The piece you quoted only deals with what happens after we have left. It does not deal at any point with what should happen if a country decided to withdraw it's request to leave before a final agreement, if any, is concluded.
I did not quote a piece - I quoted Article 50 in its entirety. And the point is that "it does not deal at any point with what should happen if a country decided to withdraw it's request" because it is NOT permitted in the Article. There is no provision for a country to change its mind. Full stop. You cannot write in what is not there. There is no Article, no sub Article, no clause , no get out, no "I had my fingers crossed". It is in black and white. You invoke a clause saying you wish to leave. Tough if you cannot find a clause that says "what a silly billy, do you want to change your mind" The fact is that the drafters clearly thought about a change of mind which is why paragraph 5 is there. You can re-join. If they had wanted a silly billy clause it would have been inserted. As it is not there all the clever Remain Lawyers in the World will lose - apart from the money they get for poor advice. When we have invoked Article 50 we are on an unstoppable path to exit - we have effectively left - the rest is just detail
Leo, can you step down off your high horse here ? The fact that it has been debated amongst lawyers engaged by the house of lords implies that the matter is not clear, and has received no announcement from 'on high' either way, and is also totally without precedent. Do you have any inside knowledge which the house of lords is not a party to ? I actually do not think it would be a good thing if people believed it to be reversible, because it would make the activation of article 50 more likely if people think there is a 'safety break' along the line. Can you give me one example, from past or present, where a legal document has not been reversible if all parties involved wanted it stopped ?
It is not meant as being rude Leo - just saying that the last couple of posts give that impression - as if you know = fact, whereas the lawyers (including those from the House of Lords appear divided). The rest of my last text stands, if you choose not to read it then that is your affair. But the expression 'getting down off your high horse' is not abusive and has been used by yourself (in my direction) on at least one occasion in the past.
Not an expression I remember using - apart from anything else it does not add to an argument but is only going to be taken negatively. Still, moving on....... The House of Lords produced a report on the WHOLE of Article 50. Revocation was covered naturally as part of it. The Lords report states: " In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse." So even their conclusion is that in the absence of a ruling from the European Court (the only one that could definitively rule on it) we should work on the basis it cannot be unilterally reversed. So why debate it further? If you sign a legal document to sell your house then once contracts are exchanged the house belongs to the other party - even if both changed their minds before completion they cannot reverse it. Now can you give me one example of where a TREATY (not just a legal document) has been reversed as opposed to amended by a further Treaty (which would be an interminable process)? Can you tell me that you believe there is any chance of ALL 27 other nations agreeing to reverse it? Can you tell me how you think the government could justify revoking Article 50 - even if it could - to Brexit supporters. It would be considered undemocratic. This whole argument is spurious. If Article 50 is triggered that is an end to it - not a high horse opinion but my humble little opinion - as is everything I write.
1)It was you I was referring to as left wing. But I'm not - it's you who has incorrectly assumed that. 2) Do you object to trying to employ people who are already here? No - but the UK government obviously do. It's their Home Office currently issuing deportation orders, and lying, to long term resident, in-work Australians, South Africans, Canadians and Indians in this country 3) There was no "effective deportation notice on foreign doctors"........You handle the luxurious position of then by beginning to reduce imports of doctors not by deportation.Another left wing lie. Yes there was - those doctors in the 'foreign' category have been told they will be required to leave when their training is complete, which could mean as early as next year. That is not 'beginning to reduce imports', that is deportation. 4) Large foreign projects are complicated. Let's see the Corbyn solution. 'Let's see the Corbyn solution' is little more than a cop-out. Why should he, or any other party leader, have a solution? It has nothing to do with them, this was a Tory 'initiative', it's down to them. 5) Some argue the SNP are racist - and very anti-English so beware the ground you tread on. Strangely enough though, there is never any credible evidence put forward to back those arguments. I'm quite happy to tread where I tread, because I'm confident in knowing the reasons for that. 6) All a red herring anyway as Scotland is underpopulated and does not face anything like the pressures of many English areas. Not a red herring at all - it's a perfectly valid reason for the welcome that is extended to refugees and immigrants alike when they come here. Extended to the English too, I might add.
I actually believe that the political system is currently so unstable that almost anything could happen. On my trip to the UK I didn't wish to discuss brexit, but the topic kept on coming up. Dorset voted to leave, but time and time again down there I heard the same thing, "We were conned". People thought that knowing what they did now they should get a second vote in some way. One person had even written to their MP to say that if they had the chance to vote on the terms of departure then they hoped they would stick to their pro-EU views and not be told how they must vote. That was someone who had voted to leave. I was in Slough, briefly, I am pleased to say. Did I see masses of immigrants? No, nothing to suggest that the town had been overrun. One shop selling Polish food and another selling Asian products. My daughter works for the NHS and because of the trouble getting work visas for non-EU workers they have been employing people from eastern Europe. Despite this they have been under-staffed for 2 years, and the only way they can keep faith with the people who come to her clinic is for her to have a first appointment at 7.30 am and the last one at 6.30 pm. Despite the unfairness for both her and the clients, they cannot fill the vacancies from the UK. 50% of the training places they have available are not taken up. The RCN magazine is full of adverts for positions at hospital trusts all over England and Wales, so anything that puts into peoples minds that they may not be welcome is going to make matters worse not better. Normally after a general election it takes some months before people start to get restive because the new government is not doing what they thought they were voting for. This time it is only weeks, and despite the government having just had a conference, no one knows what is going to be on offer for withdrawal from the EU. "We have a plan", says May. Maybe she should share it with the population.
Apologies - I incorrectly thought "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be ........" You certainly attack the right wing a lot and I havenot seen a corresponding attack on the left but you know where you stand so- OK Blanket assertions without facts cut no ice. That is not my understanding of what has been said at all and directly contradicts an interview I watched. Do you have the details of when and where this was said - and by whom? I don't see your problem - some projects involve foreign specialists I have enough experience of talking to Scots as has my brother who lives in Aberdeen and my son in law who was educated in Glasgow. Personal perceptions perhaps but no less valid. As good as a blanket "Scots are not racist" - your evidence|? You may welcome the English but that is your opinion. If your towns and cities had as much overcrowding, schools and hospitals, if prices were being pushed up - if land was in short supply for housing then the Scots views could be very different - tehyare not so you cannot do a fair comparison. The very fact that you and many Scots never fail to put in derogatory references with regard to the English compared to the Scots demonstrates an underlying feeling.
Sorry BB. I can't accept the idea that the Scots are 'all welcoming' when it comes to immigration. Are you not forgetting some of the songs directed at Celtic and Hibs fans - mostly from the bigots of Ibrox, but also from others - containing words like 'wallowing through the streets in Feinian blood', or songs about King Billy, or 'You can go home now the famine is over'. There is an apparent failure of the Scottish media to confront the theme of anti-Irish racism in Scotland, generally expressed as anti Catholic, but nonetheless only directed against Irish Catholics and not others such as Italians or Spaniards.
I should point out that those you refer to were the Billy Boys, Rangers fans of Ulster origins. They made a name for themselves in Freedom Square in Glasgow on 18th September 2014. Pro-unionists, they celebrated the referendum outcome by rioting, clad in Union flags and swastikas, and attacking pro-independence supporters - regardless of their age or gender. They share their hate and vitriol equally amongst Scots and immigrants, which is somewhat ironic really. Maybe I should re-phrase my contention - in general, Scottish communities, people and government are more accepting of, and welcoming towards immigrants and the idea of immigration. For evidence, I'd say that Scotland is the only part of the UK where the incidence of hate crime actually decreased after the Brexit result.
Pound on virtual parity with Euro... ...and people being interviewed saying... they should have told us Fuel going up will hit home too..
Food price rises will have a massive impact on the budgets of hundreds of thousands of people. Thanks Brexiters
I'm confused by all this - why are you all worried? During the Scottish IndyRef, the message was "Drop in £ spells disaster for Indy Scotland" Now, after Brexit, the message is "25% drop in £ spells opportunity for the UK" Surely you're not saying that first us, then you have been lied to? Answers on a postcard...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-be-forced-to-show-their-passportsat-hospita/ For any younger members on the board planning a family. Make sure you have a passport first...
