to share with you the croudfund link for the new legal action to stop brexit

[MarieBurnham]

www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexit-for-the-100/

I've only given a tenner, but there are plenty of rich people (unless it's all stealth boasting about dipique candles) here, so we should be able to help.

It's currently at 18.507k and needs 70!

Rufus I know many people believe that being in the EU makes continued peace in Europe more likely, and that for many this is a really genuine fear for Brexit. I suppose my worry is that we are heading into increasingly unsettled times. Without wanting to get to apocalyptic, the effects of globalisation, climate change, resource shortages, increasing inequality, population increase etc are going to mean increased numbers of refugees and people trying to move around the world, and political instability and conflicts over resources and it does seem possible that wars will become more likely.

To be honest, the fact that the world is changing so fast is one of the reasons I don't want to be in a superstate. I want our country to be able to respond quickly when it needs to, and I want how it responds to be under our democratic control. Whether that will reduce the threat of war in Europe or not, I don't know but I don't think anyone can really know. It will make us more able to respond to other problems which arise though.

What is the book?

Just pledged £25 - total now over £60k. I think the answers to these two questions are very important.

Just pledged £25

I get that people want to stop a democratic decision but its really stretching it to fund foreign countries to control us.

That shows an awful lack of logic Supermummy

The case which is intended to be brought is against the Irish Government for colluding in excluding the UK from EU meetings. It's not a case against the UK at all, it's against one of those foreign countries*, objecting to them 'controlling us'.

(*except that under UK law Ireland isn't actually a 'foreign country' - but that's irrelevant )

And in bringing the case they hope to establish the answer to two fundamentally important questions - whether the process of leaving the EU could be stopped if we couldn't negotiate an acceptable exit deal, and whether we could leave the EU but automatically be allowed to stay in the EEA if we wish. Neither question seeks to allow 'foreign countries to control us', they're actually just trying to give us a bit more control of the EU exit procedure.

There is a lot of noise about the EU in Europe. The Italian prime minister recently lost a referendum, which was won by a party which would like a referendum on Italy in the Euro.
The French presidential election is expected to come down to a run off between the right and the fascists.

You sound like a snobby brat having a tantrum MarieBurnham In this country most adults believe in DEMOCRACY. Grown up and stop chucking your pocket money about in an attempt to get your own way.

n this country most adults believe in DEMOCRACY.

Whilst, ironically, knowing fuck all about the type of democracy we have.

... which is a Parliamentary Democracy. Which we now seem to have tried to forget.

Not all of us.

There is a lot of noise about the EU in Europe. The Italian prime minister recently lost a referendum, which was won by a party which would like a referendum on Italy in the Euro.

Jesus Christ. The leve of ignorance on this thread - both about European politics and about our democracy - is just astounding.

Did you read the question asked by the Italian referendum? Do you even know what it was about? The referendum sought to give greater power to the executive; as a liberal, I'd have voted no.

That shows an awful lot of ignorance TuckersBadLuck

The action is being brought in Ireland to facilitate stopping Brexit in the UK. Irish courts being used to override the will of the British people.

They are attempting to firstly get the matter into the ECJ and thereby delaying Brexit by god knows how many years.

Secondly even if A50 is triggered they are hoping to be able to stop it at a later date and keep us in the EU.
Thirdly even if we do leave the EU they are trying to keep us in the EEA, which means we are de facto still in the EU.

We have elections all the time, the winner rules, the loser shuts the fuck up

Really. So what's the point in Parliamentary debate then? Why bother having an opposition? Surely there should be an election and then no discussion about leglisation in the House, no scrutiny, no debate.

Just another election in 5 years time.

We have elections every 5 years. The main party which loses forms the Opposition and should (doesn't always work) be holding the Government of the winning party to account. They don't just go home for 5 years.

If we now decide that holding Referenda is the way forward to conduct our political affairs then we probably need to look to countries like Ireland who hold them regularly, and make sure that we have proper rules for their conduct in place.

This action is being brought to clarify issues surrounding Article 50 and the behaviour of Ireland, as far as I can see. A person upthread called them 'Remoaners' but since they didn't have a Referendum on the issue, I don't see how they can be called anything.

Why shouldn't we stay in the EEA? The question wasn't even raised on the ballot paper. Nigel Farage was at one time a keen supporter of this.

the will of the British people

I love this phrase. It's as imaginary as Santa yet people just keep on and on about it. Our (unwritten) constitution gives parliament the power. Don't see them asking us about privatising the NHS or whether right to buy should be scrapped.

The only "will" people have is to give their opinion in referenda, to say who they would like as their local MP and to launch petitions. That's it.

Op, I don't understand why you have framed this as "legal action to stop Brexit". It is nothing of the sort. It is about determining whether Article 50 is revocable, and whether it means leaving the EEA, both questions which I would have thought were pretty crucial for even the most gung-ho Brexiter.

"We have elections all the time, the winner rules, the loser shuts the fuck up."

Under Putin maybe. We're not quite there yet thank god.

Thanks wrong

The book is Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall

Its well written and basic enough that even i understand it

I honestly hadnt thought about that part of it before i read that quote, it was by Helmut Kohl the last german leader to have lived through the 2nd world war and seen its 'horrors' first hand

It was also interesting seeing the chapter on USA, a very large part of their success is the fact that they are a 'superstate' and virtually untouchable

I think if it comes to war we may be fucked although i am sure a lot of countries would group together as before

Thanks for you comments , i do agree with them

The crowdfunding target will be reached today.

More people support controls on EU immigration than voted to leave (i.e. some remainers support it too - it is way above 50% of people who believe this and nearer 75% in some polls). Freedom of movement is the real sticking point to getting a soft Brexit accepted by GB and the EU alike.

This is true, but at the same time, only a small minority of people tell pollsters that they are prepared to accept a significant financial hit in return for an ideologically pure Brexit.

Polls tell us nothing about how politicians can make policy decisions that will be acceptable to most people, in a situation where mutually-exclusive opinions are held by a majority of the population.

People can vote to have their cake and eat it, but they can vote as hard and as often as they like - the plate will still be empty once the cake has been eaten.

Completely agree with your last paragraph tiggy

It's clear that an EEA solution isn't ideal, but I think it will come down to the "least worst" solution - so many people hold unrealistic views about what can be achieved that some sort of compromise is going to be necessary. (If for no other reason than the fact that the Tory party depends on business donations for its existence.)

Whatever the ultimate compromise looks like, it needs to be legally and constitutionally watertight, because there is no way of achieving brexit without pissing off a substantial portion (and probably a majority) of the electorate.

There is no majority for leaving the single market. There's certainly no majority for a brexit that leaves the majority of the population significantly worse off. But nor is there a majority for an EEA solution with free movement. Something has to give, and when it does, the government needs to make sure it has its legal ducks in a row.

I think if it comes to war we may be fucked although i am sure a lot of countries would group together as before

We are still part of the UN.

Who are we paired with in case of nuclear strike, doesn't every warhead owning country protect another which doesn't own warheads?

We don't need to be in the EEA to have good trade with the EU. And I think most people would find it very hard to say what the difference between being in the EU and being in the EEA was because they are virtually the same thing. In deed as tiggy explained the EEA is probably worse than being in the EU.

So this psuedo-Irish attempt to quantify if leaving the EU means leaving the EEA is code for stopping Brexit.