UK leaves European Union!

ren wrote: ???!!!! A referendum is direct democracy, a decision directly made by the people, and not by the people's representatives. The UK has only ever had 3 (1 about remaining in the EU which succeeded, 1 about making parliament a bit more representative which failed miserably, and this last one). You're damn right the EU expects the UK to promptly invoke article 50, because EU rules say they should. I doubt it'll get to this point, but someone in brussels did mention it as ''the nuclear option'', which means it is an option.

Who deals with the EU? The people's representatives. Shout all you want about direct democracy, but the public has no legal power to force a change in the law.

In other news the Lib Dems are standing on a platform of ignoring the referendum result.

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: ???!!!! A referendum is direct democracy, a decision directly made by the people, and not by the people's representatives. The UK has only ever had 3 (1 about remaining in the EU which succeeded, 1 about making parliament a bit more representative which failed miserably, and this last one). You're damn right the EU expects the UK to promptly invoke article 50, because EU rules say they should. I doubt it'll get to this point, but someone in brussels did mention it as ''the nuclear option'', which means it is an option.

Who deals with the EU? The people's representatives. Shout all you want about direct democracy, but the public has no legal power to force a change in the law.

In other news the Lib Dems are standing on a platform of ignoring the referendum result.

the copenhagen criteria, which must be met in order to be a member of the EU says the following:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm

The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:
complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.

Necessity of democratic rule is reiterated in article 2, and the means for action in event of a breach defined in article 7. As Poland is currently under investigation, the UK doesn't stand a chance... Unless the government arranges for the leave campaign to be discredited, has a couple of people arrested over the lies, and a new referendum yields a different outcome. I doubt it will happen, but It could still be possibility. The country looks like it could break up, there's even a not-so-serious petition to take London out of the UK! (https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independent-from-the-uk-and-apply-to-join-the-eu), forcing the government to take more drastic action.

So much excitement.

British humour is picking up again , thank goodness for that the petition did not last long though :silly: ..too soon?

Petition

some more petitions

The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:
complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.

This does not say "Member States must abide by the results of their referendums". The Greek government did not accept the result of the bailout referendum they held. Referendums are a form of direct democracy, but we do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy which chose a form of direct democracy to inform policy. It is left up to the elected representatives to deal with the result of the referendum.

British humour is picking up again , thank goodness for that the petition did not last long though :silly: ..too soon?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36619203/vote-remain-this-is-how-not-to-be-a-sore-brexit-loser

From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Akkarin wrote:

The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:
complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.

This does not say "Member States must abide by the results of their referendums". The Greek government did not accept the result of the bailout referendum they held. Referendums are a form of direct democracy, but we do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy which chose a form of direct democracy to inform policy. It is left up to the elected representatives to deal with the result of the referendum.

Greece didn't prevent the EU from managing the euro, Britain did.
Greece didn't prevent the EU from regulating the banking sector, Britain did.
Greece's banks didn't make up over half the collapsed EU banks during the recession, Britain's did.
Greece didn't waste the EU's time and energy on extravagant demands and exemptions, Britain did.
Greece didn't cause another collapse on EU markets of the amplitude of the great recession less than 10 years after the great recession started, Britain did.
When Greece has a referendum about a loan and its result gets ignored by the government in power, it is not failing to meet the requirements to accession to the EU as defined by the copenhagen protocol. With the result of its referendum on EU membership, Britain did.

That's why Eu commission, parliament and nationally elected leaders aren't telling greece to get out asap but are telling Britain so.

article 7 of the lisbon treaty:

1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure. The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.

2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.

5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 354of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 2:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Considering the circumstances, I think any further delays triggering article 50 will likely lead to the EU triggering article 7.

ren wrote: 1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.

Which part of current events is a breach in the values referred to in Article 2? I mean, I could maybe see an argument for our dignity :laugh:, but there is no clear breach of freedom, equality or democracy.

Brick wrote:

ren wrote: 1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.

Which part of current events is a breach in the values referred to in Article 2? I mean, I could maybe see an argument for our dignity :laugh:, but there is no clear breach of freedom, equality or democracy.

Current prime minister: not elected by the people
Next prime minister: not elected by the people
head of state (queen): Not elected at all, not even by a tiny minority like the PMs are
Brexit: chosen by UK citizens, in a poll where the where they were represented in the most equal manner ever.
EU parliament: actually offers better representation than the UK parliament ever did, with multiple representatives per constituency.

Countries like france which elect their head of state by referendum regularly will find it easy to find something if needs be. The treates give no clear definitions, it's just a matter of getting a number of countries to agree to it.... ''Mights'' and ''coulds'' and such...

Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks for younger people. They're going to have to work until their deaths to pay the pensions and NHS bills of the generation that screwed them while they themselves will not get a pension or good healthcare because the old-timers got greedy... ''You're too young to get this operation'' is a reality today while they spend tens of thousands of pounds on unnecessary operations on people who are near death anyway! Need I say that in the event the NHS can be blamed in any possible way for anything to do with old people, they'll get sued until a trust collapses!

But the EU needs the UK out in order to sort its own shit out. It isn't nearly as liberal as the UK and there will always be tensions in that area.

ren wrote: Current prime minister: not elected by the people
Next prime minister: not elected by the people
head of state (queen): Not elected at all, not even by a tiny minority like the PMs are
Brexit: chosen by UK citizens, in a poll where the where they were represented in the most equal manner ever.
EU parliament: actually offers better representation than the UK parliament ever did, with multiple representatives per constituency.

Countries like france which elect their head of state by referendum regularly will find it easy to find something if needs be. The treates give no clear definitions, it's just a matter of getting a number of countries to agree to it.... ''Mights'' and ''coulds'' and such...

Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks for younger people. They're going to have to work until their deaths to pay the pensions and NHS bills of the generation that screwed them while they themselves will not get a pension or good healthcare because the old-timers got greedy... ''You're too young to get this operation'' is a reality today while they spend tens of thousands of pounds on unnecessary operations on people who are near death anyway! Need I say that in the event the NHS can be blamed in any possible way for anything to do with old people, they'll get sued until a trust collapses!

But the EU needs the UK out in order to sort its own shit out. It isn't nearly as liberal as the UK and there will always be tensions in that area.

Current PM: Was elected by the people. We knew we were getting Cameron if we voted Tory. But you can twist that definition to suit either my point or your's therefore its not really applicable for the sake of this discussion.
Next PM: Depends. They may call a general election, if so, the next PM will be elected by the people and so same as above. If next PM is appointed without a general election, then yes it will be undemocratic but only for 3 years tops. So this point may or may not be applicable for this discussion.
Head of State: Figure head only, has no real power whatsoever and therefore not applicable to this discussion.
Brexit: Opinion poll, not legally binding in the UK's representative democracy. At present, the outcome is not being ignored but simply delayed for 3 months, which hardly constitutes a breach of democracy.

There are only two arguments there that, IMO, can legitimately show a breach of Article 2 (the potential next PM and the delay of the outcome of a referendum that doesn't actually have to be followed anyway), one of which may not even apply and the other of which is an incredibly flimsy argument at best.

A party leader is chosen by party members. Party membership incurs a fee. A party can prevent people from joining the party and choose the party leader.
Not exactly a fair election in which a nation chooses its leader.

With a lack of general election and therefore no choice in which party rules, british people are now actively being prevented from influencing their government and choosing their next prime minister:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/conservative-party-to-stop-activists-from-signing-up-stop-boris/