Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]


Recommended Posts

It was made perfectly clear before the referendum vote, that if the United Kingdom voted to leave, then Article 50 would be triggered by the Prime Minister. This would have been agreed by the UK Prime Minister and the EU. The time span between the referendum result and Article 50 being triggered, wasn't made clear though. The length of time it took Article 50 to be triggered, was far too long in my opinion and is a contributing factor for the nonsense which is occurring now.

 

From what I posted about Article 50 not having to be trigerred,I can see that the EU were overjoyed that it actually was,seeing as it transferred control of the talks to them instead of seeing the UK walk away without paying anything.All the nonsense is down to the Tories,their leader resigned resulting in more confusion,then they called an election resulting in more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made perfectly clear before the referendum vote, that if the United Kingdom voted to leave, then Article 50 would be triggered by the Prime Minister. This would have been agreed by the UK Prime Minister and the EU. The time span between the referendum result and Article 50 being triggered, wasn't made clear though.

 

it was made perfectly clear: it was supposed to have been triggered "right away".

 

The length of time it took Article 50 to be triggered, was far too long in my opinion and is a contributing factor for the nonsense which is occurring now.

 

I agree: had he done as he'd promised, we would most likely be all sorted by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was made perfectly clear before the referendum vote, that if the United Kingdom voted to leave, then Article 50 would be triggered by the Prime Minister. This would have been agreed by the UK Prime Minister and the EU. The time span between the referendum result and Article 50 being triggered, wasn't made clear though. The length of time it took Article 50 to be triggered, was far too long in my opinion and is a contributing factor for the nonsense which is occurring now.
90+% of the nonsense we've seen, and which explains 100% of the current mess, is from the Conservatives:
  • Fear of UKIP prompting the referendum promise of 2013,
  • Continuing fear of UKIPO bringing the referendum about in 2015,
  • Turncoats Gove, Johnson <etc.> disuniting from Cameron during the campaign,
  • Cameron's morning resignation, then
  • Tory leadership bid, then
  • May's autocratic interpretation of the referendum outcome without any regard to UK constitutional law and principles, then
  • General election called and run

...and here we are, a year a bit on (the 10-or-so% balance lies with Labour Corbyn's ambiguous fence-sitting).

 

May could have saved herself 6 months (at the very least), if she hadn't faffed about with the UK's constitutional due process and tried to elbow Parliament out from the get-go, back in July 2016.

 

It takes a special kind of stupid, to harangue the nativist crowds about "sovereignty" whilst intending to rely on a "Royal Prerogative", without understanding (or listening to legal advisors explaining-) that sovereignty lies with Parliament, always has :hihi:

 

But then, given the noises from Whitehall (wherein top-draw civil servants are reportedly at their wits' ends trying to get Ministers to understand facts and face reality, and captains of industry are (in some cases literally) beating down the doors to explain in words of one syllable what a disruption to their market access and international supply chains is going to cost, all seemingly to no effect), nothing much surprises me from the political class these days. The idiocracy has taken hold. Hey, you voted for it, so, well...now you wear it :)

Edited by L00b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's weird, considering your prediction on how quickly negotiations would have been completed after triggering Article 50?

 

I have the benefit of hindsight, but did I say the negotiations would have been completed? I think I did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was made perfectly clear: it was supposed to have been triggered "right away".

 

 

 

I agree: had he done as he'd promised, we would most likely be all sorted by now.

 

I have the benefit of hindsight, but did I say the negotiations would have been completed? I think I did not.

 

Okay, what's 'we would most likely be all sorted now'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.