Brexit

[Teaos]

Funny how our systems are so similar yet different. Politicians who have never had a real job are held in disdane here. It's one of the most effective arguments "you've never even had a real job,"

[Graham Kennedy]

Just a slight delay, folks, that's all.

Theresa May does not intend to trigger article 50 this year, court told

[Teaos]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/bre ... d-of-march

March next year they trigger the 24 month leave period. Was getting to the point that i expected them to just ignore it.

[Graham Kennedy]

Source

A Supreme Court judge has suggested “comprehensive” legislation may be required to trigger Brexit, potentially delaying the move for two years.

In a dramatic intervention, Lady Brenda Hale said a “simple Act of Parliament” may not be sufficient to start the process, arguing replacement of the 1972 Act that took Britain into the EU in the first place may be needed.

Theresa May has promised a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to end the supremacy of that 1972 Act in UK law, but it will not even be brought forward until next May’s Queen’s Speech.

And, because it will first enshrine all existing EU law into British law, before unwanted parts are repealed – an enormously complex process - it may not be completed until 2019.

The Prime Minister has vowed to invoke the Article 50 notice by the end of March next year, with the aim of leaving the EU altogether within two years and no later than spring 2019.

To add to the controversy, Lady Hale is one of the 11 justices who will hear next month’s Government appeal to the Supreme Court for the right to bypass Parliament when it triggers Article 50.

I'm still wondering if Brexit will ever actually happen.

I wonder, is Article 50 undoable? Once invoked, could the exit be cancelled afterwards?

[Reliant121]

I am not in the least bit surprised. When EU law is so intertwined with our own, with 40 years worth of roots grown in, it was never going to be anywhere near as easy as May wanted. The danger is she can simply cry foul at the Judiciary.

[Graham Kennedy]

Source

The Scottish and Welsh governments are to be allowed to have a say in the Supreme Court battle over how Brexit should be triggered.

The government is appealing against a High Court ruling that MPs must get a vote on triggering Article 50. The Supreme Court confirmed that Wales and Scotland's senior law officers will be allowed to take part in the appeal.

UK PM Theresa May said on Friday that work was "on track" to begin the formal process of Brexit by April 2017.

At a joint press briefing with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, following a meeting with EU leaders in Berlin, Mrs May said: "We stand ready to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017 and I want to see this as a smooth process, an orderly process, working towards a solution that's in the interests of both the UK and also in the interests of our European partners."

[Mikey]

I think it's a foregone conclusion that it will not be a smooth, orderly process.

[Teaos]

Burn it all.

[Graham Kennedy]

Government loses Brexit case

Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing - although this is expected to happen in time for the government's 31 March deadline.

But the court ruled the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies did not need a say.

During the Supreme Court hearing, campaigners argued that denying the UK Parliament a vote was undemocratic and a breach of long-standing constitutional principles.

But the government said it already had the powers to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - getting talks under way - without the need for consulting MPs and peers. It said that MPs had voted overwhelmingly to put the issue in the hands of the British people via the referendum.

Now, the question becomes... how much support does Brexit have in parliament?

The prediction I made last June remains :

Okay, here is my prediction. Let's check back in the future and see how I did...

This referendum will ultimately be ignored.

The UK will NOT exit the EU.

Don't know if that is how it will ultimately shake out, but we are definitely a good deal closer to it than we were.

[Vic]

Would it be possible for England to exit but not the rest of the UK?

[Bryan Moore]

I am admittedly a person whose political leanings tend to follow a conservative economic perspective... so can someone please tell me, because my apparently feeble mind cannot comprehend... what exactly does Britain expect to gain, economically, from the Brexit? Not that I'd ever doubt a country whose greatest current export is the cast of Game of Thrones, but I've not heard a great argument that really convinces me why this is seen by the conservatives as a smart economic move.

[Graham Kennedy]

I don't know that Britain does expect to gain economically from Brexit, particularly. I voted leave, and economic matters were not a great factor in that.

[IanKennedy]

We don't expect to gain economically, we expect to have our boarders controlled by us rather than Angela Merkel. I too voted leave.

The economic argument comes from the fact we can trade with other countries around the world without having to wait an eternity for the rest of Europe to agree to the very same deal. You only have to look at the mess that is the Canada deal to see how badly that can go (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37814884)

[IanKennedy]

Would it be possible for England to exit but not the rest of the UK?

That has been ruled out by the British government. Wales and Northern Ireland would not survive financially without the help of England, even Scotland is a pretty close call economically. Sure they claim they would be OK but the North Sea oil is running out and without it there pretty much dead ducks.

[Mikey]

I'd always gotten the impression - only since the exportation of gallowglasses to Ireland in the 1200's or so - that the Scottish tendency toward independence from the UK was based far more on cultural and idealistic tenets rather than economic ones. Even before that time, while the Scots may have been considered "foreign Gaels" by the Irish and Welsh, they certainly found ways - coincidentally, perhaps - to run counter to the cultural norms of the traditionally Saxon areas of the British Isles.