisbon Treaty.

The new treaty dropped elements of the constitution such as an EU flag and anthem, but it was regarded as a repackaged constitution and the Conservative Party and a group of Labour MPs pushed for the referendum promised by Labour before its general election victory in 2005.
Nevertheless, the treaty passed in the UK without a plebiscite on December 13, 2007.

[mongrel]

Back then, most considered a European Common Market to be a great idea, so it was easy to sell to the public. All the stuff about European intergration was simply an aspiration. Since then of course that intergration has been considerably advanced without public consultation. The last big step, was of course the Lisbon treay which was approved under Gordon Brown's government without seeking a public endorsement. It was a complete reversal of the government's 2005 manifesto pledge to hold a plebiscite on the European Constitution..

Gordon is a moron, I think we can all agree on that.





But in those days Europe was a non-issue outside the pages of the Express and Mail. I beleive austerity led to Brexit, for multiple reasons.