Is Britain about to leave the EU?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I facepalmed twice: once when I found this little jewel and again when I remembered that CFC does not have a facepalm smiley.
Brexit: Article 50 was never actually meant to be used, says its author

Giuliano Amato said the clause had specifically been inserted to placate the British

The treaty clause that triggers exit from the European Union was not actually designed to be used, its author has said.

Giuliano Amato, a former prime minister of Italy, who later worked with the European Commission, helped draft the European Constitution, which became the Lisbon Treaty.

He said he had written the now infamous Article 50 but that it was largely for show.

“I wrote Article 50, so I know it well,” Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, according to Reuters.

He told the meeting he had specifically inserted the article to prevent the British government complaining there was no way for them to leave the bloc.

“My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.”

Mr Amato went on to describe Brexit as a "disaster", called David Cameron "mad" for calling a referendum over it and urged other countries not to follow suit.

Of impending talks, he said: "Don't give Britain the possibility of thinking that Brexit is a better way of doing what they have always done, grabbing what suits them [in the EU] and opting out of what they don't like. Brexit is a total opting out. They know this very well.

"The more they realise that they are losing, then the more chance there is that in 2020 [when there will be a general election] someone will do something about it."

He conceded that this was an "absurd hope" however, and as such wants "the negotiations [to be] dragged on so they won't be wrapped up by 2020. (Prime Minister) May wants to wrap things up by 2019, but it will be easy to prolong matters."

There has been speculation about when and how Article 50 will be triggered, prompting the start of exit negotiations.

Ms May has signalled that the clause will not be invoked until 2017. She has also said it will not be used until Scotland's position in negotiations is clear.

Patrick McLoughlin, the Tory chairman, said the process would be started before the next general election, but gave no further details.

The process of invoking Article 50 is said to be irreversible. Once it has been used it is expected to take between two years and a decade for the secession to complete.​
A politician from the old DC/PSI days adds to the confusion… please, shut up.
 
Seriously? I thought politicians knew that sometimes you just cannot say what you really want to say.
 
I think Article 50 was meant to be used in a dire emergency, not to create an emergency which is what the leavers have done with all their lies about how the EU actually works.
 
Or preserve it. I mean, I know that you've English, and therefore psychologically incapable of recognising the letters "U", "V" and "F" when placed together, but let's try to keep a clear head.

I am 60 years old and read only too many new reports about roman catholics being
murdered by UVF terrorists in the newspapers and I also watched them on the BBC.

Suggest you keep a clear head yourself or are you, being unable to find valid
arguments for subservience to unelected EU officials, merely trying to provoke me.
 
Regarding Giuliano Amato's comments:

(1) Thanks

The USA constitution did not have such a clause
and they had a bloody civil war because of that.

(2) But

If the EU constitution had had clauses similar to that in the US constitution limiting
the areas for which the power of the EU government applied and such that individual
EU citizens could vote for the EU President and the Commissioners, the UK would
very probably have accepted the pooling of sovereignty and voted to Remain.
 
I think Article 50 was meant to be used in a dire emergency, not to create an emergency which is what the leavers have done with all their lies about how the EU actually works.

I dare type that Giuliano , as an ever closer union true believer, may
well have seen it as merely placatory rather than real contingency.

However I disagree as to its meaning.

There is all the difference in the world between
a compulsory union and a voluntary union.

As with conscript and volunteer soldier;
and as with slave/serf and employee.
 
If the EU constitution had had clauses similar to that in the US constitution limiting
the areas for which the power of the EU government applied and such that individual
EU citizens could vote for the EU President and the Commissioners, the UK would
very probably have accepted the pooling of sovereignty and voted to Remain.
That implicitly assumes a MUCH closer union that has ever been attempted, or even suggested, so far. Something the UK has been, and is, vehemently against.

Had it been suggested, the UK would have vetoed in a New York minute.

How is this not just another variation of the UK pushing the EU in certain directions — the like the rapid eastern enlargement — then slagging the EU off for the outcome?

The UK wants the EU to be something different, but would actively prevent it developing in that direction... The UK really should leave, or else it should have been made to leave. THAT, or the UK would have had to come to terms with the EU, itself, and develop an actually realistic appreciation of BOTH. But that just didn't happen, and going through with Brexit it likely never will for the UK — it will just go on mythologising both.:sad:
 
Regarding Giuliano Amato's comments:

(1) Thanks

The USA constitution did not have such a clause
and they had a bloody civil war because of that.

(2) But

If the EU constitution had had clauses similar to that in the US constitution limiting
the areas for which the power of the EU government applied and such that individual
EU citizens could vote for the EU President and the Commissioners, the UK would
very probably have accepted the pooling of sovereignty and voted to Remain.

1) Britain had plenty of bloody civil wars I have no idea why you would choose the US as an example especially since the "Leavers" wanted to keep black slavery.

2) EU has no constitution, it was never ratified because it required referendums to actually pass and failed.

the European Constitution
was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

Again why are Brexiters wanting a EU wide vote of 738 Mil people to elect a President that has no executive powers ? If you dont believe me I've posted a link below
I have no idea why Leavers want to change the EU constitution which dose not exist and demand EU wide elections for EU President whom has executive power that dose not exit.

President of the European Union (or President of Europe) does not exist. Nevertheless, the term is often misused to mean any of:

this post presides only over the European Council – an institution of the EU – rather than presiding over the EU as a whole. The post does not have any executive powers and is unlike heads of state such as the President of the United States of America or the President of France: it is far more akin to Presiding Officer or chairman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Union
 
Suggest you keep a clear head yourself or are you, being unable to find valid arguments for subservience to unelected EU officials, merely trying to provoke me.

So, how are you enjoying your new unelected British official? May's 'election' didn't even go to the wider party.

Besides, your age is irrelevant. I managed to study the Troubles in school, despite not even being 40 yet, so you hardly get the monopoly on talking about Northern Ireland.
 
I facepalmed twice: once when I found this little jewel and again when I remembered that CFC does not have a facepalm smiley.

If he was so hellbent on preserving the ever more perfect European union, why could article 50 be evoked by the PM without needing any parliamentary vote by either the member state in question or the EU? Guess he relied on the same logic behind mutually assured destruction.
 
1) Britain had plenty of bloody civil wars I have no idea why you would choose the US as an example especially since the "Leavers" wanted to keep black slavery.

It seems pretty obvious to me. The US civil war was specifically about secession from a union, whereas English civil wars have been about who rules the land (and how). As we're talking about the UK seceding from a union then this makes the former a relevant comparison and the latter completely irrelevant. The reasons WHY the "Leavers" wanted to secede in the US civil war is also not relevant to the comparison.

Again why are Brexiters wanting a EU wide vote of 738 Mil people to elect a President that has no executive powers ? If you dont believe me I've posted a link below
I have no idea why Leavers want to change the EU constitution which dose not exist and demand EU wide elections for EU President whom has executive power that dose not exit.

I don't think leavers want to change anything about the EU, they just want to leave it. The clue is in the name. Yes they may want to leave because they don't like how it works, but I don't think anyone really cares about trying to change that at this point.
 
... why could article 50 be evoked by the PM without needing any parliamentary vote by either the member state in question or the EU?

Well, that remains to be seen.
 
If he was so hellbent on preserving the ever more perfect European union, why could article 50 be evoked by the PM without needing any parliamentary vote by either the member state in question or the EU? Guess he relied on the same logic behind mutually assured destruction.
Well, he comes from a time when government was a matter of coalitions between DC and PSI, so rules are written on toilet paper so that they can actually be used at some point.

As they say in Argentina, a grocery store's better run than when these clowns are in charge.
 
So, how are you enjoying your new unelected British official? May's 'election' didn't even go to the wider party.


I am not sure why you persist in misinforming readers, particular non UK readers
who can not be expected to be familiar with the nuances of the unwritten UK
constitution, of this thread, on this point.

Theresa May has been duly elected.

Firstly she was elected as a Member of of the UK Parliament's House of Commons
by her constituents in 2015 and Secondly she was elected by the conservative MPs
in that House in 2016 as Leader of the Conservative party. Theresa May was
therefore appointed by Queen Elizabeth II as UK Prime Minister because the
conservative party have an overall majority in the UK House of Commons.

You know very well that there was no purpose in delaying matters by
asking for a ballot by the wider conservative party membership when
Theresa May would have been the only candidate on the ballot.


Besides, your age is irrelevant. I managed to study the Troubles in school, despite not even being 40 yet, so you hardly get the monopoly on talking about Northern Ireland.


I was merely refuting the allegation that I do not know what the UVF was about,
and I was certainly not claiming any exclusive knowledge of Irish history.
 
That implicitly assumes a MUCH closer union that has ever been attempted, or even suggested, so far. Something the UK has been, and is, vehemently against.

Had it been suggested, the UK would have vetoed in a New York minute.

How is this not just another variation of the UK pushing the EU in certain directions — the like the rapid eastern enlargement — then slagging the EU off for the outcome?

The UK wants the EU to be something different, but would actively prevent it developing in that direction... The UK really should leave, or else it should have been made to leave. THAT, or the UK would have had to come to terms with the EU, itself, and develop an actually realistic appreciation of BOTH. But that just didn't happen, and going through with Brexit it likely never will for the UK — it will just go on mythologising both.:sad:

I don't disagree with what you write above.
 
1)

Again why are Brexiters wanting a EU wide vote of 738 Mil people to elect a President that has no executive powers ? If you dont believe me I've posted a link below
I have no idea why Leavers want to change the EU constitution which dose not exist and demand EU wide elections for EU President whom has executive power that dose not exit.

You are off by only about 300 million people there, bub. But go on sharing your important insight on matters :thumbsup:
 
You know very well that there was no purpose in delaying matters by asking for a ballot by the wider conservative party membership when Theresa May would have been the only candidate on the ballot.

Well, that's not very democratic, is it? What with your persistent digs at various EU officials for allegedly not being elected, one would think that you'd expect the same in the UK. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt you've done the slightest research in how any of those EU officials obtained their posts. (I know that I haven't.)
 
I am 60 years old

Sadly, in 2016, that's all we need to know, really.

It's kinda the same on this side of the world as well. Hopefully modern education will make a difference 30 years from now.
 
Well, that's not very democratic, is it?

The election and appointment of Theresa May as UK Prime Minister
is perfectly democratic.

It is the outcome of representative democracy in a Parliamentary and
constitutional monarchy context.


What with your persistent digs at various EU officials for allegedly not being elected, one would think that you'd expect the same in the UK. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt you've done the slightest research in how any of those EU officials obtained their posts. (I know that I haven't.)

Yes, you are wrong.

First of all I do not recollect criticizing any EU officials by name in this thread.

Secondly EU officials are appointed by the EU Commission which is appointed
by the EU Council albeit requiring the consent of the European Parliament.

The point is I was, and am, not able to vote for those EU officials and I was,
and am, not able to vote for those individuals who formally nominated them.

Indeed Wikipedia refers to EU Commission EU parliament disagreements on this.

Thirdly I have suggested in this thread that the key Cabinet Ministers and
shadow Cabinet Ministers be elected by MPs to reduce loading on PM and shadow PM.

The fact is that your basic attempt to smear the longstanding criticism that the
key EU officials are not properly democratically elected (it is all very indirect) by
reference to how Theresa May became the UK Prime Minister, is entirely spurious.

There is another point I will make.

It was not necessary for the Leave supporters to be aware of the intricacies of how
EU officials are appointed; as they may have wished for Brexit for other reasons
but the Remain supporters should have at least ascertained what they voted for.
 
Well, that's not very democratic, is it?

The election and appointment of Theresa May as UK Prime Minister
is perfectly democratic.

It is the outcome of representative democracy in a Parliamentary and
constitutional monarchy context.


What with your persistent digs at various EU officials for allegedly not being elected, one would think that you'd expect the same in the UK. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt you've done the slightest research in how any of those EU officials obtained their posts. (I know that I haven't.)

Yes, you are wrong.

First of all I do not recollect criticizing any EU officials by name in this thread.

Secondly EU officials are appointed by the EU Commission which is appointed
by the EU Council albeit requiring the consent of the European Parliament.

The point is I was, and am, not able to vote for those EU officials and I was,
and am, not able to vote for those individuals who formally nominated them.

Indeed Wikipedia refers to EU Commission EU parliament disagreements on this.


Thirdly I have suggested in this thread that the key Cabinet Ministers and shadow Cabinet Ministers be elected by MPs to reduce loading on PM and shadow PM.

The fact is that your basic attempt to smear the longstanding criticism that the
key EU officials are not properly democratically elected (it is all very indirect) by
reference to how Theresa May became the UK Prime Minister, is entirely spurious.

There is another point I will make.

It is not really necessary for the Leave supporters to be aware of the intricacies
of how EU officials are appointed; because many wished to Brexit irrespective
as to how that appointment process works, but one would rather have thought
that the Remain supporters should at least have ascertained what they voted for.

And if it is as claimed satisfactory, why did the Remain campaign not explain
the benefits of the EU appointment process? The entire negativity of their
campaign implies that they were unable to make a positive case for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom