brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

I presume you to be well aware that these past colonial histories have had a substantial impact upon the countries so colonised and that one more recent outcome of them has been that people from those nations have emigrated to the colonising nations in considerable numbers over the years.

How many more years must pass before the modern generation can stop paying the price for the actions of their grandfathers?. Should Italy be allowing thousands of Celts in because of the Roman occupation or the French taking hundreds of thousands of Saxons because of 1066?

Besides, it would be imbecillic to suggest that all colonisation was bad and it is still no excuse for mass migration.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Tell that to all those terrorists and other irresponsible warmongers who create the kinds of disastrous situations in which people are disadvantaged, dispossessed and the rest!

If only all migrants were disadvantaged and dispossessed, but they are not. I have lost count of the times it has been reported where illegals crawling out of a truck first hand round the cigarettes then get straight on their £600 I Phones to tell there mates how to smuggle themselves in. In addition, they can afford to pay thousands to people smugglers.

The truth is that an alarming percentage of immigrants are not refugees, but economic migrants, chancers, terrorists, criminals and other undesirables and if a few boats get sunk as they try to get to Europe, then so be it and hopefully it will deter others from trying.

Now you can post some more bollocks from the Guardian about the poor darlings.

Thal

[ahinton]

When you have a common cause, it is so much easier to get along. Anway, they fought together, not lived together.

That's very true, of course, but they still did it together, in the hoped-for interests of their various countries.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If only all migrants were disadvantaged and dispossessed, but they are not. I have lost count of the times it has been reported where illegals crawling out of a truck first hand round the cigarettes then get straight on their £600 I Phones to tell there mates how to smuggle themselves in. In addition, they can afford to pay thousands to people smugglers.

The truth is that an alarming percentage of immigrants are not refugees, but economic migrants, chancers, terrorists, criminals and other undesirables and if a few boats get sunk as they try to get to Europe, then so be it and hopefully it will deter others from trying.

Now you can post some more bollocks from the Guardian about the poor darlings.

I have no intention of doing any such thing - nor did I before reading your post.

Of couse not all immigrants are disadvantaged or disposessed and I did not suggest anywhere that they are; indeed, I sought to go to the trouble of identifying that there immigrants who are genuine refugees alongside other economic migrants (of whom some, though not necessarily all, could similarly be in pretty parlous circumstances), and citizens of other EU member states - and then there are also the illegals who are undesirable under almost all circumstances and usually deserve to be deported once found but who are in many cases hard to detect.

I am therefore about to post nothing from any newspaper or other source since I'm far more interested to address the specific issues to which you draw attention.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Well, thank Gawd for that. A linkless post.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, thank Gawd for that. A linkless post.

I provide links only when they are for further reading and/or to provide additional corroborative evidence and/or to demonstrate that statements that I make and ideas that I put forward are not mere personal opinions on occasions when they're far more than that.

I didn't think that you believed in Gawd; have you undergone some kind of Damascene conversion? (and you presumably know where Damascus is, even if you might be unale to count the numbers of refugees trying to coming therefrom).

By the way, there'd be a good many more refugees on the move if so large a number of them had not already been killed.

But...

BREXIT!!!

S'il vous plaît...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Still waiting for the recession predicted by the remoaners.

Thal

[ahinton]

Lets have some more silly court cases that you seem to love so much.

They will not be "silly", as I have already stated and it's not for me to "love" them or othewise, especially as I will not be personally involved in any of them. NOne has been heard yet so, as with so much else here, let's wait and see.

Health tourism is estimated to cost anything between 180 to 250 MILLION POUNDS each year. If you accept this is just, please write to the Inland Revenue to change your tax code so you can help pay for it.

But how much of what's provided by NHS could be so without immigrant workers at all levels?

Anyway, apart from the Leave lie about £350m, NHS is hardly any more germane to the Brexit topic than is immigration.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

How many more years must pass before the modern generation can stop paying the price for the actions of their grandfathers?

I've no idea, but I did not mention "paying the price".

Besides, it would be imbecillic to suggest that all colonisation was bad and it is still no excuse for mass migration.

A lot of it was bad, though (and of course it's mostly stopped and become parts of the colonisers' and colonised's history) and, whilst it cannot be regarded as an "excuse" for mass migration, the movement of population has inevitably been one of its outcomes; "we" went into their countries and yet some of "us" try to blame their populaces when they come to ours. Trying to have it both ways, perchance?!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If only all migrants were disadvantaged and dispossessed, but they are not.

Far from suggesting that they are, I made a point of describing the various different kinds including the disadvantaged and dispossessed.

I have lost count of the times it has been reported where illegals crawling out of a truck first hand round the cigarettes then get straight on their £600 I Phones to tell there mates how to smuggle themselves in. In addition, they can afford to pay thousands to people smugglers.

We agree entirely about illegals, but they're not the majority and they're often the hardest to find.

The truth is that an alarming percentage of immigrants are not refugees, but economic migrants, chancers, terrorists, criminals and other undesirables and if a few boats get sunk as they try to get to Europe, then so be it and hopefully it will deter others from trying.

It's deterring no one. As I pointed out previously, immigrants to UK include refugees, economic migrants (of whom some are also refugees), those who come from other EU member states as they are entitled to do, those who live outside UK but have UK passports and, of course, illegals. The majority of those who go down in boats are usually refugees.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Still waiting for the recession predicted by the remoaners.

I don't think that anyone predicted that it would occur overnight and, in any case, no one knows what's going to happen or when and so even the recession will probably be delayed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But how much of what's provided by NHS could be so without immigrant workers at all levels?

They would have a lot easier job if they only had to deal with those that had a right to use the service in the first place.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The majority of those who go down in boats are usually refugees.

And hopefully the odd terrorist, criminal and chancer.

You don't know exactly who are in those boats, and neither despite claims to the contrary does anyone else, as very few seem to carry papers. No doubt amongst their number are ISIS members who would do us harm if they could, so I shed no tears when a few boats sink or don't make it across.

Is it a deterrent?, I hope so as perhaps a few failures might use their i phones to let there mates know just how bad the conditions are.

The sooner the EU nations use there Navys to stop these death traps instead of offering a ferry service, the better.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

A lot of it was bad

Yeh, I see what you mean. Look at Zimbabwe for instance. They have done so well now they are self governing.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yeh, I see what you mean. Look at Zimbabwe for instance. They have done so well now they are self governing.

A lot of it, I said; not all of it! In any case, what's happened there should be properly compared to what happened beforehand in what was once "Rhodesia" before being smug about the present...

That said, I don't think that it has much to do with BREXIT.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Looking good for January 2017 for Article 50 to be triggered.

What a nice New Years gift that will be.

Thal

[ahinton]

Looking good for January 2017 for Article 50 to be triggered.

What a nice New Years gift that will be.

To whom? Not for the government or the negotiators it won't! But let's wait and see if and when it will be triggered, what might happen to throw a spanner in the works thereafter if it is so and, ultimately, whether the outcome of all the negotiations (should they have proceeded) in 2020 or thereafter will serve - and be seen to serve - UK's interests and, if not, Brexit be abandoned forthwith, albeit at immense expense to a UK who will have only itself to blame for letting it all get this far.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

To whom?

For me and the majority who voted to leave. Now the politicians must get the best deal possible and not screw it up.

Hopefully next year there will be a few more Countries leaving this rotten organisation.

Thal

[ahinton]

For me and the majority who voted to leave.

So not for anyone else, then? That's interesting. Let's assess your "majority" as a total of, say 15m out of the 17+m who voted for leave; that's well under 25% of the entire UK population.

Now the politicians must get the best deal possible and not screw it up.

Whilst I have no obvious reason to doubt that those UK politicians to be charged with conducting UK's side of all the negotiations will try to do their best, they will, as I've mentioned previously, be on their own up against those from a group of 27 nations, so they could hardly be reasonably blamed if their most persuasive endeavours ultimately fall well short of the desired outcomes and the whole thing has to be thrown away.

Hopefully next year there will be a few more Countries leaving this rotten organisation.

If any of them do, how would you envisage that impacting upon the negotiations other than by causing confusion in terms of how they could subsequently be conducted? (although, of course, any other EU member state that chooses to try to leave EU from next year will, like UK, find themselves unable to do so for years and will therefore continue to be an EU member state even after UK has left (if ever it does).

Anyway, if EU does eventually collapse altogether, encouraged at least in part by the rise of populism and nationalism in various European countries, could you not imagine that at least some of those countries might themselves start to split into smaller entities? - whilst I'm thinking first and foremost of Scotland and NI, possibly followed by Wales and then maybe Yorkshire, Cornwall, Monmouthshire and Herefordshire, the Scottish islands, IOM, IOW, Anglesey, &c., what about France, Germany and Italy breaking up, or Catalunya and the Basque country splitting away from Spain and so on? We would end up with 100 European nations all at one another's throats. Then there's the Independent People's Democratic Republic of Gravesend...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You really must stop drinking at this time of day if your mind is capable of such fantasies.

Thal

[ahinton]

You really must stop drinking at this time of day if your mind is capable of such fantasies.

Coming from you, the hiccupmeister of this forum, that's rich indeed!

That said, I have no idea - and you make no effort to try to specify - to which alleged "fantasies" you seek to refer here (although I assume none of them to be Schumann's Op. 17).

15m IS less than one quarter of UK's popultion

There's no guarantee that UK's negotiating politicians will get what they want for UK and, if it all ends up with bad deals, even you would, as indeed you have already done, admit defeat and blow Brexit out of the water in which it has no business to belong.

If next year's French, German and Dutch election results do eventually lead to the total disintegration of EU, where will that leave the rest of Europe, especially UK which might be in the midst of negotiations to leave an organisation that might not be around any longer anyway? Thereafter, should this happen, it will be a free-for-all; breaking Europe up into 60-70 entities as a direct consequence of EU's break-up ould have all manner of ongoing side-effeects, as no country will any longer feel safe in its own skin; some of the ultra-nationalists don't only want to see the end of EU (as I believe you do) but the break-up of some of its states and other European states as well. For precedents, look at how Czechoslovakia's split into two, Ukraine's lost Crimea and Yugoslavia's split into several states. The possibility that UK might split into four cannot be dismissed in such a scenario and possibly into more than that given the divisions and resentments that have been revealed by the referendum campaign.

I'm not suggesting that anything in the immediately previoous paragraph will occur - only that some of just might do so should EU fall apart completely (which again it most likely will not).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Oh dear, Merkel is not doing very well. Her stupid decision to let in a million migrants has understandably knocked her popularity.

And so it should do.

Thal

[ahinton]

Oh dear, Merkel is not doing very well. Her stupid decision to let in a million migrants has understandably knocked her popularity.

And so it should do.

I too believe that she has indeed let in too many for Germany (there being such a thing as over-generosity of spirit in some issues), even though the population of her country is considerably greater than that of UK and allowing for the fact that Germany has an infrastructure better able to cope with an influx of additional migrants than has any other EU nation.

My view on this, however, is based securely on the opinion that some of them ought to have been accepted instead by other EU nations, not least France and UK; now had this been the case, I rather suspect that, instead of gloating about Merkel's plight, you'd have been complaining that even more immigrants were coming to UK!

Each country has to make an intelligent, practical and workable decision as to how many migrants it can take in at any given time; given that the German population is around 80.7m (as distinct from UK's 67.2m) and its area 357,168km² (as distinct from UK's 243,610km²), how many additional migrants do you think Germany would have been wiser to take in?

The problem will be that, should her decrease in popularity (which you correctly note) result in an extreme right-wing administration taking over in Germany folowing next year's elections, the stability and even the very future of might come to reduce in proportion to that popularity; should the same happen in France and Netherlands, such outcomes will likely be more parlous still for EU.

Has it not occurred to you (especially as someone who I believe would like to see the ende of EU, not just to have UK's membership of it terminated) that, should EU have collapsed by the time all the UK/EU negotiations have been completed and all the adminstrative and legal changes been made in UK, UK will look utterly stupid beause, having gone to all that trouble and expense, Brexit will not occur simply because there will no longer be an EU for it to leave?


Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Has it not occurred to you (especially as someone who I believe would like to see the ende of EU, not just to have UK's membership of it terminated) that, should EU have collapsed by the time all the UK/EU negotiations have been completed and all the adminstrative and legal changes been made in UK, UK will look utterly stupid beause, having gone to all that trouble and expense, Brexit will not occur simply because there will no longer be an EU for it to leave?

Has it not occurred to you that it actually shows considerable foresight, not stupidity, as some of us could see the end of this failing institution. Not the bitter and deluded Remoaners.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

My view on this, however, is based securely on the opinion that some of them ought to have been accepted instead by other EU nations, not least France and UK;

You can have some down your neck of the woods if you want them. My part of the Country has taken more then enough.

Hungary and Poland seem to have the right idea.

Thal   

[ahinton]

Has it not occurred to you that it actually shows considerable foresight, not stupidity, as some of us could see the end of this failing institution.

That doesn't answer the question that I put to you, which I will therefore repeat; what would your view be if, by the end of years of expensive and time consuming negotiations, reworking of 40+ years of UK laws and heaps of administrative work, Brexit could not proceed because there'd no longer be an EU from which UK could exit?

OK, there would be far graver conseqeuences of an EU break-up than just those problems in which UK would find itself, but it's stll a valid point.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I remain convinced that the concept of the EU is fundamentally sound: however I also think it is unwise for it to have moved past a loose federation of separate entities forming a trading bloc for mutual convenience. The idea of a "United States of Europe" is predestined to failure; using the US as a model is flawed when the US, for all its internal problems, is largely united by common language and culture. That simply doesn't apply in Europe.

A lot of EU philosophy is currently looking dangerously utopian. I'm unconvinced about free borders, for example. The attempts to homogenise everything from financial systems to legal systems is either naive or intensely cynical and I don't know which! It would be more sustainable to homogenise financial systems if (big if) nations were starting from approximate economic parity, but this simply isn't true.

The migrant/refugee problem is a direct consequence of irresponsible (mainly) US+UK foreign policy. We stubbornly refuse to learn a very obvious historical lesson, namely that it is more expedient and safer to have a Middle East country exist in an organised fashion run by a tin-pot dictator, despite it being brutally unpleasant for a certain percentage of the populace, than to start a war there, or fund a proxy war there, and have the area descend into anarchy - and have the area brutally unpleasant for virtually the entire population, to say nothing of the consequences for the surrounding regions. If we were to dampen down the flames in Syria and Libya, the refugee problem would reduce to a more manageable scale. Not likely in Syria, as Putin sees refugees as a mechanism to disrupt and weaken the EU - he is right - and thus will periodically fan the flames. Turkey also sees mileage in refugees as a bargaining chip in terms of accession to the EU (in its current political state, Turkey's entry is unacceptable).

I can't blame people for wanting out - I may disagree with them - but the fact is that the EU has gone well beyond its initial remit, is now unsustainable, and things need to change.

[ahinton]

You can have some down your neck of the woods if you want them.

It's no more for me to determine where how many immigrants go than it is for you, so what either of us might "want" is hardly of practical relevance.

My part of the Country has taken more then enough.

It is obvious that, the more crowded an area is, the less space there will be for more people, be they immigtrants or people from elsewhere in UK; however, it is also the case that, the more crowded an area is, the greater is the infrastructure to support  the populace, so it rather works both ways. There would be little point in sending immigrants to places in which there's no enough work for those who already live there.

I see that Ms May's adding to her wisdom count by insisting that appropriate distinctions be drawn between refugees and economic migrants; OK, some immigrants arguably fall into both categories, but the majority of the ones in each are in either the one or the other.

I hope that she also expresses due recognition of all of the categories of immigrant and commends people to do the same, for ease of understanding of the situation. Immigrants fall into the following groups:
1. Refugees, many of whom are dispossessed, from war-torn and/or terrorism beseiged countries
2. Economic migrants
3. Migrants from other EU member states
4. Migrants from non-EU countries who come to UK to take up work that they've already secured
5. Migrants from non-EU countries who already have right of abode in UK
6. Illegals.
To these will be added immigrants into England and Wales from post-independence Scotland and NI should such independences come to pass.

It is a sad fact of life that all too many people who speak negatively - and usually abrasively and xenophobically - about "immigration" take little or no account of these differences.

Hungary and Poland seem to have the right idea.

I'm not so sure that they have quite the same idea; whilst Hungary's population is around 9.9m and Poland's some 38.6m (i.e. almost 4 times as many people), there are some 80,000 Hungarians living in UK whereas there are more than 10 times as many Poles doing so; given also that there are more Polish immigrants in UK than there are immigrants from any other nation in the world, the perspectgive of those two countries seems to be substantially different.

If you're referring to extreme right-wing racism in both countries, the hoped-for outcome is to get rid of some immigrants from each, which would mean more people moving from them to other countries including UK, which is not something that I would assume you to advocate.

Anyway, I must ask you if you really have some kind of rooted objection to initiating a new thread about immigration in general with particular reference to UK that propmpts you instead to litter the one about Brexit with post after post on the topic of immigration? What problem might you have with this? I don't have any problem with intelligent discussion of the issue of population movement, which will always increase just as population itself will do, but it's a matter of more than sufficient importance to warrant treatment on a thread of its own.

As I've asked this before but you have omitted to answer, I'll start one now and you (and anyone else wishing to follow suit) can copy into it any posts on this thread that are solely about that subject and then continued the discussion thereafter.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I remain convinced that the concept of the EU is fundamentally sound: however I also think it is unwise for it to have moved past a loose federation of separate entities forming a trading bloc for mutual convenience. The idea of a "United States of Europe" is predestined to failure; using the US as a model is flawed when the US, for all its internal problems, is largely united by common language and culture. That simply doesn't apply in Europe.

A lot of EU philosophy is currently looking dangerously utopian. I'm unconvinced about free borders, for example. The attempts to homogenise everything from financial systems to legal systems is either naive or intensely cynical and I don't know which! It would be more sustainable to homogenise financial systems if (big if) nations were starting from approximate economic parity, but this simply isn't true.

The migrant/refugee problem is a direct consequence of irresponsible (mainly) US+UK foreign policy. We stubbornly refuse to learn a very obvious historical lesson, namely that it is more expedient and safer to have a Middle East country exist in an organised fashion run by a tin-pot dictator, despite it being brutally unpleasant for a certain percentage of the populace, than to start a war there, or fund a proxy war there, and have the area descend into anarchy - and have the area brutally unpleasant for virtually the entire population, to say nothing of the consequences for the surrounding regions. If we were to dampen down the flames in Syria and Libya, the refugee problem would reduce to a more manageable scale. Not likely in Syria, as Putin sees refugees as a mechanism to disrupt and weaken the EU - he is right - and thus will periodically fan the flames. Turkey also sees mileage in refugees as a bargaining chip in terms of accession to the EU (in its current political state, Turkey's entry is unacceptable).

I can't blame people for wanting out - I may disagree with them - but the fact is that the EU has gone well beyond its initial remit, is now unsustainable, and things need to change.

Broadly speaking, I agree with you. Whilst EU's initial remit doesn't have to be adhered to blindly just for the sake of so doing, what has happened to it more or less since introduction of the woefully premature Euro had indeed implied more federalist aims and these can really only undermine the successful and beneficial future of EU; there are many other reforms that EU needs but I do believe that sorting out exactly how far EU ought to go in terms of "unity" and "integration" needs first to be firmly established. To much integration is a greater problem for EU than too much immigration!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Great news that our PM has pledged to repeal the EU Act. UK Law must rule in the UK, not laws produced by unelected idiots.

The triggering of Article 50 looks good for early next year and the recession threatened by the remoaners is nowhere to be seen.

Thal

[ahinton]

Great news that our PM has pledged to repeal the EU Act. UK Law must rule in the UK, not laws produced by unelected idiots.

The triggering of Article 50 looks good for early next year and the recession threatened by the remoaners is nowhere to be seen.

Hlaf-truth, methinks. Apparently this will only go into the Queen's speech early next summer. Whether this should be done first before the invocation of Article 50 is already a matter of argument. In the event, however, that Article will not be triggered until after the Act has been repealed, so it's quite somke way off yet. In a way, this would seem to be the best order in which to deal with this; if Parliament votges against repealing the Act, Article 50 invocation will be dead in the water. Many a slip an' all that...

Whether and when a recession will occur is of course unclear. Those who doom and gloom their way to trying to persuade people that it will take effect next Tuesday afternoon are clearly misinformed, for a recession, should one come, will inevitably occur on the back of actual action, such as the repeal (or not) of the Act and the invoking (or not) of Article 50; so far, almost everything remains shrouded in uncertainty and indecision and the economy not unnaturally follows suit, as one might reasonably expect it to do.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Of course, you are not forgetting that many remoaners predicted a recession off the back of the referendum result itself, and many now are looking incredibly stupid.

It is great that the first steps towards complete separation are being made.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The news is getting better. Our PM has now announced that she will trigger Article 50 by the end of March.

No silly court cases required as she has the power to do so and would only be acting on the will of the people.

Well done Theresa May.

Thal

[ahinton]

The news is getting better. Our PM has now announced that she will trigger Article 50 by the end of March.

No silly court cases required as she has the power to do so and would only be acting on the will of the people.

Well done Theresa May.

If the debate and vote on repeal of the existing Act is not to be put into the Queen's Speech until early next summer and the invoking of Article 50 is not to take place (if at all) until after that, I don't see how the latter could be done by the end of next March. However, it's good that at least something is to be put to Parliamentary debate and vote and the latter could go either way; should it go against (and many MPs will have had to be dishonest by voting against their consciences if it does not), then that's the end of that.

Ms May does not have the power to determine in advance how any vote in Parliament will go.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Of course, you are not forgetting that many remoaners predicted a recession off the back of the referendum result itself, and many now are looking incredibly stupid.

I'm forgetting nothing of the kind; if you read my message, your should be able to see that I made it quite clear that, as long as nothing material has actually been done (which it hasn't yet), any predictions either way about the impact upon the UK economy can be no more than mere speculation.

It is great that the first steps towards complete separation are being made.

Taking steps can lead to a fall.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Our PM does not need to go through Parliament to trigger Article 50 and rightly so as she has a mandate from the people. These silly Court cases will not work and I am confident that the Attorney General will defeat this nonsense.

Those that would try and stop this from happening are undemocratic.

Thal

[ahinton]

Our PM does not need to go through Parliament to trigger Article 50 and rightly so as she has a mandate from the people.

She may or may not have to do that - we shall see - but the point here is that the repeal of the Act that took UK into what is now EU cannot be done without recourse to Parliamentary debate and vote and, as I wrote, we'll just have to see how that vote goes, when the time comes.

These silly Court cases will not work and I am confident that the Attorney General will defeat this nonsense.

We cannot know what will happen to any of the Court cases until they have been held and, if necessary, appealed; what the Attorney-General has not done, however, is prevent them from being tried. I do not know if he has the power to do that but, if he has, he's yet to decide to exercise it; I can only assume that he either has no such power or that he has not the desire to exercise it, because he is already scheduled to defend the first of at least eight Brexit cases in Court later this month, which he would surely not have agreed to do if he could simply have quashed this or any other such Court case before it was even tried.

In any event, just as a Parliamentary vote will be the determing factor in respect of whether the 1972 Act is repealed, so will a jury's decision be paramount in determing the outcome of this and any subsequent Court case.

Those that would try and stop this from happening are undemocratic.

Much will depend upon what you mean by "this" in the present context; it would certainly be as undemocratic to try to repeal the Act that took us into what's now EU without proper Parliamentary debatge and vote as it would have been for Parliament to take UK into what's now EU without following the same procedures; what applied then in 1972 will apply now, in terms of proper Parliamentary procedure.

Even if there is a majority vote to repeal that Act when the debate has been held sometime next year, it will demonstrate that a substantial number of MPs will have been prepared changed their tune since just before the UK/EU in/out referendum and that will emphasise their willingness to have recourse to dishonesty when either it suits them or they've been coerced into exercising it (if indeed they are so) - rather a lose/lose situation for them, methinks.

What's good about this, though, is that those who wish to go to Court not necessarily with a view to overturning Brexit but to try to ensure that no decision is taken without prior Parliamentary debate and vote will thereby have been satisfied, because nothing further will happen until Parliament has debated and voted on the possible repeal of the 1972 Act. Whichever way that goes, that has to be a good thing and I applaud Ms May for recognising this and realising that the Act must be repealed before the Article can be invoked. Good sense on her part, methinks.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What's good about this, though, is that those who wish to go to Court not necessarily with a view to overturning Brexit but to try to ensure that no decision is taken without prior Parliamentary debate and vote will thereby have been satisfied, because nothing further will happen until Parliament has debated and voted on the possible repeal of the 1972 Act. Whichever way that goes, that has to be a good thing and I applaud Ms May for recognising this and realising that the Act must be repealed before the Article can be invoked.

That is not my understanding of the procedure and it would be undemocratic to have to repeal the Act through parliament before Article 50 is triggered.

Repealing the Act allows EU regulations to be converted into domestic law. I am no lawyer, but i fail to see how this is essential before triggering Article 50.

Our PM has said she will trigger Article 50 before end of March 2017 and i beleive she will, so the idiots who have yet to accept the referendum will not be satisfied by the silly Court cases.

It is impossible to predict how things will turn out, but leaving has to and must happen.

Thal

[ahinton]

That is not my understanding of the procedure and it would be undemocratic to have to repeal the Act through parliament before Article 50 is triggered.

How else can an Act of Parliament be repealed other than through debate and vote in the very Parliament that ratified it in the first place?

That said, I have read more on this and find that there appears to be some doubt as to whether the 1972 Act will be repelaed first and Artcle 50 triggered thereafter (provided that the vote goes in favour of proceedings with that) or the other way around. I'm no expert on this but I had thought that, even though Article 50 could indeed in theory be invoked before that Act is repealed, negotiations could still not commence until the Act has been repealed and, if this is the case, it would seem daft not to debate and vote on repeal of the Act before considering whether or not to trigger Article 50.

Either way, however, if Article 50 is indeed triggered first and repeal of that Act debated and voted on in Parliament afterwards, the government will end up with a great deal of egg on its face if that vote goes against repeal of the Act. Moreover, in such circumstances, no one would then be able to accuse the government of failure to implement the so-called "will of the people" because, insofar as that goes, that "will" (albeit by a mere whisker of a majority) was for UK to withdraw from EU, not for the Act to be repealed; repeal of the Act was not even mentioned in the referendum text!

You wrote that "it is impossible to predict how things will turn out, but leaving has to and must happen"; in the first part of this, you are of course correct but, in the second, you are not because "how things will turn out" is anyone's guess.

The outcomes of the Court cases alone, however "silly" you might believe those cases to be, cannot be ignored by Parliament; if any of them determine, even if only after appeal (if any), that correct legal procedures had not been followed to the letter, Brexit might have to be abandoned or at the very last restarted - and the fact that the opinion poll outcome is not legally binding is bound to impact to some degree upon the conduct of those cases.

I'm not suggesting that this will happen - merely that it might; the very fact that the Attorney-General (whom you had mentioned) has opted to defend the first such case himself rather than exercise powers to have it thrown out altogether surely speaks for itself.

As I said, many a slip, an' all that...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I was questioning your submission that the Act must be repealed before the Article is invoked.

That is not my understanding.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Either way, however, if Article 50 is indeed triggered first and repeal of that Act debated and voted on in Parliament afterwards, the government will end up with a great deal of egg on its face if that vote goes against repeal of the Act.

The government would simply hold a general election in which Labour would be destroyed and have another vote.

Even saying that, repealing the act "may" not even be required to leave the EU, only to transfer their laws onto our books. Article 50 seems to be sufficient for that purpose in itself.

However, I am no lawyer and no doubt ones point of view is affected by where we get our information from.

Leaving is still essential and any efforts to slow this procedure down is undemocratic.

Thal

[ahinton]

I was questioning your submission that the Act must be repealed before the Article is invoked.

That is not my understanding.

Indeed - and fair enough. My initial impression was that repeal of the Act would be debated and voted on in Parliament before any question of invoking Article 50 could arise but, having read more about what might be happening, this order of procedure is by no means clear. In writing this my purpose was to point out that, should Article 50 be invoked first, the government will then look very silly if, when repeal of the Act is debated and voted on subsequently, the vote goes in favour of retaining it. I don't see how any negotiations could be effectively commened until the Act has been repealed, whether or not Article 50 will heve been triggered.

As Brexit proceedings cannot in reality be inaugurated until the Act has been repealed (and not at all if it's not repealed), it would surely seem sensible to address that first? Whether that debate and vote happens before or after Article 50 is triggered, however, work towards Brexit cannot get going if Parliament, having debated repeal of the Act, votes against it. Should it do so, it seems clear that quite a few EU leaders will heave a big sigh of relief, since they've made no bones about their opposition to what they regard as a grave error of judgement in UK.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The government would simply hold a general election in which Labour would be destroyed and have another vote.

If the vote goes against repeal of the Act, do you mean? If so, that would look quite transparently suspicious and risk setting a most uncomfortable and untenable precedent by deciding to hold a General Election purely because a vote on the repeal of an Act of Parliament favoured maintaining it rather than repealing it; indeed, it would have an ironical parallel with the Cameron government's equally untenable holding of a referendum solely in a bid to resolve or overturn perceived problems within the Conservative party.

You mention you view that such an election, if held, would destroy the Labour Party; it seems to be doing quite an effecive job of that of its own volition and without any assistance that might be offered to it in so doing by the current Conservative government. But that's not quite the whole story, methinks.

Whilst logic might suggest that a policital party in disarray as the Labour one remains (even following Mr Corbyn's retention of his leadership of it) would almost certainly seem unelectable, it is not, however, the administrative stability of such a party or even the control and/or concealment of internecine wars within it that wins it votes and might get it elected - it's what voters decide.

Given the sheer numbers of newly joined Labour Party members in recent times, I would be rather wary of complacently concluding that Labour's recent and to some extent still ongoing woes will render it unelectable; in any case, no General Election is currently in the offing and Ms May has (for what it might or might not be worth) ruled one out for the foreseeable future.

It is therefore perfectly possible, especially given that there has also recently been some upturn in LibDem membership, that the Tories find themselves in coalition again following the next General Election, whenever that might be - or they might even just lose it by a whisker; as with everything else on all of this, uncertainty rules the waves.

Even saying that, repealing the act "may" not even be required to leave the EU, only to transfer their laws onto our books. Article 50 seems to be sufficient for that purpose in itself.

But unless an Act of Parliament whose sole and specific purpose was to take UK into what's now EU is not first repealed, how could UK leave EU?

However, I am no lawyer and no doubt ones point of view is affected by where we get our information from.

I'm no lawyer either, but logic suggests that UK would struggle to complete the business of severing its ties with EU while a statute taking it into EU's forerunner remains on the books; that would surely be the height (or depth?) of absurdity?!

BBC reports the Daily Telegraph as noting of Ms May that "getting her Great Repeal Bill through Parliament could make John Major's problems with the Maastricht Treaty look like a "walk in the park"; that, I suspect, is putting it mildly.

Leaving is still essential and any efforts to slow this procedure down is undemocratic.

Leaving is essential only for the 37% of the electorate who expressed a wish in the opinion poll that UK leaves EU; it is not so for anyone else.

If anything that slows the procedure to leave EU is "undemocratic", the finger of blame for that should perhaps first be pointed at the present UK government which has taken over 100 days since announcement of the poll outcome do nothing material towards effecting Brexit other than merely announcing a possible vague time in around 5 months to invoke Article 50 and pussyfooting around the issue of Parliamentary debate and vote on repeal of the Act.

In any event, with pending Court cases and possible appeals following them, the climate of uncertainty remains paramount, as you have yourself admitted.

Even were everything eventually to fall into place to take UK out of EU, there would (and indeed could) be nothing in statute to prevent a future UK government reapplying for EU membership provided that it still exists - and I rather doubt that EU would say no under such circumstances.

The other issue that sticks in the craw when reading what Ms May now appears to be trying to say at what is, after all, her first party conference as leader (and so she's feel especially obliged to seek to make her mark) is the extent to which much of this gung-ho talk seeks conveniently to ignore the fact that UK does not hold all the cards, nor can it call all the shots; should Brexit procedures commence, they will not centre around UK telling EU what it wants and is determined to have and simply get away with it, for that it not what "negotiating" is or indeed can be about.

When one also remembers that UK will be seeking to pit what it might believe to be its best interests against those of 27 other nations within the EU group, what it might want is likely at many points along the route to conflict with what EU or any of its member states want; this should be abundantly clear. As I've noted before, should the negotiations (should they commence) end up with UK noticeably worse off, the government of the day will seem to have no viable alternative than to abandon Brexit in UK's interests; should it still determinedly push it through regardless as though principle and face-saving attempts are more important than those interests, it wouldn't (nor would it deserve to) last five minutes in office.

Another point to bear in mind is that, even should Brexit happen, UK will remain a member of the Council of Europe which comprises 47 member states including all EU member states, so anyone assuming that Brexit will (Br)extricate UK from its duties and responsibilities under ECHR will have another think coming.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Gawd, you do rattle on. Thankfully, you will not be negotiating to leave, or I expect it would be in about 100 years.

My understanding that when Article 50 is invoked, we have 2 years to leave. If no deal is in place, we will be ejected anyway, so all delaying tactics and silly court cases will be in vane and so they should be.

Thal

[ahinton]

Gawd, you do rattle on.

I know nothing of your relations with Sir Simon but didn't think that you believed in Gawd.

Thankfully, you will not be negotiating to leave

Indeed - and Gawd forbid! - though why you'd think that I'd do so even were I Prime Minister I have less than no idea!

or I expect it would be in about 100 years.

Nah - that would be far too soon!

My understanding that when Article 50 is invoked, we have 2 years to leave. If no deal is in place, we will be ejected anyway

That's not cut and dried by any means; it will depend at least in part on the other 27 member states, as is the case with so much else involved in this.

so all delaying tactics and silly court cases will be in vane

You mean subject to the weather and the way in which the wind (or rather hot air) is blowing at any given time?

and so they should be

As I've said, several times, there are no "silly" Court cases pending and I do not imagine that the serious ones will still be dragging on in 2019!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We will be out in 2019. Still trading with our European friends, but not being tied up by their silly admin team and not overpopulated by their rejects.

Thal

[ahinton]

We will be out in 2019. Still trading with our European friends, but not being tied up by their silly admin team and not overpopulated by their rejects.

You have appeared to advocate the break-up of EU; if your apparent desire becomes fact, UK will be doing no such thing. Likewise, should the so-called "hard Brexit" (i.e. blow the relationship with the single market) pertain, in which no trade with EU will be possible not only because of diametric disagreements but also because of the kind of arrogant UK isolationism the stems from attitudes that seek mindlessly to promote the notion that UK doesn't need the rest of Europe but the rest of Europe needs UK, then Europe will be at odds with itself and UK will have helped to make that possible. Some "progress", that...

That said, should certain EU member state elections go the wrong way next year, the scuppering of so much that will supposedly be under negotiation will take its own toll; if after all the time and expense to which UK will have gone over trying to implement Brexit ends up on the floor because EU breaks up, there won't be enough faces for the egg to attach itself to.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yawn

[ahinton]

Yawn

Too tired to think about these issues? Time for a lie down, then, perhaps...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

We will be out in 2019

No one knows that; even you have rightly admitted that many uncertainties prevail and that we're all accordingly in a "wait and see" situation.

Still trading with our European friends

That will largely depend upon whether and to what extent UK can afford to be; if the pound drops below parity with the Euro, that will be fine for the Eurozone nations but make a great deal of imports unafforable for UK.

Best,

Alistair