L00b Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Surely as article 50 is a matter for the European Council and it is the head of government (acting I think on behalf of the head of state) who speaks for the UK at council...It is? How so? This is all terribly interesting.Might just be me, but I am perceiving the onset of eyes glazing through your expressions, here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 It is? How so? Might just be me, but I am perceiving the onset of eyes glazing through your expressions, here Says so right there in the text of the article. It is activated by notification of the council. It is only by the fact that the council have yet to be official notified that the process has not yet officially started and the 2 year clock started ticking down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Says so right there in the text of the article. It is activated by notification of the council. It is only by the fact that the council have yet to be official notified that the process has not yet officially started and the 2 year clock started ticking down. That's my understanding too. When is a verdict due on whether May can legally enact it without there being an act of Parliament first? That is my understanding of what this case is about. But as I have said, I can't see the government voting against it even if the judge finds in favour. Seems like a lot of wasted legal fees to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I doubt that there will be an option to go back or that any deadline will be extended. The member states in the EU want this over quick and have said as much by wanting A50 enacted ASP. Extending it will also put pressure on them and their own economies as the Eurozone economy is also fragile at the moment. We also did the right thing by getting out of the ERM and rejecting the Euro as currency as we have prospered despite not being a member of the ERM. They'd actually rather not see us leave at all. So if extending the deadline allows parliament to keep dickering until we don't really leave, they might well do that. In their own interests of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 They'd actually rather not see us leave at all. So if extending the deadline allows parliament to keep dickering until we don't really leave, they might well do that. In their own interests of course. They surely would prefer us in a state of "staying" to in a state of "gone", but do they not prefer us in a state of "gone" to in a state of "leaving"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Can you explain the bit I've highlighted in bold? It's not clear what you mean by it. Also, I doubt The Sovereign has a problem with the restoration of UK sovereignty. Although I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask. As a matter of principle, I consider her views on the matter irrelevant. There is no restoration of sovereignty since we hadn't given any up. Entering into a treaty with a collection of countries, jointly agreeing and then locally passing laws is not somehow a loss of sovereignty. ---------- Post added 19-10-2016 at 15:25 ---------- They surely would prefer us in a state of "staying" to in a state of "gone", but do they not prefer us in a state of "gone" to in a state of "leaving"? That probably depends on whether they think there is still a chance of changing "leaving" into "staying", because once it's "gone" there is no changing it for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 There is no restoration of sovereignty since we hadn't given any up. Entering into a treaty with a collection of countries, jointly agreeing and then locally passing laws is not somehow a loss of sovereignty. I am not sovereign because I am subject to the laws of the UK. The UK is not sovereign because it is subject to the laws of the EU. You cannot be sovereign and subject simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) Says so right there in the text of the article. It is activated by notification of the council. It is only by the fact that the council have yet to be official notified that the process has not yet officially started and the 2 year clock started ticking down.Yes, it says the European Council is the rightful recipient of the notification. No, it doesn't say the executive of the applicant country must send the notification. It says the Member State does so. Which could be the PM, the Foreign Office, the Parliament, the House of Lords, the Queen <...> And it doesn't say either, that the European Council is the sole EU institution acting upon the notification. It says the Union shall negotiate an agreement in accordance with Article 218(3) TFEU (which lets in the Commission, the negotiator and special committee(s)), which will be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. And I'm afraid, none of this detracts from your being previously wrong in #5142 and #5150. I am not sovereign because I am subject to the laws of the UK. The UK is not sovereign because it is subject to the laws of the EU. You cannot be sovereign and subject simultaneously.Give me a heads up for the NATOxit, the UNexit and the WTOxit referenda, won't you? "A man alone in the desert is sovereign. He is also powerless." from your very own Michael Heseltine Edited October 19, 2016 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Well we shall see. I firmly expect the executive to invoke article 50 under its own authority and for the Council (and the EU as a whole) to consider the article activated when the executive does so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) Well we shall see. I firmly expect the executive to invoke article 50 under its own authority and for the Council (and the EU as a whole) to consider the article activated when the executive does so.I've not doubt the EU would jump at the chance, if May pulled that trigger - illegally or not. If done before a final Court ruling or against the Court's ruling, it would certainly unleash the mother of all political and socio-economic s***storms, here first and most of all, that you ever saw and are ever likely to see, that you can be sure of. Edited October 19, 2016 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts