If we vote for Brexit what happens

vivatifosi

antrobus wrote: »

The European Council says that it is legally binding. Or it will be when the UK "informs the Council that it has decided to remain a member of the European Union".

http://ec.europa.eu/news/2016/02/20160219_en.htm

Thanks antrobus, reassuring as always. I particularly appreciated the fact that it was the first sentence of the main text and I didn't have to read a 72 page document to get to sub para 23 of item 830 to get to the crux of the matter.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

The European Council says that it is legally binding. Or it will be when the UK "informs the Council that it has decided to remain a member of the European Union".

http://ec.europa.eu/news/2016/02/20160219_en.htm

I'm struggling to see anything in the agreement that is of sufficient substance to affect anything let alone be legally binding.

which bits have I missed?

vivatifosi

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm struggling to see anything in the agreement that is of sufficient substance to affect anything let alone be legally binding.

which bits have I missed?

The first para of the main body of the article, as linked to by antrobus, states:

Unanimously agreed by all Member States, the deal fully addresses the requests of the United Kingdom and is legally binding.

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

The first para of the main body of the article, as linked to by antrobus, states:

Unanimously agreed by all Member States, the deal fully addresses the requests of the United Kingdom and is legally binding.

As a general rule of contract law, if two or more people agree to something, then that agreement is legally binding.

Who is actually bound by that agreement, and what they have actually agreed to be bound by, would be different questions.

Anyway, I have found the actual text of the agreement. It seems rather verbose.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/this-is-the-full-text-of-the-deal-changing-britain-s-eu-membership

ash28

plasmarb wrote: »

This is the problem , the EU is not a nation. Put in it's simple form it was born as a trade organisation and expanded to the superpower it is today.

The issue we have is this, how can a super power dictate to every country under that umbrella? It's absurd.

At the end of the day, by us leaving we can trade with the world. Trade will not stop! We open our horizons rather than close ourselves to one 'superpowers' ideology. After we left we can control our own issues socially and economically... I mean since when is sending a child benefit abroad a right?
We can cap the crazy high immigration that has changed areas beyond recognition and increased house prices beyond belief halting chances for young people like me to get on the ladder.

I've seen fist hand the benefits and cons of immigration, straight up for my children and our people I honestly believe us being governed by ourselves is not such a huge issue.

Who really benefits from us being in the EU? the Europeans of course.

From it's concept the EU was going to be exactly what it is.....we were just never told, it was never meant to be a trade agreement. The Treaty of Rome (1957) when the first six countries signed up had as one of it's aims "ever closer union between the peoples of Europe”. The treaty established the “four freedoms", the movement of capital, goods, services and people throughout the member states.

The EU was the brainchild of Frenchman Jean Monnet when it became obivious that 1914-18 war was not the war to end all wars. He was determined it would exist over and above national governments, which would be subservient to it. Hitler was elected after all. I guess you have to remember what things were like in post WW11 Europe, economies destroyed by yet another war and the fear of the Soviet Union.

Interestingly a book called The United States of Europe by Arthur Salter published in 1933 was his inspiration and his blueprint for the EU. Salter envisioned a secretariate at the top (EU Commission), civil servants whose loyalty would be to the organisation and not their own countries and it would be above national ministers. It would also have a council of ministers, an assembly and a court. What Slater was describing was the supranational principle used by Monnet to inspire the setting up of what would become the EU.

In 1950 the Coal and Steel Community was formed this put the prerequisites of war (coal and steel) in collective hands in the hope there would be less chance of war. The UK had not long nationalised coal and steel and didn't want to give them up.

The next step was the trade agreement, which in 1958 the UK didn't want to join as it would mean sharing nuclear information the EU Atomic organisation (can't remember it's proper name) had been set up. When we did want to join de Gaulle refused us twice.

However, in 1970 de Gaulle had been replaced and we had Heath as PM who agreed to terms that included full access to our fishing stocks and who lied about what we were signing up to. FCO documents released under the 30 year rule tell us that he knew exactly what he was signing up for and chose not to tell us. This is well worth a read,

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/edward-heath-and-a-letter-from-the-foriegn-commonwealth-office-1972/

They say the referendum in 1975 under Wilson was a victory for misinformation.

However it was in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher that another big change happened with the appointment of Arthur Cockfield as the UK's EU Commissioner, Jaque Delors was President of the Commission and wanted to take the EU to the next level and Cockfield did the work that resulted in the Single European Act which was an annoucement of political and economic union. Cockfied didn't get a second term, he was replaced by Leon Britton. It paved the way for the Maastricht Treaty (1992) which foregrounded economic and monetary union.

The development of the EU to date has been along the lines originally envisaged by Monnet. Would the public have voted yes in the 1975 referendum had the objectives of the EU had been known - I doubt it.

Rinoa

Today Aston Martin announce they are building a new factory in Wales. Big investment. 750 jobs.

Hasn't anyone told them we might be leaving the EU and they won't have anyone to sell their cars to?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-35640339

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

So David Cameron is incorrect when he says it is legally binding? I presume he also knows that, given he's been in the room negotiating this?

Solid facts are what will be missing from this campaign I think... how are people supposed to make an informed judgement when both sides state the facts, which happen to be polarised - someone's telling porkies! 'Interpretation' has no place in this campaign as its way too important...

-1 to David Cameron in my eyes for putting his spin on this point alone...

You're seeing things as black and white in a Technicolor world.

If the Government passes a law, the courts can overturn it. Does that mean that the Government doesn't make laws that are legally binding? Of course not.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

You're seeing things as black and white in a Technicolor world.

If the Government passes a law, the courts can overturn it. Does that mean that the Government doesn't make laws that are legally binding? Of course not.

That's the problem with having an independent judiciary, they sometimes will insist on making their own minds up about stuff.

wotsthat

wymondham wrote: »

So David Cameron is incorrect when he says it is legally binding? I presume he also knows that, given he's been in the room negotiating this?

David Cameron is correct - EU decisions are legally binding.

Michael Gove is correct - things that are legally binding are only legally binding until they aren't.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

That's the problem with having an independent judiciary, they sometimes will insist on making their own minds up about stuff.

the problem is that with so many well intentioned by basically meaningless laws, we are governed more and more by judges (e.g. all the Human Rights laws basically mean nothing without judge interpretation)