Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Yes, I imagined this was a country that respected democracy and imagined the democratic EU referendum result would have been fully implemented on 29th March.

It was fully implemented on the 24th June 2016 when David Cameron announced that the UK would be leaving the EU.

 

The referendum wasn’t a statutory instrument it was an advisory poll and Cameron (wrongly) took the advice of the referendum and announced that the UK would leave. The referendum itself obliged nobody to do anything.

[apelike]

46 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Rule out no-deal first. Election after that.

But all parliament have done is create a law that obliges him to ask the EU for an extension which still does not rule out a no-deal.

[apelike]

23 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The referendum wasn’t a statutory instrument it was an advisory poll and Cameron (wrongly) took the advice of the referendum and announced that the UK would leave. The referendum itself obliged nobody to do anything.

Once again just to be correct... Cameron stated that the result would be enacted on and that was also in his pro-EU leaflet so being advisory makes no difference. He did not take the advice of that referendum wrongly but according to what he had stated he would do. The referendum may not have obliged anyone to follow the result through but Cameron and parliament thought otherwise and parliament passed A50 into law..

Edited September 8, 2019 by apelike

[Pettytom]

9 minutes ago, apelike said:

But all parliament have done is create a law that obliges him to ask the EU for an extension which still does not rule out a no-deal.

It wasn’t intended to stop no deal. It was intended to buy enough time to hold an election.

 

The election will give us all an up to date view of public opinion. 

[apelike]

8 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

It wasn’t intended to stop no deal. It was intended to buy enough time to hold an election.

Quote: The Guardian Live reports

"A bill designed to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October without a Brexit agreement has cleared the House of Lords, and it is set to become law on Monday when it is due to get royal assent. The bill is thought to be legally watertight, and it seems to have closed off the option of Johnson forcing a no-deal Brexit at the end of October"

 

He could of course also ask the Queen not to give consent, a tactic Blair also used in the Iraq conflict to deny parliament taking control.

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by apelike

[Top Cats Hat]

17 minutes ago, apelike said:

Once again just to be correct... Cameron stated that the result would be enacted on 

I’m sure I’ve asked you this before but which part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 says that the result would be acted upon?

 

An Act of Parliament holds way more weight than the promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister!

[Pettytom]

54 minutes ago, apelike said:

Quote: The Guardian Live reports

"A bill designed to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October without a Brexit agreement has cleared the House of Lords, and it is set to become law on Monday when it is due to get royal assent. The bill is thought to be legally watertight, and it seems to have closed off the option of Johnson forcing a no-deal Brexit at the end of October"

 

He could of course also ask the Queen not to give consent, a tactic Blair also used in the Iraq conflict to deny parliament taking control.

 

Thanks for the quote.

 

Was there a reason that you chose it?

[apelike]

46 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I’m sure I’ve asked you this before but which part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 says that the result would be acted upon?

It didn't as being an Act it is not necessary as it just gives authority (law) and rules pertaining to the referendum being held.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

 

46 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

An Act of Parliament holds way more weight than the promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister!

I agree. Notice how the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed by parliament into law! That gave the PM the authority from parliament to start negotiations for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. At the third reading, the Commons passed the bill by 494 to 122 (big majority) and it gained Royal Assent on 16 March 2017 and passed into law, so all legal and above board.

 

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Thanks for the quote.

 

Was there a reason that you chose it?

Yes to post on here... 

Edited September 8, 2019 by apelike

[Longcol]

Can anyone explain how a no-deal Brexit will be helpful in the future?

 

Brexit is only the beginning of a new relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. Unless we want to be the only major economy in the world to trade on WTO terms (unfavourable compared to deals) we need to have a trade agreement in place with our closest and largest trading partner - the EU. The "deal" negotiated by May and rejected 3 times by Parliament was only a holding situation - not the final deal.

 

How will crashing out help us to negotiate a favourable deal with the EU in the future? Given that all our major trade deals were negotiated by the EU - where is the knowledge and capacity to negotiate future deals around the world?

 

You might like to have a look at the deals currently in place.

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries-in-a-no-deal-brexit

 

And this only covers trade deals and not the myriad of other agreements.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Longcol

[Pettytom]

6 minutes ago, apelike said:

 

 

Yes to post on here... 

In general, I find leavers hard to

understand.

 

In this case, I’m totally confused.

 

Was there a reason for your post? Forum

rules say that you have to add to the discussion. Just so you know