Victory Brexit: consequences for Europe?

[Did67]

There I am not following you!

UK outside the EU will be more of a tax haven. And a little more "anti-social" (than it already is) ...

So we can blame the EU for a lot.

But to think that Brexit is better, for the British, I hear, I ask to see.

I maintain my conviction: that Scotland should be allowed to democratically choose its future (referendum), that it should join the European Union and adopt the euro. And the decline of the English empire will go quickly, very quickly ... And the old idiots who generally wanted that (for fear, by racism also let's be clear) will see social systems collapse (because not funded in a system by capitalization - the amount of pensions will depend on the market value of the funds!). The English youth will, I hope for them, have enough energy to emigrate to the republics where it will be better: Ireland, Scotland ... We will talk about it in 10 years ??? (if I'm still here!).

NB: One thing is that the stock markets have "erased" the shocks. It does not mean anything. They always erase, all the shocks ... It's virtual.

The pound remains low, even if the bottom seems to have been reached (about - 15% compared to before the debate then the decision on Brexit), and the first labels (of price) begin to waltz across the Channel ... pensions of British people living in France fall by the same amount. Or their ability to travel. Gradually, the prices of everything they consume (a lot, in fact!) Will go up as much ... Honestly, I would be English, I would worry. I intended to visit England (the famous and wonderful garden of Kew); I enjoy!

http://www.boursorama.com/bourse/cours/ ... le=1xGBPVS

[be careful, it's the value of the euro in pounds, which goes up, when the pound goes down]

[Did67]

Did67: the confiscation of democracy is not yet dictatorship, but it is a first step ... Let us say that it is the dictatorial formula that people are still ready to "cash" in our time.

I was talking about the assumption that an English "leader" decides to do the opposite of what the English people have decided by referendum.

It would be a decision of a "dictatorial" nature (identical to the behavior of a dictator, who decides and carries out the decisions which seem good to him, - or sometimes, which crossed his mind like a desire to piss ... without anything ask the people or their representatives).

Of course, all the decisions and measures taken should be of this nature for a country to become a dictatorship ...

[Did67]

All that for this !

Boris Johnson has just announced that he will not be the next Prime Minister!

When we know that he was convinced pro-European, that he became "pro-brexit" because it seemed to him to be the only way to quickly "fuck" his boyfriend Cameron from the moment he was launched on the perilous path of the referendum (not out of conviction, either, but to blackmail Brussels to obtain more exceptions - which he has also obtained a little) ...

And there, he feels the growing hostility of the population (especially Londoners, whom he knows well!). So he scrolls!

This is what is called a "beautiful grub"!

[Remundo]

put Nigel Farage instead,

you will see if it scrolls: p

[Did67]

Far too far-right extremist. It does not have a sufficient electoral base: 2 deputies! So it would be quickly "paraded" by the parliament!

Currently, it is the Conservatives who have the majority and therefore "vocation" to supply the Prime Minister.

Justice Minister Michael Gove, who supports Brexit, has announced he is applying, as has Home Minister Theresa May, who formally announced her candidacy in a statement in London on Thursday.

Ms. May, 59, who posed as a rally candidate in the face of the expected candidacy of the leader of the pro-Brexit camp Boris Johnson, explained her vision for leaving the EU, saying that the launching of the process should not "Not intervene before the end of the year".

Learn more about http://www.lemonde.fr/referendum-sur-le ... 7s0gDpJ.99

[Gaston]

In my opinion, the law is less twisted than that.

The result of the referendum cannot be canceled by a vote of parliament - otherwise, Cameron would have done it there.

I am not talking about a vote in the current parliament, but to elect a new parliament ... unfavorable to Brexit.

Again, I don't think there is a need to vote on Brexit! Even if I am not familiar with British law.

There is an obligation for the UK parliament to approve the request to apply Article 50.
As it seems clear that the current parliament will not approve it, it would be logical for there to be new elections.

But I am not sure voters are consistent! If so, the 'anti-Brexit' trend would gain more points. But as said, in my opinion, it will not change anything since the people have spoken. Parliamentarians have nothing more to say.

A new election is also the people who speak, right?
And if at the end of this new election he says the opposite of the referendum

[raymon]

A new election is also the people who speak, right?
And if at the end of this new election he says the opposite of the referendum

The problem is that the people do not respect the instructions of the parties neither in the UK nor in France. In France in 2005 all the parties or at least UMP and PS called to vote yes. It remains to be seen who betrays whom? In GB the conservatives and the Labor called to stay in Europe ...

[Did67]

I am not talking about a vote in the current parliament, but to elect a new parliament ... unfavorable to Brexit.

The current parliament, I repeat, is 75% to stay in the European Union. So against Brexit ...

So if that could change anything, rather than resign, Cameron would have had the referendum "canceled". But as I have already written also, I think that the referendum is, in law, "superior" to the vote of the Parliament, which cannot cancel it ...

After, everyone has their opinions. All respectable.

[Did67]

I am not talking about a vote in the current parliament, but to elect a new parliament ... unfavorable to Brexit.

The current parliament, I repeat, is 75% to stay in the European Union. So against Brexit ...

So if that could change anything, rather than resign, Cameron would have had the referendum "canceled". But as I have already written also, I think that the referendum is, in law, "superior" to the vote of the Parliament, which cannot cancel it ...

After, everyone has their opinions. All respectable.

[Did67]

There is an obligation for the UK parliament to approve the request to apply Article 50.
As it seems clear that the current parliament will not approve it, it would be logical for there to be new elections.

It seems to me that you are "inventing" law, there:

The 2009 Lisbon Treaty recognizes the right of any Member State to decide, in accordance with its constitutional rules, to withdraw from the Union. This is the "Withdrawal Clause / Article 50 which defines the modalities of a voluntary and unilateral withdrawal. This withdrawal, according to Article 50, is a right requiring no justification. [FRanceInfo]

Indeed, here it is:

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty

Any Member State may decide, in accordance with its constitutional rules, to withdraw from the Union.
The Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines of the European Council, the Union is negotiating and concluding with this State an agreement laying down the procedures for its withdrawal, taking into account the framework of its future relations with the Union. This agreement is negotiated in accordance with Article 218 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after approval by the European Parliament.
The treaties shall cease to be applicable in the State concerned from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing this, 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.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council and of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the deliberations or decisions of the European Council and of the Council which concern him.
Qualified majority is defined in accordance with Article 238 (3) (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
If the State which has withdrawn from the Union requests to accede again, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in article 49.

No mention of an obligation to vote in the parliament of the country which asks ... It is "[its] constitutional rules" which fix the modalities.

Everything leads me to think (but I haven't checked) that the referendum takes precedence in UK - otherwise, again, Cameron would be damn stupid not to have the decision overturned by the Parliament, which is 75% favorable to him!

And it would be a sacred constitution, which a handful of representatives of the people could reverse a people's decision by referendum. It would make no sense! And in terms of law, would be damn wobbly!

Note: the use of the referendum was the subject of a vote in parliament + House of Lords, finally everything that a law follows ...