I do not expect any politician in the UK or in Europe would agree with your analysis, out is out. A country can be thrown out of the EU by the EU invoking Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, unlikely but possible.
Article 7 is seen by most people in the EU. as being like the equivalent of a nuclear bomb and can only be used in cases where a country has a real democratic problem eg. Fascist takeover etc. You do not appear to see what is coming up here. A general consensus is that after the leadership elections have taken place then a period of time would then be necessary to establish a 'negotiating' position with the overall picture coming out that activation cannot be expected until next year. A lot is possible in the meantime. Most MPs do not want Brexit, and whilst they would be afraid of going against the people's will they would, nonetheless, grab at a reasonable pretext for not doing it, if one comes up. Even after agreement in the House of Commons it would then need to be ratified by the Lords and countersigned by the Queen. Any changes to Scottish law can only be done with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament - the way to avoid this being necessary is to annul the devolution act. This would automatically pave the way for the breakup of the UK. and this may well be the pretext that MPs are looking for, and would certainly make things difficult for the Queen. Whilst she would not refuse to sign should could advise that Parliament asks for a second opinion from the electorate - and this would be difficult to refuse. If Article 50 is eventually invoked then we have no way of knowing what the results of negotiations will be and what the mood of the country, and economy, will be in 2 years time. There is a long and rocky journey ahead for Brexit and, even if it comes to an end, it will probably be a very watered down Brexit which is far from your hopes at the moment.
You are completely wrong if you think the MP's will honour the will of the people out of fear. They will do so out of respect for our democratic process, any attempt to undermine this would seriously damage parliament's reputation. Let us re-visit this later. You will be proved totally misguided as you were over last year's election and Corbyn's disastrous leadership.
I think our friend loves to have conflict.... (Ignore button going back on) Big suggestion to those drawn in ... there is no debate with SH ... he wants to be one up and right.... and I doubt if he will ever in any way change..... the basis of bigotry, sadly Debate with him and you fuel his rhetoric....
I don't recall having made any predictions about the result of the election. However even if you are right about this one - there may be a little Schadenfreude in as much as the only way to actually kill off anti EU feelings in the UK. may be to let them spend a little time outside and find out what it is like - there's always the possibility of joining EFTA for a while and then rejoining at some stage (without all the rebates and opt outs which you have now). The referendum was about leaving the EU. it was not about how, when, or what the conditions should be
As you say when we leave the EU we will lose the opt outs and the rebates so absolutely no chance of rejoining unless the institution can revert back to simply a free trade area which I voted for all those years ago. There is still some calls for more European integration from some eurocrats, will they never learn?
I know a few lawyers on the Remain side cling to the hope that Article 50 is reversible - but it is not. Invoke it and it leads inevitably to exit. There is no mechanism to "uninvoke" it. At best if all 27 other member states agreed then it is possible that they could agree to allow it to wither - but I would expect a legal battle to ensue and doubt if it could be won. If we leave the best scenario I could envisage is that we trigger a chain reaction of referenda on Exits. If that became a real possibility then the EU powers that be could come to their senses and create an EU mark 2. However the political and ecoomic fallout worldwide would be catastrophic and I hope I do not live to see it.
I wonder how people would react had the referendum with this result been for, say, the dissolution of the monarchy or the adoption of islam as the official religion? Both would be intensely unpopular and would require a change in our (unwritten) constitution. Won't happen? Well if we have a large majority socialist government coupled with an unpopular monarch, who's to say? Ditto in several generations time should the muslim minority have bred themselves into a majority? As a staunch atheist the divine right of kings is a complete misnomer to me but I'd rather the monarchy than another self serving elected busybody. As to religion I would be entirely happy if everybody saw the various easily led clubs for what they are and ditched this bronze age based nonsense into the rubbish bin of history where it belongs. Suck it up, eh? Nah, thought not. That's why there should have been safeguards in place to ensure a significant majority in this case. 60/40 split I would still be unhappy but it would be acceptable. Having been lied to and then watching the liars walk away for some unelected nincompoop to continue this madness is not democracy in action.
The people who actually constructed Article 50 never thought it would ever be used - and, unbelievably it is only 250 words long. Lawyers on one side say that because there is no mention of reversal it is not possible - others say that the absence of such a clause means it is possible. A team of EU. lawyers engaged by the House of Lords believe the latter. Does the absence of this mean - everything which is not mentioned is allowed, or, everything which is not mentioned is forbidden ? The problem is also that there is no precedence for this - though, it is true that no nation can be thrown out against its will (unless Article 7 is used - but this is reserved for countries thrown out on human rights issues, if a country in the EU. brought back eg. the death penalty they could be removed by this). We are in uncharted waters where anything is possible. One thing which will not happen is that there will be negative consequences for EU. migrants already in Britain, or for Britons already in Europe - because no government is going to bring in legislation which would harm their own nationals overseas. Would the government like 2 million disgruntled returning Britons all with voting rights ?
Just to add my tuppence (though i know i said i wouldn't but i'm a woman, and therefore allowed to change my mind!). Whether Parliament accept Brexit out of fear or out of respect is immaterial. The fact is, as i see it, if the Conservative Government goes against the will of the people, ie, they decide it's ok to ignore the majority vote and stay in Europe, then all the tory voters who want to be out of Europe will defect to UKIP and make it a far stronger party than it is today. That they won't want, especially with Labour being so very unelectable. They have no choice, as i see it, than to go with the majority who voted for Brexit, therefore, they should elect a leader who can see us out of Europe and negotiate clear passage.
Nobody should be against the will of the people, the rules were clearly understood beforehand. Quite a bumpy road ahead but should give plenty of topics to discuss.
The will of the people was not clear SH. There was no written manifesto or plan to Brexit. MPs may end up voting to uphold the result of the referendum, but everything thereafter they will vote for on their consciences - you cannot change the majority in the Commons in favour of remaining - and such things as free movement were not decided by the referendum result. The end result will be a Norway like relationship where we are subject to EU. rules, full access to the market and free movement, still paying in but with very few voting rights - will it all have been worth it ?
The will of the people was perfectly clear, the leave side had a decent majority. The referendum was in the manifesto so there was always a chance of the majority voting to leave the EU. MP's will rightly respect the result, even the majority that favoured remain. Any agreement is guaranteed to exclude free movement, that will never be on the cards. We can trade with the EU as other non EU countries do, as previously explained businesses deal with greater volatility because of exchange rate movements than any likely tariffs will cause, bring it on. Maybe in the future people will buy English made cars and other products as I do to help our own manufacturers.
38% in favour 34% against 28% don't care - that is not a perfectly clear result and does not give grounds to refuse to continue to consider
Totally disagree. The rules were clear for everybody beforehand, the UK has a long tradition of first past the post or majority wins. This means the winner wins full stop. Under our system people have the right not to cast their vote, that is purely their prerogative to discount their vote. Any gerrymandering is unacceptable in a democracy.
