BREXIT - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

BREXIT

£0.00 @
Can anyone tell me if we can just leave the EU with or without triggering article 50.From what I have read and seen it's become quite apparent from the threats that are coming from across the channel … Read More
cwj3820 Avatar
6m, 1w agoPosted 6 months, 1 week ago
Can anyone tell me if we can just leave the EU with or without triggering article 50.From what I have read and seen it's become quite apparent from the threats that are coming from across the channel that they are going to make things as difficult as possible for us and we are not going to agree on anything.Therefore if two years down the line we still can't agree it's been a waste of time so can we not just leave now
cwj3820 Avatar
6m, 1w agoPosted 6 months, 1 week ago
Options

All Responses

(16) Jump to unreadPost an answer
Responses/page:
#1
not my words, but well worth a read :) hope it helps

Battle for Britain

Article 50 and Royal Prerogative
Speaking on the BBC's Week In Westminster programme on Radio 4 back in July this year, Lord Lisvane (previously Robert Rogers, the Clerk of the House of Commons) stated from the extensive constitutional and Parliamentary knowledge that:

Triggering Article 50, which is a formal communication to the European Council stating the UK's intention to leave the EU, is a notification under a treaty. Therefore it falls (rightly or wrongly) under the Royal Prerogative, which means Parliament does not need to ratify the action or be consulted about it. The government can act unilaterally to trigger Article 50.

Many MPs are declaring that Parliament must be sovereign (something they have seemingly not bothered about while allowing political and legal primacy to reside with the EU and the ECJ respectively). They are right. Parliament should be sovereign. Royal Prerogative is not democratic. So how can it be right, therefore, for someone like me to say that the prerogative should be used to trigger the Article 50 notification?

MPs are saying that Article 50 must not be triggered without their approval and that the prerogative should not (in their words 'does not') apply. But this is where alarm bells ring, because it seems this sudden desire for control is only emerging now the Brexit process they fought to prevent is set to begin.

MPs would had have a valid point about Royal Prerogative being anti-democratic, generally and in relation to Brexit, if the House of Commons had not rejected David Davis' 1999 attempt with the Parliamentary Control of the Executive Bill to curtail the use of the prerogative by transferring ministerial exercise of it to MPs for a number of scenarios - including, ironically, the signing of treaties.

Voters can be forgiven for thinking that MPs want to challenge and rein in the prerogative only now because they want to undermine Brexit, or at least decide its terms. This is an attempt to change the constitutional process on the hoof for the sake of expediency, because they don't want an outcome that British voters decided by a majority of 1,269,501 to pursue.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask MPs how prerogative can have been perfectly acceptable to the Commons previously when they rejected Davis' efforts to curtail it, but suddenly be wrong now just because it is the constitutional mechanism that would be used to trigger the Article 50 notification they oppose.

The challenge to prerogative being used to trigger Article 50 is a naked example of political double standards. If MPs want Parliament to be sovereign they should change the constitutional process formally, in the proper manner, not try to kick it into the long grass arbitrarily because it suits their purpose in regard of this matter. They must not be allowed to subvert or frustrate a decision taken democratically by voters, because the issue was too important for Parliament to decide without formal mandate. This is why Davis is opposing something he previously pushed for.
#2
If they make it easy for the UK to leave and our economy is booming in 3 years then the other European countries will want to leave as well.
#3
donaldduck2
If they make it easy for the UK to leave and our economy is booming in 3 years then the other European countries will want to leave as well.


in the next 3 years there will be other countries wanting out regardless.
#4
No, it's not like you can just stop returning their calls, close the curtains and pretend you're not home.The EU is quite a complex political and economic organisation, so there isn't a straightforward way for a country to untangle themselves from all that.

Article 50 is simply what was written to define how the process of leaving the EU works (which the UK agreed to when signing the treaty of Lisbon).

Even if the UK could 'just leave', the repercussions of doing so would probably be much worse than a bad deal. Not only would it likely **** off the EU countries (who we still need to do business with one way or another), but it would also give a pretty bad impression to every other country in the world that we might want to make arrangements with.
#5
Brexit is a bit like Marmite. We can't really get either!
#6
In three years time there won't be an EU.
France are already openly discussing a Frexit & Merkel is in dire straights in Germany
The EU cannot survive either of them leaving, I don't think it can survive us leaving either TBH
#7
Flemon
No, it's not like you can just stop returning their calls, close the curtains and pretend you're not home.The EU is quite a complex political and economic organisation, so there isn't a straightforward way for a country to untangle themselves from all that.
Article 50 is simply what was written to define how the process of leaving the EU works (which the UK agreed to when signing the treaty of Lisbon).
Even if the UK could 'just leave', the repercussions of doing so would probably be much worse than a bad deal. Not only would it likely **** off the EU countries (who we still need to do business with one way or another), but it would also give a pretty bad impression to every other country in the world that we might want to make arrangements with.


The other countries are already pretty f**cked off as it is, especially the supremely peevish French PM Hollande who is feeling the pressure from right wing parties there and could well lose the next election. Bit ungrateful after we signed off Hinckley if you ask me but c’est la vie. It’s a two way street and we have one foot out of the door already as far as some countries are concerned and are already excluded from many meetings. I think it will be a bumpy ride but longer term we will gain as we will be able to strike our own deals and not be veto’d by some tiny country across Europe with an axe to grind. The best thing Gordon Brown did was keep us out of the euro so we kept our own monetary policy. Not sure the EU is dying yet but it does need to look at itself and Brexit could be a good thing for both of us as the UK’s relationship with it was never a “happy marriage” over the years anyway.
#8
we can just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and we would leave the u straight away. it's our obligation to the eu to go down article 50 route but we can get passed it if we wanted to.
#9
brendanhickey
we can just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and we would leave the u straight away. it's our obligation to the eu to go down article 50 route but we can get passed it if we wanted to.

Great idea! **** off our valuable trade partners. As if the pound isn't falling enough!
#10
Dannyrobbo
brendanhickey
we can just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and we would leave the u straight away. it's our obligation to the eu to go down article 50 route but we can get passed it if we wanted to.

Great idea! **** off our valuable trade partners. As if the pound isn't falling enough!


I didn't recommend it :)
#11
shadey12
donaldduck2
If they make it easy for the UK to leave and our economy is booming in 3 years then the other European countries will want to leave as well.
in the next 3 years there will be other countries wanting out regardless.

Agreed.
#12
What is needed is a clear policy on immigration (lets face it that's why many voted out). When we leave the EU we just need to bring in a quota based on heads of population per square kilometre (mile)of each countries land mass. This would distribute the growing population fairly and not over burden one countries natural resources more than the nexts.
#13
London, Brussels- The EU misspent 5.5 billion euros ($6 billion) in 2015, the bloc’s financial watchdog said Thursday, warning that Brussels needed to regain the trust of European citizens shaken by Brexit and other crises.

Badly spent funds went on paying overcharged personnel costs for developing cloud computing services, it said.

Another example included aid earmarked for small- and medium-sized enterprises in the Czech Republic, Italy and Poland also benefiting people deemed ineligible, it added.

In issuing the report for 2015, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the president of the European Court of Auditors, said Europeans have lost trust in EU institutions amid economic troubles, the migration crisis and the British vote to leave the EU.

“In the months and years to come, a major challenge for the EU will be to regain that trust,” Lehne said in a presentation of the report, stressing that a good start would be to ensure funds are better spent.

“People cannot even begin to trust us if they do not believe we are looking after their money properly,” Lehne said.

The report said the so-called error rate for spending fell slightly to 3.8 percent of the EU’s 145.2-billion-euro budget in 2015, but was still far above the acceptable level of 2.2 percent.

That was better than the 6.3 billion euros that were estimated misspent in 2014.

The report said the figures were not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste, but an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it did not fully comply with EU rules.

Spending managed jointly by Brussels and member states had the same level of error as that managed directly by the European Commission, the EU’s powerful executive branch, the report said.

The total EU budget amounts to around one percent of EU gross national income and around two percent of total public spending in member states, it said.

EU spending amounts to around 285 euros for every citizen in the bloc of around 500 million people.
banned#14
wish I didn't vote out now. today they said food will rise aswell as inflation. ok I knew that before but we have hardly reached the leaving point! plus the pound has been down since June!
#15
sofiasar
wish I didn't vote out now. today they said food will rise aswell as inflation. ok I knew that before but we have hardly reached the leaving point! plus the pound has been down since June!

what a moronic comment
#16
sofiasar
wish I didn't vote out now. today they said food will rise aswell as inflation. ok I knew that before but we have hardly reached the leaving point! plus the pound has been down since June!


Go back to 2008 and you couldn't get one Euro to the pound then also with the pound being so high against the dollar it was creating a bigger deficit which was not good for the country so just let it find its level.Bearing in mind that the UK is the second biggest contributor to the EU (I stand to be corrected) and the cash they get from us as got to be found elsewhere and it won't be long before the poorest countries in the EU will all get together and make it work for them

Post an Answer

You don't need an account to leave a response. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!