If we vote for Brexit what happens

michaels

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.

The courts can only over turn a govt law if there is some other body of law that overrides the new law that has not been repealled, for example a constitution generally over rides other laws. The courts can not create new laws, even where it appears they are generally it is becuase they interpret european human rights laws (as legislated by parliament) to override other laws. Parliament could legislate to revoke al such European Human Rights laws if it wished to do so.

setmefree2 wrote: »

In Today's news....

Sterling slumps below $1.39......

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2429af50-daaf-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz415HPqeTk

You've got to wonder if an interest rate rise is gonna come sooner rather than later to support the pound?

I don't understand the issue. The BoE remit is to target inflation. Recent past experience has shown that it does not consider temporary, externally imposed inflation (such as might be caused by a drop in sterling or was casued a few years ago by increases in global commodity prices, remember when inflation hit 5%) as being something that it needs to adjust monetary conditions to counteract - unless currency fall inflation started to feed through into wage increases then there would be no requirement for interest rates to rise.

The pound hs often been both weak and strong, the BBC seem to think it is a big story if one cause may be Brexit uncertainty whereas they have often barely reported it. Draw your own conclusions.

setmefree2

Can't remember if this has been mentioned but thought I'd bring it up again.

The US has already made it clear it has no interest in a FTA with a newly isolated UK.

US warns Britain: If you leave EU you face barriers to trading with America

Trade representative Michael Froman says UK would face same tariffs and barriers as China, Brazil or India in the event of Brexit

The US is Britain’s biggest export market after the EU, buying more than $54bn (£35bn) in goods from the UK in 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/29/us-warns-britain-it-could-face-trade-barriers-if-it-leaves-eu

Generali

michaels wrote: »

The courts can only over turn a govt law if there is some other body of law that overrides the new law that has not been repealled, for example a constitution generally over rides other laws. The courts can not create new laws, even where it appears they are generally it is becuase they interpret european human rights laws (as legislated by parliament) to override other laws. Parliament could legislate to revoke al such European Human Rights laws if it wished to do so.

I was just listening to a bloke on the radio who was pretty interesting (for a constitutional lawyer) who put it like this (I simplify as I am simple):

1. The ECJ will interpret law as dictated by the Council of Ministers. The new agreement (upon a Remain vote) will then oblige the ECJ to follow the new rules.
2. The ECJ doesn't necessarily have primacy over the UK's courts. If the UK courts decide that the ECJ has overstepped the mark then they can simply ignore it.

mayonnaise

Attorney General confirms EU deal is legally binding.

“It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements between the 28 nation states of the EU. This is one of those agreements, with equivalent legal force to other agreements such as treaties."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/24/european-court-challenge-cameron-deal-michael-gove

Obviously, as this chap is the most senior lawyer in the country, he's clearly elitist and out of touch and his views can be dismissed right away.

wymondham

mayonnaise wrote: »

Attorney General confirms EU deal is legally binding.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/24/european-court-challenge-cameron-deal-michael-gove

Obviously, as this chap is the most senior lawyer in the country, he's clearly elitist and out of touch and his views can be dismissed right away.

Ok, so it now swings the other way, if the Attorney general says its legally binding then it must be as its his job to know - the other two 'out of Europe' must be wrong...... Sorry Dave!!

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you wish harm to the people of Britain?

Why do you wish to harm the people of Europe?

N1AK

setmefree2 wrote: »

The US has already made it clear it has no interest in a FTA with a newly isolated UK.

You'll get the usual suspects dismissing this as nonsense, as they would anything that goes against there preferred narrative. Unfortunately, for anyone remotely rational this is exactly the sort of thing one would expect.

Yes, of course, there is probably an element of scaremongering in implying there would be no deal; however, why on earth would the UK expect major economies like the USA, EU, China not to take advantage of our need to make these new arrangements.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Why do you wish to harm the people of Europe?

there are about 300 countries in the world that don't allow the EU to determine their laws
and not not allow unlimited immigration from the EU

do you think they are all harming the people of europe?

I wish no harm to anyone but I do think we in the UK should set our own laws and determine our own immigration policy.

In what way do you think I wish the people of the EU harm?

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

why does the fact that Brits live in EU countries mean that the EU should determine our laws and our immigration policy?
Brits live in many other countries also but they don't expect to determine our laws or our immigration policy.

what relevance is there to the fact that Brits live all over the world?

prosaver

wow 2.5 tarif ..ok america were scared we wont leave EU we will do as were told