http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co....ces/racism.htm

read the article and it brings up some really interesting questions

question 1

UKIP’s stated aim is for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union following a referendum. lets bring up some senarios here say you have miscalculaed support (im not saying you have ) but work with me here and the population of the UK vote to stay in the EU where would that leave UKIP

question 2

say in England the referendem said yes to leave but in Scotland it said no what is the official line for if that happened (more likely to happen than option 1)

question 3

How would the constitutional break up be managed? im sure it cant just be as easy as saying we are out bye

Paul Birch

No. UKIP's aim, enshrined in its constitution, is to leave the EU. Full stop. If we formed a government, we'd immediately repeal the 1972 Act and our membership of the EU would be over. We wouldn't need a referendum - winning the election would be sufficient mandate.

fair enough but what about question 3

and what is the 1972 act called

C_steam

Question 1 - UKIP should still continue and continue to oppose the effect of the EU. Either support and votes would tail off, in which case the party would dissolve, or people, experiencing the reality, would support UKIP in larger numbers.

Question 2 could just as easily be posed either way round to any of the big three parties - "If england voted No and Scotland voted yes...." or "if england voted Yes and Scotland Voted No..."

I do not know how the referendum will operate - in view of the above point should i take it that the referendum vote gives one answer, appicable to England, Scotland, Wales and NI?

Hence the article is trying to put a problem in your mind about UKIP, when in fact either the problem is either not there at all (if my presumption above is correct) OR the problem (if it is such) affects all parties equally.

Paul Birch

There is dispute on this point. I think it could be made a lot simpler than is perhaps implied by UKIP's latest manifesto, which proposes a dedicated government department to handle the transitional arrangements over a two year period. There is certainly a lot of other legislation that will need to be repealed (or in a few cases replaced). However, as far as our international standing, control of our own budget, and the supremacy of British law is concerned the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 is all it takes.

im not taking the mic here i honestly dont know

whats involved in repealing any act :?:

i would have thought it would be quite a lenthy process

Paul Birch

Ah. What you do is put another Bill through Parliament (it's called a Bill before it passes, then an Act after it's enacted). Call it a Repeal of the European Communities Act Bill. Its text could be as simple as "The European Communities Act of 1972 is hereby repealed." You can add a few whereases at the top, like "Whereas the European Union is a load of old codswallop, and whereas we'd be better off out ...", but it's not essential. Using the guillotine (that's a time limit on the debates) you could then push it through both Houses in a single day (if necessary using the Parliament Act to over-rule the super-annuated politicians in the Lords). Politicians like to faff around and bureaucrats to delay, but with a good majority you can be brisk (emergency legislation has been passed within minutes before now).

So the timetable could be: election on Thursday, results declared by early Friday morning, Queen appoints new PM midday Friday. Friday afternoon, PM orders immediate moratorium on payments INTO phpbb_EU. Monday, opening of Parliament, Queen's Speech. Tuesday, Repeal Act through Parliament. Tuesday evening, Royal Assent. And five days to the hour from close of polls we've left the EU! Tight, but doable. If you were really pushy, you could do it even faster. There's no fundamental reason why the Queen couldn't reopen Parliament on the Friday afternoon, dispensing with the Queen's Speech and going directly to the first reading of the Act. Twenty-four hours could see us out!

TomPhil

If the House of Lords rejected the Bill, you can't just invoke the Parliament Act straight away; there's a delay of something like a year before you can invoke it, as far as I am aware.

__________________
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

Paul Birch

I don't think that can be correct. The Labour government recently pushed through the anti-hunting bill, using the Parliament Act, a mere few days after the Lords rejected it.

Nic

Not true. The Parliament Act can be invoked if a Bill is rejected by the House of Lords in one session of Parliament and is then re-introduced in the next session. That is what happened to the Hunting Bill. It's not necessarily a year, just the following session.

While I'm on the subject, why so dismissive of the House of Lords? Recently they've shown a lot more sense and good judgement than Bliars pet shopdown the corridor - at least the Lords held out for some amendments to the ridiculous terrorism law.

The Commons - Roger Waters had it about right.

"Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors INTO phpbb_the valley of steel"

(Sheep - from Animals)

MPs are sheep, all of them, almost no independent thought at all.