You think that all the governments would be in favour of closing themselves down? Who voted for all these governments?
A touch of paranoia, Mr Godwin.
A touch of paranoia, Mr Godwin.
In or out
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
So if it takes an A of P to repeal a previous decision of Parliament, then surely Parliamentary decisions apply to successive governments? Don't they?
A more general comment on 'Operation Fear';
Why should we believe the great and good of big business and finance when they say the sky will fall in after a Brexit?
We were told that being kicked out of the ERM was going to be a disaster and ditto for not joining the Euro, and these were all economists and 'experts'.
And why should we trust what the bankers say? Goldman Sachs was fraudulent in getting Greece into the Euro. And the rest of the major banks were of course brilliant in warning us of the 2008 crash.
Sure, Brexit would be an unknown, but the UK does not need the comforting, warm and motherly embrace of the EU to survive; that suggests that we are helpless wimps who can't survive on our own. What is certain is that with a remain vote, in 30 years time the country our fathers and grandfathers fought for will cease to exist.
Why should we believe the great and good of big business and finance when they say the sky will fall in after a Brexit?
We were told that being kicked out of the ERM was going to be a disaster and ditto for not joining the Euro, and these were all economists and 'experts'.
And why should we trust what the bankers say? Goldman Sachs was fraudulent in getting Greece into the Euro. And the rest of the major banks were of course brilliant in warning us of the 2008 crash.
Sure, Brexit would be an unknown, but the UK does not need the comforting, warm and motherly embrace of the EU to survive; that suggests that we are helpless wimps who can't survive on our own. What is certain is that with a remain vote, in 30 years time the country our fathers and grandfathers fought for will cease to exist.
S
Shutpa
Sponsored Links
The members of those governments would just become a part of an even larger government for the whole EU, and probably bask in the supposed glory of all the extra power they have now that they're part of that larger, more powerful government.
As for voting, wasn't there already an idea around from some EU commissioners a few years ago that national parties as such should be banned and that only "pan-EU" parties should be permitted to exist?
No it isn't.
A surprisingly good description of these imaginary scare stories spread by the anti-Europeans.
Indeed. How do some of these people think that the U.K. survived in those "pre-historic" times prior to 1973?
And that's a sad prospect, but undoubtedly true. Unfortunately the country our fathers and grandfathers fought for is already becoming unrecognizable in many ways.
Statutes don't just cease to apply with a change of government, if that's what you mean. But the point is that a successive government can simply amend or repeal anything it sees fit, so it is not bound by the decisions and legislation of previous governments. It has the power to change it.
That was exactly my point! As bolo has shown it takes another process and AofP to repeal governmental decisions, you can't just forget about previous governments agreements, treaties, etc, you have to explicitly repeal them.
Now if UK started explicitly reneging on previous agreements, treaties, etc with other countries, organisations, etc, what would that do to the general consensus of opinion, of the UK, internationally? We would devalue ourselves to the level of failed dictatorial states.
So reasonable governments do not simply renege on previous treaties unless there is an internationally recognised and acceptable reason.
I rather think that the majority of MPs and Lords would realise that and simply not allow us to renege on the EU Treaty.
Therefore your assertion that previous agreements with EU can be simply ignored because they don't apply to successive governments is simply untrue.
An exit from the EU would still have to abide by the exit rules.
If this is the height of your understanding of governmental and international business, it doesn't say a lot for your understanding for the in-out decision.
I've only included your quote below in case you do what another poster did yesterday and removed, as far as possible, and completely changed the rest of their comment after I'd responded.
As I've indicated, it won't happen. It would be counter-productive and self-destructive.
Last edited:
Which is what I said: Any act passed by one government can be amended or repealed by a future government. The Community Charge, a.k.a. "poll tax," comes to mind as a well-known, particularly short-lived piece of legislation.
I agree that in general that's a valid point. But let's say that some future British government tries to go through the EU's negotiating process to get the U.K. out and the EU simply won't agree to anything but a completely unreasonable set of conditions completely unacceptable. What other choice would there be?
Don't you think that in such circumstances the rest of the world would quite likely consider a unilateral tearing-up of the treaty by the U.K. to be a reasonable course of action in the interests of the country?
In terms of international diplomacy perhaps. But in terms of British constitutional law, no. And that's a problem because the EU sees itself as being above national law by the terms of the treaties.
Of course, none of this problem would ever have arisen if Heath and all those in successive governments since hadn't agreed to terms which they should never have agreed to in the first place.
Not my style.
But what if negotiations failed and the U.K. government of the day decided that was the only course of action left open and did it? What do you think the EU would do?
the treaty we have signed appears to say that, after giving notice to leave, the effective date will be that agreed by the two parties, or if no date is agreed, it will be two years after receipt of the notice.
I think you know that.
if a country deciding to leave refused to agree arrangements for leaving, for example what date they would quit their offices, what date they would stop attending Parliament, what date they would stop receiving subsidies, what date they would stop paying contributions, what date they would stop having free access to EU markets, what date they would stop having free movement of citizens, and just said "everything stops at noon today" then it would be a tiresome muddle. A bit like trying to reach a sensible arrangement with Donald Trump.
What do you think would happen? Do you suggest that, for example the UK would refuse to accept any further rebates and subsidies? Or would turn round the ships carrying cars and JCBs to Rotterdam? Or would abandon their parliamentary offices without collecting their papers?
I think you know that.
if a country deciding to leave refused to agree arrangements for leaving, for example what date they would quit their offices, what date they would stop attending Parliament, what date they would stop receiving subsidies, what date they would stop paying contributions, what date they would stop having free access to EU markets, what date they would stop having free movement of citizens, and just said "everything stops at noon today" then it would be a tiresome muddle. A bit like trying to reach a sensible arrangement with Donald Trump.
What do you think would happen? Do you suggest that, for example the UK would refuse to accept any further rebates and subsidies? Or would turn round the ships carrying cars and JCBs to Rotterdam? Or would abandon their parliamentary offices without collecting their papers?
And the thing there John, is that any country giving such notice, loses the right to actively take part in the EU government straight away. But,,, they are still members until 2 yrs after the notice is given. A bit hypocritical of the EU to allow a member country to give 2 yrs notice, but then take away their right to take part in any EU wide discussions for the remaining two years. That's a bit like me giving my bank 2 yrs notice that I intend to leave them, then they decide what my money will be spent on for the next two years.
I haven't done a count of possible votes in House of P' but do you think a new Act repealing the Treaty agreement is ever likely. SNP would vote against it, NI MPs would vote against it, all Lib-Dem would vote against it, Most Labour would vote against it, A lot of Cons' would vote against it.
The chances of it happening IMO is zilch.
My apologies.
It's a peculiar style.
Let me get this right, you want me to speculate on a hypothetical scenario which I believe will never arise, and you've admitted is highly unlikely?
What's the point?
You didn't sign a contract with your bank under those conditions.
Sponsored Links
