Reply to: Having a punt on Article 50

[_V_]

Triggering Article 50: the precondition of a new politics | British politics | For Europe, Against the EU | spiked

[MrMarkyMark]

Nope call me think but WTF is that about?

[NigelJK]

Nope call me think but WTF is that about?

[darmstadt]

Still think mine is better:

Do you want more politicians and more bureaucracy?

Yes/No

So if you voted No do you get a free one way ticket to Rockall?

[NigelJK]

Still think mine is better:

Do you want more politicians and more bureaucracy?

Yes/No

[stek]

So you're saying that instead of "Should the UK remain in the EU or .." the wording would have been better as "Ought the UK to remain .." ?

Can't see it would have made any difference, TBH, seeing as there were a couple of tick boxes underneath saying "Remain" or "Leave".

Anyway "ought" sounds a bit quaint and precious these days, used by old fuddy duddies who say "I shall" instead of "I will"

It should have been more incisive, something like 'Do you vote for the UK to leave the EU', then yes/no.

'Should the UK...', to me simply asks for an opinion and the result was 'yes it should', not 'yes it must'. Semantics sure, but I do wonder why the question on the voting form was asked in that way. Maybe cos it allows the powers that be to dilly-dally over it and eventually just do what they want.

[WTFH]

Maybe "must" rather than "should"

[OwlHoot]

Whoever worded the question on the referendum voting slip either didn't understand the meaning of modal verbs, or did and was very clever.

It's so wide open it actually says nothing. So my money is on Art 50 never being invoked.

So you're saying that instead of "Should the UK remain in the EU or .." the wording would have been better as "Ought the UK to remain .." ?

Can't see it would have made any difference, TBH, seeing as there were a couple of tick boxes underneath saying "Remain" or "Leave".

Anyway "ought" sounds a bit quaint and precious these days, used by old fuddy duddies who say "I shall" instead of "I will"

[DodgyAgent]

Yes, there is no need under UK law to invoke Article 50 in order to exit the EU. But Article 50 gives a framework for negotiation in advance of the EU. But if the UK favours Hard Brexit (don't Google this unless you're into Farage scat porn), then an Act of Parliament is sufficient.

Article 50 was never supposed to be used, says the man who wrote it

as BP pointed out

[GB9]

According to The Daily UKIP Express yesterday 98% of the population (according to their poll) want us to just immediately leave without any kind of agreement. Take back control!

And then house prices will soar!

[stek]

Whoever worded the question on the referendum voting slip either didn't understand the meaning of modal verbs, or did and was very clever.

It's so wide open it actually says nothing. So my money is on Art 50 never being invoked.

[VectraMan]

Yes, there is no need under UK law to invoke Article 50 in order to exit the EU. But Article 50 gives a framework for negotiation in advance of the EU. But if the UK favours Hard Brexit (don't Google this unless you're into Farage scat porn), then an Act of Parliament is sufficient.

According to The Daily UKIP Express yesterday 98% of the population (according to their poll) want us to just immediately leave without any kind of agreement. Take back control!

[Mordac]

The trouble & strife has just started on a project with a, let's just say "pretty bloody important" govt dept. In a Q & A session, the issue of Brexit was raised, as a potential "risk" element in project terms, and the response seemed to be something along the lines of "we do what we're told, and therefore you do what we tell you".
She was none the wiser, and somehow neither am I.

[Old Greg]

My theory .... based on nothing, so it's not a "theory" but wild speculation.

Is that they'll never invoke Article 50 because the large legal team currently employed by HM Government will find some legal loop-holes that allow the UK to exit the EU without invoking it.

I don't see why they would bother with A50. It hands the initiative to the EU and then puts them in charge of the timescales. So why would you bother? There's more detail in a contract for a mobile phone than in Article 50. And as the author of the clause himself said : It's not designed to be used and it's not tested.

Why not simply pass a new migration law, repeal a bunch of EU laws and then stop paying into the EU budget? It's not like the EU has an army and is going to invade us.

Yes, there is no need under UK law to invoke Article 50 in order to exit the EU. But Article 50 gives a framework for negotiation in advance of the EU. But if the UK favours Hard Brexit (don't Google this unless you're into Farage scat porn), then an Act of Parliament is sufficient.

[Mordac]

My theory .... based on nothing, so it's not a "theory" but wild speculation.

Is that they'll never invoke Article 50 because the large legal team currently employed by HM Government will find some legal loop-holes that allow the UK to exit the EU without invoking it.

I don't see why they would bother with A50. It hands the initiative to the EU and then puts them in charge of the timescales. So why would you bother? There's more detail in a contract for a mobile phone than in Article 50. And as the author of the clause himself said : It's not designed to be used and it's not tested.

Why not simply pass a new migration law, repeal a bunch of EU laws and then stop paying into the EU budget? It's not like the EU has an army and is going to invade us.

Bloody good points, and well made. The "up yours Delors" salute, with knobs on...