A thousand lawyers send letter to Cameron over EU Referendum

[BrexitThunderbolt]

It starts:
TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

9 July 2016

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

Re: Brexit

We are all individual members of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are writing to propose a way forward which reconciles the legal, constitutional and political issues which arise following the Brexit referendum.

The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is that the referendum is advisory.

The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation. It is of the utmost importance that the legislative process is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50.

link to the whole letter here

I am particularly pleased to see this included in their reasons for writing as they do:
There is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.

*immigration

May I please ask what your is? (You obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to).Or would you stay in EU regardless of anything?

Fair question.

As a EU-sceptic Remainer, one of my frustrations with the Referendum result is that we will end up with a worse deal than we have now. I would never want to join the Euro or to have closer political/economic union. There are a number of countries e.g. Sweden who feel the same. Had we stayed in, there was a good chance of those countries banding together and agreeing a deal - along the lines of the Euro opt out - that allowed the countries who do want closer union to pursue it and those who don't to remain members of the EU but stay outside any closer union.

By leaving the EU, we can no longer be part of that. The power in the negotiations over A50 is all with the EU. They hold all the cards as they hold all the trade agreements and - under the terms of A50 - if the negotiations are not complete at the end of 2 years, the UK is out on its ear with no access to the single market.

Leaving the single market under those conditions would be a disaster. So we will have to compromise to stay in and that compromise will involve free movement of labour and loss of our Schengen opt out - as well, of course - as a loss of any say in EU policy.

We had a strong position in the EU: we have over 10% of its population and were the 2nd (now the 3rd thanks to the post-Brexit crash) largest economy. That is why we were able to negotiate important opt outs such as Schengen (Norway & Switzerland were not allowed to opt out). We have chucked away our strong position, to end up as a kind of vassal state of the EU - and we will have spent billions in the process.

I think the real power the UK holds in negotiations is that removing itself from the EU removes a massive stumbling block to "ever closer union". I'd put money on the fact that there are factions in the EU who would easily sweeten some Brexit deal to get the UK out sooner rather than later.

For the EU, that's just kicking the can down the road - at some point, some other country will object to closer union etc.

Yes, that's right bengal - if we had had to join the Euro or closer union, those would have been red lines for me. Schengen probably - on security grounds, not immigration.

What I find mind-boggling is that - not only will Brexit not be able to deliver what many Leavers want - it will actually deliver a worse deal (from the Leaver point of view) than being in the EU.

I think the real power the UK holds in negotiations is that removing itself from the EU removes a massive stumbling block to "ever closer union". I'd put money on the fact that there are factions in the EU who would easily sweeten some Brexit deal to get the UK out sooner rather than later

But how does that give the UK any power? You are saying that there are factions of the EU that want to be rid of the UK . I'm sure you're right. But we have already said we are going. 2 years from triggering A50, we are automatically out. So the EU has no incentive to sweeten the deal. It is never going to be able to implement closer union in under 2 years. By the time it tries to do so, we will be out anyway.

Bengal interesting question. My redline is quite straightforward. I would want to leave the EU if I felt that it was not assuring peace and freedom (in the most basic sense) among its Member States and contributing substantially to peace, democracy and freedom in the general region. That would be a long-term assessment.

By the way, please tell your hypothetical Person B that MEPs can change and alter EU legislation - they do it All The Time, far more than the UK Parliament does, actually.

Today 10:23 Grassgreendashhabi

Leaving the EU will not stop immigration.

No it won't and I don't think that's what leave voters wanted

They wanted CONTROLLED Immigration

Two very different things
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I agree!

We did not have controlled immigration, eu ppl had no boxes to tick. They could just come. Now (hopefully) they will have the same hoops to jump through as Americans, Australians, Chinese ect ect, and 1 of those boxes is full private medical insurance. Hello blue passport... Goodbye Nhs tourist

shinynewusername

Because we haven't actually triggered Art 50 yet. We can piss about for years doing nothing and really wind up the EU federalists, playing the hokey cokey. If they want the UK out quickly, they can incentivise the UK to leave quickly and quietly. Has May actually given a timescale for triggering Art 50 yet?

EU wins by getting rid of a road block (long game towards federalisation). UK wins by getting a sweeter deal than it might otherwise have done.

ilovemyghds - please see the suns apology for the 600,000 NHS tourists story....

sorry - ilovemygsd !

So honestly I think remainers and leavers have way more in common in this respect than they realise

Yes I think you are right. But - at the end of the day - I cannot see any option for Leaving that is better than Remaining - even from the point of view of Leavers. Norway & Switzerland seem to me to have the worst of all worlds.

Underparmummy. I love my ghds also lol. I have seen the figures. doesn't alter the fact we have nhs tourists. It's a fact. A points system with medical insurance as a necessity will stop this

Bengal I'm happy to go to another thread to explain how the legislative procedure works in practice if you want

You gave a couple of examples of possible trade deal models: you do know that those deals are designed for vulnerable countries as part of a trade/development/aid àpproach? (I know many of us are feeling pretty vulnerable in the UK right now )

Thanks bengal :), sorry its just that I feel our governments have got away with dodging their responsibility too long now in terms of underfunded services and has become a bit of bugbear for me.

On your redlines discussion I would not have wanted the euro and would have been a no even if we had met that magical criteria that labour talked about in the past.

Isn't the problem with 'health tourism' with the NHS that in terms of tracking its not being done? I just dont get why there seems to be a problem in the UK but other countries seem to deal with it? Is this a lack of ID card thing again?

But then you really have to accept tax harmonisation, otherwise you get tax paying nations bailing out nations with lower taxes.

Also amazon etc moving around euro zone to find the place to dodge the most tax.

When I look in depth at issues facing the Uk the more see I that the EU has just been made a scapegoat of in SOME aspects.

1. The NHS has been mismanaged, unmodernised and plainly overused by the general UK population many of whom just go running to Casualty with minor ailments . We have a growing elderly population who are unwanted in their communities and palmed off into the (expensive) NHS

Curently over 1 milion retired are being cared for in the health services of other EU states.

1. We have unemployed who refuse to do jobs that are then taken by immigrants.
2. Most people in the Eu rent at an affordable amount. In the Uk housing

is viewed as investment/profit making.A lack of home building and shortage of affordable houses means we are shelling out billions on Housing Benefit to private landlords and most young folk live on 6 month tenancies.

1. Poor expensive public transport outside cities means people have to

have a car just to get to work .Our small roads cannot cope so they fall into disrepair more quickly. Yet most cars are made outside the UK. Pollution increasing 5 Firms were allowed to opt out of Final Pension Schemes leading to people taking out more risky private pensions Then the State Pension was reduced. To this day large numbers do not understand pensions The Banking/financial sector therefore increased its power. 6 Industry was cut to the bone 7.Immigration We live in a small area -the same population as France but half the space. Immigration -which was too lenient- began with the Ugandan Asians as we honoured our obligations to our Commonwealth friends.

1. The 80's saw net migration from the Uk of those in medicine and education to Switzerland( pay and better care ) Australia (similar pay

but fewer working hours/ better quality of life, safer working practices the USA (better pay and chance to be involved in advanced techniques) the EU (better pay/shorter shifts/better patient care. So migration was not just about money. 12 hour shifts in the NHS are damnright dangerous so other countries stopped it

Can somebody clarify for me what losing the Schengen opt-out would actually mean? Obviously you can't go into the UK without passing through border control at the monent, but you can't enter France from the UK or anywhere outside the EU land mass (afaik) without border control either.
So what does the current opt-out actually mean?
You can't get on a ferry or a plane without a valid passport either, so what would be different?

There are no borders between Schengen countries. You don't have to show your passport at all.

If we joined Schengen, you could travel from France/Netherlands etc to UK without a passport and vice versa.

I know that, I live in France!
I can't travel from here to the UK without passing through border controls for both countries both ways and I am trying to clarify what the difference would be if the UK could no longer opt out.
Border controls would still be there surely? They are at all the entry points to the EU from elsewhere, including airports, sea ports and land barriers.