Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

This could be huge! International law professor says we don't need to 'trigger' A50 to leave.


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
10 minutes ago, This time said:

The Irish wouldn't need a visa to enter the UK, we have an arrangement that predates the EU.

The Irish now have free movement with the rest of the EU which wasn't the case before we both joined the EU.  If we keep an open border, how will we prevent people coming in through the back door?

Edited by thecrashingisles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
39 minutes ago, libspero said:

I presume a British one rather than a European one.

I guess the main point is,  in all likelihood people would still travel freely from the continent..  the difference is they wouldn't have an automatic right to remain.

I still don't understand what the rule is. So the PM stands up and announces "from midnight tonight, the borders are closed". The first flights from Warsaw/New York/Mumbai start to land at Heathrow the next morning. What happens at border control? Everybody without a UK passport gets turned around and put on the next plane back? Only EU citizens get turned around? In retaliation wouldn't other countries do exactly the same to UK citizens trying to enter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

The Irish have free movement with the rest of the EU.  If we keep an open border, how will we prevent people coming in through the back door?

By checking passports at airports and ferry terminals? Yes, they could get into NI quite easily but I doubt many would want to stay there and you could make life difficult for them by enforcing ID checks when trying to rent, get a job or access public services. How did European countries with land borders deal with the issue before the EU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
13 hours ago, the gardener said:

I don't see anything difficult there. We don't need to change anything on day 1 after we leave. To answer your fears then:

Yes he can still import the meat/cheese in the same way as he did before. If we decide at a later date to slap a tariff on it then we'll pass the necessary regulations.

Are they still allowed to live here? In the absence of any law being passed to the contrary the answer is yes. That may change in future but given they've been here 10 years already and they run a business there's no doubt they'll get citizenship if the apply / it becomes necessary. They'll qualify for a work permit / indefinite leave to remain even if they didn't get citizenship. Why? Because we (the UK) can decide whatever it wants.

The British born children? It doesn't matter where the child is born, what matters is the nationality if the mother, so the children will have the mother's rights.

The employees - the same. Initially nothing changes. We may change things in future if we want. Plenty if notice will be given and we'll act in a fair manner. No cattle trucks will be required to transport the EU citizens to their new 'home'.

Driving licences? They were valid the day before so why would we suddenly not recognise them? We could decide they aren't valid but why would we?

The NHS? Of course they can still have access since they are still resident here. Nothing has changed overnight because you know, we didn't change anything yet.

Business loans? Are you suggesting that non-EU nationals living in the UK at the moment can't get business loans? What a bizzarre assertion.

The English equivalent in Rome? Well that's for the EU. If they want to throw them out or seize their assets then they'd have to act within EU law. If they haven't changed it since the day before then at worst the English business owners would have the same status as other non -EU citizens.

Well those supposedly complex questions have been answered in five minutes. You seem to be a very fearful person, throwing up endless imagined problems and obstacles. It's a wonder you ever get out of the house in the morning yet alone take to the roads to get to work.

Yes, in time there will be lots of stuff to work out, many changes to make but you know what? You deal with only the screamingly urgent stuff first, you prioritise. Deal with big, important, high value issues first and leave the minor, low value, trivialities till later (or never).

If we had people like you running (or should that be ruining) things we'd still be in the stone age.

 

 

+ 1

The advantage to just leaving is that it will concentrate minds on sorting out all this sort of stuff afterwards instead of all the hand-wringing and faffing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
20 minutes ago, janch said:

+ 1

The advantage to just leaving is that it will concentrate minds on sorting out all this sort of stuff afterwards instead of all the hand-wringing and faffing about.

We need to negotiate on goods tariffs/customs union before we can leave...a bad deal could badly hit British businesses...Uk is a hub into Europe... additional costs will quickly end that status and tio the economy into recession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412
23 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

What is scary is that you do not think the legal process on the UK side means anything.  If you don't believe in the rule of law then you don't share any British values that I would recognise.  You're traitorous scum.

It's funny that the legal process meant nothing when Heath and parliament quietly signed the UK up the the "common market" in 1972. It was only 3 years later that they thought they'd better consult the UK population. They voted to stay in but only because they were grossly misinformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
30 minutes ago, Pindar said:

It's funny that the legal process meant nothing when Heath and parliament quietly signed the UK up the the "common market" in 1972. It was only 3 years later that they thought they'd better consult the UK population. They voted to stay in but only because they were grossly misinformed.

What was illegal about that? Parliament had the power to legislate to join the EC, the executive had the power to sign the treaties. A referendum was not required by law.

Edited by Dorkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
1 minute ago, Dorkins said:

What was illegal about that? Parliament had the power to legislate to join the EC, the executive had the power to sign the treaties.

The fact is, Heath should have consulted the British public before such profound changes to the rights of UK citizens, just as the remainers are arguing, despite having consulted the British public. Seems that parliament has your approval all the time it's acting in a way that you agree with yet is acting "undemocratically" when it might possibly put things back to the way they were prior to 1972.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
Just now, Pindar said:

The fact is, Heath should have consulted the British public before such profound changes to the rights of UK citizens, just as the remainers are arguing, despite having consulted the British public. Seems that parliament has your approval all the time it's acting in a way that you agree with yet is acting "undemocratically" when it might possibly put things back to the way they were prior to 1972.

I didn't say anything about which policy I personally agreed with, I'm talking about rule of law. If the law says something has to be done a certain way, and it isn't done that way, that is breaking the law.

You said Heath wasn't respecting the legal process on taking the UK into the EC, I'm asking which law you think he broke. It's a simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
19 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I didn't say anything about which policy I personally agreed with, I'm talking about rule of law. If the law says something has to be done a certain way, and it isn't done that way, that is breaking the law.

You said Heath wasn't respecting the legal process on taking the UK into the EC, I'm asking which law you think he broke. It's a simple question.

Do you or do you not agree that MPs are elected by their constituents to represent them and be party to the formation of new laws or the repeal of laws in parliament?

As such would you agree that, had the electorate been voting for their MP on the issue of EU membership, that said MP would be duty bound, by law, to faithfully represent their electorate in parliament?

I therefore argue that by popular mandate, MPs are duty bound to enact a change to the law under the authority of the people who elected them. The law says that we live in a representative parliamentary democracy. This implies we consent to our MPs collectively representing our democratic will and that we could just vote them out of office if we disagreed with their parliamentary decisions, in accordance with "the law". Should we choose to do that, it might delay Brexit but it would surely mean that any MP would went against the wishes of his constituents - who've amply indicated their wishes - would be voted out and a representative who would be more willing to represent his constituents elected instead.

Why do you insist that in this instance, MPs adhere to the letter of the law when you known, full well, that the law is constantly being abused and twisted to suit the interests of those who can afford to manipulate and selectively interpret it?

Edited by Pindar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

This thread is quite shocking, and indicative of the lies that have emanated from the EU over the years that have led us to this point.

The EU has gone from something which was a "trifling thing really, worried about by political anoraks and obsessives only, an irrelevance to the rest of us and absolutely no limit on parliamentary sovereignty" to something which is so deeply entrenched, so all consuming and all pervading that extricating ourselves from it's Cthulhoid grip will take twice as long as defeating the Nazis did.

I think if we accept the Remoaner arguments about the insuperable difficulties of leaving then it has to be accepted that the entire thing was also a gigantic con and that the worst fears of the wingnuts like Bill Cash and Farage were actually on the nail all along.  I'm not sure this position helps the Remoaner side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
2 minutes ago, EUBanana said:

This thread is quite shocking, and indicative of the lies that have emanated from the EU over the years that have led us to this point.

This is part of the text of the actual Treaty of Rome dating from 1958.  If you think people have lied to you it's British politicians you should point the finger at, not the EU, which has always been exactly what it said on the tin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

This is part of the text of the actual Treaty of Rome dating from 1958.  If you think people have lied to you it's British politicians you should point the finger at, not the EU, which has always been exactly what it said on the tin.

 

 

What makes you think anybody who wants to leave disagrees?

Why do you think there were calls from Farage et al for a referendum?  If Parliament was representative you'd not need a referendum, ever.  The only point of a referendum was to appeal to an authority above even Parliament, because Parliament itself has become a conspiracy against the people.

These arguments about this all consuming blob monster that we've suddenly woke up to find ourselves enmeshed in after 40 years just prove that that analysis is absolutely spot on.  The frog was being boiled slowly but it's finally cottoned on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
7 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

This is part of the text of the actual Treaty of Rome dating from 1958.  If you think people have lied to you it's British politicians you should point the finger at, not the EU, which has always been exactly what it said on the tin.

 

Completely agree. As does probably almost everyone who voted to leave.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
21
HOLA4422
1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

The fact that your comment talks about the 'lies that have emanated from the EU'.  They haven't emanated from the EU, have they?

The Prime Minister and Minister for Europe are both members of the EU executive, so technically yes, even before going further. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

The bottom line is there's been no support for  this sort of EU federasty ever.  The wool has been very effectively pulled over people's eyes.  Really it was asking for trouble all along, because at some point the plebs will have woken up, and quite likely been pi$$ed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
2 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The fact that your comment talks about the 'lies that have emanated from the EU'.  They haven't emanated from the EU, have they?

Some lies have, yes. Just as some (a lot) come from the UK government. I don't trust either group. They all lie the entire time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information