Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

The whole thing is a mess...roll on the "informed" Referendum.

Didn't anyone inform you about the last one Stan ?

It was definitely on the news and in the newspapers too I think.

Martini,

Up to the time of agreeing on the "exit" and somebody signing the agreement then we would still have to abide by what has already been signed up to.

But imagine the costs of the negotiations which will/would go on whichever happens.

But I think after negotiations have "finished" if that is possible, then what will be contracted to, should be presented and explained to the public and they "should" hold have either or both, a clear referendum and if necessary a General election.

I think that the UK has a parliamentary democracy and that should be the ruling body respecting the views of the general public.

Fred I understand all that but it was not what I was asking clarification on.

The Brexit is a tea party compared to the mess in Spain.

I really don't know where this is a leading. It cant be good for stocks if this is just the

start of it.

Mrs May handed the job to spite the brexiteers. Now we are going to get another

unholy load of blood letting.

"Dil - 05 Oct 2017 12:06 - 7753 of 7756

Didn't anyone inform you about the last one Stan ?

It was definitely on the news and in the newspapers too I think."

No they didn't Dil but more importantly they didn't inform millions of others who voted out either.

Martini.

Easy reading for you from some with the same question/s as you are asking.


Supreme Court seeks clarity on how to handle EU rulings after Brexit
Estelle Shirbon
3 MIN READ
The President of the Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, poses for a formal portrait in this undated photograph received in London October 5, 2017. Kevin Leighton/UK Supreme Court/Handout via REUTERS
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Supreme Court would like clearer guidance from parliament on how it should deal with European Union court judgements after Brexit, its new president said on Thursday.

The issue of what weight, if any, judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have in British law after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union is one of many thorny areas in the Brexit negotiations.

Brenda Hale, who was sworn in as president of the Supreme Court on Monday after serving as one of its justices for 13 years, said she and her colleagues were looking for guidance from parliament on the issue.

“We hope that the European Union Act, when it’s eventually passed, will tell us what we should be doing - giving us the power to take into account, or saying we must take into account, or saying we must ignore,” she told reporters.

“Whatever parliament decides we should do, we would like to be told because then we’ll get on and do it.”

A government policy paper issued in August said Britain wished to leave the “direct jurisdiction” of the ECJ while also recognising that future civil judicial cooperation would need to take into account “regional legal arrangements” such as the ECJ.

FILE PHOTO - A man waves a European Union flag outside the Supreme Court before the decision of a court ruling on whether Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London, Britain, January 24, 2017. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth
The European Union says that for certain issues, such as the rights of EU citizens in Britain, the ECJ must continue to have its say - a stance strongly rejected by the most ardent advocates of Brexit.

Hale said the government policy papers issued over the summer were “at quite a high level of generality” and described them as aspirational.

But she praised the formulation used by Prime Minister Theresa May in a major speech on Brexit in Florence on Sept. 22. May said that where there was uncertainty around EU law, she wanted UK courts to be able to “take into account” ECJ judgements.

“‘Take account’ is quite useful because it does give one the power to take it into account, but also the power to say ‘for the following good reasons, we think something else,'” said Hale.

Her deputy, Jonathan Mance, said the form of words used in the EU Withdrawal Bill currently going through parliament was “a weaker formula”.

The bill says that British courts “need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court ... but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so”.

Editing by Stephen Addison
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
#UK TOP NEWSOCTOBER 4, 2017 / 1:56 PM / UPDATED A DAY AGO


Strong chances of Brexit no deal, but UK government may collapse - Scottish minister
Elisabeth O'Leary
4 MIN READ
FILE PHOTO - The Union Flag and a European Union flag fly near the Elizabeth Tower, housing the Big Ben bell, during the anti-Brexit 'People's March for Europe', in Parliament Square in central London, Britain September 9, 2017. REUTERS/Tolga Akmen
EDINBURGH (Reuters) - Scotland’s Brexit minister believes there is a “pretty strong”
chance Britain will leave the European Union with no deal, but that the UK government could collapse before then.

Michael Russell said the devolved pro-independence Scottish administration is trying to prepare for Brexit, despite Scots having voted against it, but possible outcomes are “legion”.

“I think the chances (Brexit) happens without an agreement are still pretty strong, that there will a crashing out,” Russell, who is heading Scottish Brexit talks with the UK government, told Reuters.

“It is also distinctly possible (...) that the government will fall and there will be another election or another government will come in,” he added.

British Prime Minister Theresa May is running a minority Conservative government, kept in power by a Northern Irish Protestant party.

Russel said it was unclear what any new government might do.

“Will it start negotiations afresh, what will be its mandate, what will it be negotiating for?” Russell said, describing his frustration with the process and its uncertainty.

Britain’s vote to leave the EU has divided the main parties over what new relationship it wants with the trading bloc after 40 years of shared ties.

It has also strained the ties of the UK’s four nations, because Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to keep EU membership while Wales and most-populous England voted to leave.

On key issues, such as the set-up of powers devolved beyond London’s parliament after Brexit and the need for fluid EU immigration, Edinburgh’s Scottish nationalist administration is at loggerheads with the Conservative UK government in London.

Earlier on Wednesday, Britain’s First Secretary of State Damian Green said Britain believes no deal is very unlikely but was readying contingency plans just in case. As recently as Tuesday, the UK’s Brexit Minister David Davis said Britain was ready to walk away with no deal.

“If we leave without a deal, we have to look at whether there will be democratic legitimacy in that, how would that be confirmed. Would (Britain’s parliament) accept that we leave without a deal? I think that’s unlikely in its present composition,” said Russell, whose formal title is Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe.

Russell described Brexit as the “existential threat to Scotland’s future” and said his government was preparing, to the extent that it could, for all options regarding Brexit. For that reason, he argued, Scotland should be offered a new choice which might include independence from the UK -- rejected by Scottish voters in 2014 by a 10 percentage point margin -- once it is clear what Brexit means.

“At some stage the people of Scotland will have to be asked whether they want to stay with something which is completely disastrous and will not produce a good result, of that I have no doubt, or whether we do something else,” he said.

In a June general election Russell’s Scottish National Party suffered heavy losses - albeit from a very high level - and was forced to withdraw its offer of a new independence referendum as a result.

Reporting by Elisabeth O'Leary Editing by Jeremy Gaunt

Mr Russell is hardly the person to give an opinion on Brexit as he opposes it don't you think . but that's the sort of thing you do Freda isn't it , Obsession .

Sorry Fred still doesn't answer my query.
Let me ask it again.

We get to the stage where we have no deal or we have some sort of deal on the table. We go to the people and have another referendum. The British people now say "we want to stay in". How do we do that? Pretend we did not trigger article 50 or do we have to reapply to rejoin on whatever terms the EU is willing to offer?

Since one of the biggest reasons on voting out by far, was the fact that the EU is not a democratic organisation. If there were a big change to that and which caused it to suddenly become democratic, perhaps there might not be a need to leave?

Such a major change to the EU would surely force our senior politicians to go back to the people for a fresh referendum?

So we have 'no deal' (1), an 'unsatisfactory deal' (2) and a 'fundamental change to the EU' (3) all being possible reasons for a change of mind about leaving.

The senior politicians would be the ones who determine what to do about these things. I can't really see (1) and (2) requiring a fresh referendum but I could see (3) requiring one.

But that doesn't answer the question of 'how do we go about changing our mind?'

Such a thing, being the opposite to what the referendum gave our permission for, would surely first require a fresh referendum and so just has to start with a recommendation move for that by our senior politicians.

Then eventually, if we voted a change of mind to stay in, we would have to go 'cap in hand' back to Brussels.

Maybe not! We would have such a weak hand it would not be playable!

I would be still for leaving and I think now, so would be our senior politicians.

Martini,

Try this

"Article 50


1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."

It may be nonsense to you but seems sensible to me.

-=-=---=-=

Get your mum to explain it to you.

PS,


To help you even more.


So when does the UK actually leave?

The time-frame allowed in Article 50 is two years - and this can only be extended by unanimous agreement from all EU countries.
If no agreement is reached in two years, and no extension is agreed, the UK automatically leaves the EU and all existing agreements - including access to the single market - would cease to apply to the UK. If that happens, Brexit Day would be Friday, 29 March 2019.

Great can't wait ,roll on leaving day .

Thank you posting extracts from the Lisbon agreement, which I was aware of, but again you fail to understand what I am asking.

Everything you are posting is either the effects of Brexit or the process by which it is achieved.

What is not covered by Lisbon, is what happens if a member state changes its mind during the exit process and wants to stay. I must admit this is not surprising, as when they were drafting the Lisbon agreement they did not cover this eventuality. What Nation State would be that stupid? But that is exactly what the remoaners are wanting us to do.

So, there is no process to cover us selecting reverse gear other than applying again to join under article 49.

Maybe it will become clear when we have an "informed" second referendum.

We have not had an "informed first" referendum yet, that was and is my point.

I did understand that Stan but you failed to answer my question at the time what an informed second referendum would look like, which is what I am now trying to tease out. Do keep up.

An informed referendum doesn't look like anything, its just informed.. have you gone senile?

Try thinking!

It would be status quo.

But there would also be a review of relationships with the UK.

Best of luck to those who will negotiate for the UK.

sigh

The reason why Brexit looks a mess is that the EU is trying very hard to make it that way. They are playing for time in the hope of a change of government or leader. Their strategy seems to be to wear us down and give the impression that our government is doing a bad job in the discussions.