There is no coming back from that, if I'm not mistaken.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
There is no coming back from that, if I'm not mistaken.
I am not sure either. But maybe there would be a desire for conciliation, leading to both parties pulling back from the brink. When I was still one of the Newbies I asked about something which Wolfgang Schlaúbel (?) said , maybe 18 months or two years now ago - that the UK would be joining the Euro sooner than it expected. What was he up to ?
Alternatively the EU could leak the proposed details before the vote in the HoC. That would concentrate minds.
Last edited:
I've heard that it can take up to one year.
Remainers are more than likely going to try to use the ruling as a means of trying to force the government to seek a more palatable form of Brexit. What Farage might call 'half-Brexit', which seems fair given only half the electorate wanted any kind of Brexit at all.
In case Farage is reading, I'll put it in terms he can understand... just because you ask someone if they want a pint and they say 'no, I'll have something else', it doesn't mean they're asking for a bottle of vodka shoved up their arse instead.
It is legally not entirely clear. The European court would have to decide that...
That said everyone in Westminster (government and parliament) agreed that there is no coming back once Art.50 is invoked. It actually features this verdict, because if that would not be the case, the court would have come to a different conclusion.
Has the value of £ risen in light of this?
Is it a valid worry that if they cancel Brexit, all the aggrieved Leavers would vote UKIP at the next election?
Yes, to 1.25
Lord Kerr who authored Article 50 thinks it is possible to revoke the notification.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
I just read my courses and from what I understand when the article is invoked it's over, the EU recognize the intention of leaving and from there the EU and the leaving country have to find an "leave" agreement, that leave agreement needs to be accepted by the members of the EU and the EU parliament, the parliament will have to vote at the qualified majority(at the 3/5, I suppose). Now even if there isn't any agreement the leaving country still leaves because the EU considers that the membership is fully consented and can't be justified by an absence of agreement.
So if you are not sure, do not trigger the art.50 because the EU will consider that it is a clear intent to leave and by rule won't accept any backtracking. You will be forced to leave and apply to join the EU since they want a clear democratic decision on that matter.
I've added to my post and highlighted a doubt- would you care to comment on it ?
Why does this increase the chances of a snap General Election?
Presumably because essntially it would be about leave or remain but without a referendum.
Yeah, it could be a political price but the art.50 kind of prone a "smooth" negotiation, so it's unlikely.
Would the house of commons half full of UKIP MPs be any more useless or shambolic than it is now? It would be an embarrassment abroad, but no more embarrassing than the fact we already elect the prats to represent us in a European Parliament they oppose in principle.
Christ.
it doesn't matter what he thinks. Nobody knows the answer and the ECJ would have to decide if push comes to shove. Nobody is going to ask the ECJ so.
Following is part of the ruling:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...tary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
9(b). Common ground: notice is irrevocable and cannot be conditional
10. important matters in respect of Article 50 were common ground between the parties: (1) a notice under Article 50(2) cannot be withdrawn, once it is given; and (2) Article 50 does not allow for a conditional notice to be given: a notice annot be qualified by, for example, saying that it will only take effect if Parlimanet approves any agreement made in the course of the negotiations contemplated by Article 50(2).
11. Once a notice is given, it will inevitably result in the complete withdrawl of the UK from membership of the EU and from the relevant Treaties at the end of the two year period (…)
12. (…)the crown is entitled to pick and choose which existing EU rights, if any, to preserve (..)
There's a good chance May will have to put something to parliament. Which means the House of Lords will have a say.
British democracy at it's best.
British democracy at it's best.
I don't recall too much posturing about reforming the EU from the Remain campaign - it certainly wasn't plastered on the side of a bus like a certain other matter. I am as sceptical as you are about the possibility of serious reform in the short to medium term but, since we were out of the euro and Schengen and had the opt out from further political integration, I still saw the good outweighing the bad from a UK costs/benefits analysis.
As for the second paragraph, that's why we have representative democracy rather than rule by referenda. You could equally lambast parliament for failing to bring back hanging. This distinction is even more important where many voters have been fed a diet of relentlessly negative coverage of the UK's relationship with the EU by Murdoch, Dacre and others.
I realise that because he wrote it my take will sound foolish but his article doesn't say that at all.
He talks about the leaving country notifying the EU of his desire to leave the EU, basically it means invoking the art.50, that's the notification. From there the EU is in a simple but tough situation at the same time because they have to accept the notification because of its democratic and freedom principles and they can't accept a simple withdrawal of the withdrawal because it is assumed that a country invoking the art.50 has good reasons to do it and the total backing of its nation.
So if a country wanted to withdraw from art.50, the EU would demand a big gesture and a pretty public proof that they are doing it with the back of the nation and for good reasons. Basically a referendum at the qualified majority.
I'm not suggesting it's something which will ever come to the test. However, 'He explained: "It is not irrevocable. "You can change your mind while the process is going on.' and '"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."' translates to me (non-native speaker) as if Lord Kerr think the notification can be revoked. In any case, I'd be shocked if the UK were changing their mind in the future.
When everyone voted, the thought was that the referendum result would lead to a debate in the commons and a parliamentary vote as is usual for things of this magnitude and the courts agree with that. It isn't something we just decided and made up now. We had this discussion in the thread on results night.
Brexit will happen regardless but at least now it can be debated and discussed instead of having just a few decide on how it should be.
But that's the thing, there is no mention of revokation while it is said that the absence of agreement still leads to a withdrawal from the EU.
The article is built in a way that deters anyone from notifying officially a withdrawal from the EU without meaning it because that action is only followed by the actual withdrawal, that's how the man wrote it.
The invokation of article 50 is the act of withdrawal.
Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry 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.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought that in your reply, you meant the BBC article when you wrote article, not article 50. My bad.
I know there's nothing in article 50 like a withdrawal from the ongoing process but I don't know if there is any kind of legal commentary to it that might interpret the actual meaning in the way Lord Kerr implied in the BBC article.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought that in your reply, you meant the BBC article when you wrote article, not article 50. My bad.
I know there's nothing in article 50 like a withdrawal from the ongoing process but I don't know if there is any kind of legal commentary to it that might interpret the actual meaning in the way Lord Kerr implied in the BBC article.
Legally, there is nothing that backs Lord Kerr claim because it's not stipulated that a country can back track from a notification of withdrawal and there is no precedent, there is also nothing stipulating that the EU have to accept a back tracking after two years without agreement.
In fact, if you read the article even lengthening the negotiation process is made hard by the unanimous vote, the article clearly says that the absence of agreement still leads to a withdrawal and the last sentence kind of tells you that when you decide to withdraw you become an outsider and have to follow the standard procedure if you decide to comeback.
But objectively, the UK could decide to back track and the EU could accomodate them but any member of the EU could refuse because legally the notification of withdrawal and it's recognition are final.
PS: The EU could play with the recognition of the withdrawal and only do it when an agreement is reached but there is no benefit for the EU.
Right, so uncertainty is not important now? Uncertainty just got dragged out a bit longer.
That would mean joining the Euro ?
In theory they will have to join the ERM II and then join the EMU later. But it's possible to see the EU not forcing them, for example a part of France(in the Pacific) don't use the Euro.
Not at all. You have a democratic right to protest what you like and that includes referendum and election results.
Only about 37% voted to leave due to a lack of compulsory voting.
The economic arguments were debunked, over and over again and even now they refuse to acknowledge it will be a disaster.
The rubbish about EU controlling all of the laws in the Uk and that taxation is controlled by the EU is just a blatant lie.
The democratic arguments would not be listened to, even supposedly well educated people on here still refuse to acknowledge the lies, they still believe that the UK system is more democratic than the EU.
Then comes the immigration, all focused on Freedom of movement from the EU. More than half the immigrants don't come from the EU but lets disregard that.
In one of the polls I saw on here a very high percentage of people had decided which way they were going to vote long before the date of the referendum.
It was never a question of one side persuading voters to change opinions, people from both sides heard what they wanted to hear so they could justify what they voted for.
That was then, now is reality and people will not admit they were wrong.
If the exchange rate was 5 pounds to the Euro, they still wouldn't change their vote.
Are these tweets sarcastic?
It's often easier to out an idea into someone's head than to take it out.
You can't convince people to change their minds when they are willing to vote to make themselves poorer just to control migration
I want to believe that people are smarter than that. To me the problem was never the idea of brexit but the stupid and fallacious reasons mixed with a total absence of actual plan.
I mean in theory if it was really the problem the Uk could throw all the immigrants out of the country tomorrow, ratify all the laws that they want and just dare the EU to throw them out of the Union. If the absence of plan isn't a problem then why wait?
I mean in theory if it was really the problem the Uk could throw all the immigrants out of the country tomorrow, ratify all the laws that they want and just dare the EU to throw them out of the Union. If the absence of plan isn't a problem then why wait?
Ah feck, I just realized.. that is exactly what they're going to do, and then when it fails they'll use it as a fresh round of ammunition against those 'meddling Europeans trying to subvert our democracy!'.
There never has been a plan, even now May, Davis and the rest still spout unrealistic goals which I'm sure they know deep down are unachievable. This was never about the EU, they never thought it would come to this. The EU was a convenient scapegoat which backfired.
The only way it could happen is if triggering Article 50 causes a massive economic crash and a snap election with a party running on 'Stop this madness!' winning.
And if they pass it then its those meddling Europeans over ruling our courts again...Ah feck, I just realized.. that is exactly what they're going to do, and then when it fails they'll use it as a fresh round of ammunition against those 'meddling Europeans trying to subvert our democracy!'.
Just stupid I suspect. Damn those judges making rulings on points of law.