BrExit?

[MancMellow]

Pa znam, ali baš na to i mislim. Zaboravio sam sad ko, a ne mogu da jurim linkove, ali bilo je par izjava tipa "Ma ni aktiviranje čl50 ne mora da znači kraj", itd.

 

pa ne mora, ali bi sve druge zemlje (čitaj par najvažnijih) morali da donesu odluku da se a) pregovori produžavaju b) da se to nekako ne znam ni ja kako al uz političku volju kapiram da sve može, drugačije tumači. Ali Nemačkoj treba UK kao pun member EU i ne sumnjam da bi se našlo načina na kraju krajeva. Ali bi bili ono što sam rekao na milost i nemilos Berlinu, a u dobroj meri i Parizu  i možda još nekome. Ukratko to je situacija u kojoj definitivno više ne bi bili gospodari svoje sudbine. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by MancMellow

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

Ukratko to je situacija u kojoj definitivno više ne bi bili gospodari svoje sudbine. 

 

I think that ship has sailed on the early morning of 24/06 anyway.

[Roger Sanchez]

 

neće da može.

 

a50 je jasan, u smislu da je open-ended za ishod pregovora koji se ne mogu prejudicirati, niti država članica koja izlazi može samostalno da odluči da ne izađe ako joj se ishod ne sviđa.

 

izlazak iz eu je automatski posle 2 godine, u odsustvu jednoglasnog stava članica da se on produži. priroda raskida uopšte nije tema.

 

 

edit:

drugo, kaže "the treaties shall cease to apply", ne kaže "may cease", to je, imho, u pravničkom engleskom sasvim nedvosmisleno šta znači. no ifs no buts no maybes, nebitno je šta britanski građani ili parlament u tom trenutku žele ako ne postoji volja ostalih da toj želji udovolje - produživanjem roka za dogovor, je bi sami kršili sporazum odustajanjem od procesa nakon aktiviranja a50.

+1 na tvoju ekspertizu.

[Roger Sanchez]

Ako ovu presudu potvrde i Supremes, otvara se jedna zanimljiva nova mogućnost, Theresa can go to the country before March, tako da stavi na glasanje raspuštanje ovog parlamenta nakon ćega okrunjena Baba raspiše izbore za nouvi Parlament koji će istodobno biti i praktični referendum broj dva. Sad, kako bi se postavile partije u tome zanimljivo bi pitanje bilo...

 

I bi li Labour zbilja glasao za raspuštanje...

 

I tako. Uglavnom, super sam se zamešateljstva sjetio, nadam se proročanski!

Edited November 3, 2016 by Roger Sanchez

[MancMellow]

I think that ship has sailed on the early morning of 24/06 anyway.

 

Realno, taj brod je, ako ne pre, otplovio 1945. 

 

 

 

 

 

During the 1950s, the Conservatives consciously rejected two radical attempts to undermine the equilibrium that had been created by the Attlee Government. The first attempt was to get Britain into Europe. The Attlee Government had kept out of the European Coal and Steel Community, established in 1951, the precursor of what came to be the Common Market and then the European Union. The Churchill Government had to decide on what it should do about this when it got to power. Earlier, in 1940, when Churchill became Leader of the Conservative Party, he had defined his central purpose as “the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire.”

 

Retaining that greatness in 1951 required, he believed, two things: the first was an end to the period of upheaval that had marked the Attlee Government and the maintaining of equilibrium; the second was the reassertion of British power - and how was he to do that? In 1940, British power had seemed in decline. Indeed, it seemed as if we were in danger of losing the War. Churchill had reasserted British power by a great act of will, an obstinate refusal to recognise realities of compromise or surrender, even in the face of superior might. Churchill said that if by showing complete confidence in Britain winning the War, by conveying in speech and action a spirit of self-belief, Britain would in fact win. Through sheer obstinacy and defiance, Churchill succeeded in reversing what seemed a very desperate situation. Could he do the same in the 1950s? Churchill said that the Labour Government had followed a policy of “scuttle”, as he termed it; that, in withdrawing from Britain’s commitments in the world, it had been insufficiently assertive. Could that be reversed by, again, a great expression of will? The trouble was that it could not. In the 1940s, the British people had been united with Churchill in a determination to defeat Hitler whatever the cost; Churchill said that people had been lionhearted and he had given the roar. However, in the 1950s, they were not equally committed to preserving British rule over Asia and Africa. Churchill’s campaign against Indian self- government had been defeated in the Conservative Party even as early as the 1930s, and it appeared by the 1950s to be utterly anachronistic. Churchill eventually recognised that the British people no longer cared, perhaps had never cared, whether Britain remained an imperial country.

 

At the end of his life, he said to his Private Secretary, Anthony Montague Browne, “I could have defended the British Empire against anyone except the British people.” The attempt to assert British power in the Empire got nowhere. A second means of asserting British power was by leading the European movement, which at that time was very young. Churchill had seemed to indicate, in opposition, that he would be prepared to do that, even earlier. After the first British victory in the War, at Allemagne, Churchill wrote to his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden: “I must admit that thoughts rest primarily in Europe, the revival of the glory of Europe, the parent continent of the modern nations and of civilisation.” He then made a remarkably prescient comment, which I think would get him expelled from the Conservative Party today: “Hard as it is to say now, I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.” In his speeches in opposition, he seemed to indicate that he supported Britain becoming part of this Europe. He spoke at the Albert Hall, in May 1947, of the idea of a united Europe, “in which our country will play a decisive part,” and he argued that Britain and France should be the founder partners in this movement. He said: “If Europe united is to be a living force, Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family.” Two years later, in 1949, he quoted from the French Foreign Minister, who had declared in the French Parliament that “without Britain, there can be no Europe.” Churchill said: “This is entirely true, but our friends on the Continent need have no misgivings: Britain is an integral part of Europe and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness.” In the House of Commons, in June 1950, shortly before he came to office, he said: “The Conservative and Liberal Parties say, without hesitation, that we are prepared to consider, and, if convinced, to accept the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards.

 

The Conservative and Liberal Parties declare that national sovereignty is not inviolable and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together.” However, in office as Prime Minister, Churchill followed the Labour Government in keeping Britain aloof from the European Coal and Steel Community. This has obviously been a matter of controversy since then, because pro-Europeans argue that this was the time when we missed the bus, when we could have shaped Europe to our needs, and it could have been much more sympathetic to British attitudes than it was. They say this was the time when Britain lost the leadership of Europe. People who do not like Europe say that Churchill twice saved this country: in 1940 by action, and in 1951 by inaction, when he kept Britain out of the Coal and Steel Community. Anthony Eden was much more sceptical of Europe. He made a speech as Foreign Secretary at Columbia University in January 1952, which you may think was prescient, because he was trying to counter the American view that Britain should become part of the European movement. Eden said: “If you drive a nation to adopt procedures which run contrary to its instincts, you weaken and may destroy the emotive force of its action. You will realise that I am speaking of frequent suggestions that the United Kingdom should join a Federation on the Continent of Europe... This is something which we know in our bones we cannot do.” Again, that has many echoes with today. Eden told his Private Secretary: “If you look at the post-bag of any English village [he represented a fairly rural constituency in Warwickshire] and examine the letters coming in from abroad to the whole population, 90% of them would come from way beyond Europe.” He meant, in other words, from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, which is where he believed we belonged. So, the Conservatives decided, as Labour had done, to keep out of the European movement. Obviously, there were different views about that, but it meant that it was very difficult for Churchill to answer the question of how British power could now be reasserted. As I said, he saw the central purpose of his political career as “the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire”.

 

However, his political career lasted from 1900 to 1955, when he retired as Prime Minister, and you may argue that the central theme of this period was the decline of British power. Perhaps this was inevitable, perhaps no one could have stopped it, but it was decline nonetheless, and I think Churchill recognised that. He told a political colleague, Lord Boothby, towards the end of his life: “Historians are apt to judge war ministers less by the victories achieved under their direction than by the political results which flowed from them... Judged by that standard, I am not sure that I shall be held to have done very well.” In retirement, he said to his Private Secretary that he thought he was a failure. When his Private Secretary demurred, Churchill said: “I have worked very hard all my life, and I have achieved a great deal, in the end to achieve nothing.” You might say that Churchill was too old to achieve that he might have achieved if had come to power younger, perhaps even in 1945, but the end of his premiership in 1955 is best described with words written about Bismarck in his old age: he was “not a beginning, but an end, a grandiose final chord, a fulfiller, not a prophet.”

 

When Churchill died in 1965, people considered it the end of an era. That was not what Churchill wanted. He wanted to reassert British power. He thought, growing up in the Victorian and Edwardian era, that the world would be a better place if Britain was stronger than she actually was, but he was not able to do anything about that. So that was the first radical attempt to alter Britain’s position in the world: to get Britain securely anchored into Europe. The Attlee Government had opposed that, and the Churchill Government, which seemed at first to be more sympathetic, also took the same view. Here again, the Attlee Government cast its shadow.

 

 

 

 

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/britain-in-the-20th-century-the-conservative-reaction-1951-1965

[Tribun_Populi]

Meni continental legal mindset i dalje ne dopušta da razmišljam u okvirima u kojima sud primorava parlament da preispituje demokracku političku volju pučanstva.

 

I da se to prihvati etotako, bez posledica i kao „jedinstven slučaj“ a nikako negativni presedan.

 

via CZ-M53 TT

[MancMellow]

Ako ovu presudu potvrde i Supremes, otvara se jedna zanimljiva nova mogućnost, Theresa can go to the country before March, tako da stavi na glasanje raspuštanje ovog parlamenta nakon ćega okrunjena Baba raspiše izbore za nouvi Parlament koji će istodobno biti i praktični referendum broj dva. Sad, kako bi se postavile partije u tome zanimljivo bi pitanje bilo...

 

I bi li Labour zbilja glasao za raspuštanje...

 

I tako. Uglavnom, super sam se zamešateljstva sjetio, nadam se proročanski!

 

Moja malenkost zagovara izbore kao jedino stvarno demokratsko i legitimno (i ustavno) resenje ovog deadlocka jos od referenduma  -_-

[Prospero]

pa jel nije juce rekao onaj pravni strucnjak iz skotske sto je pisao clan 50 da i ako UK aktivira clan 50, i udje u pregovore, i dalje ne mora da izadje, tj i tad cak moze da se predomisli?

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/308824/lisbon-treaty-article-50-author-says-process-not-irrevocable/

 

 

 

Lord Kerr told the BBC: “It is not irrevocable – you can change your mind while the process is going on.

“During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don’t want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time, they might try to extract a political price, but legally they couldn’t insist that you leave.”

 

mogao je malo da objasni, a ne ovo "može da odluči da ne izađe". šta je "process" - proces po a50, ili ceo politički proces od referenduma pa do ko zna kad? 

 

"izađe" je naravno kolokvijalan termin, pričamo o "važenju ugovora" i o eventualnom prestanku važenja. ionako nema potrebe da bilo koja članica "insistira" na izlasku - dok se ne pozove na a50, po svojim unutrašnjim ustavnim pravilima britaniju niko ne može legalno naterati da izađe ili pokrene proces izlaska po a50. ako ga pokrene, the clock is ticking i sve što može da se uradi je ili da se produžava rok, konsenzualno, ili da se menja ugovor, što će biti na svetog nikad.

[Tribun_Populi]

^^^ Idn je ovde bio u pravu 100%.

 

via CZ-M53 TT

[MancMellow]

mogao je malo da objasni, a ne ovo "može da odluči da ne izađe". šta je "process" - proces po a50, ili ceo politički proces od referenduma pa do ko zna kad? 

 

"izađe" je naravno kolokvijalan termin, pričamo o "važenju ugovora" i o eventualnom prestanku važenja. ionako nema potrebe da bilo koja članica "insistira" na izlasku - dok se ne pozove na a50, po svojim unutrašnjim ustavnim pravilima britaniju niko ne može legalno naterati da izađe ili pokrene proces izlaska po a50. ako ga pokrene, the clock is ticking i sve što može da se uradi je ili da se produžava rok, konsenzualno, ili da se menja ugovor, što će biti na svetog nikad.

 

aneks/amandman/vec nesto sto svi usvoje u parlamentima između nekih zakona o stočnoj hrani 

 

ali je pitanje sa koliko ništica se to piše  ^_^

[Roger Sanchez]

Pa mislim da bi bio red da Council za vjeke vjekov tom odlukom o 10 godišnjem ili tako nešto produljenju izlaska i službeno stavi na papir da je je UK država članica koja je na rubu izlaska iz birtije, svima urla da oće van, batrga se, otima i viče, ali ipak do daljnjega ostaje unutra i loče pivo.   

[MancMellow]

^^^ Idn je ovde bio u pravu 100%.

 

via CZ-M53 TT

 

Problem sa Churchillom je što ga niko ne shvati na vreme

[Prospero]

samo da napomenem da je današnja odluka suda pisana pod pretpostavkom da je odluka o izlasku po a50 ireverzibilan proces, i to su tvrdile obe strane tokom postupka.

 

na kraju će se, sasvim verovatno, o tome izjašnjavati i ecj jer to nije pitanje nacionalnih zakona uk nego prava eu.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Prospero

[MancMellow]

Pa mislim da bi bio red da Council za vjeke vjekov tom odlukom o 10 godišnjem ili tako nešto produljenju izlaska i službeno stavi na papir da je je UK država članica koja je na rubu izlaska iz birtije, svima urla da oće van, batrga se, otima i viče, ali ipak do daljnjega ostaje unutra i loče pivo. 

 

A continuously exiting full member of the EU. 

 

Brexiting means brexiting 

Edited November 3, 2016 by MancMellow

[Roger Sanchez]

A continuously exiting full member of the EU. 

 

Brexiting means brexiting 

neverending breeexit, aaaa aaaa aaaa