British General election 2017: DUP deal 'risks Northern Ireland peace process' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;52341051]That's not how article fifty works. It's a minimum of two years, there is no defined maximum. If we haven't hammered out a deal by 2019 we will continue to abide by EU rules and regulations until we have made a deal that both us and all remaining 27 member states have agreed to. We could still be in the process of leaving in 2025 if we just had a string of shit governments refusing to compromise.[/QUOTE] 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, 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.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;52341051]That's not how article fifty works. It's a minimum of two years, there is no defined maximum. If we haven't hammered out a deal by 2019 we will continue to abide by EU rules and regulations until we have made a deal that both us and all remaining 27 member states have agreed to. We could still be in the process of leaving in 2025 if we just had a string of shit governments refusing to compromise.[/QUOTE] I can't claim to be an expert in EU constitutional law but everything I've heard/read, claims that the 2 year period is a defined maximum unless the EU agrees to extend the process. Articles and blogs like this are what I'm basing my argument on: [url]http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/[/url] Specifically, this bit of the text of Article 50: [QUOTE]3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, 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.[/QUOTE] If what you say is true, that completely changes my understanding of article 50. Would you mind finding a source that backs up what you are saying as I'd love to understand article 50 better. [QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52341060]According to the lib Dems and the people who wrote article 50 we can stop the process, although I doubt the rest of the EU would take too kindly to that and it might be that if we reversed on it we couldn't trigger it again. Really we should have had an election before triggering article 50.[/QUOTE] I also believe that we could revoke article 50 and that we might have to revoke it to have the time to get a good deal, though that would irritate both the EU and the Leave voters. The Germans in particular want Brexit to be over and done with ASAP. On your other point, I'm in complete agreement: we really, really should have had an election before triggering article 50.

The EU won't let the UK go back on Brexit or else risk hurting European democracy in general, it's locked in and both sides know it has no reason to go past 2019. A government agenda can't stop Brexit only another referendum can, even then not really.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;52344587]The EU won't let the UK go back on Brexit or else risk hurting European democracy in general, it's locked in and both sides know it has no reason to go past 2019. A government agenda can't stop Brexit only another referendum can, even then not really.[/QUOTE] So, we should allow a government that has proven to have lost their mandate to rule (requiring an agreement with the DUP, because fuck the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland, Theresa needs POWERRRRR) to invoke permanent, long-term changes to the EU and the UK as well as Ireland based on a non-binding referendum which was immediately followed by a non-trivial number of Leave-voters expressing regret for voting Leave (either because they didn't understand the consequences/were lied to, or they voted Leave as a joke because they expected Remain to win easily), because [I]it'll hurt European democracy?[/I] If the Tories are brought down by a vote of no-confidence and a majority is handed to Labour, I feel that's enough of a referendum on Brexit for then-PM Corbyn to ask the EU to consider Article 50's triggering to be the legislative equivalent of temporary insanity and can we please forget that happened? Now, the EU wouldn't have to accept, and welp, that'd be that, but that's what I'd expect if May's undercut before negotiations can get anywhere.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52345178]So, we should allow a government that has proven to have lost their mandate to rule (requiring an agreement with the DUP, because fuck the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland, Theresa needs POWERRRRR) to invoke permanent, long-term changes to the EU and the UK as well as Ireland based on a non-binding referendum which was immediately followed by a non-trivial number of Leave-voters expressing regret for voting Leave (either because they didn't understand the consequences/were lied to, or they voted Leave as a joke because they expected Remain to win easily), because [I]it'll hurt European democracy?[/I] If the Tories are brought down by a vote of no-confidence and a majority is handed to Labour, I feel that's enough of a referendum on Brexit for then-PM Corbyn to ask the EU to consider Article 50's triggering to be the legislative equivalent of temporary insanity and can we please forget that happened? Now, the EU wouldn't have to accept, and welp, that'd be that, but that's what I'd expect if May's undercut before negotiations can get anywhere.[/QUOTE] They still have a mandate to rule, as they are still in power thanks to S&C from DUP, welcome to democracy, hung parliaments may not be common in the UK, but they do occur in other countries. We already know about the whole 'regret for voting Leave', but as of recent support for Brexit going ahead has climbed past those stats as it shows even though people voted Stay or Leave, they are more concerned their government would not follow through with it, so yes, it would hurt European democracy, why did you think the EU and its countries are so determined to do this process? Even Corbyn becoming PM wouldn't of been able to reverse the decision, its a referendum level decision as the eventual ramifications if the vote is ignored would be dangerous. We also know Labour was going ahead with Brexit regardless, its basically a done deal, its up to the negotiations to determine in what form it will be.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;52345622]They still have a mandate to rule, as they are still in power thanks to S&C from DUP, welcome to democracy, hung parliaments may not be common in the UK, but they do occur in other countries. We already know about the whole 'regret for voting Leave', but as of recent support for Brexit going ahead has climbed past those stats as it shows even though people voted Stay or Leave, they are more concerned their government would not follow through with it, so yes, it would hurt European democracy, why did you think the EU and its countries are so determined to do this process? Even Corbyn becoming PM wouldn't of been able to reverse the decision, [B]its a referendum level decision[/B] as the eventual ramifications if the vote is ignored would be dangerous. We also know Labour was going ahead with Brexit regardless, its basically a done deal, its up to the negotiations to determine in what form it will be.[/QUOTE] I just wanted to point out that this bolded part is meaningless. There's no such thing as a structure of decisions where certain things are 'referendum level' and require a referendum, you're just hijacking terminology to make your argument more legitimate. If a party were elected on the mandate of staying in the EU, they could find a way to do it. The only real complication is that May waited to trigger Article 50 before she called her snap power-grab, and she did that because it would make any future leader's job of reversing the decision harder. You could argue that by waiting like that she made UKIP, the only other right wing party alternative, practically irrelevant. It's a bit of a moot point regardless however, as the largest opposition (Labour) held a soft brexit stance, rather than a no brexit stance. They said that if they were elected, we'd still leave, but it would be as minimally damaging a leave as we could make it. The Lib Dems could afford to say they'd reverse the decision because with our current voting system, they weren't going to get into actual power, but it's not really feasible anymore. I would also mention that the Conservatives aren't yet "still in power", as they still need to pass the Queen's speech. Their allegiance to the DUP, regardless of whatever flowery terms such as "not a real coalition, just confidence and supply" you throw around to make it smell less bad, is being met with resistance, and could very well mean the end of their rule yet.

Honestly, I wouldn't even care if they had another Referendum. I didn't want brexit anyway, and there's nothing stopping people who did from voting leave a second time, so it's not like their votes will have been stolen from them. Our country is in political chaos right now, I have to wonder whether now is the time to be shooting ourselves in the other foot just yet, And I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels as such.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52346591]Honestly, I wouldn't even care if they had another Referendum. I didn't want brexit anyway, and there's nothing stopping people who did from voting leave a second time, so it's not like their votes will have been stolen from them. Our country is in political chaos right now, I have to wonder whether now is the time to be shooting ourselves in the other foot just yet, And I'm certain I'm not the only one who feels as such.[/QUOTE] I think it's largely because they know that we voted leave based on: £350m/week for the NHS Free trade access No fees No free movement And that's just not realistic. We have to trade off those things it's not like we get to cherry pick and now that's becoming obvious to everyone. Add that to the fact that for some people the leave vote was a protest which they didn't think would actually go through, they probably couldn't win a second referendum. This whole thing is an unnecessary shitshow caused by internal Tory party politics.

Gerry Adams on leaving No. 10 [QUOTE]We have just finished a meeting with the British prime minister and her secretary of state. And we told her very directly that she was in breach of the Good Friday agreement and we itemised those matters in which she was dilatory or in default in relation to that agreement.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Grizz;52363226]Gerry Adams on leaving No. 10[/QUOTE] Now we get to see if Mayhem will push on with it regardless.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;52363340]Now we get to see if Mayhem will push on with it regardless.[/QUOTE] Given her previous form, she'll push on with it regardless of the consequences.