Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CriedWhenBrucieLeft, Jun 22, 2016.
How about not ignoring the results of a vote that specified an action moving forward?
I'm talking about the process to get there. Of course the outcome will annoy many people. But don't skip parliaments when that's against the rule.
The process, at least at first, is to tell the EU they are leaving ... so if Scotland never votes "yes" on that .. it pretty much means the negotiations to leave never start and hence never finish and the whole of UK stays. That is what they are asking for with this vote
I think what causes problems now is that the process of leaving the EU was never an issue for the referendum. The question was simple, stay or leave, and the debate was - correct me if I'm wrong - mostly about arguments for staying or leaving.
My impression was that the Leave side thought that "if we win, we'll find out how to leave later". There were questions that weren't answered prior to the referendum that could (should) have been answered.
I thought the how to leave was pretty much in the EU charter .. announce you are leaving and negotiate the terms of leaving with the EU. But really nothing can start without telling the EU they are leaving officially.
What the Scots seem to be trying to do is stop it from happening or delay it for a really long time
I don't think there's any real danger of any (this isn't just about the Scottish parliament) of the devolved parliaments actually vetoing Brexit here. The current legal arguments are all about positioning and leverage. There's no danger of the UK not leaving; it's just about what type of relationship we have with the EU post-exit. Or, but not looking likely, whether Scotland is even part of that leaving process. I think what's happening just now is going to pale in comparison to the complexity of the negotiations over the next 5-10 years. It's just getting started...
I meant the internal process (what happens in the UK before they formally notify the EU that they are activating article 50). Who should have the responsibility, who need to ratify the result, and of course, what should be the status of the relationship with the EU after the exit.
The EU countries, and especially those who have been in it for decades, are interwoven in such a way that a separation necessarily becomes complicated. The question that was asked, was simple (leave or stay). I guess there had to be controversy in the aftermath of the referendum.
Which means it should be possible to discuss the whats and hows without being labeled as traitors.
The negotiations are complex to be sure .. no doubt about that. Which why starting them sooner rather than later is the route to go. If they are going, and they should go, the sooner the better as the uncertainty over how this will end up looking will continue to be a drag on the economy, budget, etc for both the EU and the UK
Nope, I'm afraid it's the exact opposite. Once Article 50 is go it's two years & that's it. The UK absolutely has to be up to speed before it enters into these negotiations.
This is going to drag on for at least the next five years.
The question is who in the UK needs to be up to speed/on the same page .. the national government (UK) or England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the national government
You can't just "speed up" the reversal of 40 years of shared law & integration. It's going to be unbelievably complicated for the UK to extricate itself from the EU; and to do so quickly creates even greater risks. The current Tory government isn't even on the same page with itself. The so-called "Great Repeal Act" is going to create a massive legal vacuum if it's not thought through properly. And current evidence suggests very few politicians gave any of this any thought; bureaucrats & the Civil Service will be left to struggle through this. The Cameron's and Osborne's of this world have already exited via the side door; it's not difficult to imagine that the current political crop will also be gone while this is still dragging on.
Though it rarely applies to government ... a deadline and necessity often force solutions ... my concern would be that it drags on forever and right now the UK is pretty much negotiating with itself when it needs to be negotiating with the EU ... where my understanding is that the time to leave from when article 50 is enacted can be extended by the EU charter .. and you are right, it could easily frag on over more than one government in the UK .. not to mention the EU countries.
You are right, there is a large range of issues .. luckily a common currency is not one of the. The thoughts of this being in one massive negotiation is pretty foolish versus breaking it into smaller chunks and start unwinding over time .. trade, right of travel, maritime issues, military, etc, etc, etc.
But to Scotland, it seems the current government there really wants to stall and delay the start of the process and I would take a guess that their goal is to draw everything out as long as possible and hope it never happens and/or give them time to bail out of the UK ... which seems 10000000% more foolish and complicated than the UK leaving the EU
Haven't read anything that says leaving process can take more than two years. It's a given that negotiations will continue beyond this, after the UK has left the EU.
Indeed. But, as I said above, the leaving process is fixed at two years. Haven't seen anything that suggests this is flexible. It's one of the reasons's why they won't trigger Article 50 until they're ready.
You're conflating the current Scottish Government (the SNP) and the Scottish parliament. None of the other Scottish parties supported leaving the EU either. It's not just the SNP who think the Scottish parliament should have a say on this.
RE: 2 years
If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period
Edit: More specific text
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Trying to hurry it through and brush unresolved issues under the carpet could get very undemocratic. There are a few Remain campaigners and a few political groups who would like a chance to fight the referendum decision, but I'm sure the rest are trying to ensure that May and the current cabinet aren't taking the redefining of British laws and UK policy on negotiations with other countries entirely into their own hands, ignoring Parliament. British law is very meshed with EU law. This period, the actual shaping of the future of Britain, should be of greater interest to residents than the referendum itself.
May / Trump press conference, aired about 40 minutes ago:
It was more about US relations with the rest of the world than Brexit, really. That's the calmest I've seen him for a while, and the BBC's question was quite frank.
Yeah indeed. I had expected it would be especially about the UK-US relations. At some point Trump praises Brexit as well.
At the point when a reporter asked him about it?
How dare that reporter!
Separate names with a comma.