[Lovera]

I heard this one a few days ago on TV at the news of 8:00 pm. The English have coined a new verb "To Brexit". The meaning: when someone goes to a Party and at a certain point says : "it is late, I have to go". And remains. It should be a defective verb: To Brexit, Brexit, Brexit.(Lovera)

[LBengtsson]

The EU has ruined my country, Sweden. At the beginning it was good, but now EU is a big mess, wasting money, my money and taxes. The English are right to go from the EU. But my English friends say the EU won't let them go. As when England goes, then other countries will also go. Then the corrupt politicians will all lose their jobs. The EU will break into pieces.

[Lovera]

 LBengtsson, on 2019-April-07, 13:12, said:

The EU has ruined my country, Sweden. At the beginning it was good, but now EU is a big mess, wasting money, my money and taxes. The English are right to go from the EU. But my English friends say the EU won't let them go. As when England goes, then other countries will also go. Then the corrupt politicians will all lose their jobs. The EU will break into pieces.

Your vision is too pessimistic, even if in some respects it can be understood, so what about Greece and what it had to endure? It is not in these conditions that good decisions are made. I do not believe that the EU will end and I still hope that the British will not leave. This story is going on in a very little "English" way and maybe even they didn't expect such not positive results.

[steve2005]

Britain has already have a special deal with the EU.
It doesn't have to use the Euro and there are some other things too.
The silly thing is most of the rules for the EU were written by Britain after the war.
If they want to leave the EU fine but don't expect most of the good things to still remain and they will only get rid of the bad.

[Vampyr]

 LBengtsson, on 2019-April-07, 13:12, said:

The EU has ruined my country, Sweden. At the beginning it was good, but now EU is a big mess, wasting money, my money and taxes. The English are right to go from the EU. But my English friends say the EU won't let them go. As when England goes, then other countries will also go. Then the corrupt politicians will all lose their jobs. The EU will break into pieces.

Then we can go back to a customs union and everyone will be happy. Except Macron and Merkel.

[Lovera]

The Brexit is postponed to 30 March 2020

10 April 2019 Editorial[=www.laprimapagina.it]



The Brexit will be returned, once again. On this occasion the times will be much longer, even if flexible. The 27 European leaders are meeting today in Brussels to discuss the date of Great Britain's exit from the EU.

They could propose a postponement of the exit of Great Britain from the EU to March 30, 2020. It is the hypothesis that circulates on the international media that cites European sources close to the dossier.

Theresa May asked for a postponement until June 30, evidently insufficient given the disagreement that reigns in London. Some countries would be willing to give it more time, until the end of 2019. The President of the European Council, Tusk, instead proposed the longest extension, to 30 March 2020. There is always an option of flexibility but the commitment of the United Kingdom to participate in the next European elections.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2019-April-07, 20:23, said:

Then we can go back to a customs union and everyone will be happy. Except Macron and Merkel.

Actually nobody will be happy, all the disadvantages of Brexit and none of the advantages.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2019-April-07, 20:23, said:

Then we can go back to a customs union and everyone will be happy. Except Macron and Merkel.

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-10, 07:37, said:

Actually nobody will be happy, all the disadvantages of Brexit and none of the advantages.

Hence the troubles reaching a concensus about which form of Brexit ....

[Lovera]

The Brexit slips again





Adnkronos


2019/04/11 07:44


follow





(AFP)


Published on: 11/04/2019 07:06


by Tommaso Gallavotti


The Brexit slips again, this time until Halloween night. The European Council, after about eight hours of meeting in Brussels, decided on the night to grant the United Kingdom an extension of the date of exit from the EU, initially set for March 29 and then postponed to April 12, "to allow the ratification of the withdrawal agreement ". This "flexible" extension, the 27 EU leaders explain in the conclusions, spread around two and a half in the morning, "should last only as long as necessary and, in any case, no later than 31 October 2019".


The date of October 31 was chosen, French President Emmanuel Macron explained, because "we must be sure that when the next European Commission takes office, we will have dealt with the issue. The new Commission will take office on November 1, 2019". If the withdrawal agreement is ratified "by both parties before this date, then the withdrawal" from the EU "will take place on the first day of the following month", specifies the conclusions.


TUSK - For European Council President Donald Tusk, this extension gives the United Kingdom "over six months" of time to decide what to do, which is "exclusively in the hands of" London, which will be able to "ratify the withdrawal agreement" , in which case the extension will terminate ". British Prime Minister Theresa May pointed out that this clause was a request of "fundamental" importance that he had made to the leaders, given that "if we can approve the withdrawal agreement in the first three weeks of May, then we will not have to hold the elections Europeans, to go out on June 1st ".


ARTICLE 50 - London, continued Tusk, will be able to "change strategy on Brexit" over the next six months and three weeks, reviewing its "red lines", or "have the opportunity to withdraw article 50". The European Council underlines that the extension "cannot undermine the regular functioning of the EU and its institutions". The Irish premier Leo Varadkar stresses that the agreement "means that we will not have a Brexit without agreement in October". And that "we can focus on other things" in the EU. "We are giving the British a long time to decide," he remarks.


THE COMPROMISE - The duration of the extension, the result of a compromise between the positions of France and other countries that were pressing for a shorter postponement and those of others, including Italy and Germany, which were pushing for a long delay, is "a little "It's shorter than I expected, but it's still enough for the UK to find the best solution. Please don't waste this time," Tusk continued. And in any case, "it is better to have a piece of something than the whole of nothing".

[Lovera]

BETTEL - For the Luxembourg premier Xavier Bettel, among those who pushed for a brief postponement, "the House of Commons must tell us in the end what it wants: we still don't know". For Macron "it is true that the majority position was to grant a very long extension, but in my eyes it was not logical. And above all it would not have been positive either for us or for the British. Because we would have given the impression that between us we can decide to ignore the vote of the British people. I assume this role, for the good of the community. I believe we have found the best possible compromise ".


ELECTIONS - For the European Council, "if the United Kingdom is still a member of the EU on 23-26 May 2019 and if it has not ratified the withdrawal agreement by 22 May 2019, it will have to hold the European elections, in line with EU law ". There is also a guillotine clause: if London were to fail in the obligation to celebrate the Europeans, then "the withdrawal will take place on June 1", to avoid undermining the legitimacy of the European Parliament which will be elected on May 23-26 .


JUNCKER - The fact that "probably" European elections will be held in Britain, notes the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, "may seem curious, but 'dura lex sed lex'". Of course, it is said that in October the British will have solved the mess that has become Brexit: "I'm too old to rule out other scenarios," Tusk said. "We have no certainty - Macron said - but for the first time in two and a half years, May has started discussions with Labor. I don't know if results will come, but October 31 protects us, either because there is an agreement, or decide to withdraw article 50, or no deal remains an option ".


'NO DEAL' - No deal that was not even mentioned in Donald Tusk's letter of invitation to the leaders, a non-random absence. The 27 EU leaders reiterate that "there will be no reopening of the withdrawal agreement", to then underline that the extension "cannot be used to start negotiations on the future relationship" between the EU and the UK. However, if the London position were to "evolve", then the European Council "is ready to reconsider the political declaration on the future report, in accordance with the positions and the principles outlined in the guidelines and declarations, including regarding the territorial scope of the future report ".


ARTICLE 50 - During the extension, the United Kingdom will remain a Member State "with full rights and duties, in accordance with Article 50" and "will have the right to revoke the notification at any time". The European Council "takes note of the United Kingdom's commitment to act constructively and responsibly" during the extension period, "in accordance with the duty of sincere cooperation and expects that Great Britain will respect its duties in a way that reflects his state condition that he is withdrawing "from the EU. Therefore, London "must facilitate the achievement of the EU objectives and refrain from any measure that could jeopardize the achievement of the same, in particular when participating in the EU decision-making mechanism".


MEMBERS - The 27 States will continue to meet in the 27 format, where needed, and the European Council "will continue to take care of the matter" and "will review its progress in the meeting next June". Tusk and Juncker have both emphasized that in June there will be no reopening of the negotiations, but only an acknowledgment of the situation: the leaders, in the intentions of the Polish politician, will only have to be informed of the state of the art, without discussing it.


THE DURATION - Regarding the different positions that emerged among the Member States on the duration of the extension, Tusk explained that "we are united enough to have common conclusions. Sometimes we do not have identical positions, but we are able to find a compromise". And, he concluded, "it is easier to find a majority here than in the House of Commons".

[Lovera]

London. Brexit: we are moving towards a new referendum

 Editorial[www.laprimapagina.it]

17 hours ago



For the first time there is open talk of a second referendum on Brexit. In fact, the British finance minister Philip Hammond stated that "it is very probable" that Parliament considers the hypothesis of a second referendum on Brexit.

The Minister spoke about it from Washington to the International Monetary Fund conference. However, Hammond added that he expects an agreement between the government and the Labor opposition over the "next two months", stressing that the London executive remains opposed to a second consultation on Brexit.

The United Kingdom has just obtained a further extension of the divorce official date of the European Council, meeting in an emergency summit between 10 and 11 April: from 12 April to 31 October, the deadline to collect the go-ahead from the House of Commons to the deal (agreement) signed in November 2018 by May with European partners. The premier hoped to snatch a shorter postponement, as of June 30, with the aim of increasing the pressure on the opposition in view of a vote in favor of his agreement. May is engaged in a dialogue with Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn, in an attempt to find a compromise to collect the left's support when the pact is ratified.

[Lovera]

16:14


Brexit: Tusk, 20-30% chance that the UK remains in the EU


(Il Sole 24 Ore Radiocor Plus) - Milan, May 10 - There is a 30% chance that the UK will remain in the European Union, as the British really started discussing the issue only after the outcome of the referendum of 2016, when the Brexit was voted. "The real debate on the consequences of Brexit did not start before or during the referendum campaign, but after the vote. Today the results would probably be different", given that "paradoxically the outcome of the referendum generated a pro-Europe movement in the Kingdom United, "said European Council President Donald Tusk, in an interview with the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, stressing that" today the chances of Brexit not occurring are around 20-30%, it's a lot ". According to Tusk, moreover, "every month that passes is increasingly clear that the UK's exit from the EU would be very different from the one presented" in 2016, so "I see no reason to capitulate" and "I see no reason to surrender, even if we repeat that the referendum is an expression of the will of the people and this must be respected ". However, referring to the 1975 referendum, when the British, two years after the country's entry into the European Economic Community had to decide whether to stay there or not, Tusk stressed that "the 2016 referendum was not the first. If he changed the outcome of the 1975 one, why not change yet? Nothing is irreversible until people think it is, "he said.
Ars- (RADIOCOR) 10-05-19 16:14:02 (0491) EURO 3 NNNN

[cherdano]

Is there a transcript anywhere of the Tory leadership TV debates?

[Lovera]

 cherdano, on 2019-June-20, 14:55, said:

Is there a transcript anywhere of the Tory leadership TV debates?

Brexit: Johnson, Tory risk extinction





ansa.it


2019/06/05 08:13


follow





(ANSA) - ROME, JUNE 5 - The British Conservative party risks "potentially extinction" if it fails to implement Brexit and "put in its place" the leader of the Brexit Party Nigel Farage: Boris Johnson said, one frontrunners in Theresa May's chair race, during a closed-door meeting with about eighty parliamentarians.


According to reports in the British press, Johnson pointed out that it is crucial to bring the kingdom out of the EU by the end of October, excluding both early elections and a second referendum, which would be "absolutely undemocratic".


The former foreign minister has promised that if he becomes prime minister he will try to renegotiate with Brussels the Brexit agreement set by May which, he said, "simply does not work".


View the original article.

[Lovera]

Probably is this the video that was requested:https://www.conserva...it-moments.html

[Lovera]

LONDON. "Yes to a second Brexit referendum on every agreement approved by Parliament". Interpreting the words of Jeremy Corbyn is always a bit like deciphering Pravda, its ambiguity about Brexit is never denied. But this time the Labor leader has made a clear step forward in support of a new popular consultation on Europe's exit.


As party sources inform the Republic that they passed some passages of his speech to his, during an internal meeting with his "shadow government" Corbyn explicitly invoked a second referendum on Brexit. Yes, it is true, he said that "the result of the referendum must be respected", which until now has always "slavishly followed the line decided by the party at the last congress", that is with a second popular consultation as the last hypothesis. But at the same time, Corbyn said, "a No Deal would plunge us into the worst excesses of a catastrophic capitalism, dragging us towards bad agreements with Donald Trump, feeding our public health to American companies".




And therefore, after all these "very leftist" reasons, Corbyn made it clear that "it is now legitimate for any Brexit agreement to be put to a popular vote, which is in line with the decisions taken at the last congress". Attention, but maybe Corbyn means the general election with "popular vote", as it has done in the past? It may be that he still plays on this ambiguity, but then states: "On the card there must be clearly indicated options that can satisfy both those who want to stay" in the EU, "and by those who want to get out". Here there are no more doubts: with these words Corbyn describes the card of a second referendum on Brexit.


Even the last time, on May 29th, Corbyn had cited the referendum option on "any agreement decided by the Parliament", but as a second option after the general elections. These, this time, are no longer even mentioned. And indeed, the Labor leader clearly mentions the ballot sheet. Certainly, a way to appease the pro-European revolt in your party, but now it seems clear: after so many hesitations and to recover the Europeanist votes escaped from the liberal democrats, Corbyn expressed the will to ask for a second referendum on any Brexit agreement approved by Parliament . Otherwise, there will be the No Deal, the exit without agreement from the EU, a scenario that is increasingly probable given the proclamations of the possible next Prime Minister Boris Johnson ("October 31st comes out, with or without agreement"). And so many Labor voters ask themselves on social media: "Jeremy, but isn't it late now?"(19/6/19 - from:www.larepubblica.it).

[Lovera]

(...)"In the Anglo-Saxon legal system the question of the value to be attributed to the referendum has recently been dealt with by two judgments, respectively the sentence (first instance) of the High Court of 3 November 2016 and the sentence (second instance, resulting from the appeal of the Government against the decision of the High Court) of the Supreme Court of 24 January 2017, on the cd. Miller case. These sentences have had to face the problem of whether, despite the referendum, art. 50 of the TEU (which provides for the procedure for the exit of a member state from the Union) should be activated following a new parliamentary deliberation (as claimed by the applicants), or vice versa if, precisely by virtue of the referendum, it could be omitted the intervention of the Parliament and could be the government to activate the procedure of withdrawal from the Union (as claimed by the government itself). A question that evidently involved deciding what value to attribute to him.

Spoiler

The High Court, in this regard, first of all affirms that it is necessary to refer to the interpretation of the Referendum Act 2015, which precisely provided for such a referendum; the Court states that by interpreting this act in the light of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary representative democracy, it is concluded that the referendum, as there is no indication to the contrary, can only have a consultative value: "That Act falls to be interpreted in the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom, leading to the conclusion of a referendum on any topic only advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act. "Furthermore, this conclusion already emerges from the preparatory documents and from the fact that Parliament thus had to have understood it, given the possible serious consequences that could have resulted:" Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to be advisory as the result of a vote in the referendum in favor of leaving the European Union Union. "

In similar terms, the Supreme Court ruled, confirming that the effects of a referendum depend on the legislation that provides for them: "The effect of any particular referendum must depend on the terms of the statute which authorises it." that in the present case nothing has been foreseen with reference to this in the institutional law: “(...) nor the 2015 Act, which authorized referendums about membership of the European Community or European Union, made provision for any consequences of either possible outcome. (...) provided only that the referendum should be held (...) ".

Spoiler

On the other hand, it is difficult to prove that Parliament wanted to confer legal effects on the consultation, also in the light of the different formulation of the Referendum Act 2011: “It was suggested on behalf of the Secretary of State, the electorate, Parliament cannot deal with that, the question would be directed straight to it. There are two problems with this argument. The first is that it assumes what it seeks to prove, namely that the referendum was intended by Parliament to have legal effect as well as a political effect. The second issue is that of the law, which is required by the law, which (...) required just that - albeit in the more "Then the Court concludes that, in cases such as the one in question, a further parliamentary step is needed for the referendum outcome to have legal effects:" Where, as in this case, the implementation of a referendum result requires a change in the law of the land, and a change in the law must be done in only the UK constitution permits, namely through Parliamentary legislation. "Until that time, the result of the referendum will have great political significance, but will not have strictly legal consequences:" Thus, the referendum of 2016 did not change the law in a way which would allow ministers to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union without legislation. But that in no way means that it is devoid of effect. Its means is political rather than legal. It has already shown itself to be of great political significance. "

Ultimately, the Court also ruled on the referendum to validate the need for parliamentary intervention, recognizing its merely consultative nature; the judges recalled how the legal scope of each referendum should be configured based solely on the norm with which Parliament established it, thus reaching the point of tempering the more rigid conclusion reached by the Commission of the House of Lords in the aforementioned “Report ":" Because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion ".

Spoiler

In conclusion, it is clear that the institutions of direct democracy, in particular the referendum, have an application that is still not entirely clear in the UK. Despite their wider use, it can be debated whether it actually contributes to a greater democracy in the choices of constitutional importance: the lack of a written constitutional text, the absence of a certain univocally applicable discipline (the value of each referendum depends on its institutive law), together with the non-existence of a power of initiative for citizens or in any case for qualified expressions of minorities, as well as qualified quorums and majorities, are all elements that can contribute to making it an institution subject to instrumental uses by the Government in office. Just what happened, according to some, with reference to the referendum for Brexit, seen more as an attempt by the then Prime Minister David Cameron to give a political response to the pressures coming from Euro-skeptical conservatives and to curb the rise of UKIP, rather than as an effective means of guaranteeing democratic participation in taking public decisions. Hence the need to better formalize and predetermine the role of this institute in the system, clarifying whether and how it can affect the system of legal sources, in particular of the constitutional level.

ANDREA CIANCIO"

(From:Direct democracy and referendum between Italy and the United Kingdom

By Andrea Ciancio 11 March 2017, 14:48 democracy, law, public right, Italy, Referendum, UK)

[Lovera]

Following the last election result it seems that things are slowly moving even though the degree of uncertainty remains high. However, I don't think we should talk about a stall (a term used in chess) but rather a surplace (a term used in cycling).

[Lovera]

https://www.stuff.co...ent-politicians

[Zelandakh]

Just to point out that the correct term in chess is a "waiting move" and in cycling a standstill (or track stand). You could perhaps also consider bridge terms such as grope (for the bidding) or rectifying the count (for card play). In any case, I am not sure that any are relevant.

The idea of the government is that if they do nothing the clock ticks by the deadline and the UK leaves by default. Even if a vote of no confidence forces an election, it would be possible for the PM to set the election date to be after Oct 29th giving no remaining opening for those looking to oppose Brexit taking place. There is currently a legal challenge to that being fast-tracked through the UK court system but on the face of it, even in the most generous of interpretations it would require a successful vote of no confidence to take place early in September for the restrictions in the Fixed Term Parliament Act to constrain the PM in any meaningful way. And even then, if the PM ignored the court only an intervention by The Queen has the legal authority to override such an action.

Pretty much it is a done deal - the UK will leave on Oct 31st, most likely without a deal.