Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Taz]

more labour voters than tory rejected the deal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46885027

 

[Fade and Die]

I’d be happy with another referendum, only 2 choices though, Deal or No Deal.
There 100% shouldn’t be an option to remain.

This is the only legitimate question for a 2nd referendum. Mrs Mays deal or WTO deal. Parliament could not answer it so ask the people.

 

[robinthehood]

Never gave you ten, I gave you one. I can only give examples in areas that I have knowledge. I doubt many go trawling through EU legislation unless they need to.

Then my question hasn't been answered has it. I keep hearing we are taking back control, making our own laws etc...But no one can tell me what these laws are . It doesn't make sense.

 

[Old Skier]

Simply saying that if the EU think that if an extension accommodates a GE; and they know that a GE might change something; and that a GE might lead to a further referendum or change in stance in respect of TM's red lines - then they'll be more inclined to grant the extension.

Can you provide a link where the EU has recently stated it would rescind its current leave legislation in favour of a GE.

 

[Taz]

I’d be happy with another referendum, only 2 choices though, Deal or No Deal.
There 100% shouldn’t be an option to remain.

Can we get Noel Edmonds to run this

 

[Hitdaball]

How much of that £7 billion is tax evasion and how much is tax avoidance? With the avoidance part being totally legal it's only the money from the evasion that is important. If £6.5 billion is from avoidance then it's only £0.5 billion that the government could actually benefit from to improve services.

And even using your figure £7 billion, while it might look like a big number, in the grand scheme of things when you look at the budget for the NHS being £134 billion this year it's really not that much. Take out the legal avoidance part of your number and it's even less.

It was about 50/50 on the source I looked at. I appreciate it isn’t as much as it sounds 😆. Same as the net EU spend.

 

[Hitdaball]

So that's your response when asked for the facts and you call me a troll. Good to know.

Can’t beat thin skinned trolls can you.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

more labour voters than tory rejected the deal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46885027

But would of still been irrelevant if TM had got support from her side.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I asked a similar question about people's top 10 EU enforced laws they are looking forward to being revoked. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Problem with your question is that the EU laws that I think that most folks are actually aware of are in respect of regulations related to protections afforded to individuals; our employment and what we buy, eat and drink; and protections for such as the environment. But apparently we don't want the EU laws aimed at coordinating such things across borders to ensure, or at best aim for, consistently of approach and application.

We could of course have come up with these things outside of the auspices of the EU - but they are hardly laws worthy of being revoked for the sake of it. And if in leaving under a No Deal we do revoke them, then will the UK replace them like-for-like? Well if Johnson said 'Yes' to that - I'm afraid I'd take that as, at best, a 'Maybe'.

Someone else in charge then I might have some trust and belief and so be more receptive.

 

[clubchamp98]

All those involved in making THAT decision WERE elected!

this is the post I answered

So today it becomes UK law that we cant leave with No Deal from EU on 31/10, yes?

So if an A50 extension is vetoed by France and so is not granted by EU what happens then? Are we out with No Deal (illegal?) or revoke A50 and stay in (legal?).

Maybe Macron figures if he forces the issue by vetoing an extension and Boris can't get a GE before 31/10 UKs only legal position is revoke A50?

I don’t remember having a vote for Macron but he can influence the outcome single handed.

 

[clubchamp98]

Then my question hasn't been answered has it. I keep hearing we are taking back control, making our own laws etc...But no one can tell me what these laws are . It doesn't make sense.

Well any future laws we make would not need EU approval or have to meet ECHR standards .
Whether that’s good or bad remains to be seen.

 

[Foxholer]

Well any future laws we make would not need EU approval...

Twaddle!

Well any future laws we make would...have to meet ECHR standards .
...

Absolute Twaddle!
ECHR is nothing to do with the EU!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

ECHR is nothing to do with the EU!

Do you not have to abide by the ECHR if you are a member of the EU? It is one of the rules I think.

 

[ColchesterFC]

It was about 50/50 on the source I looked at. I appreciate it isn’t as much as it sounds 😆. Same as the net EU spend.

So around £3.5 billion in tax evasion which is the bit that the government could claw back to spend elsewhere. Unless or until they change the rules on those areas of avoidance that are currently perfectly legal.

According to Full Fact the UK contribution to the EU in 2018 was £17.4 billion. We then get the rebate of £4.2 billion leaving £13.2 billion that is our actual contribution. The EU spent £4.3 billion on "public sector" in the UK which leaves £8.9 billion as our net contribution.

Which means that your original statement "not too much short of the UKs net contribution to the EU in 2018" was disingenuous at best or deliberately misleading or a lie at worst. The £3.5 billion is in fact just under 40% of our net EU membership costs or £5.4 billion short rather than "not too much short of".

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

 

[woody69]

Well any future laws we make would not need EU approval or have to meet ECHR standards .
Whether that’s good or bad remains to be seen.

The ECHR protects the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation to the EU. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR when we leave the EU. I think you got your ECHR mixed up with your ECJ

 

[clubchamp98]

Twaddle!

Absolute Twaddle!
ECHR is nothing to do with the EU!

Any future laws we make would not need anybody’s else’s approval.

 

[woody69]

So today it becomes UK law that we cant leave with No Deal from EU on 31/10, yes?

So if an A50 extension is vetoed by France and so is not granted by EU what happens then? Are we out with No Deal (illegal?) or revoke A50 and stay in (legal?).

Maybe Macron figures if he forces the issue by vetoing an extension and Boris can't get a GE before 31/10 UKs only legal position is revoke A50?

The law doesn't prevent no-deal. It provides that the PM must ask for an extension, and stipulates what happens depending on the length of said extension.

It is not possible for the UK to legislate against no-deal and for that legislation to supersede art.50. EU law takes precedence and the only three options available at any given time - under EU law - are (1) leave with an agreement, (2) extend by agreement, or (3) leave on no-deal if neither of 1 or 2 happen by the next deadline.

 

[clubchamp98]

The ECHR protects the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation to the EU. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR when we leave the EU. I think you got your ECHR mixed up with your ECJ

I thought to be in the EU you had to abide by ECHR jurisdictions.

 

[ColchesterFC]

The law doesn't prevent no-deal. It provides that the PM must ask for an extension, and stipulates what happens depending on the length of said extension.

It is not possible for the UK to legislate against no-deal and for that legislation to supersede art.50. EU law takes precedence and the only three options available at any given time - under EU law - are (1) leave with an agreement, (2) extend by agreement, or (3) leave on no-deal if neither of 1 or 2 happen by the next deadline.

or (4) Revoke Article 50.

 

[Foxholer]

Do you not have to abide by the ECHR if you are a member of the EU? It is one of the rules I think.

I believe you mean/are referring to the ECJ (an EU body). ECHR was established in 1949 long before EU!

ECHR makes rulings (solely about Human Rights) for members of The Council of Europe (47 members). ECJ makes rulings (about any/all EU Law) for members of the EU (28 currrent member).