No, it's something called the Crown-in-Parliament.

More info on article 50:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...)577971_EN.pdf

EU immigrants pay a good deal more in taxes than they receive in services and benefits. that's money that'll be spent on other people either as more services (the nhs)or lower taxes/higher benefits.

you just make stuff up and then you complain about others not agreeing with the things you've created out of thin air.

countries of 5 million people dont inherently have twice the wages of countries of 10 million people. every individual worker is both supply and demand, both a substitute and supplement to other workers.

so you cant really conclude anything without spending at least a bit of time examining what actually happens. and when we do that we find that it doesnt really make a difference on wages at all.

from your link, it has been discussed and appears "at least doubtful" it can be cancelled without agreement.

If you are afraid of lower wages why not set a minimum wage to prevent that.

If somebody has to compete with unskilled immigrants for his job then he has bigger problems. It might be because of the education system but there are also a lot out there who hated school, who couldn't manage to finish a training or whatever. That's these kind of people you hate against when immigrants aren't in reach. They often decline low-wage jobs because its much better to live of welfare.

I suspect brexit will turn out to be an unintended giant political rickroll.

UK hold back on article 50 whilst EU goes through turmoil, allows some sort of country-based self-determinism on migration limiting within the EU. UK decides it has changed enough to stay in. This starts with the French Elections, and Poland etc weigh in as the Tories will be doing shafy deals to reassure them Poland will effectively still get access to the UK.

2018-2019 probably as end date.

And Boris will then claim credit.

LolZ

Since common sense seems to be lacking I'll make it easy for you.

Average wage 10yrs ago was just under £400 GBP per week - www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/wages.

Today it is just over £500 per week.

The value of £390 in 2006 (I'll go a fair bit under £400 to make your case better) is over £525 in today's money.

Real wages are down over the last 10 years. The problem is probably even worse when you take into account the increase in wages for the elite.

Now carry on ignoring reality and convince yourself that unlimited labour has no effect on what people are willing to pay for it.

No doubt. It is apparent that in the short term the numbers arriving put an additional strain on the infrastructure in place.

Basically instead of taking the easy option and calling half of Britain racists, I'm saying that governments are at least partly at fault but even then it is not a cake walk to supply enough housing either for example.

**** I don't know what I'm saying, ignore above... racists everywhere

Lmfao

amazing

What the trend in the 8 years from 2000-2008 then the trend 2008-2016?

Then ask what happened in 2008.



Do you think there was no immigration 2000-2008?

Politico: How Britain Stays In The EU

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-the-eu-214005

This is an interesting article, but there may be a complication that the author has not taken into account. According to an earlier post in this thread posted by chezlaw

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3689

all this speculation may be moot as Article 50 may already have been [legally] invoked and the 2-year clock may already be ticking. I suppose the first order of business, which should be ascertained PDQ, is a definitive ruling as to whether or not Article 50 has been invoked and whether or not the clock is running.

If Article 50 was "legally" invoked as a result of the June 23rd referendum, (meaning that Britain is now in the formal process of exiting), that should light a fire under the backsides of MPs and the "new" PM - whoever he (or she) turns out to be. Also, the author of this Politico piece was a bit disingenuous in asserting that the "Leave" campaign was misleading and told numerous mistruths. The simple fact is that both sides were equally guilty of that crime.

I would dispute it was a fact and pretty 100% certain its not a simple fact.

team goveboris had 60% PM equity yesterday on betfair, now 5%. they were going to be PM and chancellor

well played lads

theresa may must've been laughing her tits off while watching the student debating society firebomb itself

re is the article 50 clock is ticking, if the EU bods pursue that line it'll only be oh lets say about 15 years until the argument get settled in the courts

probably buy us more time than we could ever hope for otherwise

Mass immigration is without doubt a net benefit to an economy. The problem is that the benefit is often concentrated at the top and it can be a negative to some segments of society. The answer though isn't to try and shut down the borders it's to redistribute the benefits more evenly. Instead of punching down against people just trying to improve their lives (and contributing greatly to the countries overall wealth in the process) the people should be punching up against the rich who have appropriated the benefits of immigration and insulated themselves against any negatives. More progressive taxation and a basic universal income is a clear solution to spread the benefits of immigration around the whole economy.

Another legal view on canceling after invoking http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...nd-referendum/

So that's all clear then.

(About the Author: Eoin O’Dell is a Fellow and Associate Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin.)

Lot of articles about turning over a referendum. Standard EU tactic, but would it wash this time?

Could we get into the gloriously ridiculous position of a legal challenge to the UK courts to prove that an act of parliament is required to invoke while at the same time a legal challenge is being made to the EU courts to prove we have already invoked? What if they both succeed?

that would explain why >50% voted leave, while only ~5% of the UK population is unemployed.

EU wins

Bloody Brussels

Obviously there's a very large racist/xenophobic element also. Millions of racists is definitely the case.

chez:

Here's a fascinating post I just read examining the likelihood of a new Prime Minister calling a snap election.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...exit-election/