The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Magilla]

Wow! Just been woken up by the sound of remainers whining.

 

I'm surprised you could hear it with your head so firmly wedged in that hole.

 

So, for the 4th time, in what way were you "ruled" by the EU?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Magilla

[NigelFargate]

Are you sure? After all this is the Home Secretary who was part of the government that kept stating immigration should come down in the ten thousands and at the same time recruited hundreds of thousands from outside the EEA.

 

Just because they never told you the truth about immigration being necessary doesn't mean you can ignore that fact.

 

I am sure that the current policy of unrestricted migration from the EU will end. No one knows at present what policy will replace it, although with David Davis and Liam Fox placed in key positions with regard to the Brexit negotiations, there is some hope that sensible migration policy will replace the currently untenable position, which is based on inflexible dogma, like so much else in the EU.

[Santo]

I am sure that the current policy of unrestricted migration from the EU will end. No one knows at present what policy will replace it, although with David Davis and Liam Fox placed in key positions with regard to the Brexit negotiations, there is some hope that sensible migration policy will replace the currently untenable position, which is based on inflexible dogma, like so much else in the EU.

 

Will you be changing your username to JonathanArnoldavenue after the UKIP leadership race?

[Guest]

You're still in bed while they're off to work presumably.

 

You do realise he made that post at 1:07 am??

[tzijlstra]

I am sure that the current policy of unrestricted migration from the EU will end. No one knows at present what policy will replace it, although with David Davis and Liam Fox placed in key positions with regard to the Brexit negotiations, there is some hope that sensible migration policy will replace the currently untenable position, which is based on inflexible dogma, like so much else in the EU.

 

Who are you going to blame if it doesn't change?

[ez8004]

The EU has already set a red line for unrestricted migration as a mandatory requirement for access to the single market.

 

So who are you going to blame?

[altus]

Very true. It seems that a lot of Brexiteers voted Leave because the EU is too neoliberal (whether they articulated it that way or not), neglecting the fact that policies are likely to be even more neoliberal under a stand-alone UK government.

It also begs the question why aren't Labour involved in the Brexit negotiations. The campaigning on both sides was cross party after all.

[apelike]

The EU Referendum Act 2015 was legislation to make provision for a referendum to be held. That is it. It allows the government to hold a referendum. It was not legally binding as there was no provision made to act on the result. Unlike the referendum on the alternative voting system.

 

Err, no.

 

The past 3 referendums were not legally binding including the AV system, but all were approved by Parliament for the government to hold them. No new legislation is needed for this government to enact A50. It could go to parliament for approval that's all, but as it is not legally binding the government can also ignore any "not approved "outcome. Parliament is in a dodgy situation, on uncharted ground and any attempt to derail the outcome would be unprecedented, not to mention undemocratic.

 

The European Communities Act 1972 is the legislation that needs to be overturned to leave the EU. This is why a new piece of legislation is needed.

 

Err, no.

 

The European Communities Act 1972 does not need to be repealed or overturned. Most Act's of Parliament and laws made are not repealed but only amended and that all that needs to be done here. This Act will in part still be needed in place as repealing the whole will be a legal nightmare. Amendments to the Act will be needed that's all, and sometimes the government can do so without further approval of parliament.

 

Get it?

[Eater Sundae]

Err, no.

 

The past 3 referendums were not legally binding including the AV system, but all were approved by Parliament for the government to hold them. No new legislation is needed for this government to enact A50. It could go to parliament for approval that's all, but as it is not legally binding the government can also ignore any "not approved "outcome. Parliament is in a dodgy situation, on uncharted ground and any attempt to derail the outcome would be unprecedented, not to mention undemocratic.

 

 

 

Err, no.

 

The European Communities Act 1972 does not need to be repealed or overturned. Most Act's of Parliament and laws made are not repealed but only amended and that all that needs to be done here. This Act will in part still be needed in place as repealing the whole will be a legal nightmare. Amendments to the Act will be needed that's all, and sometimes the government can do so without further approval of parliament.

 

Get it?

 

If the government of the day decided to totally ignore the referendum result, that would not be undemocratic. We have a parliamentary democracy. Parliament decides. That's how our democracy works.

[monkey104]

You do realise he made that post at 1:07 am??

 

No. He was too busy whining.