Radan Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 read my above post. it doesnt matter who runs the uk but atleast we are out of the pathetic EU people are already smiling and spending Enjoy your freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better to be a brexit uk ran by a remainer than run by brussels:hihi: ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 21:32 ---------- I`m sorry i`m like you.I don`t know owt about politics. whose Kuenssberg? Not a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 If you don't obey EU law aren't you sanctioned? Not immediately just plain thrown out? ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 21:29 ---------- Are you Laura Kuenssberg? You remind me of her. 10. SLAMMING THE DOOR A new British government simply walks out. It could launch Article 50 and leave legally in 2019 without any negotiation. It could also ignore the two-year notice period and tear up its treaty obligations and quit right away, though that would undermine its credibility as a party to international law. There is, however, nothing the EU can do to prevent that. It could retaliate on trade or against Britons living in the EU, however much that would create a painful tit-for-tat that would badly hurt Europe's economy and citizens. Nonetheless, EU leaders fear that letting Brexit Britain walk all over them will only inspire other European nationalists to destroy the Union. REALLY? THREAT OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION THEN DETENTE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) Nothing to do with the UK or EU at that point, it would invalidate every law built on that constitutional point. The UK would be free to wipe that effect out by stating it would observe all laws underpinned by that law, but it would be open to enormous legal challenges all over the place. Sorry, you've lost me. We first convert all existing EU law affecting the UK to regular UK law. This sounds like a big job, but there are legal instruments to get it done simply. Then we repeal the 1972 act. Uk law hasn't actually changed, except that we've simply un-pooled our sovereignty from the EU. Now the trade negotiations begin, starting from a position of exactly what the trade arrangements are now. There's no place for legal challenges at this point. The EU courts are no longer relevant. We're on school-yard rules. I'm not actually advocating this approach. But we're not helpless here. If the UK government want to have pre-article-50 negotiations and the EU don't; we don't have to play nice either. Edited July 12, 2016 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Quite so. The EU could immediately start a trade war with the UK by imposing tariffs damaging to us and leading us to do the same them. Would they? but we're taking the decision to revert to the default wto position so why shouldnt they leave us to it. ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 21:52 ---------- Sorry, you've lost me. We first convert all existing EU law affecting the UK to regular UK law. This sounds like a big job, but there are legal instruments to get it done simply. Then we repeal the 1972 act. Uk law hasn't actually changed, except that we've simply un-pooled our sovereignty from the EU. Now the trade negotiations begin, starting from a position of exactly what the trade arrangements are now. There's no place for legal challenges at this point. The EU courts are no longer relevant. We're on school-yard rules. all the arrangements would have been cancelled by repealing the 1972 act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 but we're taking the decision to revert to the default wto position so why shouldnt they leave us to it. ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 21:52 ---------- all the arrangements would have been cancelled by repealing the 1972 act. It would still take an act by the EU to change the established trading relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Sorry, you've lost me. We first convert all existing EU law affecting the UK to regular UK law. This sounds like a big job, but there are legal instruments to get it done simply. Then we repeal the 1972 act. Uk law hasn't actually changed, except that we've simply un-pooled our sovereignty from the EU. Now the trade negotiations begin, starting from a position of exactly what the trade arrangements are now. There's no place for legal challenges at this point. The EU courts are no longer relevant. We're on school-yard rules. The trade arrangements with the EU would have ended the moment that we repeal the 1972 act. We might have put our bit into UK law, but the rest of the EU haven't been a party to this, so their only link with us was the 1972 treaty, which has now gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 but we're taking the decision to revert to the default wto position so why shouldnt they leave us to it. No. We're not. We're rejecting the supremacy of the EU institutions. We're un-pooling our sovereignty (please don't make me write that again as I have serious issues with the very concept of pooled sovereignty). But we're not actually changing the laws and rules of our trading relationship with the EU. There's nothing to stop them going to work the next day and bringing in all manner of tariffs, but we're not forcing them to do so. ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 21:57 ---------- The trade arrangements with the EU would have ended the moment that we repeal the 1972 act. We might have put our bit into UK law, but the rest of the EU haven't been a party to this, so their only link with us was the 1972 treaty, which has now gone. We haven't un-signed the treaties at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 brilliant news pound up!!!! ftse 100 up to 11 month high Why not congratulate brexit?? Instead of gloom!! It seems its only REMAINERS that keep posting bad pessemistic remarks. The FTSE 250 is still lower than 2015, the FTSE is a better barometer of UK companies. Since the stock market has historically risen, just being at the same level as 12 months ago is a poor stock market performance. That may well be a reflection poor management of our economy by the UK Government, not leaving the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 No. We're not. We're rejecting the supremacy of the EU institutions. We're un-pooling our sovereignty (please don't make me write that again as I have serious issues with the very concept of pooled sovereignty). But we're not actually changing the laws and rules of our trading relationship with the EU. There's nothing to stop them going to work the next day and bringing in all manner of tariffs, but we're not forcing them to do so. ---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 21:57 ---------- We haven't un-signed the treaties at this point. Sorry, I used conditional and real versions of verbs as I thought it would read better, but it clearly confused the issue. (A mix up of future real conditional and future unreal conditional). What I meant was: If we were to revoke the 1972 treaty, the EU would have no treaty with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 12, 2016 Author Share Posted July 12, 2016 Sorry, you've lost me. We first convert all existing EU law affecting the UK to regular UK law. This sounds like a big job, but there are legal instruments to get it done simply. Then we repeal the 1972 act. Uk law hasn't actually changed, except that we've simply un-pooled our sovereignty from the EU. Now the trade negotiations begin, starting from a position of exactly what the trade arrangements are now. There's no place for legal challenges at this point. The EU courts are no longer relevant. We're on school-yard rules. I'm not actually advocating this approach. But we're not helpless here. If the UK government want to have pre-article-50 negotiations and the EU don't; we don't have to play nice either. The trade arrangements with the EU would have ended the moment that we repeal the 1972 act. We might have put our bit into UK law, but the rest of the EU haven't been a party to this, so their only link with us was the 1972 treaty, which has now gone. To add to Eater's point, what you are saying is this: We repeal the 1972 act and we are clear of the EU, we will just rewrite a couple of things and bob's your uncle. Except that this isn't how it works, the whole body of law that is underpinned by the 1972 treaty becomes invalid, it was based on the understanding of that treaty. All that will be achieved by your scenario is that the UK still applies all EU law as it stands, but not that the EU includes the UK. Not only would it create a mess in international standards; the WTO wouldn't allow it, the UN wouldn't allow it, the EU wouldn't allow it and probably some other international bodies. Nobody would know what is going on, it will create an enormous power-vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts