Als het No Deal wordt gaat dat hele eiland naar de tering. Dan moeten straks zelfs nog noodhulp naar die koppige eilanders gaan sturen, omdat ze anders verhongeren.quote:
Die raken zelfs in Europa op, noem het maar hoor.quote:Op dinsdag 4 december 2018 13:23 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
Als het No Deal wordt gaat dat hele eiland naar de tering. Dan moeten straks zelfs nog noodhulp naar die koppige eilanders gaan sturen, omdat ze anders verhongeren.
De medicijnen raken op, Ierland kan weer terug vallen naar 'The Troubles' etc. etc.
En het lijkt me een vrij zwakke opinie. Het argument komt neer op: het is het recht van een lidstaat om de unilaterale beslissing te nemen om de EU te verlaten, toestemming van de andere leden vereisen om van mening te veranderen zou daarmee strijdig zijn, want dan zouden andere landen beslissen over het uittreden van de lidstaat.quote:
Dat geldt toch voor alle overeenkomsten? Als je een huurcontract met een opzegtermijn van drie maanden hebt, dan zijn dat geen drie maanden bedenktijd waarin je van mening kan veranderen.quote:To accept that the European council, acting by unanimity, should have the last word on the revocation increases the risk of the member state leaving the EU against its will, since the right to withdraw from (and, conversely, to remain in) the EU would no longer be subject to the control of the member state, its sovereignty and its constitutional requirements. In those circumstances, it would suffice for one of the remaining 27 member states to oppose the revocation in order for the will of the member state that has expressed its desire to remain in the EU to be frustrated.
Je kan May moeilijk vergelijken met Sukarno die afgezet en onder huisarrest geplaatst werd.quote:The law firm Gowling WLG has sent me a line on the ECJ advocate general’s opinion, making the point that there is precedent for a country leaving an international organisation, and then changing its mind. This is from Bernardine Adkins, its head of EU trade and competition.
The UK would not be the first country to announce an intention to leave a supra national organisation only to tip toe back a few years later. An historic example would be that of Indonesia, who in 1965 announced its withdrawal from the UN only to return later that year without issue. The UN simply treated the withdrawal notice as a “cessation of cooperation”.
Today’s opinion opens the door to similar political manoeuvring in respect of Brexit – if the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50, will the last two years of negotiation come to be known, perhaps with some irony, as a “cessation of cooperation”?
Oh? Leuk bedacht maar de EU heeft geen mogelijkheden om een noodwet te maken.quote:
No deal is voor de EU geen probleem, de Commissie noemt de impact voor de EU "insignificant". Het VK moet zich maar eens gaan gedragen als een volwassene. Geen uitstel, je kiest maar gewoon.quote:Op dinsdag 4 december 2018 11:56 schreef SeLang het volgende:
Er komt een extensie van Art 50 en dan een referendum. De EU gaat daarmee akkoord als het alternatief "no deal" is.
Pure speculatie hoor, ik doe slechts een gok op basis van wat ik momenteel zie gebeuren. Dit lijkt mij op dit moment het meest waarschijnlijke scenario.
Ja, dat gaat hem wel worden, even een nieuw EU verdrag opstellenquote:
quote:On December 4, 2018, the UK Government was found in contempt of parliament for the first time in history on a motion passed by MPs by 311 to 293 votes. The vote was triggered by the government failing to lay before parliament any legal advice on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the European Union, after a humble address for a return was unanimously agreed to by the House of Commons on 13 November 2018. The government has now agreed to publish the full legal advice for Brexit that was given to the Prime Minister by the Attorney General during negotiations with the European Union.
quote:May’s Brexit Deal Is a Betrayal of Britain
If the U.K. parliament supports her plan, it will never be forgiven.
When Tony Blair and Boris Johnson unite in their condemnation of the “deal” under which Theresa May proposes that the U.K. should leave the EU, you know something has gone badly wrong. The withdrawal agreement is less a carefully crafted diplomatic compromise and more the result of incompetence of a high order. I have friends who are passionate Remainers and others who are passionate Leavers. None of them believe this deal makes any sense. It is time to think again, and the first step is to reject a deal that is the worst of all worlds.
There have been three episodes in modern history when the British political class let down the rest of the country: in the 1930s, with appeasement; in the 1970s, when the British economy was the “sick man” of Europe and the government saw its role as managing decline; and now, in the turmoil that has followed the Brexit referendum. In all three cases, the conventional wisdom of the day was wrong.
In the first two instances, it took a revolution: in 1940, the dismissal of the prime minister and his replacement by someone better suited to the role of wartime leader; in the 1970s, a political and intellectual upheaval, and a radical new government capable of changing course. Both times, the country escaped ruin by the skin of its teeth. Today’s challenge is of a similar order.
Britain is not facing an economic crisis. It is confronting a deep political crisis. Parliament has brought this on the country. It voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum. The public were told they would decide. And the rules of the game were clear: Fifty percent of the vote plus one would settle the matter. The prime minister and the chancellor of the exchequer at the time said unequivocally that Brexit meant leaving Europe’s single market and customs union. This was the Brexit that, after the referendum, both main political parties promised to deliver.
But a majority of members of Parliament were against leaving, and both parties were split down the middle. For members of the Labour opposition, the opportunity to undermine the government outweighed their views on the issue at hand, momentous though it was. A divided governing party was unable to rely on a majority to support any plan to deliver Brexit.
To be sure, no coherent plan has ever been presented. There are arguments for remaining in the EU and arguments for leaving. But there is no case whatever for giving up the benefits of remaining without obtaining the benefits of leaving. Yet that is exactly what the government is now proposing. It simply beggars belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the U.K. indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.
Preparations for Brexit based on trade under WTO terms should have started in 2016, immediately after the referendum, as I said at the time. Britain needed a fall-back position — it is foolish to negotiate without one — and that was the form it should have taken. An immigration policy for the post-Brexit world could and should have been published in 2016. But there was no such planning. Instead, the government pretended that everything could be postponed until an imaginary long-term deal could be negotiated. This was naïve at best, and in the event has proven disastrous. And so Project Fear turned into Project Impossible. It is incompetence on a monumental scale.
Before the referendum, official economic projections intended to scare the country into voting Remain didn’t succeed. Based on flimsy and arbitrary assumptions, they were subsequently proved wrong. The same strategy has resurfaced.
It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank’s latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10 percent of GDP. Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible. On this I concur with Paul Krugman. He’s no friend of Brexit and believes that Britain would be better off inside the EU — but on the claim of lower productivity, he describes the Bank’s estimates as “black box numbers” that are “dubious” and “questionable.” And on the claim of semi-permanent dislocation, he just says, “Really?” I agree: The British civil service may not be perfect, but it surely isn’t as bad as that.
The U.K. is a European country, and always will be. Trade and contacts among the nations of Europe can and should continue much as before. And I have no doubt they will do so. But the political nature of the EU has changed since monetary union. The EU failed to recognize that the euro would demand fiscal and political integration if it was to succeed, and that countries outside the euro area would require a different kind of EU membership. It was inevitable, therefore, that, sooner or later, Britain would decide to withdraw from a political project in which it had little interest apart from the shared desire for free trade.
Leaving the EU is not the end of the world, any more than it will deliver the promised land. Nonetheless the country is entitled to expect something better than a muddled commitment to perpetual subordination from which the U.K. cannot withdraw without the agreement of the EU.
Many MPs will argue that “we are where we are,” that it’s too late to change course, and that May’s deal is the only deal available. But remember, this is a political not an economic crisis. If Blair and Johnson, from opposing political viewpoints, can see the fatal weaknesses of this proposed deal, politicians of all hues should try to do the same. This deal will not end the divisiveness of the debate about Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Remain camp will continue to argue, correctly, that to align the country indefinitely with laws over which it has no influence is madness, and a second referendum is vital to escape from this continuing nightmare. And the Leave camp will argue, also correctly, that it is intolerable for the fifth largest economy in the world to continue indefinitely as a fiefdom.
If this deal is not abandoned, I believe that the U.K. will end up abrogating it unilaterally — regardless of the grave damage that would do to Britain’s reputation and standing. Vassal states do not go gently into that good night. They rage. If this parliament bequeaths to its successors the choice between a humiliating submission and the abrogation of a binding international treaty, it will not be forgiven — and will not deserve to be.
Letterlijk minachting van het parlement, kort gezegd het hinderen van het parlement bij de uitvoering van haar taken.quote:Op dinsdag 4 december 2018 19:00 schreef Hyperdude het volgende:
Wikipedia is alweer bijgewerkt.
Ik denk dat dat juist in het voordeel van GB is (maar niet van de regering).quote:
Dat lig er maar net aan wat er in staat.quote:
Als het in hun voordeel was dan hadden ze het allang vrijgegeven en het niet op die contempt stem laten aankomen.quote:
Juist.quote:Maar ik denk dat het grote voordeel wel is dat er nu wat meer openheid komt. Geen gelieg.
Vind het wel verontrustend dat ze het niet meteen vrij geven. Pas morgen komt het vrij. Dat kon ook nu meteen.quote:
Er kwamen gelijk al lastige vragen over die £39 miljardquote: