The "real importance" of UKIP, therefore – according to the loss-making Guardian - "is as a permanent, single-issue temptation for anti-EU Tories, the net effect of which is to make the Tory party both increasingly unmanageable and increasingly unfit for office".

"Until UKIP can come up with a credible EU exit plan, it will indeed remain "seriously unserious.!

Exactly! And the reason Farage won't discuss his exit strategy is?

Marcus Watney is from the same family as Denis Cooper and the family trait is that actually they know squat-diddley but think they do.

What is the proceedure for the EU to expel the UK? Do we have a 2 year transition for neogotiation as per Article 50?

The media love the Farage types. Look at Boris (who should really know better). Politics reduced to the level of X Factor.

Farage has at least given up the idea of co-operating with the Tories for the moment. No doubt he will sell out all the prospective UKIP voters at the next electon for a mess of potage.

he loss-making Guardian - employer of the likes of Moonbat – has a nerve complaining that UKIP is "seriously unserious"

*sigh*

No wonder the euroscpetic cause never gets anywhere, when more effort is deployed on fighting over personal 'kingdoms'. One would have thought that Marcus Watney would have read the Lisbon Treaty so would know this - perhaps other matters are more important than exit?

By logical conclusion, if we've had 40 years of continual integration - where it is argued that the EU makes most of our laws - then simply repealing an act that's 40 years old is clearly not going to be sufficient.

"We thought we joined a common market but now it's very different and not what we signed up for" is the mantra. In that case how can the 'common market act' rectify something it was not designed for? The argument is a contradiction in terms.

Well North is not arguing his case here, he is simply flatly denying the evidence which he himself is quoting. He is simply denying that the two-year waiting period is "enforced". And I am responding to his comment here.

He says the two years is just a maximum. Of course it can be less if the withdrawing state agrees with the terms put forward by the others. The point is that a State that wishes to withdraw ON ITS OWN TERMS, without the agreement of the others, has to [= is forced to] wait for TWO YEARS in a state of continued vassallage to the overlords in Brussels. This is clearly what the article means.

For example, let us suppose that we announce our intention to leave on Day 1. Then on day 2 negotiations on the terms of withdrawal begin. On day 3 the EU side says "Our terms are that the UK must pay us 1 trillion euros as compensation for the loss of revenue (or whatever). Do you agree?" If we say Yes, we agree, then we pay them 1 trillion euros and on day 4 the "Treaties shall cease to apply to" us, and we are free and out. But utterly impoverished.

If we say "No we do not agree", and the EU does not change its demand, then "failing that [ie if no agreement is reached], two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2" we will be free. Two years means two years, not before. We will thus be forced to wait another 726 days before we are free. And during those 726 days we shall continue to be subject to all their directives, regulations and decisions, as we are now. And their hostility to us will be at maximum pitch. That will give them time to strip us bare anyway, and gouge their trillion euros out of us if they feel so inclined.

I would have thought the above was pretty obvious. I cannot see why North cannot see it.
==============
What the article in question does prohibit is for us, on Day 3 in the above scenario, to tell the EU that we will never agree to their demands (which might well be outrageous, since they will have no reason to "keep us sweet" any longer) and then simply walk away from the negotiation, regaining as from Day 4 our sovereign independence.

We have to wait till day 730 before we can do that. I would say that is intolerable.

At present, within the Treaty arrangements, we are subordinate to the EU - their laws have supremacy over ours. Any negotiation where one party is subordinate to the other is not a negotiation, it is a supplication for permission by a vassal to his liege lord, on bended knee, to be graciously granted or not at the sole discretion of the lord.

If they had succeeded in enacting their Corpus Juris plan, bringing JHA into the EU's remit, and thereby installing their Eurogendarmerie units on our soil, then of course we really would be under their heel. An Act of Parliament would not be enough to get rid of them. Luckily however, as you know, we managed to raise the alarm and to stave that danger off.

Ms Powell, a mum-of-one and former aide to Ed Miliband, said: “The voters of Manchester Central have said they want a country that doesn't divide rich against poor, that doesn't divide north against south, that doesn't divide public against private. They want a country of one nation.”

This is a response from Torquil ...



What does one say?


.

The difference is with a definite exit date, the power shifts towards us - we can ignore them if it becomes dirty - wtf are the EU going to do? By the time any breach of EU law comes to the ECJ we'll be long gone and outside of their jurisdiction.

I'm baffled by this recent upsurge of it's how you leave, not whether you leave. I just want to leave! In my fantasies, of course, it happened back in the 70's and concluded with the Quisling Heath meeting his end in the Tower - Edward II style!