The consequence thread (Brexit)

[unbeliever]

Can you please expand? Not sure I understand the point.

 

The cabinet invoke article 50.

The 2 year period passes and as far as the EU is concerned the treaties no longer apply to the UK and it does not recognise the UK as part of the EU.

Parliament can't really do much about it once this has happened.

 

I'm not saying that's the way it will go, but it rather puts cabinet in effective control.

[apelike]

You're assuming the only options are going to be 'accept this deal' or 'WTO rules'. There's always the option of 'go back and negotiate a softer brexit deal'. Admittedly, that might require the EU agreeing to extend the 2 year deadline.

 

I doubt that there will be an option to go back or that any deadline will be extended. The member states in the EU want this over quick and have said as much by wanting A50 enacted ASP. Extending it will also put pressure on them and their own economies as the Eurozone economy is also fragile at the moment. We also did the right thing by getting out of the ERM and rejecting the Euro as currency as we have prospered despite not being a member of the ERM.

Edited October 19, 2016 by apelike

[L00b]

The cabinet invoke article 50.

The 2 year period passes and as far as the EU is concerned the treaties no longer apply to the UK and it does not recognise the UK as part of the EU.

Parliament can't really do much about it once this has happened.

Thanks unbeliever, but I'm still not sure that I understand your earlier "although if the treaties are dissolved at the EU end, refusing to do likewise at the UK end would be nonsensical" after the above.

 

If the 2 year period ends without a deal or an extension, the Treaties are not "dissolved at the EU end". The Treaties will still be there just fine for the remaining EU27 as they were the day before the clock runs out.

 

The UK won't be bound the Treaties anymore, is the effect.

 

Regrettably for the UK, clusterf*** does not begin to cover that situation, because 'back to WTO' is far far too simplistic an expression to convey the Himalaya of scrambling required to untangle the UK's share of imports and exports from the EU's and WTO-tariff them correctly. That's to look only at the most obvious and immediate consequence.

I'm not saying that's the way it will go, but it rather puts cabinet in effective control.

Politically, I agree.

 

However, in this case "politically" has run smack into "legally": the government's prerogatives ('cabinet in charge') do not extend to any action which de facto diminishes British citizen's rights (such as they currently are whilst the UK is still part of the EU).

 

This is one of the core pillars of the current claim about Parliament's role that has been issued and is being heard by the High Court, and (I'm surmising) why May recently started to u-turn about consulting Parliament in the matter.

 

The cabinet is not is as much in charge as it thinks it is, nor would like to be. If anything, it's only still taking the measures of the abyss and the gap to jump above it.

Edited October 19, 2016 by L00b

[Obelix]

Did anyone bother to ask her views on the matter?

 

Every week she will have a meeting with her PM..

 

A point to note - the Queen does listen and you can petition her directly. If you are somewhat annoyed about having your citizenship stipped irrevocably against your will then you can appeal to her and you don't even need a stamp as long as the letter is marked as a petition to the Crown.

 

Perhaps she will bend May's ear a bit :-)

Edited October 19, 2016 by Obelix

[apelike]

If you are somewhat annoyed about having your citizenship stipped irrevocably against your will then you can appeal to her and you don't even need a stamp as long as the letter is marked as a petition to the Crown.

 

Just who is having their citizenship stripped from them against their will?

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2016 at 14:06 ----------

 

However, in this case "politically" has run smack into "legally": the government's prerogatives ('cabinet in charge') do not extend to any action which de facto diminishes British citizen's rights (such as they currently are whilst the UK is still part of the EU).

 

Which citizens rights will be affected before we leave the EU?

[unbeliever]

Every week she will have a meeting with her PM..

 

A point to note - the Queen does listen and you can petition her directly. If you are somewhat annoyed about having your citizenship stipped irrevocably against your will then you can appeal to her and you don't even need a stamp as long as the letter is marked as a petition to the Crown.

 

Perhaps she will bend May's ear a bit :-)

 

 

Can you explain the bit I've highlighted in bold? It's not clear what you mean by it.

Also, I doubt The Sovereign has a problem with the restoration of UK sovereignty. Although I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask. As a matter of principle, I consider her views on the matter irrelevant.

[Obelix]

Just who is having their citizenship stripped from them against their will?

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2016 at 14:06 ----------

 

 

Which citizens rights will be affected before we leave the EU?

 

I'm a citizen of the EU as well as of the UK.

 

The right to travel and abode will be lost. The only way that these can legally be removed from any citizen is by due process of law not some arbitrary process in Cabinet.

[unbeliever]

I'm a citizen of the EU as well as of the UK.

 

The right to travel and abode will be lost. The only way that these can legally be removed from any citizen is by due process of law not some arbitrary process in Cabinet.

 

Ah I get it.

Well parliament ratified the Lisbon treaty which included article 50 granting the executive the power to withdraw from the union. So there's really no problem with the cabinet's authority in this matter.

Parliament also voted to hold the referendum.

[apelike]

I'm a citizen of the EU as well as of the UK.

 

The right to travel and abode will be lost. The only way that these can legally be removed from any citizen is by due process of law not some arbitrary process in Cabinet.

 

Not necessarily so. You will still have the right to travel and abode here so nothing is being removed.

[Obelix]

Not necessarily so. You will still have the right to travel and abode here so nothing is being removed.

 

Yeah because my other citizenship doesn't count?

 

Says a deal about your worldview.

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2016 at 14:19 ----------

 

Ah I get it.

Well parliament ratified the Lisbon treaty which included article 50 granting the executive the power to withdraw from the union. So there's really no problem with the cabinet's authority in this matter.

Parliament also voted to hold the referendum.

 

I said I wouldn't but....

 

You actually read Article 50?

 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

 

Clearly it doesn't make any reference to the Cabinet. That would be foolish.

 

So you have to look at the Constitutional requirments.

 

801 years ago in a muddy field John and his barons agreed on a bit of vellum some stuff. Part of which is still in force and provides the very foundations of the entire edifice of law in this country.

 

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

 

You can worm it whatever way you like but Magna Carta makes it perfectly clear that the Cabinet cannot even with Royal Preogative overrule the Law of the Land and outlaw me from citizenship, not exile me, nor pass any destruction or judgement on me without judgement from my Peers or by Law.

 

That's whats being argued in the High Court, and probably then the Supreme Court.