Now it is Article 127 of the EEA agreement.

[Workingman]

Legal eagles going over all the treaties have now come up with another blocking manoeuvre to Brexit - the article above. One side says 'this' the other says 'that' so they are going to test it in court. In the meantime the country has to somehow cope with all the uncertainty this is creating.

I lay most of the blame for all this nonsense at the door of Cameron and his allies. Six years they had to plan for both results, and what would come after. Six years from when the referendum was announced on populist grounds to grab votes, to the referendum itself. Six wasted years.

I do not know what any 'remain' plan would have been. Mine would have been to go to Brussels with "Wow, that was close, if we go again it could be the end. So, from now on, we are going to be at the centre of things and you lot are going to listen to us. Got it?" If they refused I would have come back and held another, legally binding, referendum.

If it was 'leave' it should have been simple. June 24 trigger A50. June 25 begin negotiations. That is what was voted for and all these blocking tactics would now be worse than useless.

But no, the referendum was only 'advisory' and when Cameron did not get his result he did a runner.

[manxie]

Have you seen this and do you think it is for real???

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/735699 ... -Frankopan

Manxie xx

[Workingman]

The professor is very light on details. She might be correct, but it would be a huge risk to the UK's International standing. Unilateral declarations are rarely accepted by the wider community. However, Lord Kerr, the author of A 50 said a few weeks back that the UK could stop negotiations at any time and say it had changed its mind. That would be another unilateral declaration, in some ways, and would almost certainly sour our already febrile relations within the EU. It would also go against the referendum result and probably cause unrest in the UK.

[Suff]

Manxie, it's a combination of common sense (yes the EU does need the UK FAR more than the UK needs the EU). But it's also a mishmash of misunderstanding.

In ratifying the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, we gave (not devolved but actually gave up), areas of sovereignty to the EU. So we ceased to be a fully sovereign country. Whilst any sovereign country can simply determine that it no longer agrees to something it signed, a country which has given up that right needs a process to rescind those rights.

This is what A50 is. Because the Lisbon Treaty is, essentially, a constitution for Europe; albeit with a few contentious bits left out, there was a decision made that if a country wanted to secede from the Union and take back all of it's Sovereignty, then there needed to be a mechanism to do that. Otherwise civil war could easily result.

So we can't, legally, just say "sod you I'm off". Of course as the 5th largest economy in the world and the third most powerful military (including Nukes which you simply can't afford to ignore), plus the second strongest assurance of EU security through NATO; if the UK says "Sod Off" then they have to wear it. No matter what they think.

However that would cause trade issues and, as WM rightly says, a lot of suspicion in the rest of the world in terms of doing trade with us.

Granted that in the event of a trade war the UK might just say "OK we're terminating NATO support with all EU countries who are making a trade war with us" and simply make the US sit still for it. I don't think Trump would have any major issue with it. But if we then sat down with Putin to write a bilateral security agreement; the result in the EU would have something akin to a political Aneurysm. The EU would find itself between the Hammer of the second largest military power in the world and the Anvil of the third.

You can imagine the levels of blackmail we could, should we choose, extract from the EU!!!

On the other part the Swedish Lawyer wilfully ignores the fact that the UK constitution may not be "fully" written, but that this does not just give you carte blance to write whatever you want. If a law does not exist for the situation, then the judges and the politicians have to sit down and work out what it should be. First the judges will rule on what they think it is. If the politicians don't like that ruling, then they will pass laws to overrule the judges. But, in our mildly chaotic system, the judges will then, again, interpret the laws in whatever way they see fit. Leaving us in a see saw situation, potentially for years.

Countries with solid written constitutions have it a bit easier. If the framers of the constitution are still alive, then can be asked. However if they are not (US), then the same "interpretation", followed by law making to overrule the judges, goes on. Much of US legal process is in "interpretation" where the words could never have envisioned the situation. In the US they pass amendments to the Constitution, in the UK we interpret laws and make new laws.

Nothing is so simple and cut and dried.

Do I believe Brussels is running a HUGE bluff? Of course I do. But until we get out we are constrained in what we can say and do.

Every time I hear those pontificating ononists talking about no "Access" to the EU market without free flow of people.... I hear in my head

"Well perhaps you should have told Canada that before they signed your 'trade' deal. Because, apparently, it's not worth the paper it's written on"...

Or are they just lying? I leave it up to you to determine that one.

[cromwell]

I lay most of the blame for all this nonsense at the door of Cameron and his allies.

You and me both. He made it clear that out meant out, said he would trigger Article 50 "the next day" if the public voted to leave, and promised to stay for the exit negotiations.

Instead of which he didn't trigger anything on any day and bailed out ahead of any negotiations, leaving a massive mess behind him. Poor behaviour doesn't begin to cover it.

[Suff]

Yes but let's put a bit or reality into this.

1. He didn't want to leave
2. Everyone and I do mean Everyone in the establishment thought they had done enough to keep the oiks in line
3. Cameron made those promises but the Tory Party is not one man and he was only the leader. Nobody knows what was said to him after he lost. But I can guess.

Put yourself in his place. He didn't want to leave and he campaigned on that. All information was that leave would lose or, if they didn't, the win would be such a wafer thin margin that it could be ignored, or at least played for a long time.

Just like the Trump election, the establishment and the politicos and the career lobbyists got it spectacularly wrong.

If you felt the same way Cameron did with the same information available to you, would you have tied your own hands in that way??? Personally speaking I probably would have because I'm not a career politician and I don't like doubletalk. But then again I'm not the head of a party responsible to the party members and for the running of the country.

Hate him all you want, but, honestly, no other mainstream politician, in his place, would have done otherwise.

Cameron was elected on choice. He said he'd give us a referendum and he did. I remember Blair being elected on choice too. I also recall that we never had a referendum about the Euro, or the HRA, the working time directive and certainly not the Lisbon treaty.

Cameron is way, way, way down my shit list and Blair and Brown, Clegg and a whole raft of Labour and Lib Dems are much, much, higher on the list than Cameron.

He did what he did and he paid the price. Now we're sorting it out and it will be sorted out just as day turns to night and back to day again. It's just a bit more uncertain and a bit more protracted than it could have been.

[Workingman]

He didn't want to leave so he called a referendum! Why? To get votes, to gain power, and because he arrogantly thought that he would win.

Having done so, and despite his supreme overconfidence, it was his duty as PM to prepare for either outcome no matter what his friends, the pollsters, the lobbyists, the media and his mates down the pub were telling him. Not doing so was a dereliction of duty.

My hands would not have been tied because I would have had two plans, one for Remain and one for Leave. He tied his own hands, nobody else was to blame but himself. He then doubled the knots by not triggering A50 'the next day' then running way and not leading the negotiations, as promised; and to cap it all he resigned as an MP to make money in other places.

He is right up there with Blair and Brown: BBC; Blair, Brown and Cameron.

[Suff]

B'Liar said he'd give a referendum to get votes and power too.

In a perfect world we get perfect results. In a political world we get?? BBC!