Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Brexit actually going to happen?

Will we have a brexit?


  • Total voters
    362
If you're asking me to predict what will happen, though, I imagine the political class will find it hard to justify going against the result of the referendum. (Despite it being advisory when they could have made it legislative if they'd wanted).

But that's just a guess.

They will certainly find it hard, but they are having (and will continue to have) a jolly good go, and in doing so they reveal realities they would have preferred to keep hidden.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Leave, although I can't pretend I predicted it would work out quite like this
 
I have just heard Angela "Speaking as a mother" Leadsom on Women's Hour saying that she does not want freedom of movement nor the single market.

Of course she doesn't.
Her "family money" comes from market hedging. Anything that disturbs the status quo has potential for hedge funds and other speculative arms of capital.
 
If you're asking me to predict what will happen, though, I imagine the political class will find it hard to justify going against the result of the referendum. (Despite it being advisory when they could have made it legislative if they'd wanted).

But that's just a guess.

That's the prevailing wisdom at the moment, but only in public discourse, and it may well go off the boil, particularly as the economic consequences of the referendum start to bite and the reality sinks in that there is no deal with the EU on the table that isn't poisonous. What to do about A50 is not a decision that needs to be taken urgently, unless we enter a new financial crisis, in which case it may become easier to undo the referendum result. If that doesn't happen, Theresa May and/or her successors may find ways of delaying the decision until such time as no-one is quite so bothered any more. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see something similar to Gordon Brown's five tests for joining the Euro.
 
That's the prevailing wisdom at the moment, but only in public discourse, and it may well go off the boil, particularly as the economic consequences of the referendum start to bite and the reality sinks in that there is no deal with the EU on the table that isn't poisonous. What to do about A50 is not a decision that needs to be taken urgently, unless we enter a new financial crisis, in which case it may become easier to undo the referendum result. If that doesn't happen, Theresa May and/or her successors may find ways of delaying the decision until such time as no-one is quite so bothered any more. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see something similar to Gordon Brown's five tests for joining the Euro.
That's a possibility. And it's worth noting David Allen Green's understanding of the government stance: the European Communities Act 1972 is still in force and would need to be repealed by a parliamentary vote before Article 50 could be triggered.
 
That's a possibility. And it's worth noting David Allen Green's understanding of the government stance: the European Communities Act 1972 is still in force and would need to be repealed by a parliamentary vote before Article 50 could be triggered.
Nope That makes no sense at all. 72 Communities is way down the track after Article 50
 
Nope That makes no sense at all. 72 Communities is way down the track after Article 50

No, that's not right. The legal objection is that triggering A50 would impliedly go against ECA72, so you need to repeal or amend it first, which can only be done by parliament. Having a vote later on would not deal with the objection. Ignoring the objection also won't deal with it, because it will end up in court.

I don't think it really matters what you make of the objection. The government is not going to fight tooth and nail to avoid consulting parliament. It's going to feign annoyance and reluctantly accept the legal advice it makes sure it gets. Or, if it hasn't learned the lesson about not treating the country as a gambling chip in Casino Tory Party, it may go to court, confident of losing, purely for the theatrics and hubris.
 
Last edited:
I think that the delay/fudge will be couched largely in practical terms - the Civil Service doesn't have the spare capacity to quickly examine 40 years worth of legislation and treaties/we don't have enough skilled trade negotiators to reframe them anyway/best leave it until after the 2017 French and German elections are over etc
 
No, that's not right. The legal object
ion is that triggering A50 would impliedly go against ECA72, so you need to repeal or amend it first, which can only be done by parliament. Having a vote later on would not deal with the objection. Ignoring the objection also won't deal with it, because it will end up in court.

I don't think it really matters what you make of the objection. The government is not going to fight tooth and nail to avoid consulting parliament. It's going to feign annoyance and reluctantly accept the legal advice it makes sure it gets. Or, if it hasn't learned the lesson about not treating the country as a gambling chip in Casino Tory Party, it may go to court, confident of losing, purely for the theatrics and hubris.

Well good job you've been looking at this for a long time:rolleyes:
Eta Fuck knows what happened there
 
Last edited:

My biggest concern here, is people telling interested parties 'don't worry can't happen, rather than listening to their concerns and passing them on (in your case to Victoria Quay.)

As to whether we use the emergency exit as laid down or first, repeal the act that binds us to using the prescribed exit mechanism; I will concede there is not unanimity over this (oddly). The route as described by you ends up in a Vienna Convention mess and would most likely NOT be taken.
 
My biggest concern here, is people telling interested parties 'don't worry can't happen, rather than listening to their concerns and passing them on (in your case to Victoria Quay.)

As to whether we use the emergency exit as laid down or first, repeal the act that binds us to using the prescribed exit mechanism; I will concede there is not unanimity over this (oddly). The route as described by you ends up in a Vienna Convention mess and would most likely NOT be taken.
In "my case"? I have passed on a legal expert's reading of what government lawyers yesterday said. I made no case.
 
It must be me, but I seldom have any idea what you're on about.

However, I have a sister who lives in near Leith Links, and I can confirm that there's a nearby pub of that name. So I've come out of this exchange with one certainty.
 
It must be me, but I seldom have any idea what you're on about.

However, I have a sister who lives in near Leith Links, and I can confirm that there's a nearby pub of that name. So I've come out of this exchange with one certainty.

As is the nature of our modern world, no one person (or group) has the entire picture, and ahead of formal notifications there is a lot of colouring in required. Rather than critique Mrs Sturgeon, I would again highlight the importance of relevant and pertinent information from all over the UK heading back into the system so the outcome can be better tailored. There is a danger that SNP @ground level,rather than assisting where it could really help, goes "la-la-la-EU"-which helps noone.
 
So you're not actually talking to me or about anything I said?

OK.
As to whether we use the emergency exit as laid down or first, repeal the act that binds us to using the prescribed exit mechanism; I will concede there is not unanimity over this (oddly). The route as described by you ends up in a Vienna Convention mess and would most likely NOT be taken.

Article 50 is the exit route, 72 European Communities the act that binds us to the EU. The only reason you'd repeal the 72 firstis coz you weren't planning on using the perscribed exit. Bunature of the UN t that lands us in trouble at the UN due to our signature of the Vienna convention.


But now you'll say that you are just quoting experts. :facepalm:

Teutcher's gets the latest sun of all the pubs on the Shore
 
But now you'll say that you are just quoting experts. :facepalm:
I'll "say" that, will I?

Do you think I'm advancing a particular line or something? My interest in these events is to see what will happen. The links I'm providing are to illuminate the topic of the thread.

Out of interest, what axe did you think I was grinding?
 
Back
Top Bottom