Sir Vince Cable - "beginning to think Brexit may never happen".

[Sadfield]

Erm.. your divorce analogy doesn't work, or more accurately it does, but debunks your argument. We have petitioned for divorce, but like a married couple can reconcile, cancel proceedings and remain married. We've not received a decree nisi from the other member states, and certainly haven't had a decree absolute.

 

[Dutto]

Firstly at the risk of sounding a little pedantic

...

... crazy union bosses like scargill, ....
....

Yes you do sound pedantic. So I was a couple of years out. Mea culpa!

With regard to the second quote could you please let me know:

1) When and where Arthur Scargill told a lie about Pit Closures and Government intentions?

2) When Arthur Scargill took money from foreign governments? (As alleged by Tory newspapers at the time.)

3) Whenever ANY of the negative comments of the media against Arthur Scargill at the time of the miner's strike were proved to be true after the strike was ended?

Personally, I didn't support Arthur Scargill because I was always brought up to fight only those battles you will win. :thumb: :thumb:

PS

Did you know that Arthur Scargill was instrumental in ensuring that pneumoconiosis was recognised as a disease suffered by miners and that he was instrumental in getting compensation for a generation of miners that coughed themselves to the grave?

I doubt it!

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Errr... we have already left; and all we are doing now is negotiating the conditions under which we are going to leave.

I had no idea we might have the opportunity to vote after the negotiations that is why i posted what i did if it is the case i see no harm in it we will get the best deal or we leave as we already are in the process of doing.

 

[Dutto]

I had no idea we might have the opportunity to vote after the negotiations that is why i posted what i did if it is the case i see no harm in it we will get the best deal or we leave as we already are in the process of doing.

As far as I am aware, NO ONE will get the chance to vote on whatever deal this Tory government cobble together with the EU (including a "No Deal" situation).

This is why the Opposition Parties in Parliament are against it.

 

[Dutto]

The EU didn't exist in the 1970s.
What did exist was the EEC or Common Market which we joined (and would have joined earlier had De Gaulle not blocked us) and which was essentially a trade organisation, and apparently a more attractive proposition to the UK than EFTA which we were in at the time.
The EU, as it is now known, has grown into far more than a trade organisation. Had it remained trade only undoubtedly there would not have been a referendum, the term Brexit would not have been invented, and we would not be discussing it.

I agree that the EU has changed and throughout our membership the lukewarm input of UK politicians has:

a) Proved Charles de Gaulle correct in barring our membership.

b) Resulted in the UK being sidelined when it comes to influence.

The UK has always had too many vested interests who regard the EU with fear, which is why we had all the scare stories when it came to the Referendum last year.

The next time you visit a supermarket you will see that each item is labelled with the cost per litre or per kilogram. THIS is a measure forced upon the UK by the EU; and it benefits ALL except big business.

It's a tiny bit of life, but it's one that you should take heed of because without the EU you wouldn't have such protection.

 

[Dutto]

.......... We have petitioned for divorce, ........

Er ... no we haven't!

We have activated divorce proceedings and all that can happen now is that we LEAVE the EU. I refer you to ...

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

... which states ...

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question
from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period."​

... which means that the divorce can be delayed but NOT stopped.

So, the UK activated Article 50 but now the "Leavers" want to change their mind so I again refer you to Article 50 which states ...

"5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin,
its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
​

... and Article 49 ...

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/136-article-49.html

... is for ANY country that wishes to join the EU.

So, in accordance with Section 5 of Article 50, the UK would be treated just like any other candidate for membership; except that by now the UK may encounter an enormous amount of animosity from the other members.

For most people who voted "Leave" I can only quote the well known saying ...

"Please Lord forgive them for they know not what they do."​

Rather than defending their vote, it would be much more sensible if the people who voted "Leave" admitted that they were mistaken because they were not informed of:

o The procedures involved in leaving the EU.

o The impact that such an action would have on the general public of the UK.

 

[Dutto]

I do not see the problem with it we get a good deal or we leave.

.

OUCH!

We have already left. Any deals and any extensions are only with the future agreement of our former EU partners!

 

[JFB]

Er ... no we haven't!

We have activated divorce proceedings and all that can happen now is that we LEAVE the EU. I refer you to ...

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

... which states ...

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question
from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period."​

... which means that the divorce can be delayed but NOT stopped.

So, the UK activated Article 50 but now the "Leavers" want to change their mind so I again refer you to Article 50 which states ...

"5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin,
its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
​

... and Article 49 ...

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/136-article-49.html

... is for ANY country that wishes to join the EU.

So, in accordance with Section 5 of Article 50, the UK would be treated just like any other candidate for membership; except that by now the UK may encounter an enormous amount of animosity from the other members.

For most people who voted "Leave" I can only quote the well known saying ...

"Please Lord forgive them for they know not what they do."​

Rather than defending their vote, it would be much more sensible if the people who voted "Leave" admitted that they were mistaken because they were not informed of:

o The procedures involved in leaving the EU.

o The impact that such an action would have on the general public of the UK.

I voted leave. Not massively sure why TBH I know so much more now and am very sorry to our country and all my friends from the eu.
We have so much as a country to be worried about at the moment and putting all our energy into something that "could" be such a disaster seems rather stupid to me.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

OUCH!

We have already left. Any deals and any extensions are only with the future agreement of our former EU partners!

This was my last post not the one you quoted -

I had no idea we might have the opportunity to vote after the negotiations that is why i posted what i did if it is the case i see no harm in it we will get the best deal or we leave as we already are in the process of doing.

 

[Dutto]

This was my last post not the one you quoted -

Sorry!

The PM and the current government don't even want to have their negotiations discussed or voted on in Parliament by the Opposition Parties.

Joe Public had his chances with The Referendum and then backed up what he wanted by voting the present government back into power.

I just cannot see how the general public will have any input to accept or reject anything that this government manages to cobble together as part of their "negotiations" for the UK leaving the EU.

Sorry.

 

[Godsdog]

Sorry!

The PM and the current government don't even want to have their negotiations discussed or voted on in Parliament by the Opposition Parties.

Joe Public had his chances with The Referendum and then backed up what he wanted by voting the present government back into power.

I just cannot see how the general public will have any input to accept or reject anything that this government manages to cobble together as part of their "negotiations" for the UK leaving the EU.

Sorry.

if we get a choice of good deal or no deal im fine with both scenarios as long as we are out,out of the customs and out of the ECHR,not in anyway should the EU have any influence over our laws and future post brexit and for me no deal equates to taking back what was ours pre 1975 fishing borders the lot and that's fair to them as well

 

[Dutto]

......... taking back what was ours pre 1975 fishing borders the lot and that's fair to them as well

Sorry, but yet again you are looking at a situation that didn't exist because UK waters were fished out well before 1975.

This is why the UK fishing industry started intensively fishing the seas off Iceland; mainly for cod.

The resulting "Cod Wars" (which ran from the 1950's until the 1970's) occurred when the Icelandic Government declared sovereignty over the fish in their waters and moved their territorial limits; and the UK government objected to the Icelandic government's actions.

With regard to "our pre-1975 fishing borders" the UK was and is a member of the United Nations. In 1975, UK territorial waters legally extended only THREE nautical miles from the coast.

The current 12 nautical mile limit wasn't established as the international norm until the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This was seven years AFTER the UK joined the EU. :whistle:

http://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/

 

[Vambrace]

if we get a choice of good deal or no deal im fine with both scenarios as long as we are out,out of the customs and out of the ECHR,not in anyway should the EU have any influence over our laws and future post brexit and for me no deal equates to taking back what was ours pre 1975 fishing borders the lot and that's fair to them as well

The ECHR is not a component of the EU, they are completely separate. EU law is enforced through EU courts, which are not the same thing.

 

[Dutto]

The ECHR is not a component of the EU, they are completely separate. EU law is enforced through EU courts, which are not the same thing.

Here are the first eighteen "Articles" on which the EHCR is based ...

Obligation to respect Human Rights
Right to Life
Prohibition of Torture
Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour
Right to Liberty and Security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Right to respect for private and family life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry
Right to an effective remedy
Prohibition of discrimination
Derogation in time of emergency
Restrictions on political activity of aliens
Prohibition of abuse of rights
Limitation on use of restrictions on rights​

Could anyone who wants the UK to leave EHCR please explain exactly which of these Articles they wish to scrap and exactly why they wish to scrap them?

Enjoy! :thumb:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 

[Godsdog]

Sorry, but yet again you are looking at a situation that didn't exist because UK waters were fished out well before 1975.

This is why the UK fishing industry started intensively fishing the seas off Iceland; mainly for cod.

The resulting "Cod Wars" (which ran from the 1950's until the 1970's) occurred when the Icelandic Government declared sovereignty over the fish in their waters and moved their territorial limits; and the UK government objected to the Icelandic government's actions.

With regard to "our pre-1975 fishing borders" the UK was and is a member of the United Nations. In 1975, UK territorial waters legally extended only THREE nautical miles from the coast.

The current 12 nautical mile limit wasn't established as the international norm until the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This was seven years AFTER the UK joined the EU. :whistle:

http://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/

im well aware that the fishing borders were railed in before we joined the common market but that doesn't mean to say post brexit they will stay as they are,of course it could all just be political posturing leading up to the final divorce bill:whistle:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...trol-london-fisheries-convention-michael-gove

 

[Sadfield]

Related, but off on a tangent, I've just read a thread on twitter putting forward the theory that pro-remain May's ridiculous election call, manifesto that hit core Tory voters and her persistent no shows, were designed to destabilise the government and derail Brexit. Makes for an interesting conspiracy theory.

 

[Godsdog]

The ECHR is not a component of the EU, they are completely separate. EU law is enforced through EU courts, which are not the same thing.

typo error I meant to say ECJ but May did want to opt out of the ECHR and its now put on the back burner until 2022
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ghts-eu-pledge-general-election-a7705166.html

 

[Vambrace]

Here are the first eighteen "Articles" on which the EHCR is based ...

Obligation to respect Human Rights
Right to Life
Prohibition of Torture
Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour
Right to Liberty and Security
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Right to respect for private and family life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry
Right to an effective remedy
Prohibition of discrimination
Derogation in time of emergency
Restrictions on political activity of aliens
Prohibition of abuse of rights
Limitation on use of restrictions on rights​

Could anyone who wants the UK to leave EHCR please explain exactly which of these Articles they wish to scrap and exactly why they wish to scrap them?

Enjoy! :thumb:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

No rational person would argue against any of the component rights; what annoys some people is their interpretation and extended scope in judgements. Examples include the ECHR ruling that prisoners should be allowed the vote (Article 3, right to a free election) and the inability to deport foreign criminals (Article 8, right to family life).

An absolutely huge amount of good had come from it, but even staunch proponents can get a little twitchy at the fact that the court effectively has no limits to the scope of its judgements.

 

[MyQul]

Related, but off on a tangent, I've just read a thread on twitter putting forward the theory that pro-remain May's ridiculous election call, manifesto that hit core Tory voters and her persistent no shows, were designed to destabilise the government and derail Brexit. Makes for an interesting conspiracy theory.

She certainly seems to be acting really odd at the moment. E.g. She's absolutely sticking to her guns over not raising the 1% pay cap. Now surely she know that virually the whole country is against her on this, even many Conserverative voters. Yes, financially it makes perfect sense if your aim it ot lower the deficit but politically it's suicide and I dont think for one moment she's principled enough to stick to her guns for that reason. You could see all the career minded weasels like boris and hunt had sniffed the wind and were doing a u-turn but she whipped them all back into line a day or so later

 

[Dutto]

typo error I meant to say ECJ ............[/URL]

As we are leaving the EU we will automatically withdraw from the ECJ because ...

"The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law,
but not national law."​

Obviously, if we are still trading with the EU we will have to abide by the findings of the ECJ when it comes to EU law; but, as per ...

"The Judges and Advocates-General are appointed by common accord of
the governments of the member states and hold office for a
renewable term of six years."​

... the UK won't be able to appoint anyone to the ECJ because we won't be a member of the EU.

I think this is known as a "Double Whammy!" :lol: