ChatterBank4 mins ago
May & Her Brexit
It is alleged that she not only doesn't want it, she is and has been actively working to prevent it. Would you not agree?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
Worth a look.....If you click on this reference in the text after a while a pop up appears saying "Nothing to see here".
//Political Warfare Executive:
The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare//
https:/
//Political Warfare Executive:
The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare//
https:/
-- answer removed --
As to the question in the OP: I can't believe for a second that Theresa May, who signed Article 50 Notification, called an election asking for a mandate to deliver her version of Brexit, has repeatedly rejected all calls for a further referendum, refuses to revoke Notification, spent over two years ignoring Remainers and trying to satisfy the Hard-Brexit ERG, and continues to press a deal that does achieve at least the Headline objective of Brexit, is working to prevent Brexit. That's not to say she hasn't made a royal mess of it, but prevent it? Nah -- she can't even do *that* effectively.
So if we're dealing in semantics, perhaps we could agree that it is "an agreement that purports to see the UK's exit from the EU but does not, meaning we would leave in name only."
If "leaving" means crossing our name off the list of members and not permitting us to have representation in any of its forums, then it certainly fulfills that definition. If it means no longer being constrained by EU legislation or commitments to its protocols, nor being bound by the rulings of any of its institutions, then it does not.
If "leaving" means crossing our name off the list of members and not permitting us to have representation in any of its forums, then it certainly fulfills that definition. If it means no longer being constrained by EU legislation or commitments to its protocols, nor being bound by the rulings of any of its institutions, then it does not.
On Day 1 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK is legally out of the EU. A few years later, after the transition, or after the Backstop is no longer necessary, we're out in literal terms. The period in between Day 1 and Day 2376 or whenever is, to be sure, rotten for the UK. But signing the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) does set us on a path towards leaving. A long, winding, frankly humiliating path, but a path to leaving all the same.
Maybe it is a semantic thing. But still, the thing that Leave-voting critics of the WA can't ignore is that, whether it is two, five, or ten years after it comes into effect, the UK ends up out of the EU. It is, therefore, far from a "Remainer's Brexit".
Maybe it is a semantic thing. But still, the thing that Leave-voting critics of the WA can't ignore is that, whether it is two, five, or ten years after it comes into effect, the UK ends up out of the EU. It is, therefore, far from a "Remainer's Brexit".
"A few years later, ...or after the Backstop is no longer necessary,"
The EU will ensure that the backstop is never "no longer necessary". You can count on it. It retains their control and they thrive on it.
More than that, even after the transition period (should it ever end), the UK remains committed to many of the EU's institutions. Believe me, I've read >60% of the Agreement (and I'm not doing so again, so please don't ask me to provide examples). All the WA does (legally or otherwise) is crosses our name off the membership list, sets us off into a period of probably everlasting purgatory, bickering with people whose political dogma will always far outweigh any little pragmatism they not have had knocked out of them, and allows Mrs May to trumpet that she presided over our "leaving".
All the time this ridiculous farce continues the country is bound to a continent that is declining in economic importance and cannot properly take advantage of the growing opportunities that are emerging in the wider world. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The EU will ensure that the backstop is never "no longer necessary". You can count on it. It retains their control and they thrive on it.
More than that, even after the transition period (should it ever end), the UK remains committed to many of the EU's institutions. Believe me, I've read >60% of the Agreement (and I'm not doing so again, so please don't ask me to provide examples). All the WA does (legally or otherwise) is crosses our name off the membership list, sets us off into a period of probably everlasting purgatory, bickering with people whose political dogma will always far outweigh any little pragmatism they not have had knocked out of them, and allows Mrs May to trumpet that she presided over our "leaving".
All the time this ridiculous farce continues the country is bound to a continent that is declining in economic importance and cannot properly take advantage of the growing opportunities that are emerging in the wider world. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Meanwhile all May's, and her like minded worm tongues, machinations may be in vain. We could already be out, free, independent, but not know it.
//13. The only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice. That power was completed on 29 March 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was ultra vires, unlawful and consequently is and was null and void.
14. As a result of the matters set out above the Applicant is entitled to and seeks, a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29 March 2019.
As Lord Justice Sir Richard Aikens has said in the Daily Mail this is clearly an arguable case and so I am expecting this to come before the High Court for a Declaration to be made that we are Out and all the plotting and chaos in Parliament is ‘cut short’ at a stroke!//
https:/
//13. The only power that the Prime Minister had, as regards Article 50, was the service of the Notice withdrawing the United Kingdom from the EU and giving two years notice. That power was completed on 29 March 2017. Accordingly, her purported request for an extension of the date of departure and the Government’s purported agreement to such an extension is and was ultra vires, unlawful and consequently is and was null and void.
14. As a result of the matters set out above the Applicant is entitled to and seeks, a Declaration from this Honourable Court that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland left the European Union upon the expiry of the Article 50 Notice on the 29 March 2019.
As Lord Justice Sir Richard Aikens has said in the Daily Mail this is clearly an arguable case and so I am expecting this to come before the High Court for a Declaration to be made that we are Out and all the plotting and chaos in Parliament is ‘cut short’ at a stroke!//
https:/
Interestingly, togo, when this matter was raised last week I assumed that the challenge (to the PM’s request for an extension) was being made on the basis that she did so before receiving the agreement of Parliament. I did not know that the basis of the challenge was that she had no authority to do so at all.
Article 50 is silent on the issue. Jim and I have debated the terms of the UK’s EU withdrawal bill and needless to say we take different views. It will be interesting to hear M’Learned Friends’ interpretation of the Statute. Being the cynical old sod that I am I have an idea that, regardless of that interpretation, the court will find against the applicant. If it doesn’t we will have to apply to rejoin the EU and no doubt the Euromaniacs will be more than accommodating to welcome us back after our brief period in the wilderness so that “negotiations” can continue!
Article 50 is silent on the issue. Jim and I have debated the terms of the UK’s EU withdrawal bill and needless to say we take different views. It will be interesting to hear M’Learned Friends’ interpretation of the Statute. Being the cynical old sod that I am I have an idea that, regardless of that interpretation, the court will find against the applicant. If it doesn’t we will have to apply to rejoin the EU and no doubt the Euromaniacs will be more than accommodating to welcome us back after our brief period in the wilderness so that “negotiations” can continue!
ok TJM for old times sake, the OP says:
"It is alleged that she not only doesn't want it, she is and has been actively working to prevent it."
you say
"I don’t know why you’re so surprised. It was always on the cards." - Sounds to anyone who has English as their first language that you suspected that: //she has been working to prevent it// - so if your post was not saying that what was it saying?
Better get the jelly ready....
"It is alleged that she not only doesn't want it, she is and has been actively working to prevent it."
you say
"I don’t know why you’re so surprised. It was always on the cards." - Sounds to anyone who has English as their first language that you suspected that: //she has been working to prevent it// - so if your post was not saying that what was it saying?
Better get the jelly ready....
Of course there is such thing as a "Remainer Brexit". No contradiction. It's where we remain but remainers can pretend otherwise since the nation's name has been removed from the membership list. Of course it fools no one. May's deal does not get us out. That is the whole point. To start with NI stays alligned with single market rules for as long as the EU, and the EU alone, want it. But you know this.
