Can the UK afford to be an independent nation?

[northernladyuk]

I note that wasn't added until later on.

Also it seems quite difficult to trigger article 50 in a day.

Don't forget the 2 year one way notice period.

Article 50 is not necessary to leave the EU, nor is a notice period. Do you really not know that?

Edit: you may find this of interest: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...972repeal.html

[vetran]

Article 50 is not necessary to leave the EU, nor is a notice peiod. Do you really not know that?

A bit like chopping your leg off to stop your toe itching. I can see why you would like that approach.

The mechanics of leaving the EU - explaining Article 50

[BlasterBates]

...and meanwhile

UK grimaces at its poker hand....

Looks like she's easy prey for a U-Turn.

[northernladyuk]

A bit like chopping your leg off to stop your toe itching. I can see why you would like that approach.

The mechanics of leaving the EU - explaining Article 50

The question is whether UK has always been sovereign and whether parliament has always had the power to mandate that the UK leaves the EU without giving notice, without triggering Article 50 and without the EU's consent. You seem to want to change the subject to whether it would be wise to do so.

But do you accept that parliament has always had the sovereign power to bring the UK out of the EU?

http://www.instituteforgovernment.or...ommunities-act

Could the 1972 Act be repealed?

Like any other Act of Parliament, the 1972 Act could be removed from the statute book – or repealed – by passing another piece of primary legislation. Such a repeal bill would have to be agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords (where the Government does not have a majority). If the Lords proved an immovable obstacle, the Government could use the Parliament Acts to overrule their objection, although this would involve a delay.

Although ‘emergency’ legislation can be passed in a day when necessary, it is more typical for government bills to take six to nine months to complete their passage through both Houses of Parliament.

What would happen if we repealed the 1972 Act?

Put simply, EU legislation that currently applies in UK law by virtue of the 1972 Act would cease to have effect. This would leave big holes in the statute book – for example, in relation to workplace health and safety requirements. For this reason it seems likely that a repeal bill will include ‘saving provisions’ to ensure that the EU legislation to which it gives effect will continue to apply, until such time as the UK Parliament decides to remove or amend it. Politically though, ministers will wish to demonstrate to the public that leaving the EU has had some immediate, practical effect. Therefore it is possible that the repeal bill will also include some provisions to repeal specific aspects of EU law that are deemed to be unpopular with the public.

Not all the EU law that has effect in the UK is implemented through the 1972 Act. For example, the European Arrest Warrant would be unaffected by repeal of the 1972 Act, as it is given effect by a different piece of legislation – the Extradition Act 2003.

Are there any legal complications with repealing the 1972 Act?

Currently the UK Government is bound by international treaty obligations, which it has entered into via the 1972 Act and subsequent pieces of legislation passed by the UK Parliament. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out an agreed process for an EU member state wishing to relieve itself of these obligations. While it is open to Parliament to exercise its sovereignty by simply repealing the 1972 Act without engaging with the Article 50 process, it has been argued that this would place the UK Government in breach of its treaty obligations under international law. It could also create practical problems, such as confusion over whether powers repatriated from the EU would return to the UK Government or devolved administrations.

[billybiro]

We are leaving a corrupt & vindictive organisation that we were never allowed to vote on not moving to the moon.

Indeed. We're leaving a corrupt & vindictive organisation to be told what to do by our very own, homegrown, corrupt & vindictive organisation.

Because being royally f*cked over by your own malignant overlords is so much better than by someone else's, yes?

[stek]

May changes her mind!

[hugebrain]

It has technically surrendered some of its sovereignty to the EU.

So less independent than say The United States.

The States aren't very independent any more. They were crushed by the Union after only eighty years of freedom.

Pray the Union doesn't send its soldiers to crush you too.

[vetran]

Indeed. We're leaving a corrupt & vindictive organisation to be told what to do by our very own, homegrown, corrupt & vindictive organisation.

Because being royally f*cked over by your own malignant overlords is so much better than by someone else's, yes?

well we will only have one layer of overlords that we can replace via election.

Surely that is better?

[vetran]

May changes her mind!

You know she is a Politician right?

[vetran]

The question is whether UK has always been sovereign and whether parliament has always had the power to mandate that the UK leaves the EU without giving notice, without triggering Article 50 and without the EU's consent. You seem to want to change the subject to whether it would be wise to do so.

But do you accept that parliament has always had the sovereign power to bring the UK out of the EU?

http://www.instituteforgovernment.or...ommunities-act

I accept it was technically possible to leave. Just as you can divorce but getting a good one is hard work.

However if we wished to remain we had to obey the EU.