Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Coming back to EU – can A50 be revoked?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Coming back to EU – can A50 be revoked?
Picture: The justices of the CJEU
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Like Russia having a crack at the Baltics. Or a particularly nasty NK situation. Or a cyberwar seriously screwing up both the £+€ economies.
Something major enough to knock brexit off the agenda.
* I don't actually think this very likely.
His view was that Lisbon was drafted wth the understanding that the Vienna conversion would apply to it, so that it's drafting might be more concise.
Jolyon Maugham was I think trying to prove this, but the case couldn't be brought because the question was hypothetical, and courts don't answer hypothetical questions, or certainly the ECJ doesn't.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/forget-catalonia-flanders-is-the-real-test-case-of-eu-separatism/5612981/amp
The author’s history is ok - it’s when he gets to the “EU’s liberal globalist elite” he starts to lose me. FWIW I think the EU hierarchy has enough on its plate dealing with nation states - let alone wishing itself myriad statelets...
the UK cannot go back to where it was in May 2016
we are damaged goods, suspect, the fifth column.
Albion isnt called perfidious for nothing
But the Canada deal was stymied by one region, even though the EU was fully in favour. Moreover Mariano Rajoy is still after Gibraltar and has just proven he has the intellectual capacity of a retarded donkey plus an inability to think beyond the next five minutes. To foresee problems in those areas is hardly unrealistic.
I could not see a reason for the EU27 to block it though, and it does look after the Gina Miller case that such a decision would have to be made by Parliament. That would be a fun debate to watch.
Such an act would stop the clock, but also stop negotiations. Far better to apply for a significant extension to the negotiation period. This would be at the discretion of the EU27 of course, but would allow negotiations to continue.
It's all going a bit Bleak House:
"Brexit drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, over the course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Brexit without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Brexit should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out."
So if you think this crop of MPs is bad wait 10 years....
Wasn't Disqus what PB used before Vanilla ?
And is there anything which needs to be done ?
In contract law, where I am more comfortable, if a party gives notice, for example a notice to quit bringing a lease to an end, the other party is entitled to rely upon it. The other party may consent to it being withdrawn but there is no unilateral right to do so. The other party has a right not to be messed about. I have never thought that a Treaty would be interpreted any differently.
The provisions of 50 (3) contain what is called a stop gap provision. They state that the Treaties will cease to have effect on the coming into force of the withdrawal agreement , "or failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
The stop gap provision therefore applies even if there is no withdrawal agreement. The clause contains an express mechanism to disapply it but that can only operate if both parties agree, unanimously in the case of the EU. I have never really understood how it could be contended in light of such wording that the UK could somehow withdraw the notice itself.
One last point, the "in agreement with the Member State concerned" seems to me that the clause contemplates a different agreement with the MS than the simple one of continued membership. So we could use this provision to have a transitional agreement where some but not all of the Treaties continued to apply on whatever terms and conditions the parties settle on. I am not sure that the correct construction of this provision is that the parties could continue to allow a MS to remain as members of the EU indefinitely or go back to the status quo ante. They could agree that but the UK, for example, would not be entitled to assume that any opt outs etc that they had had before the notice applied. That would be a matter for the agreement, not of right.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/10/13/the-brexit-talks-arent-just-about-power-theyre-about-legitimacy-and-the-uk-urgently-needs-a-vision-for-the-future/
https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/disqus-breach-exposed-175m-emails/
Remain 47 (Right to leave)
Leave 42 (Wrong to leave)
The dam is breaking.
I don't have the legal qualifications to assess the potential for unilateral revocation. But I think the issue is overwhelmingly political. If Britain said "Er, on second thoughts, forget it", there would certainly be a legal challenge, and substantial opposition to carrying on with business as usual. On the other hand, if Britain and the EU agreed that Brexit was presenting impossible difficulties and should be scrapped, I think the EU27 would definitely be up for it. It would, however, require a significant change to the British Government to make it plausible - either a Labour government (who might or might not wish to in practice, but quite possibly assuming the sort of meltdown we're talking about) or some sort of cross-party coalition.
Genuine I swear.
My other half, a thoughtful remainer who wrestled a lot with what she was going to do but in the end came down for remain, and was fairly upset and not a little amazed at the result, turned to me this morning (mid Today interview with obscure Danish and German MEP’s), and said,
“They (the EU) can’t hold us to ransom like this. They’ve rather proved your point”.
The rain may be falling outside but above the clouds the sun is shining this morning, I feel.
2) Euro membership
3) Schengen
4) Our share of Merkel’s “refugees”
5) Security Council Seat surrendered to Juncker
6) Euro Army
7) Morning coffee....
Of course the UK has brought money to the table. It has also brought a significant export market for many MSs and considerable expertise on matters like financial regulation. But looking forward does the EU27 want a MS who is so clearly uncommitted to the project? The priority right now is to align the institutions of the EZ with those of the EU. We have already gone to the CJE to stop that with slightly mixed success. If the UK wants to change its mind because of the possible effects on trade but clearly has those reservations I struggle to see the EU27 agreeing.
We are not so much apostates as people who never believed the teachings of the church in the first place but quite liked the contacts that membership brought. That might work for some members of the CoE but we are dealing with a somewhat less pragmatic cult.
Seems about right.
Its worrying that Disqus have only found out now but if something bad was going to happen it would already have done so.
Wrong to leave: 47
Right to leave: 42
The biggest lead for Remain on the YouGov tracker since the referendum.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/918739781307240448
When it comes down to it, the British demos will always support the British government if it is clear they're being pushed around. See the support for decisions to reject EU positions. Few williamglennites exist; if there is a cliff edge exit, support for the EU and friendliness for Europe in general will be at its lowest ebb for a long time.
https://twitter.com/jkaonline/status/918729486002278400
Top tip: calling the Chancellor of the Exchequer a traitor for expressing modest concerns about the most extreme forms of Brexit is probably not a good move in this regard.
At the next election the public is likely to be strongly motivated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" If they decide that the answer is no, the Conservatives are sunk without trace.
That would be brave.
On the other hand a "No Deal hostile WTO Brexit Crashout" would be a disater in terms of reputation for competence, as well as a significant problem for the country.
The Tories are in a forced choice scenario, arguing amongst themselves while the clock ticks.
The Monty Hall option of revoking A50 is clearly tempting some.
Politicians are a negative part of society, berks who loyally support political parties are the real problem.
Hammond's autumn budget is not far off and could prove interesting
However, not unlike a photon appearing blue or yellow under different conditions, the perspective of the Conservatives will be highly affected by (and, in turn, affect) the perspective of Labour. One cannot be considered in isolation of the other.
In the previous poll it was also “only” 89% while soaraway Labour are on 92%....
Spinning a “no movement” poll, despite the “most disastrous conference speech of all time
It's like how Blair was very popular but online at least you can find it hard to find a fan of his now, and people act like they never liked him when clearly millions did. In the right situation, and motivated enough, the public would ignore that of course respecting the referendum result was reasonable for politicians to do, and might instead go 'er, yeah, and I would have too, sure'.
In the previous poll it was also “only” 89% while soaraway Labour are on 92%....
Spinning a “no movement” poll, despite the “most disastrous conference speech of all time
First the Delors speech at the beginning of the love in - the 'right' in office but never in power, the social law ratchet. Then the Nice and Lisbon treaty processes and opting into the social chapter. Thirdly the A8 Accession rules. At every turn, the Labour party created UKIP. They can stand on the platform of never wanting to give the people a choice, which is correct - but the result was more to do with Labour's actions in office than Tories.
If Brexit proves to be a failure at the time of the subsequent GE, not many are going to rally to the Tory flag.
While Labour can safely say "We would have done it differently".
Support for Theresa May has dropped since her disastrous conference speech, with more voters saying they “don’t know” who would make the best prime minister than choosing either her or Jeremy Corbyn.
The poll found that 33 per cent of voters want Mrs May as prime minister, down 3 points since last week, while Mr Corbyn is also on 33 per cent, which is unchanged. However, 35 per cent say they are “not sure” who they would pick, a significant vote of no confidence in both party leaders.
Of those who voted Tory in June, 75 per cent would pick Mrs May, while 3 per cent prefer Mr Corbyn and 23 per cent say they do not know.
we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
If he wants to save some money he can start by shutting down the OBR.
Point 2 for English lawyers getting twitchy about evidence from the draftsman of the interpretation of his wording (inadmissible in England): the EU is a foreign country, they do things differently there, and as I understand it you are allowed to look at the travaux preparatoires as evidence of the intention of the law.
Labour, the LDs, the Greens and SNP all have the lions share of Remain voters so there is little room for the Tories with them, however the Tories currently have the majority of Leave voters to themselves, if they abandon them UKIP will be waiting for their slice of the Leave voters cake too