Yeah, I was a little bit disappointed myself...

Ha, get the full un-censored one here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncTQ1UeD63I

What I don't understand on a technical level is if the British parliament will have to vote on a withdrawal from the EU according to article 50 of the Lisbon treaties or not? It's written there that anyone can do a withdrawal in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. So what are the constitutional requirements for Britain? The referendum is legally not a requirement. The government just decides it and forward it goes whenever it feels right? Or has the parliament also to vote on a question as big as this? For example for military actions it surely has to vote on. Or has the referendum effectively replaced a vote by the parliament?

The other thing I don't really understand is, what happens if the negotiated terms aren't looking too good. Has the Brexit majority greenlighted any possible breakup or just the favorable looking ones? And if there are different breakups possible with more or less immigration for example, which one to choose?

I guess the latter is in a way decided right now by the Tories. The choice of their new leader defines which kind of breakup they will pursue. It's a bit strange that Tories can decide that while Ukip made it possible but has no further say in it.

And what about five to ten years from now when the poor are more and even poorer (sorry, I'm rather pessimistic there). Is there a second referendum realistic? One to check that the results of the first one did indeed improve things. Or was this a once every forty years event in Britain?

Honestly I don't think anyone knows the answer to those questions.. the referendum was in no way legally binding so the government could still pretty much ignore it, but I doubt it would look good for them if they did.


In other news Farage has resigned as head of UKIP, funny how all the idiots who got us into this mess are suddenly going "Not my problem any more!" and stepping out of the limelight...

Here's the thing: Until Article 50 is invoked (either by the Prime Minister standing before the EU Council and saying it out loud or writing a formal letter to the EU), everything that leads up to that process does not concern the EU in any way shape or form. Everything that Merkel, Hollande, Tusk, Rajoy, Juncker has said has absolutely no legal or constitutional bearing whatsoever - it is all personal opinions. Hollande might say that Brexit is "inevitable", but he has no say. Merkel may say that everyone needs to calm down, but she has no say. Juncker may want the British out as quickly as possible, but he most definitely has no say in the matter.

Everything that happens leading up to Britain invoking Article 50 is wholly and solely determined by the British constitutional and legal apparatus. That means that British laws governing referendums, British laws regarding passing of laws, British laws regarding constitutional amendments apply to determining whether that decision is taken or not.

Given that, the European Union is also not allowed to discuss terms of the "divorce" before Article 50 is invoked, as that would be unauthorised interference in the sovereign constitutional process of Britain. Unofficially, it also prevents Britain from fishing for a good deal and then deciding on that basis whether to invoke it or not.

Once Article 50 is invoked, the EU and Britain negotiate how the relationship will be "wound down". This negotiation period lasts a minimum of two years. It cannot be cut short by reaching a quick agreement, nor can it be extended without unanimous agreement of the member states. Likewise, Britain cannot "retract" Article 50 - it can only be nullified with the unanimous agreement of all of the other 27 member states.

Bear in mind that these aren't trade talks. A free trade agreement is something completely different but negotiations might be conducted on the side. This two-year period concerns territorial agreements, handling of existing emi/immigrants and numerous bureaucratic issues like foreign representation and its future role.

If Britain leaves and then wants to re-enter the EU later down the line, they have to apply as if they were a new member state, which means the 35-chapter accession negotiation process and unanimous approval of all member states.

Exactly that. My question was about the British law and nothing else. The question was if the Prime Minister has the right within the British legal system to say it out loud at any time (or write a letter or send an email or whatever). Are there restrictions or is it all up to the discretion of the Prime Minister? For example you cannot just declare war on somebody. Usually the parliament has to be asked first.

But the other thing is clear now. You cannot withdraw from the withdrawal, so once article 50 is invoked you are out within two years and whatever you can negotiate is what you will have. Article 50 is a one-way street. So if the resulting status would not be good for the UK it nevertheless would have to live with it. That part is clear to me now.

Brexit is going to be reversed. John Kerry has revealed before that there is a legal way to render the majority voters of that referendum completely useless and involves diplomatic action. Also, Brexit is a thorn for NWO and TTIP. We can't have Europe escaping either, now, can we? Britain is mandatory to be inside EU, this is going to make things easier. Plus both Farage and Johnson quit, all by themselves, too. Risking to be thrashed and skinned alive by the dark skinned cannibals of London who mount protests relentlessly lately too, would only be a fool's errand. Should the British stoop so low as to beg for the privilege to keep licking Brussels' ass, by all means, go for it, people... Besides, Merkel's latest statements involve this magic phrase: "I don't believe Brexit is actually going to happen".

The only good out of it is that people still have brains to vote for what they should; even if their vote, now, is almost certainly, going to be invalidated by force and brainwashing. They are going to make YOU beg for changing your own mind. Mighty pathetic and sad should it succeed, too.

To be fair, you didn't even had chances (for breaking free from Europe). Once you get in, you can never come out. Even the Brexit masterminds didn't believe they won; upon counting the results, they were convinced of already having lost their campaign. Prophetic thing, actually. They were meant, destined, to loose it. Such endeavors can never trully succeed. ***Independence***, a very heavy concept, goes way beyond the mortal boundaries and your average human's daily, ordinary life, or wildest imagination... Or perception... It is a thing that is almost transparent and non-existent, almost outside of this world, outside reach and grasp.

It's not cut and dry unfortunately. The prime minister can invoke certain acts without parliamentary approval. However what he cannot do is overrule a decision made by parliament. Only another vote by MPs can do that. It's suggested that he could have a go at doing this without parliament, but because of various pieces of EU law that have been passed by parliamentary vote, it might be considered unconstitutional to effectively overturn them, and thus be vulnerable to a legal challenge. There is therefore pressure on him to go via parliament and have a vote on it.

They could vote against it, but it would cause uproar. What would most likely be done is they'll arrange some amendment or something so that everyone can have a symbolic vote to cancel that amendment and express their feelings, but then pass the main law invoking Article 50.

Looks like English elites don't want to feed Eastern Europe, Ukraine was the last straw.
Now, they ditched EU, Deutch bank didn't become too big as $US to fall, its debt is very toxic, can possibly kill Euro as currency.
English debt is also on toxic side, so maybe we will see rats fleeing from drowning pound to new currency, which would belong to independent Scotland... Royals have Scottish blood, after all.

Our royal family has German heritage.

EDIT: There's also a Greek chap in there.

I mean Duke of Rothesay specifically.

People, thing is starting to get "official". Brexit will in most probability be toppled. Now even Austria's economy minister claims exactly this: "Britain is going to stay inside EU, despite referendum's results".

Don't you love democracy?
Greek's referendum against austerity, majority wins... and they are taken.
Dutch referendum against accepting Ukraine - majority wins, prime minister says "we will think of the way around to make it happen"
Brexit referendum...

Nope. That thing called "Democracy" has nothing to do, with Democracy. Censorship, control of media, mainstreamed propaganda, enforcing of political correct routes set in stone and harsh punishment to those who refuse to bow before them, last time i checked, are the stuff of fascism and oppression, really... Plus, "Democracy", even during the golden eon, was a heavy word with an empty meaning, completely devoid of the essence it is supposed to actually contain and represent. No, i don't love democracy. Everybody claims to detest fascism and fight against it, yet everybody says they love "democracy", at the same time, too; this is the greatest paradox/oxymoron in the entire world over!