The Brexit process

[Pickman's model]

My understanding is that, while there's a legal argument that a50 is reversible, in practical terms the word of the Council of Ministers is law, and at the moment they say it isn't. Perhaps at some point they will see it as a good idea to change their minds, but I don't think they will do it just out of sympathy with Theresa May's predicament.

being as it hasn't been invoked yet the matter's moot.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

you need unanimity to reverse it, that would have to achieved whilst carry out negotiations in bad faith to the manner outlined in the procedure. .... Theoretically possible, but unrealistic.

If there were the will to do it, it could be done. I would have thought the one it was politically unrealistic for would be May and May's govt. Invoking a50 then asking to revoke the invocation would surely bring down the govt.

 

[Raheem]

being as it hasn't been invoked yet the matter's moot.

How so?

 

[Ax^]

whats the good points of leaving the EU again...


is the NHS getting anymore money?

Is May going to build a wall around Great Ingerland?

 

[Pickman's model]

How so?

article 50 hasn't been invoked. as matters stand it cannot be invoked save by parliament. when it is invoked then we can argue about its reversability.

 

[Pickman's model]

whats the good points of leaving the EU again...


is the NHS getting anymore money?

Is May going to build a wall around Great Ingerland?

nigel farage retires from public life

 

[littlebabyjesus]

article 50 hasn't been invoked. as matters stand it cannot be invoked save by parliament. when it is invoked then we can argue about its reversability.

We can argue about it now, thanks.

 

[Pickman's model]

We can argue about it now, thanks.

no, you can't. but put something up anyway, for the lols.

 

[gosub]

whats the good points of leaving the EU again...

From here?

That we stay one step ahead of the rigged deck of "Associate membership" as outlined in the 5 President's report. Oh and we keep the Establishment accountable to the public rather than the other way round.

 

[teqniq]

nigel farage retires from public life

I wish he would retire from life, full stop. He's now hinting at "huge public anger" if Brexit blocked.
Nigel Farage hints at public revolution if parliament stops Brexit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

From here?

That we stay one step ahead of the rigged deck of "Associate membership" as outlined in the 5 President's report. Oh and we keep the Establishment accountable to the public rather than the other way round.

Whatever the end-point of this process is, it will in effect be a version of 'associate membership'.

 

[Raheem]

article 50 hasn't been invoked. as matters stand it cannot be invoked save by parliament. when it is invoked then we can argue about its reversability.

If TM could get a statement from the other 27 that A50 is reversible, then she would probably have no difficulty getting a vote through parliament to trigger it.

 

[Pickman's model]

If TM could get a statement from the other 27 that A50 is reversible, then she would probably have no difficulty getting a vote through parliament to trigger it.

yeh. but then why would you? why bother going through a great big negotiation if you're likely to maintain the status quo ante?

 

[Pickman's model]

Whatever the end-point of this process is, it will in effect be a version of 'associate membership'.

well spotted. this point has been made ad nauseam over the past few months.

 

[gosub]

Whatever the end-point of this process is, it will in effect be a version of 'associate membership'.

I think so too. The difference is on EU time frame they would most likely close down routes for Associate to build their own ties/trade deals, and less likely other member states not wedded to federalization to follow- the more that do, the more viable it is as an option

 

[gosub]

well spotted. this point has been made ad nauseam over the past few months.

Maybe here, got lost in the mainstream.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe here, got lost in the mainstream.

point was first made months ago and has resurfaced regularly since.

 

[Raheem]

yeh. but then why would you? why bother going through a great big negotiation if you're likely to maintain the status quo ante?

Because you like being Prime Minister and you're short of other options. Plus A50 can be reversible without it actually being reversed.

 

[Pickman's model]

Because you like being Prime Minister and you're short of other options.

yeh. but you'd alienate every other eu country if you put them through that and then said 'after all that i've changed my mind'

 

[gosub]

point was first made months ago and has resurfaced regularly since.

Longer than that, Spinelli report was a couple of years ago. BUT ITS NOT THE MAINSTREAM OF THE DEBATE (should be)

 

[andysays]

If TM could get a statement from the other 27 that A50 is reversible, then she would probably have no difficulty getting a vote through parliament to trigger it.

The question is ultimately a legal one not a political one (although it clearly has political consequences) and it would be for the ECJ to decide, just as the courts are currently trying to decide if the UK govt has the power to invoke A50 without reference to parliament

They haven't yet been asked to decide, and they won't be as a result of the current case which was ruled on today in the High Court and now looks like it will go to the Supreme Court, but they may well be if/when the issue becomes crucial

The point of EU law that has been identified as potentially requiring a reference to the CJEU is the question of whether an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the Member State making it before it leaves the EU. Article 50 is silent on the question, and it is hard to see that it could be regarded as “acte clair”. (For what it is worth, my view is that such a notification is reversible by the Member State concerned: the silence of Article 50 on the point is not a reliable basis for arguing the contrary, and it would, in my view, be an extraordinary result, in a Union founded on democratic values and with the aim of sharing a peaceful future – see the preamble to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – for a Member State that had democratically changed its mind on the question of leaving the EU then to be forced out against its will. That view is shared by a number of commentators including Sir David Edward KCMG, a former Judge of the CJEU.)

I'm not saying that position is definitively right, but I'm inclined to treat it more seriously than what you and gosub reckon, TBH

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think so too. The difference is on EU time frame they would most likely close down routes for Associate to build their own ties/trade deals, and less likely other member states not wedded to federalization to follow- the more that do, the more viable it is as an option

We'll see how things go. At the moment, the govt's first reaction to the referendum has been that it is a mandate for border controls - and that it is on this that brexit will be judged*. If that's the case, the EU will exact a price for it - one that has been proposed is locking the UK in to all EU trade deals as the price of single-market membership with some limited border controls. If that happens, it will very certainly be an 'associate member' status. Given what I've read of the intentions of Davis, Fox, and others, I think it would be no bad thing at all for the UK to have no control over its own trade deals. But who knows what the govt will consider 'brexit means brexit' to mean in a year's time?

*one of the most depressing aspects of the fall-out from the referendum has been the way that UKIP's agenda has been forced to the fore, their interpretation of what the vote means carrying more weight than any other. And based on narrow electoral self-interest (not at all 'respecting the will of the people'), the tories, who called the referendum in large part out of fear of losing voters to UKIP, are going along with this. Tory policy is now dominated by those tories who were pro-brexit, ie the right wing of this right wing party. All too predictable, and predicted, before the vote.

 

[Jurrihahay]

Yes. And that's why the fucking thing should never have happened in the way that it did. How can you ask people to vote on their future when no one's bothered to offer anything approaching a rational analysis of what impact the decision will have on their lives?

As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis.

 

[Pickman's model]

Longer than that, Spinelli report was a couple of years ago. BUT ITS NOT THE MAINSTREAM OF THE DEBATE (should be)

it was first made HERE months ago, and has resurfaced HERE frequently enough.

 

[Raheem]

yeh. but you'd alienate every other eu country if you put them through that and then said 'after all that i've changed my mind'

I think it's a bit late to worry about that.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think it's a bit late to worry about that.

yeh. after the initial alienation would come the greater and more lasting alienation.

 

[krtek a houby]

As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis.

It's all emotive, knee jerk, self serving then?

 

[Jurrihahay]

It's all emotive, knee jerk, self serving then?

Did I say it was all anything?

 

[Raheem]

The question is ultimately a legal one not a political one (although it clearly has political consequences) and it would be for the ECJ to decide, just as the courts are currently trying to decide if the UK govt has the power to invoke A50 without reference to parliament.

My understanding is that the ECJ can't accept cases against a Council decision and can't overrule the Council. If that's wrong, then I'm wrong.

 

[bimble]

spot the difference. Wonder what happened, did the editor suddenly have an attack of conscience or did they receive threats from people who know how to fence.