now there was me thinking that i was the only one who had said that and that it was only " advisory and not binding " on here, first mooted on the thread which preceded this one,, ( unfortunatly i must have missed your post ) now suddenly every one knows it,, well well... how long will it be before Andy Cap realises that he was led up the garden path , not the first time , and prob not the last , and that he / they do not run his country...
Interesting point. Hypothetically, if a UK government purported to make a decision to withdraw from the EU under Art 50(1) in a manner which was not "... in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" [i.e. the UK's constitutional requirements] and proceeded to make a notification to the Council under Art 50(2), and afterwards it was alleged that the Art 50(2) notification had not been valid, how would it be determined whether the purported decision and notification were valid or not under the Treaty? Presumably it would be for the European Court of Justice to determine that question; how else could it be determined?
Coin toss? I suspect the determination will be made the same way all important determinations are made where government is involved - the desired answer is arrived at and worked backwards from there.
General Election on the distant horizon.......(well, that is a distinct possibility)..... ....that will delay anything to do with triggering Article 50 for quite some time...... ....and I would imagine only the Tories would win so where would that leave the whole matter?..... ..........back to Square One no doubt (wherever that is)............Might even be Red Square One.
It is reported that Theresa May has today said she is "confident" that the government will win its appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court ruling requiring a Parliamentary vote before triggering Article 50. Apparently she has told Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel that she is still committed to the March 2017 date. As she must be well aware that the government has no chance of winning the appeal, since it has got no case, and that in consequence there is no chance of the March date being met, why is she saying this? Because she cannot possibly tell the truth since that would give the game away. Such is politics.
General election on the way and no bad thing. Haven't the slightest doubt that the government will be returned with a substantially increased majority. The court ruling will have hardened resolve and increased the mood for Brexit. If the referendum result were to replicated in a general election, the Conservatives would win 420 seats. They won't win by that degree but if it becomes a Brexit election rather than a party political election, which is highly likely, the commons is going to look very different. If the EU doesn't simply throw us out in the meantime, of course. Ironically, the Remainer's delaying tactics haven't gone down well in Europe as they increase and prolong the uncertainty over the Project's future which is bad news economically and politically across the bloc which has insuperable problems in those departments already.
That's what they want. They're not British, they consider themselves Europeans. They are on the EU's side in any negotiations. That is how the EU operates. Divide and rule. Turn people against each other until their identity fractures, then apply the artificial Euro identity that has been pre-prepared. I don't think its going to work with the UK though.
I am struggling to see how a general election, or even a by-election, can become a referendum on Europe. If the law requires to be changed then the cooperation of Parliament is still required, and even with an increased majority, which is the most likely outcome, there will still be a significant number of MPs who are remoaners.
Well for one thing, the Lords don't block legislation that was proposed in the ruling party's manifesto. More gentlemen's agreement than hard and fast rule, I think, but that is the convention. There was nothing, of course in the present government's last manifesto about terms and timings of Brexit because the referendum had not been held. You can bet there will be in the next one.
Yes, but it will be very much more difficult politically for MPs to vote against or otherwise derail explicit manifesto pledges on which the Government was elected. The problem which now is giving remoaners such scope for delaying tactics is that whatever Theresa May's current approach to Brexit turns out to be, none of it was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto, because of course, Vichy Dave had taken the referendum result for granted (or maybe intended to hand his successor a poisoned chalice - though I'm not sure he possessed that kind of political cunning), and that allows remoaners to make hay with relative impunity. I say relative because much as they have shifted their loyalty from the British electorate to the Brussels commissars, they still quite like their day jobs in Westminster. At present they can cover their arses with the electorate by claiming to have discovered very late in the day a sudden commitment to the Parliamentary sovereignty which for years they have been undermining. If May goes to the country with a specific Brexit objective in her manifesto and gets returned with a thumping majority, that tenuous commitment will look even thinner than it does now. Turkeys habitually vote for the gravy train but they seldom vote for Christmas.
i cant believe what am reading. firstly it was the moaning of the skeptiks, not to mention the tactics used that got us here and YOUR country's name dragged through the dirt. its simple, the partys put forward there vision of a brexit, you vote on it, put it to the EU, then at the eleventh hour they tell you to go swing.come back to the table with a better offer offer yip, really v.simple.
