In or out

[PBC_1966]

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.

How would it be any more of a muddle than when anything else in legislation changes on a particular date?

If a legislation were passed tomorrow saying that the U.K. is officially severing all ties with and exiting from the EU as of, say, the end of 31st July 2016, why shouldn't that be the date for all of those things? British government representatives would make sure they have vacated their EU offices on or before that date, the treasury would stop payments to the EU as of that date, if the U.K. had decided as part of its withdrawal that citizens of certain EU countries were henceforth to need a visa for entry, then immigration at the ports would start enforcing that as of midnight of the 31st July/1st August, and so on.

 

[PBC_1966]

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.

And still expected to keep paying into this "club" in which they then have no say in its running.

That's one of those terms which British politicians should never have agreed to in the first place, of course.

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.

You didn't sign a contract with your bank under those conditions.

No, but there are cases in which even if somebody has signed such a contract and it ever gets taken to court, the court will decide that the terms of the contract were unfair and declare it void.

 

[JohnD]

Well that's an amusing bit of fancy footwork.

Having asked your original question "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?" and receiving a reply, you've now provided your own answer to a different question, where you have added the invisible words "giving sufficient notice for the withdrawal arrangements to be completed."

Don't you get tired, lifting those goalposts out of the ground and carrying them to the far end of the pitch?

BTW, looking at the text of Article 50 which Bolo kindly provided, are there some extra bits you have found which he did not quote?

 

[gasbanni]

I can't believe there are some people that seriously think that being in the EU is somehow beneficial.
For goodness sake wake up .......read the castle of illusion for starters and then come back and post on here .......hoodwinked numpties.

 

[JohnD]

General view of the situation with no discussion as to the why or wherefores.

did you really mean that?

Absolutely, I wanted to get a feel as to what people would vote.

Changed your mind, then?

 

[gasbanni]

General view of the situation with no discussion as to the why or wherefores.

did you really mean that?

Absolutely, I wanted to get a feel as to what people would vote.

Changed your mind, then?

Not at all. I'm just joining in. The results of the poll give me a nice satisfied feeling.
The EU pipedream is falling apart quiet a different thing from the original common market.

 

[jockscott]

General view of the situation with no discussion as to the why or wherefores.

did you really mean that?

Absolutely, I wanted to get a feel as to what people would vote.

Changed your mind, then?

Come on John,,, Your so obviously Pro EU, please tell us the benefits of remaining in the EU.
A simple question (which himaginn will no doubt say is too complex for us to understand) So please let us know exactly what you think the benefits are.

 

[PBC_1966]

Having asked your original question "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?" and receiving a reply, you've now provided your own answer to a different question, where you have added the invisible words "giving sufficient notice for the withdrawal arrangements to be completed."

I don't think I ever suggested there would not be sufficient notice given to make reasonable withdrawal arrangements. The government would hardly just deliver a registered letter out of the blue to the EU saying "We're out as of the moment you receive this notification." All acts take time, and once enacted they have a date upon which they come into force.

What I was suggesting was that if the U.K. government of the day had tried to come to some mutually acceptable withdrawal agreement with the EU, and the EU just refused to agree such terms, then the government could simply enact legislation withdrawing from the EU as of a certain date.

BTW, looking at the text of Article 50 which Bolo kindly provided, are there some extra bits you have found which he did not quote?

Such as?

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

For goodness sake wake up .......read the castle of illusion for starters and then come back and post on here .

Did you mean The Castle of Lies?

 

[JohnD]

Show me where you got this bit from

"And still expected to keep paying into this "club" in which they then have no say in its running."

 

[jockscott]

Show me where you got this bit from

"And still expected to keep paying into this "club" in which they then have no say in its running."

From Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty...

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

 

[JohnD]

Ah, you obviously forgot to read this bit

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3

And invented this bit
"And still expected to keep paying into this "club" in which they then have no say in its running.""

 

[jockscott]

Which part of the " the member of the European Council or the council representing the withdrawing member state shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or in decisions concerning it. " are you having trouble with Johnny?? (do you think the EU isn't going to discuss the leaving of the EU by a member state in those two years??)
You really think if we hand in our two year notice to the EU, they're not going to want our contributions from the day it's handed in??? Ohh good,, another negotiating point for Camoron.

 

[JohnD]

Oh, jock, you are funny.

Which part of "for the purposes of paragraph 2 and 3" are you having trouble with?

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are right in front of you. They are not about gingerbread houses; they are not about Unicorns; they are not about paying contributions, and they are not about running the EU.

 

[Himaginn]

Come on John,,, Your so obviously Pro EU, please tell us the benefits of remaining in the EU.
A simple question (which himaginn will no doubt say is too complex for us to understand) So please let us know exactly what you think the benefits are.

You're misquoting me.................again!

 

[jockscott]

Come on John,,, Your so obviously Pro EU, please tell us the benefits of remaining in the EU.
A simple question (which himaginn will no doubt say is too complex for us to understand) So please let us know exactly what you think the benefits are.

You're misquoting me.................again!

Am I really?? Your reply earlier in this thread..

I think it's pointless us discussing the subject because it's far too complex for this kind of debate