BREXIT - e adesso?

[agaragar]

Vista che c'e rientrata a conti fatti.......forse qualche "problemino ce lo hanno avuto".

I fatti sono noti, dopo la rottura del 2003 Sarkozy ha tentato di ricucire

comunque non c'č un soldato Usa in Francia

[agaragar]

se avete notato... cambiano gli equilibri... hollande ha fatto per andare a visitare da solo la merkel... e questa che cosa fa come prima cosa... chiama renzi e lo include nel discorso...

E sennō chi prendono pel culo?

[agaragar]

se la Eu non prende al balzo l'occasione per riformarsi, dopo che le sue follie elitarie e dirigiste hanno avuto colpe non indifferenti nel causare il voto inglese, nulla potrā fermare la sua disgregazione

magari questo schiaffone potrebbe essere pure salutare

Formarsi pių che riformarsi, le nuove strutture non sono mai state sufficientemente configurate

[Undertaker]

I fatti sono noti, dopo la rottura del 2003 Sarkozy ha tentato di ricucire

comunque non c'č un soldato Usa in Francia

E la base aerea di Istres?

[Logomaco]

Brexit CAN be stopped or overturned before the UK splits with Europe - and this is how

• 217, 25 JUN 2016
• UPDATED 172, 26 JUN 2016
• BY GEORGIA DIEBELIUS

On Thursday 51.9% of votes were cast to leave the EU, versus 48.1% for remaining part of the bloc - but many were not happy with the results

With more than two million Brits signing a petition for a second referendum , some people have been left asking if there is really anything that can be done to stop Britain from leaving the EU.
According to experts, yes, Brexit , which was announced on Friday, can be stopped or overturned - however a lot of the ways rely on Members of Parliament standing up for those pleading for Britain not to leave.
The calls come despite Remain losing the referendum and the majority of those who voted opting to leave the European Union.
Any decision to overturn the decision would be labelled wildly undemocratic as it would ignore one of the most high profile democratic events the nation has ever undergone.

On Thursday 51.9% of votes were cast to leave the EU, versus 48.1% for remaining part of the bloc.


A map of the signatures indicated that most activity was in England's major cities.
The highest number of signatories came from London, where most boroughs backed Remain in the referendum.
Here are five ways Britain could halt Brexit and remain in the EU - from a parliamentary vote to holding up the changing of laws.
An early general election

Something such as an early general election could put a halt to the Brexit , Liberal Democrat commentator, Mark Pack said.
The blogger revealed a chain of event that could ultimately lead to the Brexit being stopped. He claims that the first step is for Labour MPs to oust Jeremy Corbyn and the party gets a pro-European leader. Afterwards, the Conservatives will also get a new leader.
Once this has been done the pair could row and cause an early general election.
Pack said: "This is all ahead of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions completing their work, so the hoped-for Tory boost from new boundaries at the next general election doesn’t happen.


"The Electoral Commission, however, has got a move on and drafted new election expense rules which get tabled before Parliament. In the face of police investigations the Tories find it politically impossible to oppose them. Labour voters are re-energised to vote tactically against the Tories.
"Tories win under 40% of the vote and lose their majority. At which point a pro-European leader of the Labour Party says, ‘Parties in favour of Britain’s membership of the EU won a majority of votes and seats at the general election, so we’re going to vote down Brexit ’."
A parliamentary vote

A parliamentary vote could put an end to the Brexit - which one MP has said was "an advisory, non-binding referendum".
David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, made an impassioned plea as a petition for a second referendum became the most popular in parliamentary history.
He Tweeted: "Wake up. We do not have to do this. We can stop this madness through a vote in Parliament. Our sovereign Parliament needs to vote on whether we should exit the EU.


"The referendum was an advisory, non-binding referendum. The Leave campaign's platform has already unravelled and some people wish they hadn't voted leave. Parliament now needs to decide whether we should go forward with Brexit and there should be a vote in Parliament next week."
A second referendum

A second referendum may be the answer to escaping the Brexit - but it would have to be different.
Voters cannot request a second referendum because they did not like the outcome of the result, however more than two million Brits have registered their support to a petition calling for the government to implement a new rule.
That rule would be that if the remain - or the leave - vote is less that 60 per cent based on a turnout of less than 75 per cent of the population, there should be a second referendum.


The popular petition online attracted so many signatures when it first opened that the government's website crashed.
Hold up the change over of laws

Britain cannot leave the EU unless British laws are in place.
Although Brits cannot themselves halt the Brexit this way, MP's can put a stop to it - if not buy some extra time.
By majority voting against the laws as they're proposed, nothing will be passed and therefore the country cannot leave the EU.
Do not trigger Article 50

The Treaty of Lisbon, signed in December 2007, is the European Union's most recent constitution - and Article 50 makes provision for countries that want to leave.
It sets out the exit process but is deliberately vague – meaning member states could be forced to enter into long negotiations to thrash out the terms of any deal.


Immediately after Article 50 is invoked, a two-year window begins during which Britain will be expected to enter talks on plans for its relationship with the rest of the Union post- Brexit .
However, if the UK fails to trigger Article 50, we will not leave the EU.


Brexit CAN be stopped or overturned before the UK splits with Europe - and this is how - Mirror Online

[sidereusnuncius]

...un bel referendum qui da noi.....no?

[Logomaco]

“Bracksies”: how Brexit could wind up not actually happening

Updated by Dylan Matthews on June 25, 2016, 7:00 p.m. ET



Fun fact: Brexit, the United Kingdom’s narrow vote to exit the European Union, is not actually legally binding.
The Prime Minister, be it David Cameron (who has resigned but could remain in office until October) or his successor (almost certainly pro-Brexit former London mayor Boris Johnson) can simply decide to ignore the result. In practice, it’s hard to see that happening; the voters have spoken, and politicians are loath to overturn the express will of the people.

But Cameron still hasn’t done the one thing he needs to do to ensure that the UK actually exits: invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. And until he does, there are still ways he could keep Brexit from happening.
What is Article 50?

Here is the meat of Article 50, which establishes the procedures for a member state to withdraw from the EU:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall 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. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

No country has ever invoked Article 50 before, so it’s still a little unclear how the whole process will work. But it appears that the order of operations is as follows:

1. The Prime Minister informs the European Council — the EU body comprising the heads of state/government of its member nations (Angela Merkel, Franįois Hollande, etc.) — that the UK intends to leave.
2. The Council would then meet amongst itself and agree on a framework for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal.
3. Using that framework, the European Commission (the appointed executive branch of the EU, led by former Luxembourgish prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker) negotiates the precise technical terms of exit with the UK.
4. Once the deal is reached, it enters into force if the Council and the European Parliament both agree.

This whole process is supposed to take no longer than 2 years; after that period of time, if no deal has been reached, the UK automatically exits the European Union without any special deal letting it retain trade preferences or other benefits. However, the Council and UK can unanimously decide to extend that two-year period if they like.

Does this mean Brexit could just, like, not happen?

Absolutely — as long as Article 50 isn’t invoked. "Once Article 50 is invoked, the process is irreversible," Slate's Joshua Keating notes. "The UK can't back out."
But there’s no requirement that the UK invoke Article 50 in a timely fashion. Indeed, bothCameron and Johnson have said they think it’s appropriate to dawdle; Cameron says he’ll leave the decision to invoke to his successor, and Johnson has said there’s no rush.
It wouldn’t be tenable for the government to just completely ignore the vote forever, even though that is legally permissible. That said, there are some more plausible, clever ways that the government could get around actually exiting.
Scenario 1: Let Scotland save you. Under the Scotland Act 1998, it appears that the Scottish Parliament has to consent to measures that eliminate EU law's application in Scotland. At least that was the conclusion of a report on Brexit released by the House of Lords, the upper house of Britain’s parliament:
View image on Twitter

Follow
Jim Fitzpatrick @jimfitzbiz

Oh my! Looks like Scotland and Northern Ireland may have a veto on #Brexit process - p 19http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf …
5:13 PM - 25 Jun 2016

• 
  
• 
  4,6784,678 Retweets
• 
  2,9472,947 likes

Jo Murkens, an associate professor of law at the London School of Economics I spoke with about this, told me that this isn’t actually an iron-clad veto. The Scotland Act was passed by the UK parliament, and parliament can amend it on its own to reduce the Scottish parliament’s powers.
To exit the EU and avoid a binding Scottish veto, "Parliament would have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (by which it became a member) and would also have to amend the devolution legislation pertaining to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland," Murkens said. "That strikes me as technically easy, but politically difficult."
If the Conservative Party is insistent on Brexiting and is willing to overturn decades of law giving Northern Ireland and Scotland (both of which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU) local control over their affairs, then it can totally do so.
But, as Murkens also noted, such a dramatic action could risk a huge backlash. Scotland is already planning to hold another independence referendum, and seeing devolution curtailed would make its success much more likely. Northern Irish republicans would be emboldened to call for unification with the Republic of Ireland, which could occur, or they could just reignite the Troubles after decades of peace.
If the overriding objective of Conservatives, however, is to "preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom as a state," Murkens said, "the objective of keeping NI and Scotland in the United Kingdom would turn them into veto players … Scotland and NI have voted to remain and the cost of not listening to them would be to split the UK."
So here’s what Cameron or Johnson could do, in three steps:

1. Announce they are respecting the terms of devolution and allowing the Scottish, Northern Irish, and Welsh parliaments to vote before invoking Article 50.
2. Wait for one of them to vote against leaving. The Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments would be under a lot of pressure to do so, due to their constituents’ views. The Scottish National Party, which has the biggest bloc in Scottish parliament, could want Brexit to go forward to build support for Scottish independence, but it would be hard for them to vote that cynically. The Northern Irish Assembly’s biggest party, the Democratic Unionist Party, was pro-Brexit, but it could understandably flip if it fears that actually leaving the EU could lead to Northern Ireland leaving the UK. The Welsh Assembly is led by the Labour Party; Wales voted to Leave, but Labour could vote its own position and shoot down exiting.
3. Once one or more of the subnational legislatures votes to reject Brexit, the Prime Minister announces he’s not invoking Article 50 after all, using the regional veto to save face.

Again, Cameron or Johnson doesn’t have to do any of this. But it’s a plausible way to avoid leaving.
Scenario 2: Dawdle on invoking Article 50 by having another referendum. This would be a bit odd so soon after the first one, but there’s nothing preventing the government from calling a do-over, and there might be political willpower for it.
For one thing, there have been anecdotal reports from numerous Brexit supporters saying they didn’t realize their votes would actually count, and that they regret voting to Leave now that the results are in. Searches like "what does it mean to leave the EU?" and "what is the EU?" surged after the referendum. And more than 2 million have signed a petition calling for a second referendum.
It would require a monumental act of political courage for Cameron, or especially Johnson, to call for this — not least because Cameron ruled out a do-over before the referendum was held. But Cameron’s political career is over anyway, and could reverse himself for the good of the country.
Scenario 3: Dawdle on invoking Article 50 and have an actual general election. "There's a reasonable case to be made that this should go to an election given that the prime minister resigned," Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, told me in an interview. Then, if either the Labour Party (which strongly opposes Brexit) or a split-off faction of the Conservatives that opposes Brexit were to win the election, they could claim that as a mandate to cancel the results of the referendum.
The problem here is that there’s little reason for the Conservatives to want another election, especially since they have yet to actually split. If they don’t split their leader will probably be Johnson, who supports Brexit and whose election would not exactly be a mandate to overturn the referendum result. Unless they call an election, the Conservatives are safely in power until 2020, and calling an election to get Brexit overturned would not just risk a Labour victory, it would probably only work if Labour won.
"There's a very good incentive for the current Tory [Conservative Party] government to not call an election they'll lose, or which would make them have to share power with the UK Independence Party or the Scots," Posen noted.
But each of these three scenarios requires the current Tory government to do something drastic. Without Cameron or his successor’s buy-in, no effort to stop Brexit can succeed.


?Bracksies?: how Brexit could wind up not actually happening - Vox

[Plutarco]

Continua intanto la lotta "Scozia" vs "Regno Unito".

Forte del voto per il Remain, il premier Scozzese vuole chiedere ai parlamentari Scozzesi di mettere il veto alla Brexit.

[Logomaco]

Can Brexit be stopped? Anything is possible


Leaving the EU is harder than anyone thought, but so is defying the will of the people
Philip Stephens


Four days after Brexit, is there any way back?


A petition calling on MPs to overturn last week’s Brexit decision is up to 3.3m signatures and counting. Young people, three-quarters of whom voted to stay, have turned to social media to voice anger and dismay that their future has been decided by retired baby boomers. Former prime minister Tony Blair has suggested a second referendum is possible and, with financial markets shaky and Brussels already closing doors on Britain, buyer’s remorse may well spread. So could the nation change its mind? Is there any way back? Well, anything is possible, but, as things stand, one can make only two statements with confidence. And, no, they are not consistent.
The first is that the Brexiters are about to discover that unravelling Britain’s relationship with the EU will be costly and hugely disruptive. Politically, legally and constitutionally it will be immeasurably harder than imagined in the bluff statements of Outers such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

The second is that something truly extraordinary would have to happen before parliament — which remains the sovereign decision maker on the matter — decided to overturn the will of the 17.4m people who voted for Brexit in the referendum. A few million signatures on a petition will not do it. The absolute minimum requirement would be a general election victory for a party that had promised explicitly to think again.
After the party …
Leading Brexiters have been celebrating what Nigel Farage has called “independence day” and Boris Johnson is planning his bid for 10 Downing Street. Now the hangover looms.
The more thoughtful among the Outs have realised that tearing up four decades of foreign and economic policy will not be as easy as they thought. The obstacles are formidable, even if you put aside the determination of some EU states to make things as difficult as possible. Back in Britain the leavers have yet to agree even on when to trigger Article 50 of the EU treaty, which would start the clock ticking on a two-year process of withdrawal.


More fundamentally, two-thirds of the MPs who must put the decision into law were on the Remain side of the argument. Few of them would be prepared to defy last week’s vote, but the referendum said nothing about what should replace full membership. At present a majority would probably back some form of association agreement that would keep Britain in the single market. But this is explicitly at odds with the leadership of the Leave campaign. The result could be political paralysis. Parliament must approve any eventual settlement.
The differences do not stop there. One argument deployed by the leavers is that money would be freed up to spend on the NHS and other public services. But the Outs also include a large group of rightwing market liberals who want to cut public spending and reduce taxes. Someone is going to be disappointed.
It is hard to see how these conflicts will be resolved — particularly if Tory party activists send Mr Johnson to Downing Street. The former London mayor is loathed by a significant segment of Tory MPs and would struggle to command loyalty in the Commons.
The problems do not stop at Westminster. EU membership is embedded in the devolution settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Disabling EU law in those jurisdictions would require the consent of the Scottish parliament and the Northern Ireland assembly. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, has already made it plain that the Scottish National party-dominated parliament will refuse. A constitutional crisis looks inevitable as does a second referendum that, this time, could see Scotland leave the UK.
Second thoughts?
So if it is all so difficult why not think again? Well, most obviously when parliament legislated for a referendum it made clear that it would respect the outcome. The vote was won by the Brexit side and discarding the votes of the majority by any stretch would be an extraordinary constitutional act. Sure, other European nations have reversed themselves on EU issues but they have different constitutions and there was far less at stake.
The Tory Outs are not about to change their minds. So any reconsideration would require the election of a new government with a clear mandate to negotiate a new arrangement with the other 27 EU members and put the outcome to a second referendum.


In other circumstances this might be imaginable — just. But the Labour party is at present led by Jeremy Corbyn, a politician widely regarded as unelectable and, anyway, at best lukewarm about the EU. The weekend mass resignations of members of his shadow cabinet might lead eventually to Mr Corbyn’s departure, but it a huge leap from there to imagine a new leader of the opposition sweeping to victory in a general election.
And even this assumes that the other 27 members would be willing to stand by for another couple of years while Britain argued with itself as the expense of gridlock in Brussels. Yes, even at this late stage Germany’s Angela Merkel would probably like Britain to stay. And a change of heart would be possible even after Britain had invoked Article 50. It is the politics that gets in the way.
Anything is possible
So pro-Europeans should give up? No. So as long as a British government does not trigger Article 50, Britain remains an EU member. The political forces unleashed by this referendum are unprecedented and unpredictable. It is far from fanciful to imagine that the next two years or so will see the complete recasting of the nation’s politics, quite possibly with the creation of a new, centrist, pro-European party. So those who want Britain to stay close to its own continent could think the unthinkable and work to make it thinkable.


https://next.ft.com/content/d24b4dcc...6-a4a71e8140b0

[agaragar]

E la base aerea di Istres?

Secondary users occasionally include the United States Air Force...

Fai il conto di quanti soldati e carri ci sono in Germania...