I think that you have no clue on how any of this works. Jesus Christ.
I think that you have no clue on how any of this works. Jesus Christ.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Are you trying to tell us Scotland could veto any deal the British negotiators arrive at with the EU members?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No. Jjust as any ultimate Article 50 deal will be determined under the EU's rules of QMV as determined by Article 50 clause 2 of the TEU ... so too would any Parliamentary approval of the deal in the UK be determined by traditional Parliamentary requirements.
However in reality the EU will struggle to approve a deal that one member vehemently disagrees with despite there being no formal veto. So too in reality would Scotland's vehement opposition to a particular deal (as opposed to the concept of exit in the first place) be a de facto if not de jure veto.
No he won't ...
Article 50 states that the EU needs to "negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
So I don't think suggesting the negotiations should take account of the framework for our future relationship with the EU is an unreasonable request. It only makes sense to negotiate post-exit relations as part of the exit procedure (which is why it was put in there) as if we negotiated post-exit arrangements after the exit there would be nothing in the interregnum. Which is nobodies best interests
The ECJ Singapore ruling. In this case the ECJ ruled that any agreement going beyond trade matters only is subject to the unanimity rules.
The Spain rule is not redundant as Spain can both accept the agreement and exclude Gibraltar from its application. The choice would be for the UK to accept this exclusion or not.
Congratulations America
Well any deal regarding the exit of the UK (eg legacy rights for citizens like we were discussing earlier) would uniquely be covered by the Article 50 negotiations specifically covered by Article 50 as QMV and not be equivalent to the Singapore ruling.
But with regards to the Singapore ruling that actually narrowed rather than increased the involvement of Parliaments. It ruled the EU could have passed the agreement independently were it not for two provisions. So one solution would be to narrow the focus of a new deal which would be covered then by QMV and not unanimity. As discussed by this article in the FT which is famously Europhile and Brexitsceptic so not some loony Brexit British press ravings: https://www.ft.com/content/f9cf18e4-...9-b01cc67cfeec
Though my preferred option is to act as if there is a de facto veto and reach a deal that keeps everyone happy. Playing silly buggers to score points is not the way to build a fruitful long term relationship.
You understand your preferences or that of your government are totally irrelevant? As in; so irrelevant your opinions should be held to yourself? We will broaden or narrow down as suits our interests and we will decide on the outcome on the basis of our own rules and own interests.
We have seen your silly notions of the importance of what you think we should decide in the case of the EBA and the EMA; while your Brexit minister was still thinking up plans to keep those in London we were already moving ahead with removing them from London. A privilege you may even find yourself left with the bill for.
Congratulations America
As read in the Telegraph.As part of these proposals, the Telegraph understands the Prime Minister is to offer free movement to Irish citizens in and out of Britain after the UK leaves the EU.
The establishment of a new “Schengen area” between the two countries is the key plank of a deal the Government hopes will help solve the issue of the the Irish border after Brexit.
It's so ludicrous it barely merits a comment. The use of the term 'Schengen' for whatever scheme they have come up with shows again how little they understand of what they are dealing with. Schengen has got nothing to do with the concept of free movement for EU/EEA citizens. Schengen merely coordinates the visa requirements for third country citizens, it doesn't regulate residency or work rights.
Congratulations America
I am certain there were more parties on your ballot paper. If you didn't want to vote for one batty future for the UK that doesn't count as an excuse to put your pen to the other batty future for the country presented.
Also, let's not forget you voted yes in a referendum that made it all possible.
Congratulations America
That just means you voted for that policy consistently.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oops... appearantly Merkel doesn't see Brexit as a EU priority.
Congratulations America
Voting for a party that will put batshit crazies in charge is not a compromise.
Congratulations America