Brexit - am I stupid or what?

Who writes this rubbish?

Sounds like a definite maybe to me.

 

....still confused

 

Never played rounders, so thanks for that, never did know what a back stop meant.
How that equates to leaving the eu is a mystery to me.

Now we have spain having another go regarding Gibraltar, maybe they should shut up and sort out Catalonia first.

But, cant see why anyone would involve Alistair Campbell in all this? think he was a TB chrony that got out of line, and look where TB lead us, with the advice of this moron.

 

@shiney are you saying that Mrs May can make this happen even without parliament backing?

 

Most treaties do not require a parliamentary vote but I believe that the act (that was passed and entered into law) to trigger article 50 included a clause that the final agreement requires a vote. Below are two quotes from a parliamentary factsheet; the first defines a treaty and the second outlines UK parliamentary practice.................

1] "The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (in force since 1980) defines a treaty as: ‘an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation’
Only a minority of such agreements have “treaty” in their title. Other common names include
“convention”, “protocol” and “agreement”."

2] "According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in
treaty making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown.
Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them.
The lack of formal parliamentary involvement in treaty making differentiates the British
Parliament from most other national legislatures. With few exceptions, most written
constitutions stipulate that parliamentary approval of treaties is required before ratification for at least some categories of treaty."

She could try and force it through without a vote but I've underlined that backstop () that the leave faction would use to block that.

The more that I think about it the more that I think that she should offer parliament a simple two choice vote - pass it or we have a second referendum. If the mark was 60% remain, 40% leave that would represent a clear definition of "the weight of public opinion" (edit; see my post below). There should be a safety check with regards to minimum turnout, at least equal to the turnout of the first referendum.
Additionally, each choice would be required to vote on the type of agreement that they want in the event of leave being the concensus; the deal we have on the table or no deal. That vote should be on a first past the post basis.

 

"Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."'[9]

Immediately prior to the referendum, data from Ipsos-Mori showed that immigration/migration was the most cited issue when Britons were asked 'What do you see as the most/other important issue facing Britain today?', with 48% of respondents mentioning it when surveyed."[10] Of course polls can be wrong but that wrong?

As far as a lay person such as I can tell, nothing has changed since the vote to alter the views of those whose main concern is not so centred on economics but much more on control of immigration. I would also not be surprised if the actual figure was higher taken that it is not seen to be PC to be against the world and his wife, children, grandchildren, great children etc coming to live here.
I am expecting the vote in parliament to be a political points scoring exercise as per usual.
I voted remain but I am also a person who believes in democracy. Let the referendum vote stand and those who voted to stay should just have to suck it up.

 

Yeah, I'm beginning to go along with a second referendum, I think it would really sort out all the problems.
I would suggest that there should be one condition.

If we dont like the outcome of the vote, we can totally ignore it, like we seem to be doing to the first.

 

@silu and @pete

I apologise. Reading the following I see that it does not make my meaning clear in any way whatsoever..............
"If the mark was 60% remain, 40% leave that would represent a clear definition of "the weight of public opinion"."

What it should say is that if the mark for it to over-rule the original vote was set at 60% remain, 40% leave that would represent a clear definition of "the weight of public opinion". Below 60% for remain and the original vote would stand, over 60% and it would be over-ruled.

 

Yeah, but we could keep on doing that, maybe we could apply similar ideas to the next general election also, as no one seems to accept the outcome of those anymore.

It's smacks of the hierarchy saying, we dont like the outcome, now go away you plebs and have another think, come back and vote how we want you to.
Not getting at you personally @longk I just dont think the idea of rerunning a vote is a good one.

 

Sadly it is a position that I feel is being forced. Worse still it is being forced by those for whom the whole point of Brexit is the furtherment of their own political ambitions, and they feel that the economic suicide of a no deal Brexit is a small price to pay for the ultimate prize. What is on the table is not ideal but it provides extra time for negotiations. What people need to remember, or even be told as it is not something that the Brexiteers like to talk about, is that the time frame of the transition period is equal to the time that the UK is financially committed to the EU (in law) as a result of the agreements that we signed before the vote. And, having read the governments papers, the EU will be continuing its payments back to the UK, as well as repaying (over 12 years) the 3.5 billion euro investment that the UK holds in the European Investment Bank and the UK's held capital in the European Central Bank (the timeframe for this is not defined).

I agree totally. But I do feel now that maybe we have been backed into this corner. It is not for a select few to play fast and loose with the economic security of the country.

 

I cannot say I have read the so called agreement, its far too complicated.
I must admit that after seeing the news earlier, that although I'm not sure we are out of the EU in March next year, I hope we will be in future years.
As was once said 29th March 2019, its not the end, and its not the beginning, but I'm hoping it is the beginning of the end, or something along those lines.

I do think that two years, (18 months of which was wasted), is not long enough to totally unravel the last 40 yrs or so, but as long as it is a long term aim to totally leave I'd go along with the plan.