Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Anyone with half a brain cell would realised Farage was lying when he said the NHS would get £350million, think the Guardian is really clutching at straws with the article.
    Firstly Farage had nothing to do with the £350 million claim.

    Secondly, "anyone with half a brain cell" would realise that not all of it would be handed to the NHS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I love that TSR awards your posts with a special*

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's called an asterix
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't be surprised if I logged on here tomorrow and was greeted by a post by @jneill saying that Brexit shouldn't happen because it should require 3 vowels to be valid.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Whether or not you agree with brexit or not, it is daft for a load of unqualified posters to bang on about "there would be riots" or indicate that it "must" happen because a politician is of the opinion - PM or not

    Legal opinions are like arse holes - everybody has one.

    But if a prof of law believes that article 50 does need parliamentary consent I would be tempted to believe him until a similarly qualified expert gives a contra opinion

    If it is the case that parliamentary consent is needed there is an argument that MPs might be foolish to vote against implementation but stranger things have happened.

    The referendum is not legally binding
    MPs are representatives not delegates so are trusted to make up their own minds.

    Would they be wise to ignore the result ?
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by The Roast)
    £350 million can be used in the NHS, doesn't mean we'll inject the whole amount into the NHS, it means a portion of it can be used for the NHS and the rest on other areas.My mum, an ex-director of psyciatry for the NHS who voted Leave, never expected £350 million to be used solely for the NHS.

    Get a grip of yourself.
    (Original post by The Roast)
    Secondly, "anyone with half a brain cell" would realise that not all of it would be handed to the NHS.
    Pooh.



    Edit to add: It doesn't say "can be used"... it even doesn't say "let's give our NHS SOME of the £350 million". Looks pretty clear.

    Although an ex-director of Psychiatry in the NHS would already be familiar with broken promises from government ministers so yeah she probably didn't believe it anyway.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6965151.html
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by The Roast)
    It's called an asterix
    He's a Gaul, you know. Lovely people.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I love that TSR awards your posts with a special*

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I get that on some of my posts. Why is that?
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I get that on some of my posts. Why is that?
    Dunno. It's started happening recently. Maybe it's MI5 flagging posts for future analysis...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    That's a jk btw.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Dunno. It's started happening recently. Maybe it's MI5 flagging posts for future analysis...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    That's a jk btw.
    A "joke." No smoke without fire.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimmy Seville)


    The salt is getting desperate now ffs
    More to add to the chips!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Interesting piece in The Guardian
    David Pannick seems to be of a similar view but I do not buy it myself.

    Section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972 says

    "All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; and the expression [F1 “enforceable EU right”] and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this subsection applies."

    Therefore the procedures under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty are part of UK law today.

    Article 50 says:

    "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

    So what are the UK constitutional requirements for the UK to withdraw from an international organisation?

    We withdrew from EFTA on 31st December 1972. We informed the EFTA Council during its meeting on 4/5th November 1972 that we would be giving the required year's notice on 31st December 1971. Parliament was informed of this on 11th November 1971. I assume notice was given on 31st December 1971.

    There is no sign that our Constitutional requirements require an Act of Parliament. Indeed it is necessary for the European Communities Act to remain in force for the two year departure period.

    I think the best way you could pitch the argument is that by Constitutional convention, major diplomatic decisions require approval by the Commons. Leaving EFTA was required by joining the EEC and there had been many Parliamentary votes to approve joining the EEC. If we look at the Entente Cordiale this was what was said http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...ench-agreement War with Germany in 1914 was approved on a vote of monies for the war. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...ted-by-germany. In 1939 Parliamentary control was through approval of a raft of emergency legislation. In 1940 the government fell because it did not receive sufficient support on a motion to adjourn.

    In other words Parliament must approve decisions of international importance but Parliament can give that approval in a variety of ways which show that the government commands the support of the Commons.
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    In other words Parliament must approve decisions of international importance but Parliament can give that approval in a variety of ways which show that the government commands the support of the Commons.
    So could the new PM look to initiate Article 50, but in a "pro-remain" parliament, face a vote of no confidence?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    OK, first it is important to our democracy to have the access to the courts to judicial review to ensure that government is exercising its powers appropriately.

    However if we have a popular mandate for Brexit, followed by a parliamentary mandate in favour of Brexit, it is going to happen, and it is not for the courts to rule it illegal, we just would need to be careful legally that it was done in the right way. At the end of the day government can change laws to enable it to have the powers to pass Brexit.

    If the courts block a democratic decision then they are a bigger problem to our sovereignty than the EU...

    So I expect the relevance of this is more one of the courts being a check on power so this decision isn't rushed through and is done through a proper process.

    Now this does open the question "might Brexit not happen". It won't be the legal issues that determine that, but the politics. Principally whether there is a lot of regret amongst leave voters. If we are in a position 12-18 months down the line, where Brexit hasn't happened, but the UK is in a recession and people are losing their jobs, there may be a considerable amount of public pressure being applied to the government and in that case not going ahead with Brexit will be sensible. It will enrage committed leavers who will call betrayal, but the politicians will determine that that's the sensible thing to do.

    If however, things stabilise, there is still a committed mood in the country for leave, then Brexit will happen, even if it ends up being beyond the next General Election, when a new set of MPs come in (with leavers sweeping up seats from remainers) and they would just vote it through Parliament.

    There was a good article in the FT the other day talking about this - it's not right to have a "rerun" of the referendum now, but it is worth taking a year or so to think things through and work out practicalities, and then see what happens and where the public mood is. That way we will see whether the public voted leave out of a fleeting protest that they later regretted, or whether the UK is a country committed to Brexit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Pooh.

    Only remain voters took those numbers literally. Most people who voted leave did so because of class division or immigration reasons. This is why nobody can take remain voters seriously. You cherry pick your own stuff and dismiss it yet you take the words of the opposition so literally. It's embarrassing.
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    OK, first it is important to our democracy to have the access to the courts to judicial review to ensure that government is exercising its powers appropriately.

    However if we have a popular mandate for Brexit, followed by a parliamentary mandate in favour of Brexit, it is going to happen, and it is not for the courts to rule it illegal, we just would need to be careful legally that it was done in the right way. At the end of the day government can change laws to enable it to have the powers to pass Brexit.

    If the courts block a democratic decision then they are a bigger problem to our sovereignty than the EU...

    So I expect the relevance of this is more one of the courts being a check on power so this decision isn't rushed through and is done through a proper process.

    Now this does open the question "might Brexit not happen". It won't be the legal issues that determine that, but the politics. Principally whether there is a lot of regret amongst leave voters. If we are in a position 12-18 months down the line, where Brexit hasn't happened, but the UK is in a recession and people are losing their jobs, there may be a considerable amount of public pressure being applied to the government and in that case not going ahead with Brexit will be sensible. It will enrage committed leavers who will call betrayal, but the politicians will determine that that's the sensible thing to do.

    If however, things stabilise, there is still a committed mood in the country for leave, then Brexit will happen, even if it ends up being beyond the next General Election, when a new set of MPs come in (with leavers sweeping up seats from remainers) and they would just vote it through Parliament.

    There was a good article in the FT the other day talking about this - it's not right to have a "rerun" of the referendum now, but it is worth taking a year or so to think things through and work out practicalities, and then see what happens and where the public mood is. That way we will see whether the public voted leave out of a fleeting protest that they later regretted, or whether the UK is a country committed to Brexit.
    One issue is whether or not the UK can back-out after initiating Article 50. This is important because it's only by pressing the button on Article 50 that meaningful negotiations between the UK and EU will occur. To me it would make sense to have those negotiations and then by way of a 2nd referendum, put them before the people to make a final yay or nay.

    But if we can't back out of Article 50 that would be too late. It would be a done deal.. and it also weakens our hand because it means that if the EU doesn't agree to our proposals we might have to walk away from the EU without a deal at all.
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Only remain voters took those numbers literally. Most people who voted leave did so because of class division or immigration reasons. This is why nobody can take remain voters seriously. You cherry pick your own stuff and dismiss it yet you take the words of the opposition so literally. It's embarrassing.
    That makes no sense. If remain voters took them literally surely they would have then been convinced to vote Leave, because they would be wanting the NHS to get the money.

    But ok so I could just as easily have put the map of Turkey/Iraq/Syria that Boris knew full well was never going to happen the way the Leave side presented it.

    It's not exactly cherry picking when one was on your ****ing battlebus, and the other was the centrepiece of millions of doordrop communications.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    So could the new PM look to initiate Article 50, but in a "pro-remain" parliament, face a vote of no confidence?
    Yes of course and that has always been the likeliest way of Brexit going wrong.

    The key question is:

    Will Leave split over departure terms?
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Yes of course and that has always been the likeliest way of Brexit going wrong.

    The key question is:

    Will Leave split over departure terms?
    Indeed. And my question (above) about backing out after initiating A50?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    One issue is whether or not the UK can back-out after initiating Article 50. This is important because it's only by pressing the button on Article 50 that meaningful negotiations between the UK and EU will occur. To me it would make sense to have those negotiations and then by way of a 2nd referendum, put them before the people to make a final yay or nay.

    But if we can't back out of Article 50 that would be too late. It would be a done deal.. and it also weakens our hand because it means that if the EU doesn't agree to our proposals we might have to walk away without a deal at all.
    Exactly, thats why the Article 50 process was created, to stack the cards in favourof the EU in any negotiation.

    I think we can change our minds during the process but we need agreement from all 27 other member states. So if we really get cold feet, some of those might get some big concessions out of us in exchange for letting us back.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    One issue is whether or not the UK can back-out after initiating Article 50. This is important because it's only by pressing the button on Article 50 that meaningful negotiations between the UK and EU will occur. To me it would make sense to have those negotiations and then by way of a 2nd referendum, put them before the people to make a final yay or nay.

    But if we can't back out of Article 50 that would be too late. It would be a done deal.. and it also weakens our hand because it means that if the EU doesn't agree to our proposals we might have to walk away without a deal at all.
    The EU assumes we can back out. If this was an English legal document, we couldn't. I think we probably can back out,

    There is a view that Article 50 has already been triggered. Article 50 says:

    "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention."

    The communique from Tuesday's Council says:

    "The UK Prime Minister informed the European Council about the outcome of the referendum in the UK"
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.