Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,GSVsowhat,johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8, for Donating to support the site

It's Still Brexit

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236174

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 12:52 pm

SentimentRules wrote:
Wizard wrote:
SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?

David Cameron never actually wanted one. Putting it in the manifesto was a way to deal with an internal party issue. He expected to trade it away within minutes of starting coalition discussions after the election. He never expected an overall majority.


Ok but i mean any. Example the referendum to join the EU in 1973

Surely it's either accept all referendums or do away with them all ?


There was no referendum on joining in 1973. Parliament overwhelmingly agreed to join the EEC by 356-244 in October 1971 after 6 days of debate.
This was followed by even more debate as the European Communities act (1972) went through all its parliamentary stages.

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/29/archives/commons-votes-356-to-244-for-britains-membership-in-the-european.html

The first ever UK wide referendum was that in 1975 on whether to remain in or leave the EEC. This was an advisory referendum and was won by remain with a large majority 67% to 33%. The fact that remaining meant nothing had to change combined with the fact that the result was such a large majority meant that parliament had no trouble in accepting the people's recommendation.
(If the result had been reversed ie 67% to leave then I would again expect that parliament would have taken the advice since implementing leave at that point, so soon after joining, would have been relatively easy. At that point companies supply lines did not stretch across the continent, non-tariff barriers were still in place since the single Market didn't exist so there were no JIT systems relying on foreign parts, the NI border was not just closed but was a militarised border. Hence none of the current problems plaguing the implementation of brexit existed in 1975.
If the result had been closer then although there might have been arguments about whether to take the advice it probably would have been implemented since as I say both remaining and leaving were fairly simple at that point and hence easily implementable.)

Like the 2016 referendum that in 1975 was called to solve a party issue - in that case it was the Labour party which was split on EEC membership.
Last edited by ursaminortaur on July 12th, 2019, 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236177

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 12:59 pm

Ah. Thanks for the correction . I wasnt born then so memory was serving me from past reading. A glitch in the memory matrix lol.

Thank you.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4058
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236191

Postby XFool » July 12th, 2019, 2:02 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The problem is that no-one can agree what form of brexit to implement. Revoking Article 50 and then immediately resubmitting it wouldn't solve that problem.

Exactly! Just how many times does this self-evident point need to be made?

ursaminortaur wrote:That leaves two* solutions

1) Revoke article 50 and then setup some body to investigate all the options in detail and come up with a workable brexit which parliament could accept. For instance a cross party working group either investigating directly - or with a feed from either citizen's assemblies or a royal commission. The cross party working group would though be needed to ensure that the final recommendation would have parliamentary support since citizen's assemblies or a royal commision's proposals on their own could hit the same parliamentary blocks. Such a process would obviously take some time.

What about the EU in all this? I suspect they would have lost patience with us before the process came to a conclusion.

ursaminortaur wrote:2) Putting the options back to the people. This isn't ideal since as you note the people would likely be making the decision on a fairly superficial understanding of the issues. However with all the coverage they should be slightly better informed than in 2016. So long as the options are implementable though this would at least break the parliamentary deadlock - whether the result was to revoke Article 50 or to leave with a particular leave option the result could be implemented.

Seems the only feasible one - but could it just lead to a continuing stalemate in parliament? Perhaps special measures could avoid this?

ursaminortaur wrote:Whatever happens the divisions over brexit will not be healed overnight. If we remain there will be people continuing to campaign to leave the EU, if we leave there will be people campaigning to rejoin.

Absolutely.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236212

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 3:00 pm

XFool wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:The problem is that no-one can agree what form of brexit to implement. Revoking Article 50 and then immediately resubmitting it wouldn't solve that problem.

Exactly! Just how many times does this self-evident point need to be made?

ursaminortaur wrote:That leaves two* solutions

1) Revoke article 50 and then setup some body to investigate all the options in detail and come up with a workable brexit which parliament could accept. For instance a cross party working group either investigating directly - or with a feed from either citizen's assemblies or a royal commission. The cross party working group would though be needed to ensure that the final recommendation would have parliamentary support since citizen's assemblies or a royal commision's proposals on their own could hit the same parliamentary blocks. Such a process would obviously take some time.

What about the EU in all this? I suspect they would have lost patience with us before the process came to a conclusion.


The ECJ ruling was that the UK could unilaterally revoke article 50. Such a revocation needs to be in accordance with the UK constitutional requirements and needs to be “unequivocal and unconditional”. * The possibility that at some point in the future the UK might invoke article 50 again is not enough to say that the revocation is not "unequivocal and unconditional". The UK is supposed after revoking article 50 to be back in the same position and with all the same rights it had before invoking Article 50 which obviously includes the right to at some point in the future to invoke Article 50 if it wishes. If such a invocation of Article 50 happened immediately after revoking it then the EU would have a right to be upset and I'd expect that since nothing will have changed they would tell the UK they were sticking with the current WA and that any further talks the UK had with them would have to be on that basis (or possibly even question the basis of the revocation see *). On the otherhand if the UK revoked Article 50 and then didn't invoke it again for a long time (and had spent that time in coming up with an implementable brexit solution which wasn't a fantasy and which was pretty much guaranteed to have the support of parliament) then I'd suspect they would be more willing to talk about that solution.

* Immediately invoking after revoking article 50 or revoking and then setting up a body to investigate just leave options without giving it the power to consider remaining in the EU as an option would raise questions about the “unequivocal and unconditional” nature of that revocation which is why I suggested not immediately invoking it againn but setting up a body to look at all the options (including remaining).

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236215

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 3:08 pm

XFool wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:2) Putting the options back to the people. This isn't ideal since as you note the people would likely be making the decision on a fairly superficial understanding of the issues. However with all the coverage they should be slightly better informed than in 2016. So long as the options are implementable though this would at least break the parliamentary deadlock - whether the result was to revoke Article 50 or to leave with a particular leave option the result could be implemented.

Seems the only feasible one - but could it just lead to a continuing stalemate in parliament? Perhaps special measures could avoid this?


Parliament could decide to make the referendum binding. That probably wouldn't be necessary if the options were revoking Article 50 against May's WA however parliamentary opposition to nodeal might cause problems if that was on the ballot and were to win in an advisory referendum.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 186
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236219

Postby djbenedict » July 12th, 2019, 3:15 pm

SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?


To advise. Not dictate.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236221

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 3:20 pm

djbenedict wrote:
SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?


To advise. Not dictate.


But isn't the advise useless if not implemented? So still a waste of time.

A 2nd referendum would just be advise again. So everyone would be ok with a block in parliament if remain win? Advise ignored?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236228

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 3:36 pm

SentimentRules wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?


To advise. Not dictate.


But isn't the advise useless if not implemented? So still a waste of time.

A 2nd referendum would just be advise again. So everyone would be ok with a block in parliament if remain win? Advise ignored?


Parliament could if the options are implementable make the referendum binding as they did with the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum on the voting system used to elect MPs to the HoC. If though the referendum was between revoking article 50 or ratifying May's WA deal for instance then if the option of ratifying May's deal won I doubt there would be any problem in getting it through parliament even if it was still just an advisory referendum - remainers and the opposition parties would I think accept the result. The only implementable option that I would see as problematic if it was on the ballot in an advisory referendum and won would be a no deal brexit since many MPs think the consequences would be too terrible and hence might oppose it even if it had won in an advisory referendum.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236233

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 3:45 pm

I think your right. Even hard-core brexiteers should be happy with such a deal. They can view it as ' one step at a time' instead of going for full glory in one go. As long as global trade deals are allowed, then that's good.

It's hard to see the EU surviving the longterm currently. The euro for sure.

So what the UK see as a bit of pain now, will be a big step ahead of the competition globally when/If it all comes tumbling down

But the EU as constituents obviously know the advantages to the UK with free trade plus global deals allowed now. It's their biggest fear...what if the EU breaks up?..... suddenly the UK has a massive jump on us all

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2728
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236248

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 4:28 pm

XFool wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:The problem is that no-one can agree what form of brexit to implement. Revoking Article 50 and then immediately resubmitting it wouldn't solve that problem.

Exactly! Just how many times does this self-evident point need to be made?

Until a convincing argument is made, rather than just claiming it is self evident I guess. Revoking and resubmitting provides two opportunities, first to re-enter discussions with the EU without time pressure / a cliff edge providing the opportunity to look at other options such as the Norway or Canada+ deal that we heard about for a while. As part of the process Parliament could be more fully involved. This may just demonstrate that they continue to be able to reach consensus on any solution, but it would remove the fig leave of May having tried to ride rough shot over them. Second it gives the UK two years to look to better prepare for a no deal scenario, maybe even after two years it will be demonstrated that the preparation is insufficient, but at least at that stage it could be looked at on the basis of taking it seriously and not just pretending to prepare so as to be able to rule it out. Of course the irony is that having pretended to consider it as an option and only paid lip service to preparation it May be that May's legacy is a no deal with poor preparation.

XFool wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:2) Putting the options back to the people. This isn't ideal since as you note the people would likely be making the decision on a fairly superficial understanding of the issues. However with all the coverage they should be slightly better informed than in 2016. So long as the options are implementable though this would at least break the parliamentary deadlock - whether the result was to revoke Article 50 or to leave with a particular leave option the result could be implemented.

Seems the only feasible one - but could it just lead to a continuing stalemate in parliament? Perhaps special measures could avoid this?

No! Just how many times does this self-evidently bad idea need to be dismissed? Did you see what I did there? ;)

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236250

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 4:55 pm

Wizard wrote:
XFool wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:The problem is that no-one can agree what form of brexit to implement. Revoking Article 50 and then immediately resubmitting it wouldn't solve that problem.

Exactly! Just how many times does this self-evident point need to be made?

Until a convincing argument is made, rather than just claiming it is self evident I guess. Revoking and resubmitting provides two opportunities, first to re-enter discussions with the EU without time pressure / a cliff edge providing the opportunity to look at other options such as the Norway or Canada+ deal that we heard about for a while. As part of the process Parliament could be more fully involved. This may just demonstrate that they continue to be able to reach consensus on any solution, but it would remove the fig leave of May having tried to ride rough shot over them. Second it gives the UK two years to look to better prepare for a no deal scenario, maybe even after two years it will be demonstrated that the preparation is insufficient, but at least at that stage it could be looked at on the basis of taking it seriously and not just pretending to prepare so as to be able to rule it out. Of course the irony is that having pretended to consider it as an option and only paid lip service to preparation it May be that May's legacy is a no deal with poor preparation.


Norway or Canada+ are options to be discussed during the transition period. Revoking and then resubmitting doesn't really get you anything extra in that respect since the EU will just say nothing has changed and that the UK needs to ratify the WA before they can talk about the future relationship. Also, as mentioned, immediately invoking article 50 after revoking article 50 may be interpreted as the revocation not being “unequivocal and unconditional” and hence not allowed under the ECJ ruling.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2728
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236255

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 5:15 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:
XFool wrote:Exactly! Just how many times does this self-evident point need to be made?

Until a convincing argument is made, rather than just claiming it is self evident I guess. Revoking and resubmitting provides two opportunities, first to re-enter discussions with the EU without time pressure / a cliff edge providing the opportunity to look at other options such as the Norway or Canada+ deal that we heard about for a while. As part of the process Parliament could be more fully involved. This may just demonstrate that they continue to be able to reach consensus on any solution, but it would remove the fig leave of May having tried to ride rough shot over them. Second it gives the UK two years to look to better prepare for a no deal scenario, maybe even after two years it will be demonstrated that the preparation is insufficient, but at least at that stage it could be looked at on the basis of taking it seriously and not just pretending to prepare so as to be able to rule it out. Of course the irony is that having pretended to consider it as an option and only paid lip service to preparation it May be that May's legacy is a no deal with poor preparation.


Norway or Canada+ are options to be discussed during the transition period. Revoking and then resubmitting doesn't really get you anything extra in that respect since the EU will just say nothing has changed and that the UK needs to ratify the WA before they can talk about the future relationship. Also, as mentioned, immediately invoking article 50 after revoking article 50 may be interpreted as the revocation not being “unequivocal and unconditional” and hence not allowed under the ECJ ruling.

Only if you accept the EU's edict on the sequencing of discussions. With a new A50 period I would suggest the UK challenge that rather than just accept it.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236268

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 5:57 pm

Wizard wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:Until a convincing argument is made, rather than just claiming it is self evident I guess. Revoking and resubmitting provides two opportunities, first to re-enter discussions with the EU without time pressure / a cliff edge providing the opportunity to look at other options such as the Norway or Canada+ deal that we heard about for a while. As part of the process Parliament could be more fully involved. This may just demonstrate that they continue to be able to reach consensus on any solution, but it would remove the fig leave of May having tried to ride rough shot over them. Second it gives the UK two years to look to better prepare for a no deal scenario, maybe even after two years it will be demonstrated that the preparation is insufficient, but at least at that stage it could be looked at on the basis of taking it seriously and not just pretending to prepare so as to be able to rule it out. Of course the irony is that having pretended to consider it as an option and only paid lip service to preparation it May be that May's legacy is a no deal with poor preparation.


Norway or Canada+ are options to be discussed during the transition period. Revoking and then resubmitting doesn't really get you anything extra in that respect since the EU will just say nothing has changed and that the UK needs to ratify the WA before they can talk about the future relationship. Also, as mentioned, immediately invoking article 50 after revoking article 50 may be interpreted as the revocation not being “unequivocal and unconditional” and hence not allowed under the ECJ ruling.

Only if you accept the EU's edict on the sequencing of discussions. With a new A50 period I would suggest the UK challenge that rather than just accept it.


And, assuming that the idea of revoking and immediately resubmitting Article 50 wasn't deemed incompatible with the ECJ ruling, what precisely would the UK do if the EU insisted on the agreed sequencing and the need for the ratification of the WA ?

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4656
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236270

Postby BobbyD » July 12th, 2019, 6:04 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Norway or Canada+ are options to be discussed during the transition period. Revoking and then resubmitting doesn't really get you anything extra in that respect since the EU will just say nothing has changed and that the UK needs to ratify the WA before they can talk about the future relationship. Also, as mentioned, immediately invoking article 50 after revoking article 50 may be interpreted as the revocation not being “unequivocal and unconditional” and hence not allowed under the ECJ ruling.

Only if you accept the EU's edict on the sequencing of discussions. With a new A50 period I would suggest the UK challenge that rather than just accept it.


And, assuming that the idea of revoking and immediately resubmitting Article 50 wasn't deemed incompatible with the ECJ ruling, what precisely would the UK do if the EU insisted on the agreed sequencing and the need for the ratification of the WA ?


The abuse of revocation was in the Advocate General's opinion, not the court's findings, as I recall, but the EU position from here on in is going to be these are the negotiated terms take them or leave them. You want to leave with a deal? These are the terms. You want a trade deal? These are the terms... The only reason this wouldn't turn the UK in to a laughing stock is because the UK is already a laughing stock.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2728
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236276

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 6:34 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Norway or Canada+ are options to be discussed during the transition period. Revoking and then resubmitting doesn't really get you anything extra in that respect since the EU will just say nothing has changed and that the UK needs to ratify the WA before they can talk about the future relationship. Also, as mentioned, immediately invoking article 50 after revoking article 50 may be interpreted as the revocation not being “unequivocal and unconditional” and hence not allowed under the ECJ ruling.

Only if you accept the EU's edict on the sequencing of discussions. With a new A50 period I would suggest the UK challenge that rather than just accept it.


And, assuming that the idea of revoking and immediately resubmitting Article 50 wasn't deemed incompatible with the ECJ ruling, what precisely would the UK do if the EU insisted on the agreed sequencing and the need for the ratification of the WA ?

There would be two options. Having made much more comprehensive plans for a no deal exit leave on that basis. Alternatively, even if after such preparation it was clear no deal would be very bad then we would have little option but to stay. However, the EU could reasonably expect an EU basically forced to remain to behave very differently and if the UK decided to start using the veto where one existed in a way that was wholly in its interests whatever impact it had on the rest of the EU it could hardly complain.

However, I do not think it would come to that. Is it not the EU's position that they will not renegotiate because of May's red lines? If the red lines changed I would not expect the EU to refuse to talk.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236277

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 6:36 pm

My take on brexit, is that we are leaving October 31st, with a free trade deal and can trade globally.

I think the market seems to be betting on this outcome

What's your view on what the markets are guessing/betting?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236279

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 6:40 pm

BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:Only if you accept the EU's edict on the sequencing of discussions. With a new A50 period I would suggest the UK challenge that rather than just accept it.


And, assuming that the idea of revoking and immediately resubmitting Article 50 wasn't deemed incompatible with the ECJ ruling, what precisely would the UK do if the EU insisted on the agreed sequencing and the need for the ratification of the WA ?


The abuse of revocation was in the Advocate General's opinion, not the court's findings, as I recall, but the EU position from here on in is going to be these are the negotiated terms take them or leave them. You want to leave with a deal? These are the terms. You want a trade deal? These are the terms... The only reason this wouldn't turn the UK in to a laughing stock is because the UK is already a laughing stock.


The final decision by the ECJ was less presciptive as to the abuse of the revocation procedure but includes

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=30070EAD3C16AB345376A71509ACC49D?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

74 In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.


Immediately re-submitting the Article 50 notification does not look like the purpose of the revocation was to bring the withdrawal procedure to an end. Hence the argument could be made that such a revocation is unlawful - in such a circumstance I'd expect the issue to go back to the ECJ for a further ruling.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236280

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 6:50 pm

Wizard wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:Only if you accept the EU's edict on the sequencing of discussions. With a new A50 period I would suggest the UK challenge that rather than just accept it.


And, assuming that the idea of revoking and immediately resubmitting Article 50 wasn't deemed incompatible with the ECJ ruling, what precisely would the UK do if the EU insisted on the agreed sequencing and the need for the ratification of the WA ?

There would be two options. Having made much more comprehensive plans for a no deal exit leave on that basis. Alternatively, even if after such preparation it was clear no deal would be very bad then we would have little option but to stay. However, the EU could reasonably expect an EU basically forced to remain to behave very differently and if the UK decided to start using the veto where one existed in a way that was wholly in its interests whatever impact it had on the rest of the EU it could hardly complain.

However, I do not think it would come to that. Is it not the EU's position that they will not renegotiate because of May's red lines? If the red lines changed I would not expect the EU to refuse to talk.


Why would the redlines change under a Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt premiership ? If they somehow did change then the EU will just tell them to ratify the WA and it can then be discussed during the transition period. If the changes included a UK-EU CU then Labour would support it and the WA would pass (if it didn't include a UK-EU CU but did include EEA membership then again the WA would almost certainly pass).

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4656
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236285

Postby BobbyD » July 12th, 2019, 7:15 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
And, assuming that the idea of revoking and immediately resubmitting Article 50 wasn't deemed incompatible with the ECJ ruling, what precisely would the UK do if the EU insisted on the agreed sequencing and the need for the ratification of the WA ?


The abuse of revocation was in the Advocate General's opinion, not the court's findings, as I recall, but the EU position from here on in is going to be these are the negotiated terms take them or leave them. You want to leave with a deal? These are the terms. You want a trade deal? These are the terms... The only reason this wouldn't turn the UK in to a laughing stock is because the UK is already a laughing stock.


The final decision by the ECJ was less presciptive as to the abuse of the revocation procedure but includes

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=30070EAD3C16AB345376A71509ACC49D?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

74 In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.


Immediately re-submitting the Article 50 notification does not look like the purpose of the revocation was to bring the withdrawal procedure to an end. Hence the argument could be made that such a revocation is unlawful - in such a circumstance I'd expect the issue to go back to the ECJ for a further ruling.


Logically I can see a possible procedural problem there. If A50 is revoked, which we have the unilateral power to do, can the revocation be subsequently disqualified because we immediately resubmit it? Afterall we can only resubmit once we have revoked, so if we hadn't legitimately revoked then we couldn't resubmit, and therefore.... It's also possible that a certain amount of government play acting would make it impossible to prove bad intent.

Either way by the time we've reached that point it'll make very little difference because the UK's international rep will carry junk status, and nobody serious is going to waste their time entertaining our delusions when there are countries out there with whom they can do constructive business in the expectation that the deal will be honoured, and possibly still one or two businesses left in the UK to be tempted by the strong and stable political and business climates available overseas.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3696
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236291

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 7:40 pm

BobbyD wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
The abuse of revocation was in the Advocate General's opinion, not the court's findings, as I recall, but the EU position from here on in is going to be these are the negotiated terms take them or leave them. You want to leave with a deal? These are the terms. You want a trade deal? These are the terms... The only reason this wouldn't turn the UK in to a laughing stock is because the UK is already a laughing stock.


The final decision by the ECJ was less presciptive as to the abuse of the revocation procedure but includes

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=30070EAD3C16AB345376A71509ACC49D?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

74 In the second place, the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.


Immediately re-submitting the Article 50 notification does not look like the purpose of the revocation was to bring the withdrawal procedure to an end. Hence the argument could be made that such a revocation is unlawful - in such a circumstance I'd expect the issue to go back to the ECJ for a further ruling.


Logically I can see a possible procedural problem there. If A50 is revoked, which we have the unilateral power to do, can the revocation be subsequently disqualified because we immediately resubmit it? Afterall we can only resubmit once we have revoked, so if we hadn't legitimately revoked then we couldn't resubmit, and therefore.... It's also possible that a certain amount of government play acting would make it impossible to prove bad intent.

Either way by the time we've reached that point it'll make very little difference because the UK's international rep will carry junk status, and nobody serious is going to waste their time entertaining our delusions when there are countries out there with whom they can do constructive business in the expectation that the deal will be honoured, and possibly still one or two businesses left in the UK to be tempted by the strong and stable political and business climates available overseas.


It doesn't really matter since it is unlikely to happen anyway since resubmitting Article 50 would require the approval of Parliament and I very much doubt they would want to jump straight back into the fire.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests