On 11/11/2016 06:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
It takes two years, not shorter, not longer.

Wrong.

It takes shorter if both sides agree that they've got an agreement and
want it to go into effect earlier.

It takes longer if both sides agree to an extension.

It takes exactly two years if, and only if, neither of those happen.

On 09/11/2016 00:58, Peter wrote:
The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?

Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

Look what happened when they tried to exit.

On 17/11/2016 15:14, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 11/11/2016 06:33, Graeme Wall wrote:
It takes two years, not shorter, not longer.

Wrong.

It takes shorter if both sides agree that they've got an agreement and
want it to go into effect earlier.

It takes longer if both sides agree to an extension.

It takes exactly two years if, and only if, neither of those happen.


Which is the most likely scenario.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

d wrote

The whole parliament must ratify nonsense is just another ploy by
Remoaners
to block Brexit. Parliment exists to enact the will of the people, however
if
the will of the people has already been made perfectly clear via a
referendum
then the role of parliament is redundant in the matter. And whats more - if
parliament go against the will of the people then we're sliding into a
parliamentary dictatorship.

Which argument means than provided we are no longer members of the EU,
parliament can do as it pleases subject to retribution, as usual, at the
next election.

So hello Norway, also not a member.

--
Mike D

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:25:29 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 09/11/2016 00:58, Peter wrote:
The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?

Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

They were not sovereign nations to start with. The analogy is false.

--
Spud

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:37:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:53:06 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 16/11/2016 09:13, Optimist wrote:

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this
had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,

But who told them that? Or was the idea that it might be binding just an
assumption made by the kind of people who don't talk about trains using
a obscure format from the dark age of online communications?

The whole parliament must ratify nonsense is just another ploy by Remoaners
to block Brexit. Parliment exists to enact the will of the people, however if
the will of the people has already been made perfectly clear via a referendum
then the role of parliament is redundant in the matter. And whats more - if
parliament go against the will of the people then we're sliding into a
parliamentary dictatorship.

All UK needs to do is to repeal the European Communities Act and tell the EU to make personal use of
a taxidermist.

Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:37:17 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:53:06 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 16/11/2016 09:13, Optimist wrote:

There's another aspect here though - the referendum. Legislation for this
had been passed by
Parliament last year. The people were told that the decision was theirs,

But who told them that? Or was the idea that it might be binding just an
assumption made by the kind of people who don't talk about trains using
a obscure format from the dark age of online communications?

The whole parliament must ratify nonsense is just another ploy by Remoaners
to block Brexit. Parliment exists to enact the will of the people, however if
the will of the people has already been made perfectly clear via a referendum
then the role of parliament is redundant in the matter. And whats more - if
parliament go against the will of the people then we're sliding into a
parliamentary dictatorship.

All UK needs to do is to repeal the European Communities Act and tell the
EU to make personal use of
a taxidermist.

Governments unilaterally reneging on international treaty obligations is
generally something that is strongly frowned upon and can have pretty
serious repercussions in unintended ways. If the U.K. expects to form trade
agreements with other nations (or the rEU), it will have a much harder time
once it has established a track record of unilaterally dumping
international agreements on a whim.

Robin

On 17/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:

Parliment exists to enact the will of the people,

So how come we haven't got hanging, flogging and free beer?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 17/11/2016 16:22, d wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:25:29 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 09/11/2016 00:58, Peter wrote:
The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?

Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

They were not sovereign nations to start with. The analogy is false.


Surely the whole point of the Untied States is that each state is a
sovereign entity.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:36:55 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 17/11/2016 16:22, d wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:25:29 +0800
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
On 09/11/2016 00:58, Peter wrote:
The whole point of Brexit is that a lot of us DO care about being
British, to the extent that we would really like to govern ourselves
again, rather than be ruled by a foreign power.

Can you imagine the United States being told what to do by an American
Union based in Guatemala?

Actually, the correct analogy is
Georgians/Carolinans/Virginians/Alabamans complaining about being told
what to do by a load of leftie liberals in Washington DC.

They were not sovereign nations to start with. The analogy is false.


Surely the whole point of the Untied States is that each state is a
sovereign entity.

Until they try to secede.