Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

Withdrawing article 50 gets us back into the EU as is. A lot of that bad stuff will happen when we rejoin. Don't want to give up our perks? Don't leave and force us to rejoin. It's hardly complicated.

On the other hand; what Leave are we going to get? When will we know anything about it?

kabayiri

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

But this is just pretty much like everything else the brexiteers have been saying - when talking about the advantages of leaving it’s just vague aspiration; and when talking about the disadvantages of staying it’s just unfounded scaremongering...
...

Think about this. It's entirely possible that a lot of people put less time into considering their Brexit vote, than they did the X Factor vote.

So why would these people not be swayed by scare mongering?

The Leavers would pull out a stack of angry comments from the likes of Barnier and Verhofstadt towards the UK, and say "there, I told you they don't like us".

...and people would buy it. Any follow up referendum suffers from the same limitations the first had.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Withdrawing article 50 gets us back into the EU as is. A lot of that bad stuff will happen when we rejoin. Don't want to give up our perks? Don't leave and force us to rejoin. It's hardly complicated.

On the other hand; what Leave are we going to get? When will we know anything about it?

As I understand it there is no definitive answer on whether article 50 can be revoked.

System

cogito wrote: »

You quoted Hamish so I suppose you,re referring to him when you say that.

I can only assume this sounded witty or intelligent in your head and just didn't translate to text well. Better luck next time.

Also a comma isn't an apostrophe. It's hard when they are nearly the same shape.

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

True.

We have been spectacularly successful as part of the EU.



False.



False.



False.



False.



False.



False.



False.

We can unilaterally revoke article 50 at any time and our membership of the EU continues on the terms it is today.



False.

Under every government analysis and under every possible trade deal arrangement we end up dramatically worse off by leaving than by staying.

Please backup those statements, if you're not just making them up of course.

Who committed to them?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

As I understand it there is no definitive answer on whether article 50 can be revoked.

The author of the article 50 clause says it absolutely can be.

First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.

The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/i-wrote-article-50-and-i-know-government-can-reverse-brexit-if-it-wants

And regardless, leavers cannot both argue that the EU is desperate for our money and therefore for us to stay, and also that the EU would not let us stay and therefore would not let us give them our money.

Herzlos

Can you back up any of Enterprises claims?

The author of article 50 said it can be unwound. That's good enough for me though I appreciate you don't like experts

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

.string. wrote: »

Please backup those statements, if you're not just making them up of course.

Who committed to them?

Ummm, who committed to the absurdly fanciful statements Enterprise 1701C made?

Where is the proof?

Where is the official EU policy statement laying them out?

Was he just making them up?

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The author of the article 50 clause says it absolutely can be.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/i-wrote-article-50-and-i-know-government-can-reverse-brexit-if-it-wants

And regardless, leavers cannot both argue that the EU is desperate for our money and therefore for us to stay, and also that the EU would not let us stay and therefore would not let us give them our money.

One can only conclude from this that the author of Article 50 hasn't taken the trouble to read it. Have you?

mrginge

cogito wrote: »

One can only conclude from this that the author of Article 50 hasn't taken the trouble to read it. Have you?

It doesn’t matter anyway, because all the remainers have definitely agreed to respect the result of the referendum and are all about the ‘type’ of brexit rather than continually blabbing on about cancelling it.

That’s what they say anyway :doh: