"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 05/07/2016 23:33, michael adams wrote:
"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 05/07/2016 19:14, michael adams wrote:


For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

Otherwise, if this is not done first, then there is nothing to
prevent a UK Prime Minister from issuing an article 50
declaration, with at the same time the UK Parliament stubbornly
and consistently refusing to repeal the 1972 European Communities
Act, on a continuing basis.


I suggest that you listen to BBC Radio 4 'Law in Action':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl#play


I heard it yesterday, thanks. Did you have a specific point to
make arising from the programme ? As I'm sure others might
be interested in that as well.


Whilst it might be sensible to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, this does not
have to be done to invoke Article 50.

Once Article 50 is invoked we come out of the EU.

Well for a start they never said that in the programme. They
mentioned in passing that Parliament would have to repeal
the 1972 Act at some stage or other, but that was about it.
They never actually discussed the implications.

But in any case that simply isn't true.

Now superficially it might seem that Article 50 and the
1972 European Communities Act are entirely separate.
And that as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned
once an Article 50 notification is made the 1972
European Communities Act is no longer relevant
and that's it.

As you say above "we come out of the EU".
Within a timescale of two years with possible
extensions to be negotiated.

However they're not entirely separate at all.

Paragraph 1 of Article 50 specifically states

quote

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

/quote

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...)577971_EN.pdf

To repeat in "accordance with its own constitutional

requirements".



The constitutional requirement here doesn't simply refer
to the decision process itself - was the decision process
itself constitutional; nor the method of notification - is
the Prime Minister entitled to trigger Article 50 without
Parliamentary approval, a point dealt with at length on the
programme. But crucially the actual measures the UK Parliament
is required to take by her own constitution, in order to leave
the EU.

Basically Article 50 says the UK must meet her own constitutional
requirements in order to withdraw. She must repeal the 1972 Act.
Furthermore if the 1972 European Communities Act isn't repealed
in Parliament, then the UK Govt is still bound by all its
provisions. According to UK Law as passed by the UK
Parliament.

Otherwise just so long as the UK hasn't met her own constitutional
requirements in accordance with article 50 of the Lisbon treaty
by repealing the Act, she can't be kicked out. In 2 years, 10
years or whenever. AFAII there's no provision for penalties,
fines etc. for not so, doing either. Although obviously the bills
from the EU are still going to keep landing on the doormat.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 05/07/2016 23:33, michael adams wrote:
"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 05/07/2016 19:14, michael adams wrote:


For an Article 50 declaration to be interpreted as a serious
statement of intent, it will first be necessary in the case of
the UK, in accordance with her own constitutional requirements,
for her Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.

Otherwise, if this is not done first, then there is nothing to
prevent a UK Prime Minister from issuing an article 50
declaration, with at the same time the UK Parliament stubbornly
and consistently refusing to repeal the 1972 European Communities
Act, on a continuing basis.


I suggest that you listen to BBC Radio 4 'Law in Action':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl#play


I heard it yesterday, thanks. Did you have a specific point to
make arising from the programme ? As I'm sure others might
be interested in that as well.


Whilst it might be sensible to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act,
this does not
have to be done to invoke Article 50.

Once Article 50 is invoked we come out of the EU.

Well for a start they never said that in the programme. They
mentioned in passing that Parliament would have to repeal
the 1972 Act at some stage or other, but that was about it.
They never actually discussed the implications.

But in any case that simply isn't true.

Now superficially it might seem that Article 50 and the
1972 European Communities Act are entirely separate.
And that as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned
once an Article 50 notification is made the 1972
European Communities Act is no longer relevant
and that's it.

As you say above "we come out of the EU".
Within a timescale of two years with possible
extensions to be negotiated.

However they're not entirely separate at all.

Paragraph 1 of Article 50 specifically states

quote

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

/quote

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...)577971_EN.pdf

To repeat in "accordance with its own constitutional

requirements".



The constitutional requirement here doesn't simply refer
to the decision process itself - was the decision process
itself constitutional; nor the method of notification - is
the Prime Minister entitled to trigger Article 50 without
Parliamentary approval, a point dealt with at length on the
programme. But crucially the actual measures the UK Parliament
is required to take by her own constitution, in order to leave
the EU.

Basically Article 50 says the UK must meet her own constitutional
requirements in order to withdraw. She must repeal the 1972 Act.
Furthermore if the 1972 European Communities Act isn't repealed
in Parliament, then the UK Govt is still bound by all its
provisions. According to UK Law as passed by the UK
Parliament.

Otherwise just so long as the UK hasn't met her own constitutional
requirements in accordance with article 50 of the Lisbon treaty
by repealing the Act, she can't be kicked out. In 2 years, 10
years or whenever. AFAII there's no provision for penalties,
fines etc. for not so, doing either.

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep landing
on the doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

On 06/07/2016 08:25, michael adams wrote:

Once Article 50 is invoked we come out of the EU.

Well for a start they never said that in the programme. They
mentioned in passing that Parliament would have to repeal
the 1972 Act at some stage or other, but that was about it.
They never actually discussed the implications.

Its seems that two separate issues are being conflated here. There is
the question about how one tells the club you are leaving and puts that
into motion, and the second issue about how one updates your own rules
that made it possible to join the club in the first place.

Telling the EU we have quit, such that they accept and process that at
their end, means the membership has ended regardless of what the UK
legislation says.

Likewise changing the UK legislation to say we are taking our ball away
and going home would also quit, even if leaving the club a bit confused
as to what was going on as we don't appear to be paying the membership
fees or following the rules any more.

But in any case that simply isn't true.

Now superficially it might seem that Article 50 and the
1972 European Communities Act are entirely separate.
And that as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned
once an Article 50 notification is made the 1972
European Communities Act is no longer relevant
and that's it.

As you say above "we come out of the EU".
Within a timescale of two years with possible
extensions to be negotiated.

However they're not entirely separate at all.

Well they are separate - in so far that pulling either trigger would get
the job done.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

To repeat in "accordance with its own constitutional
requirements".

Basically Article 50 says the UK must meet her own constitutional
requirements in order to withdraw. She must repeal the 1972 Act.
Furthermore if the 1972 European Communities Act isn't repealed
in Parliament, then the UK Govt is still bound by all its
provisions. According to UK Law as passed by the UK
Parliament.

Otherwise just so long as the UK hasn't met her own constitutional
requirements in accordance with article 50 of the Lisbon treaty
by repealing the Act, she can't be kicked out. In 2 years, 10
years or whenever. AFAII there's no provision for penalties,
fines etc. for not so, doing either. Although obviously the bills
from the EU are still going to keep landing on the doormat.

That could be an exercise in wishful thinking... If the article 50
procedure has been followed, and as far as the EU is concerned, we have
left. Then repealing the 1972 act becomes a bit of a formality. Even if
the bulk of the MPs required to vote on the process were in favour of
not quitting in the first place, there seems little point in refusing to
put down the receiver once the other end has already hung up the phone.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
On 06/07/2016 08:25, michael adams wrote:

Once Article 50 is invoked we come out of the EU.

Well for a start they never said that in the programme. They
mentioned in passing that Parliament would have to repeal
the 1972 Act at some stage or other, but that was about it.
They never actually discussed the implications.

Its seems that two separate issues are being conflated here. There is the question
about how one tells the club you are leaving and puts that into motion, and the second
issue about how one updates your own rules that made it possible to join the club in
the first place.

Telling the EU we have quit, such that they accept and process that at their end, means
the membership has ended regardless of what the UK legislation says.

Likewise changing the UK legislation to say we are taking our ball away and going home
would also quit, even if leaving the club a bit confused as to what was going on as we
don't appear to be paying the membership fees or following the rules any more.

But in any case that simply isn't true.

Now superficially it might seem that Article 50 and the
1972 European Communities Act are entirely separate.
And that as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned
once an Article 50 notification is made the 1972
European Communities Act is no longer relevant
and that's it.

As you say above "we come out of the EU".
Within a timescale of two years with possible
extensions to be negotiated.

However they're not entirely separate at all.

Well they are separate - in so far that pulling either trigger would get the job done.

But they're not. If the Article 50 route is followed then it
will necessary to repeal the 1972 act at some stage. This
is required by the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 50 of
the Lisbon Treaty.

The UK could of course simply repeal the 1972 act unilaterally.
If that is, it both wished to wreck the economy, and expose
whatever is left of it to the vultures who would doubtless
home in on any of the countless legislative loopholes
which could well emerge in the aftermath.

Until tens of thousands of hours, if not more, all highly paid
even assuming such expertise is readily available at such short
notice, have been expended in trying to disentangle the mess.


Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

To repeat in "accordance with its own constitutional
requirements".

Basically Article 50 says the UK must meet her own constitutional
requirements in order to withdraw. She must repeal the 1972 Act.
Furthermore if the 1972 European Communities Act isn't repealed
in Parliament, then the UK Govt is still bound by all its
provisions. According to UK Law as passed by the UK
Parliament.

Otherwise just so long as the UK hasn't met her own constitutional
requirements in accordance with article 50 of the Lisbon treaty
by repealing the Act, she can't be kicked out. In 2 years, 10
years or whenever. AFAII there's no provision for penalties,
fines etc. for not so, doing either. Although obviously the bills
from the EU are still going to keep landing on the doormat.

That could be an exercise in wishful thinking... If the article 50 procedure has been
followed, and as far as the EU is concerned, we have left. Then repealing the 1972 act
becomes a bit of a formality.

I'm sorry John you appear to be labouring under a misapprehension.
Possibly as a result of having inadvertantly snipped the second
line of paragraph 1 of Article 50 as originally posted

quote

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

/quote

Far from the repealing the 1972 Act being a formality, or
failure to do so representing an an excercise in wishful
thinking, for the UK to invoke Article 50 the treaty
actually *requires* the UK goverment to withdraw in
accordance with its own, UK constitutional requirements.
In this case by repealing the 1972 Act.

This isn't something which is in any way at the discretion
of the UK Govt. If we want to invoke Article 50 then
we are required to repeal the 1972 Act.

However as I pointed out before, problems could well arise
if as the result of a change of Government or of general
sentiment in the HOC, Parliament consistently refused to
repeal the Act. This would then put the UK in breach of
paragraph 1 of Article 50, which would thus be rendered
null and void.


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep landing on the
doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
On 06/07/2016 08:25, michael adams wrote:

Once Article 50 is invoked we come out of the EU.

Well for a start they never said that in the programme. They
mentioned in passing that Parliament would have to repeal
the 1972 Act at some stage or other, but that was about it.
They never actually discussed the implications.

Its seems that two separate issues are being conflated here. There is the
question about how one tells the club you are leaving and puts that into
motion, and the second issue about how one updates your own rules that
made it possible to join the club in the first place.

Telling the EU we have quit, such that they accept and process that at
their end, means the membership has ended regardless of what the UK
legislation says.

Likewise changing the UK legislation to say we are taking our ball away
and going home would also quit, even if leaving the club a bit confused
as to what was going on as we don't appear to be paying the membership
fees or following the rules any more.

But in any case that simply isn't true.

Now superficially it might seem that Article 50 and the
1972 European Communities Act are entirely separate.
And that as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned
once an Article 50 notification is made the 1972
European Communities Act is no longer relevant
and that's it.

As you say above "we come out of the EU".
Within a timescale of two years with possible
extensions to be negotiated.

However they're not entirely separate at all.

Well they are separate - in so far that pulling either trigger would get
the job done.

But they're not. If the Article 50 route is followed then it
will necessary to repeal the 1972 act at some stage. This
is required by the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 50 of
the Lisbon Treaty.

Like hell it is. Para 1 says MAY, not MUST.

The UK could of course simply repeal the 1972 act unilaterally.
If that is, it both wished to wreck the economy, and expose
whatever is left of it to the vultures who would doubtless
home in on any of the countless legislative loopholes
which could well emerge in the aftermath.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Until tens of thousands of hours, if not more, all highly paid
even assuming such expertise is readily available at such short
notice, have been expended in trying to disentangle the mess.

There would be no mess to disentangle.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

To repeat in "accordance with its own constitutional
requirements".

Basically Article 50 says the UK must meet her own constitutional
requirements in order to withdraw. She must repeal the 1972 Act.
Furthermore if the 1972 European Communities Act isn't repealed
in Parliament, then the UK Govt is still bound by all its
provisions. According to UK Law as passed by the UK
Parliament.

Otherwise just so long as the UK hasn't met her own constitutional
requirements in accordance with article 50 of the Lisbon treaty
by repealing the Act, she can't be kicked out. In 2 years, 10
years or whenever. AFAII there's no provision for penalties,
fines etc. for not so, doing either. Although obviously the bills
from the EU are still going to keep landing on the doormat.

That could be an exercise in wishful thinking... If the article 50
procedure has been followed, and as far as the EU is concerned, we have
left. Then repealing the 1972 act becomes a bit of a formality.

I'm sorry John you appear to be labouring under a misapprehension.
Possibly as a result of having inadvertantly snipped the second
line of paragraph 1 of Article 50 as originally posted

quote

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

/quote

Far from the repealing the 1972 Act being a formality, or
failure to do so representing an an excercise in wishful
thinking, for the UK to invoke Article 50 the treaty
actually *requires* the UK goverment to withdraw in
accordance with its own, UK constitutional requirements.

Para 1 REQUIRES nothing. The word MAY is there for a reason.

In this case by repealing the 1972 Act.

This isn't something which is in any way at the discretion
of the UK Govt. If we want to invoke Article 50 then
we are required to repeal the 1972 Act.

Para 1 says nothing even remotely like that.

However as I pointed out before, problems could well arise
if as the result of a change of Government or of general
sentiment in the HOC, Parliament consistently refused to
repeal the Act. This would then put the UK in breach of
paragraph 1 of Article 50,

Since Para 1 REQUIRES nothing, it can't possibly be in breach of that.

which would thus be rendered null and void.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
no one has ever actually been stupid enough to ever
let you provide legal advice on anything at all, ever.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep landing
on the doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

But they're not. If the Article 50 route is followed then it
will necessary to repeal the 1972 act at some stage. This
is required by the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 50 of
the Lisbon Treaty.

Like hell it is. Para 1 says MAY, not MUST.

Indeed. It says

quote

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

/quote

as obviously

1. Any Member State *must* decide to withdraw from the Union

would rather defeat the object of having a Union in the
first place.

However once having made the decision to leave then this
*must* be carried out

quote

in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

/quote

If this wasn't the case then there wouldn't be any
point in imposing any further conditions at all, would there ?

They could just put

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union
and then do just as they please.


Anyway, thank you again for posting.

As I've suggested before, answering your points offers a further
opportunity to clarify things, not just for you, but for the benefit
of others with learning difficulties similar to yourself.


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep landing on the
doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Hadn't you realised ?

History is being re-written, while we speak.

Well, while I speak, anyway; you just speak drivel.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

But they're not. If the Article 50 route is followed then it
will necessary to repeal the 1972 act at some stage. This
is required by the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 50 of
the Lisbon Treaty.

Like hell it is. Para 1 says MAY, not MUST.

Indeed. It says

quote

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union

/quote

as obviously

1. Any Member State *must* decide to withdraw from the Union

would rather defeat the object of having a Union in the
first place.

However once having made the decision to leave then this
*must* be carried out

quote

in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

/quote

It doesn’t say must about that.

If this wasn't the case then there wouldn't be any
point in imposing any further conditions at all, would there ?

They could just put

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union
and then do just as they please.

Still doesn’t say must.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep
landing on the doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Corse it has with the countrys too broke to pay what they owe the EU.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep landing on the
doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Corse it has with the countrys too broke to pay what they owe the EU.

European Museums are already choc-a-bloc with Greek statues
and vases.

Apart from dismantling the Acropolis and dividing up the
pillars between them, there's not really much else they can do.

Which given all their incessant whinging about the Elgin
Marbles, even after 200 years, doesn't seem like a very
good idea to me.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep
landing on the doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Corse it has with the countrys too broke to pay what they owe the EU.

European Museums are already choc-a-bloc with Greek statues and vases.

Apart from dismantling the Acropolis and dividing up the
pillars between them, there's not really much else they can do.

Just as true of Britain if it files any bills it receives in the
round filing cabinet under the desk.

Which given all their incessant whinging about the Elgin Marbles, even
after 200 years, doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Yeah a few stones and that's about all they have left.

Same with Britain, I doubt stone henge would would worth much.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep landing on the
doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Corse it has with the countrys too broke to pay what they owe the EU.

European Museums are already choc-a-bloc with Greek statues and vases.

Apart from dismantling the Acropolis and dividing up the
pillars between them, there's not really much else they can do.

Just as true of Britain if it files any bills it receives in the
round filing cabinet under the desk.

Which given all their incessant whinging about the Elgin Marbles, even after 200
years, doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Yeah a few stones and that's about all they have left.

Same with Britain, I doubt stone henge would would worth much.

Er, Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, The Tower of London ?

You know. All those things they pointed out to you through the
windows of the coach, back then in 1975 ?

Don't say you've forgotten already

I would have included other stuff outside of London like Windsor
Castle, but I don't want to confuse you. As I doubt you would have
been able to afford any of the longer trips.


michael adams

....

In article , michael
adams writes

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to
keep landing on the
doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesnt get to repossess anything.

It doesnt even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Corse it has with the countrys too broke to pay what they owe the EU.

European Museums are already choc-a-bloc with Greek statues and vases.

Apart from dismantling the Acropolis and dividing up the
pillars between them, there's not really much else they can do.

Just as true of Britain if it files any bills it receives in the
round filing cabinet under the desk.

Which given all their incessant whinging about the Elgin Marbles,
even after 200
years, doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Yeah a few stones and that's about all they have left.

Same with Britain, I doubt stone henge would would worth much.

Er, Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, The Tower of London ?

You know. All those things they pointed out to you through the
windows of the coach, back then in 1975 ?

Don't say you've forgotten already

I would have included other stuff outside of London like Windsor
Castle, but I don't want to confuse you. As I doubt you would have
been able to afford any of the longer trips.


michael adams

...







More remain drivel. We don't owe the EU anything.
--
bert

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

Although obviously the bills from the EU are still going to keep
landing on the doormat.

And can be ignored if they do.

Not everyone lives in a corrugated iron shack, with a
minus credit rating, and nothing worth repossessing.

The EU doesn’t get to repossess anything.

It doesn’t even have any bailiffs.

It hasn't needed any up to now, has it ?

Corse it has with the countrys too broke to pay what they owe the EU.

European Museums are already choc-a-bloc with Greek statues and vases.

Apart from dismantling the Acropolis and dividing up the
pillars between them, there's not really much else they can do.

Just as true of Britain if it files any bills it receives in the round
filing cabinet under the desk.

Which given all their incessant whinging about the Elgin Marbles, even
after 200 years, doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Yeah a few stones and that's about all they have left.

Same with Britain, I doubt stone henge would would worth much.

Er, Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, The Tower of London ?

Not worth the cost of carting them away on the back of a truck
and even you should have noticed the goons with guns that
Liz has keeping unwanted visitors out of places like that.

Can't see any EU bailiffs managing to make
off with the crown jewels any time soon either.