ChatterBank0 min ago
A50 For Rogue Dictators
19 Answers
Lord Kerr wrote A50 as a safeguard against rogue dictators, are we not in that very scenario right now?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While I'm happy to agree with Lord Kerr, I'm surprised that you are, TTT ;-)
http://
http://
The following link might be helpful:
https:/
And in particular the following:
“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a member state and the EU suspended that country’s membership,” he explained. “I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He never envisioned that a British government might resort to it.
I hadn't thought we had quite reached that state: Theresa May may be many things, but "rogue dictator" hardly fits the bill. Remove the "dictator" bit and we get fairly close to Boris Johnson perhaps.
https:/
And in particular the following:
“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a member state and the EU suspended that country’s membership,” he explained. “I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He never envisioned that a British government might resort to it.
I hadn't thought we had quite reached that state: Theresa May may be many things, but "rogue dictator" hardly fits the bill. Remove the "dictator" bit and we get fairly close to Boris Johnson perhaps.
But the whole point of Article 50 is to allow a country to leave quickly.
I think you would agree that the only country threatening to do that is the UK! Not sure I see where the EU's attitude comes into it.
If the UK does decide to hightail it without a deal that will be its decision. This is in marked contrast the USSR, with which the EU is often laughably compared by a few, where there was nothing remotely like Article 50. In fact, the exact opposite
I think you would agree that the only country threatening to do that is the UK! Not sure I see where the EU's attitude comes into it.
If the UK does decide to hightail it without a deal that will be its decision. This is in marked contrast the USSR, with which the EU is often laughably compared by a few, where there was nothing remotely like Article 50. In fact, the exact opposite
“Lord Kerr of Kinlochard is one of more than 60 prominent figures in Scotland who signed a joint letter saying that Brexit has seriously damaged the UK's international reputation.”
It’s strange that such a potential damage to Scotland’s international reputation was not envisaged in 2014 when Scotland held a referendum on leaving a far more successful union that the EU ever has been or ever will be. The “disastrous consequences” that he suggests are becoming clearer by the day are nothing of the sort. What has happened over the past few weeks is that it is becoming increasingly evident that what has been clear to many people since June 2016 is actually taking place. That is, that the EU will not countenance any “agreement” that makes leaving the EU remotely agreeable for the UK. This is (a) to punish the UK and (b) to make other nations who might think of doing the same to think again.
The EU has ensured that its tentacles reach so deeply into its member nations’ bowels that leaving is fraught with problems. It was always going to be difficult but the benefits are considerable. Whatever reason Lord Kerr suggests that A50 was written for (and I don’t believe his tripe about “rogue dictators”) the fact is that it exists. However, even if it did not there would be nothing to prevent a signatory to Lisbon derogating itself from the Treaty. To suggest that if A50 did not exist then EU members would be locked in forever is simply ludicrous.
In the run up to the referendum “Project Fear” forecast all sorts of scenes or Armageddon to suggest that leaving was “unthinkable”. That failed. Now Project Fear v2 suggests that leaving “without a deal” is unthinkable. It is not. In fact it would be the most satisfactory outcome for all concerned. The UK (and the EU) could then get on with their lives.
It’s strange that such a potential damage to Scotland’s international reputation was not envisaged in 2014 when Scotland held a referendum on leaving a far more successful union that the EU ever has been or ever will be. The “disastrous consequences” that he suggests are becoming clearer by the day are nothing of the sort. What has happened over the past few weeks is that it is becoming increasingly evident that what has been clear to many people since June 2016 is actually taking place. That is, that the EU will not countenance any “agreement” that makes leaving the EU remotely agreeable for the UK. This is (a) to punish the UK and (b) to make other nations who might think of doing the same to think again.
The EU has ensured that its tentacles reach so deeply into its member nations’ bowels that leaving is fraught with problems. It was always going to be difficult but the benefits are considerable. Whatever reason Lord Kerr suggests that A50 was written for (and I don’t believe his tripe about “rogue dictators”) the fact is that it exists. However, even if it did not there would be nothing to prevent a signatory to Lisbon derogating itself from the Treaty. To suggest that if A50 did not exist then EU members would be locked in forever is simply ludicrous.
In the run up to the referendum “Project Fear” forecast all sorts of scenes or Armageddon to suggest that leaving was “unthinkable”. That failed. Now Project Fear v2 suggests that leaving “without a deal” is unthinkable. It is not. In fact it would be the most satisfactory outcome for all concerned. The UK (and the EU) could then get on with their lives.
'But the whole point of Article 50 is to allow a country to leave quickly. '
Was it? Where did you get that alternative fact from?
Just to repeat:
“I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.”
The whole point of the question I thought was about that very point.
Isn't Article 50 about triggering an unstoppable timetable?
It may or may not be effective, but the man himself who invented it has explained the thinking behind it, whatever you may think of that
Was it? Where did you get that alternative fact from?
Just to repeat:
“I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.”
The whole point of the question I thought was about that very point.
Isn't Article 50 about triggering an unstoppable timetable?
It may or may not be effective, but the man himself who invented it has explained the thinking behind it, whatever you may think of that
You could argue that there is built in to the thinking behind Article 50 is the rather presumptuous idea that only dictatorships would ever want to leave the EU.
If there was not however, a mechanism for leaving come what, er, May. then the process might never end. It might SEEM as tho the process is interminable but it is in fact just over a year since the referendum, since when the government has wasted time before invoking it: the fact remains tho that at the end of the two year period, unless someone changes the rules, the UK will cease to be a member of the EU: rejoice for goodness sake :-)
If there was not however, a mechanism for leaving come what, er, May. then the process might never end. It might SEEM as tho the process is interminable but it is in fact just over a year since the referendum, since when the government has wasted time before invoking it: the fact remains tho that at the end of the two year period, unless someone changes the rules, the UK will cease to be a member of the EU: rejoice for goodness sake :-)
Well, when all is said it is just a hastily drafted bit of paper, isn't it? We shall try to abide by their rules - and the world will see that we have tried, so no harm there - but if the rules don't work, then they have to be bypassed. I don't suppose Lord Kerr accepted that the EU itself would be the power-crazed, rogue dictator, which has turned out to be the case.
I'm somewhat baffled: what is dictatorial about it?
At the end of two years, because of Article 50, the UK will be out. Because of Article 50, the process cannot drag on forever.
I must confess to not really following Lord Kerr's reasoning, but it looks as though his use of the word "dictator" has buzzed the intercom on the "Leave" brain and caused a short-circuit :-)
At the end of two years, because of Article 50, the UK will be out. Because of Article 50, the process cannot drag on forever.
I must confess to not really following Lord Kerr's reasoning, but it looks as though his use of the word "dictator" has buzzed the intercom on the "Leave" brain and caused a short-circuit :-)
ichkeria - you really don't see anything dictatorial about the EU? No, you are an intelligent person, you can't, surely? Words completely fail me, they really do. Try their reactions to Catalonia and Austria, just for starters; the EU is heading towards a superstate modelled on Soviet Russia. This is all just for a (recent) start. :)
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.