The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.7K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 41 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 478 Fun & Games
- 139 BA Predictor Threads
- 43 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 324 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 133 Current West Ham
- 209 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 33 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 30 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 431 Match Threads
- 99 MOTM
- 11 West Ham Nostalgia
- 36 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 40 Transfers
- 48 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 56 Internationals
- 49 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 125 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 273 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Hilarious.
So democracy is absolutely the way to go, unless of course the result doesn't go your way?
However, if I were playing devils advocate, I could say
democracy is absolutely the way to go, unless of course you are worried you might lose. ;biggrin ;wink
As for unions dont get me started, joined at 16 left within 6 months when they asked me to break my apprenticeship agreement and take days off in support of the engineers strike for a 39 hour week. The company i worked for was a family business and could not afford the disruption, they had already agreed to 39 hours. Needless to say union members supported the car plants demands, i am sure the car workers would have supported us in similar circumstances- NOT
Re your first point,yes I am.
I accept that the older generation has a right to express it's view but I don't think it's fair that 16 & 17 year olds have no say in their future & someone of say 85 years has.By the way I'm 51.
If you were a new company that wants easy trade with Europe you are not going to be making your hq in England.
The EU is right now sorting out a specialist trade agreement with USA and China. We will not be able to get a better deal.
The EU countries won't give us a good deal because that would strengthen the argument for others to leave. They will want to make things as hard as possible for us, because that's their best bet to keep it all together. They will point at us as the example of what happens when go rogue.
Boris and Co seem to believe that they have got all the time in the world to do informal chats about the exit but the EU want us out now. There isn't going to be a honeymoon period to pre-sort stuff
Get out asap. That's what you wanted. As has been seen already by the reaction from other EU countries, this is going to get petty and turn into a grudge match. That will in no way help the UK negotiate with other EU countries, especially when time isn't on our side.
(The agreement was made with France, and effectively places the UK border on that side of the channel. Without it, the UK can't carry out immigration checks on refugees/migrants etc in France, but would have to wait until the people arrived in the UK.)
You can kind of see their point: you want your borders back? Here you go. Have this one ;ok
Britain would have no requirement to help police it or provide any support what so ever on the French side and could just work on ensuring it was as hard as possible for people to actually get across illegally.
In the end it would cause an even greater humanitarian issue would erupt in France and possibly across the EU as migrants attempt to cross to get easy access to the UK.
So for all their bluster they aren't going to want to do anything which makes people think it's a good idea to come flooding in to France in huge numbers.
Unless, of course, they are happy to let them flow through their borders into the UK...
If it isn't done by then, the only way the period can be extended is if ALL the EU members agree to an extension.
Not sure what odds you'll get on that happening.
In the absence of an agreed extension, all international trade will become subject to WTO tariffs straight away.
As I'm not in the import/export business, I don't know how this will impact. But I imagine business cost will go up as a result of the new paperwork/changes to IT systems/staff retraining alone?
As for general legislation, anything in UK law, even if it was originally brought in to implement an EU directive, will stay on the statute book until it is repealed. There's a big job right there. A large number of Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation will need reviewing. Then it will need to be amended, repealed or replaced.
All the statutory guidance etc that confers powers and duties on local authorities (eg, planning and environmental stuff) will have to be reviewed.
Two years is nowhere near enough to do that AND to carry on with the other work of government.
Why should they care if a person has no proper visas etc necessary to enter the UK. That's the UKs problem (would seem to be the argument) to deal with when the person gets off the boat at Dover.
--
After all, if it wasn't an issue, why put in place the Le Touquet agreement in the first place/
If all of a sudden a few hundred thousand people start turning up in French ports thinking its just a trip across the border to the UK then suddenly realising it isn't that will start to cause issues with more and more people being stuck.
Not to mention if you all of a sudden have massive movement of people across the country as a whole.
Migrants can't just teleport to the port. They would have to cross France, this again would cause even more issues
The treaty has nothing to do with the EU, it is bilateral between the UK and France. There is no real reason why this would not continue to do so, if anything maybe the UK not being in the EU would reduce the numbers because there is no longer the guarantee of getting anything when you get over here.
Personally, this is where I feel the remain campaign failed. So much focus on how bad everything could be if we leave, they didn't bother to actually highlight all the benefits we get from being in the EU.
(For what its worth, I think they where between a rock and a hard place - albeit of their own making - where to counter the Leave arguments about job shortages, low wages, lack of affordable housing, overcrowding in schools they'd have had to admit it was their own austerity policies and budgets that were to blame).
Re the agreement, yes it is bilateral, nothing to d with the EU. But I can understand why (some) French don't want to play nicely any more. (Although I imagine much of the impetus is coming from politicians with electorates of their own to appease.)
As much as I'm against the leave (mostly a lot of the campaigning behind it), I do think some of the reaction has gone too far. Acting as if older people don't care about future generations is ridiculous even if I don't agree with their decision.
For those who voted leave. If it becomes clear certain promises the campaign made, like the NHS £350m or stopping free movement or a good deal with EU, cannot be delivered, would you still support leaving? I'm not asking this to provoke anyone, just want to know how people feel because I feel now the vote's over, holding the government accountable should now be the focus.
;hmm Well I have to give 3 months notice if I wanted to leave and I am pretty sure unless there is a really serious issue which may end up with legal action or by mutual agreement, every one has a period of notice written into their contracts.
This is just another case of the EU trying to bully us, they have to wait for us to invoke Article 50 as is their own requirement. Of course some of them want to rush it and give us a raw deal as a warning to any other members who have the temerity to want to leave.
Regarding the £350 Million - I have to admit I did not pay much attention to or watch much of the debates around this as I thought this was another red herring. However, the one time I did it was about all the discussion around "Actually it's not because we get XXX in rebate and XXX in funding" was going on. The person speaking (think it was the Labour MP Gisela Stuart) said something along the lines of "we do give them the money but don't get it back immediately or deducted off of the money we have to pay initially, we get it back at a later date. So if we did not have to give to them, we could still fund the areas the grants are given to and the rest we can spend where we like, so we could increase spending on the NHS for instance."
There was no mention that all £350 million would go to the NHS so where that came from I don't know. I do think I did see a quote where it was mentioned that "the £350 million saved could help fund the NHS" and something about how many hospitals or medical staff it could pay for, so maybe it was taken from that and then took on a life of its own as a promise, I would imagine as there has been articles about this with apologies from the leave camp, it must have been repeated as such.
Strange, when the Leave campaign kept saying that despite all the scaremongering by the remain camp of some sort of immediate catastrophe, nothing would change immediately after the vote and for sometime afterwards (it would be some years before it did). Now it is over the remain camp are having a go a the leave camp because things are not going to change much for some time - we are still part of the EU and will continue to be so until the negotiations for separation are complete, which will take roughly two years from when Article 50 is enacted.
Even if the UK leaves the EU or revoke the Human Rights Act we will still be subject to the ECHR, human rights won't just disappear.
(Not that I am blaming them, I just see a contradiction between your comment + the turnout stats ;hmm )
I think ;hmm