So much for a fair referendum then

[Vince Green]

As Mick Miller says, the vote will only be the opening shot, it won't be like handing in your notice at work. Anyone who thinks those Bloated Bureaucrats are just going to let us walk away hasn't thought this through.

 

I don't believe we were ever in, now I appreciate that is a controversial thing to say, but myself and a lot of other people don't believe that Gordon Brown had a legal mandate to sign the Lisburn Treaty on our behalf. Even at the time there were attempts to stop him but he shrugged them off. He didn't sign at the ceremony with all the other heads of state. Instead he sneaked in the back door later and signed it in secret. Why?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Vince Green

[mick miller]

This..

 

"It was the view of A. V. Dicey, writing in the early twentieth century, that parliament had "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament". He refers to "England" but his view held for the other nations of the United Kingdom, with slightly different details"

 

Jog on you snail munching, sausage loving tossers! (although, I have to bear in mind, my mum is Polish/French and my dad is German )

Edited January 12, 2016 by mick miller

[FalconFN]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Mick. Are you saying that if the referendum returns an out vote then we don't have the power to leave without the EU allowing it?

 

The referendum is to allow the people a voice, it isn't a 'vote on Monday, leave on Tuesday' deal. If the outcome is out, then parliament will have the power to bring us out, after it has paved the way for a smooth exit (or more realistically a transition to a different arrangement with the EU) - which would take years.

[armsid]

As Mick Miller says, the vote will only be the opening shot, it won't be like handing in your notice at work. Anyone who thinks those Bloated Bureaucrats are just going to let us walk away hasn't thought this through.

 

I don't believe we were ever in, now I appreciate that is a controversial thing to say, but myself and a lot of other people don't believe that Gordon Brown had a legal mandate to sign the Lisburn Treaty on our behalf. Even at the time there were attempts to stop him but he shrugged them off. He didn't sign at the ceremony with all the other heads of state. Instead he sneaked in the back door later and signed it in secret. Why?

bgordon brown was not elected prime minister by the voters only by his own party was he legally signing as the elected prime minister of the uk ?

[FalconFN]

bgordon brown was not elected prime minister by the voters only by his own party was he legally signing as the elected prime minister of the uk ?

Technically no prime minister is elected to office via a public vote, you only get to vote for one local representative in parliament. It so happens that people vote for a party led by a party leader, but this isn't America.

[mick miller]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Mick. Are you saying that if the referendum returns an out vote then we don't have the power to leave without the EU allowing it?

 

The referendum is to allow the people a voice, it isn't a 'vote on Monday, leave on Tuesday' deal. If the outcome is out, then parliament will have the power to bring us out, after it has paved the way for a smooth exit (or more realistically a transition to a different arrangement with the EU) - which would take years.

 

Exactamondo! We vote no, they vote tough. That's how it works (as I understand it). Smoke and mirrors "oh, we tried to leave but its all so tricky, they wouldn't let us"... And besides, we don't actually need to use Article 50, we can use our own Parliamentary law to simply say cheerio. Why is this not even mentioned?

[FalconFN]

 

Exactamondo! We vote no, they vote tough. That's how it works (as I understand it). Smoke and mirrors "oh, we tried to leave but its all so tricky, they wouldn't let us"... And besides, we don't actually need to use Article 50, we can use our own Parliamentary law to simply say cheerio. Why is this not even mentioned?

Surely because the will of the people isn't know yet? Why would a parliament that is [seemingly] overwhelmingly in favor of the EU suddenly decide to leave it without a mandate from the people? If the vote brings the OUT decision then we will leave - and then rejoin as a paying guest rather than an a paying host.

[mossberg-operator]

Financially bad, overall.

Edited January 12, 2016 by londonercsecse

[secretagentmole]

Financially bad, overall.

Why perchance? We will be quids in as we will not be propping up the busted flush that is the Euro. They can whistle when it comes to more bailouts for Portugal, Italy, Ireland Greece and Spain, we can start asking for some of that damned cash back and we will have more money to spend at home.

 

Europe needs the UK as a consumer of European goods so they are hardly likely to slap a load of tariffs on our exports to Europe as we can do the same to all the stuff we import from Europe, also Mexico has the same trading arrangement with the EU that we do....

[Psyxologos]

they are hardly likely to slap a load of tariffs on our exports to Europe

 

Do you happen to know what the UK exports, by any chance? Or what the import/export ratio is? I would very much like to know.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Psyxologos

[grrclark]

I think FalconFN has covered it well, the forthcoming referendum is to give the government our instruction in respect to continuing our EU membership or otherwise. If our instruction is to leave then at that point the government are bound to follow the most appropriate mechanism to facilitate our exit.

[Psyxologos]

This is my/his point. A vote won't matter. We vote no, they vote to ignore our vote, we're still in. Only we don't get a say on the vote they all have to see if we can leave or not.

 

Seems a bit of a EU magic trick and we already have a perfectly good existing Parliamentary law (see core theory) that can tell them to poke the lot, referendum or no. But there's no mention of that.

 

No conspiracy to shaft the UK citizens there then.

 

Just to bring some facts to this debate, perhaps you care to read this. Now feel free to go back to emotion laden paranoia.

[Danger-Mouse]

This is my/his point. A vote won't matter. We vote no, they vote to ignore our vote, we're still in. Only we don't get a say on the vote they all have to see if we can leave or not.

 

Seems a bit of a EU magic trick and we already have a perfectly good existing Parliamentary law (see core theory) that can tell them to poke the lot, referendum or no. But there's no mention of that.

 

No conspiracy to shaft the UK citizens there then.

 

 

As Mick Miller says, the vote will only be the opening shot, it won't be like handing in your notice at work. Anyone who thinks those Bloated Bureaucrats are just going to let us walk away hasn't thought this through.

 

From the UKIP Manifesto

 

"Last week UKIP set out its plan for exit from the European Union, outlining two options:

 

“We repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and leave immediately.

We activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and notify the European Council that the UK has decided to leave the EU in two years’ time.”"

 

If the Act of 1972 is repealed there`s nothing that the EU can do in legal terms to stop us leaving. Our sovereign law cannot be over-ruled by an outside power. Yes the EU can make us suffer in trade or other ways but short of a military invasion they can`t stop us repealing that law and leaving the EU.

 

As to Article 50;

 

"Article 50 says the longest that a member state will remain in the EU after it gives notice that it wants to leave is two years (unless there is unanimous agreement between that state and the Council to extend the cut-off point)."

 

Quotes taken from this article

 

https://fullfact.org/UKIP_manifesto_Brexit-42580

[Vince Green]

 

Do you happen to know what the UK exports, by any chance? Or what the import/export ratio is? I would very much like to know.

Our biggest exports to the EU are financial services thrrough the City of London and Gremany has had its eye on that for a long time. All they would need to do is impose a transaction tarriff. Thats the big danger.

[rjimmer]

Cameron is trying to protect the interests of his banker friends, the ones who caused the financial crisis that we are trying to print our way out of. The most vocal pro-EU noises will be coming from those involved in financial services and those involved in bureaucratic jobs.

[FalconFN]

Cameron is trying to protect the interests of his banker friends, the ones who caused the financial crisis that we are trying to print our way out of. The most vocal pro-EU noises will be coming from those involved in financial services and those involved in bureaucratic jobs.

You make that sound like a bad thing!

 

Our banking industry is one of the largest in the world and a vital part of our economy. Look it up, it really is quite impressive for a small island off the coast of Eurasia.

[Penelope]

Now I'm no pro EU'er, but why to people think it's only bankers that banks employ? There are huge numbers of directly employed support staff plus cleaning, maintenance, security contractors and their staff.

 

You make that sound like a bad thing!

 

Our banking industry is one of the largest in the world and a vital part of our economy. Look it up, it really is quite impressive for a small island off the coast of Eurasia.

[mick miller]

It's not manufacturing though is it? So it tends to be concentrated leaving a lot of the country bereft of any direct benefit.

 

Not knocking banking though, many of my friends work in banking and the city. It's a massive contributor to the local economy.

[AVB]

It's not manufacturing though is it? So it tends to be concentrated leaving a lot of the country bereft of any direct benefit.

 

Not knocking banking though, many of my friends work in banking and the city. It's a massive contributor to the local economy.

I think you would be surprised. How many people do RBS (as an example) employ outside of London? And, surprisingly, Deutsche Bank (who are building their capacity in Birmingham).

[Rewulf]

 

Just to bring some facts to this debate, perhaps you care to read this. Now feel free to go back to emotion laden paranoia.

 

So, having read through the info from that site,we are told there is 'no way ' we can put an accurate figure on how many laws and regs have been implemented from Brussels in the last 15 or so years.

But they guess a figure around 50 % ?

Not very factual is it ?

Who runs Full Fact ?

Why should we have any laws or regs dictated from Brussels ?

Isnt the EU just a trade agreement more or less ?

 

Another quote from Full Fact:

There is no direct evidence on whether welfare has acted as a “magnet” encouraging EU migrants to come to the UK, and gathering this kind of evidence is tricky.

 

Then why do the migrants come?

Why is gathering the evidence 'tricky' ?

Because finding the real reason is bad press ?

 

Here is a question for you.

If we are not 'allowed' by the EU to deny some benefits to migrants for 4 years,one would assume that every EU country would have the same rules ?

So why is the UK among others,the favoured destination?

Why do migrants sit in their camps at Calais waiting for months to get here,risking life and limb to climb on trucks and trains?

When they are already in a country that has the same benefit system as us ?

 

And if the EU migrants own countries have the same system as the UK,why is the UK so attractive?

[mossberg-operator]

So, having read through the info from that site,we are told there is 'no way ' we can put an accurate figure on how many laws and regs have been implemented from Brussels in the last 15 or so years.

But they guess a figure around 50 % ?

Not very factual is it ?

Who runs Full Fact ?

Why should we have any laws or regs dictated from Brussels ?

Isnt the EU just a trade agreement more or less ?

 

Another quote from Full Fact:

There is no direct evidence on whether welfare has acted as a “magnet” encouraging EU migrants to come to the UK, and gathering this kind of evidence is tricky.[/size]

 

Then why do the migrants come?

Why is gathering the evidence 'tricky' ?

Because finding the real reason is bad press ?

 

Here is a question for you.

If we are not 'allowed' by the EU to deny some benefits to migrants for 4 years,one would assume that every EU country would have the same rules ?

So why is the UK among others,the favoured destination?

Why do migrants sit in their camps at Calais waiting for months to get here,risking life and limb to climb on trucks and trains?

When they are already in a country that has the same benefit system as us ?

 

And if the EU migrants own countries have the same system as the UK,why is the UK so attractive?

I can answer the last question (as an EU migrant): I can work here and have a decent living standard. (Not claiming any benefits, never did, last 12 yrs). Can't do the same over there.

[rjimmer]

I think you would be surprised. How many people do RBS (as an example) employ outside of London?

All propped up by tax-payers.

[rjimmer]

 

 

Then why do the migrants come?

Why is gathering the evidence 'tricky' ?

Because finding the real reason is bad press ?

 

About 40+ years ago there was a documentary on TV where somebody asked a women in an African country why she wanted to go to Britain. "Because you have the Welfare state". Was her answer.

[Shotguneddy]

Get out I say

[AVB]

All propped up by tax-payers.

Really? How much has the tax payer paid (some of whom were RBS employees) and how much have RBS paid in taxes (various), fees, fines etc?

 

Do your own research rather than Daily Mail sound bites.

 

And my point was that the UK's finance industry doesn't just benefit London. Although that is the perception.

 

The U.K. Finance industry isn't as pro Europe as some imagine. A lot don't care. It's the uncertainty that causes more problems.