Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Article 50 can’t be invoked, surely, without the country knowi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Article 50 can’t be invoked, surely, without the country knowing whether its revocable or not
David Davis tells MPs govt doesn't know if Article 50 process can be stopped once it starts – whether its 'revocable'
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Arguably going to WTO is a better negotiating threat than revocation, which may be what many federalists in the EU secretly want. It could also give an incentive for them to give us a terrible deal so we revoke article 50.
You've not thought this through Mike.
For the current circumstances, I don't really see the problem. We just assume it's not revocable.
I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.
Sorry, but this is utter twaddle imho.
Mr. Walloper, welcome to PB.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/28/schrodingers-referendum-as-boris-wants-voters-to-vote-yes-and-no-to-leaving-the-eu/
As the EU keeps on reminding us,no negotiations can start until after A50 ,unless the EU bureaucrats have been telling porkies
Revoking gains zero leverage
Change our mind (horrific as that might be in terms of the deal we would get) and we can rejoin at any time plus, if we did change our minds, and if it was put to the EU27 that we wanted to reverse our position I'm sure there would be unanimity in accepting.
So not an issue IMO.
Even if we changed our minds, the EU27 accepted, and they reinstated Dave's Deal, I would find it challenging to be in favour of rejoining but perhaps that is a pride thing, together with the view of the EU27 that we would be an unreliable partner.
@scottishlabour: Tonight, SNP ministers who campaigned against austerity voted with the Tories to block a 50p top rate of tax for the richest few.
But I'm more interested in the report that Davis said the government doesn't know or not. That was one point on which the government lawyers and the claimants in the a50 case seemed to be in agreement on, that it was not revocable, so why introduce that element now?
A conspiracy theorist would suggest they want more time and are in fact happy for this to provide opportunity for that delay. Surely not the case, but since the chances of the public being so overwhelming in changing their minds, and thus changing government minds, are so remote, why look doubtful? Governments always say they are sure even when they are not. I think the issue is that if it were revocable and we did indeed revoke our notice to leave, we'd retain our current position, opt outs and all. Leave but then try to rejoin and we'd surely have no basis on which to argue for any special deals as might currently exist.
And of course the point as put below that just like offering a new deal after our vote would encourage others to vote leave to get new deals, allowing revocation would be in a similar vein.
Jayne Fisher, whoever she is, probably was not even born when the troubles started in NI. I don't know.
June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.
Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.
But it's all academic; we're not going back within a generation or two.
Good evening, everybody.
Indeed it was suggested that legal opinion should be obtained as it could make the EU have to agree trading terms for the UK during the process
https://twitter.com/MichaelBKelley/status/809027358959222788
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/809034623342809088
https://twitter.com/_Jon_Green/status/809046880424493056
https://twitter.com/_Jon_Green/status/809051597376524288
"But we lost due to Russian hackers and Comey, blah blah blah"
Corbyn, on the other hand, has a choice. He was on the side of the terrorists. He wanted them to win and he voted against one of the agreements reached to try and end the Troubles. (This last comment is directed at Surbiton, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between what HMQ has to do and what the LoTo chooses to do.)
http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/brexit-foundational-constitutional-and-interpretive-principles-ii/
In particular, I found his second paragraph convincing:
Secondly, the principle set out above is reaffirmed by Article 68 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, VCLT, which provides that “a notification or instrument provided for in article 65 or 67 may be revoked at any time before it takes effect”. Article 65 VCLT stipulates that a state that invokes a ground for withdrawing from a treaty must notify the other parties; Article 67 VCLT determines the manner in which such notification is to be given, namely that it should be in writing.
In essence, in the absence of anything specific in the Lisbon Treaty about revocability, he suggests that Article 68 of the Vienna Convention kicks in. IANAL, but that makes sense.
(He also addresses the objection that a state could repeatedly invoke and revoke Article 50. Not so, because that would be an abuse of normal treaty conventions.)
http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/brexit-foundational-constitutional-and-interpretive-principles-ii/
I had a brief conversation on Twitter with George Peretz, a very pro remain QC, who pointed this out to me. AS far as he's concerned, there is no question that the Vienna convention principles cannot be overridden by the treaty - that the two are meant to be read together for interpretation purposes
@RobD
If you read the whole report it's even worse.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
They directly attacked people who tried to help them and tried to cut them off from contacts and money.
I wonder if at some point we end up with UN mediators getting involved in Brexit, if both sides cannot amicably agree a deal?
Ultimately it makes no difference as to whether Art 50. is recovable or not in the (initial) serving of it, I expect the ECJ will rule irrecovability (If it gets that far) and the de-facto process of leaving will have begun by then anyway.
There is no need for UK parliament to pay the slightest attention to a Dublin court at this point anyway.
All a bit #NeverTrumpy.
Calling them two-faced barely scratches the surface.
Mark Wallace
Two more examples of new Corbyn staffer @JayneBFisher's dubious taste in political heroes - Chavez was "an exemplary human being". https://t.co/NB27kRU3sU
For God's sake, let's just get this over with.
This is why its difficult to see what might come of any case, but the weight of legal opinion is with revocability at present
But no doubt one of our legal experts could comment more authoritatively than me on this.
a) Be likely to suggest that he has standing
b) be likely to kick it upstairs in time to stop the process before it begins.