The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[Top Cats Hat]

 

Where do you get your ideas from? There is an ECJ case to heard whether the U.K. can unilaterally cancel Article 50.

 

 

That's not really important.

 

The EU never wanted the UK to trigger Article 50 so if a new referendum produced a remain result, there is no way in a million years that they will stand in the way. They will facilitate a speedy end to Article 50.

[woodview]

That's not really important.

 

The EU never wanted the UK to trigger Article 50 so if a new referendum produced a remain result, there is no way in a million years that they will stand in the way. They will facilitate a speedy end to Article 50.

AKA the rules will be bent for something they want, or rigourously enforced for something they don't.........

[Top Cats Hat]

AKA the rules will be bent for something they want, or rigourously enforced for something they don't.........

 

Not bent at all.

 

The rules are loosely written and it is up to the ECJ to interpret them in the interests of the Union as a whole.

 

Just as it is in the interest of the UK to remain in the EU it is also in the EU's interest for us to remain. Article 50 legislation belongs to the EU and it is the right of the ECJ to interpret that legislation as it sees fit.

[woodview]

Not bent at all.

 

The rules are loosely written and it is up to the ECJ to interpret them in the interests of the Union as a whole.

 

Just as it is in the interest of the UK to remain in the EU it is also in the EU's interest for us to remain. Article 50 legislation belongs to the EU and it is the right of the ECJ to interpret that legislation as it sees fit.

Really? So the rules aren't clearly defined, the ECJ interprets them as it sees fit? Well, I'm even more convinced we should be out of its jurisdiction if that's the case.

[L00b]

The Attorney General answers to MPs in the Commons, based on the ordered disclosure of legal advice to the government, all point to the U.K. being unable to unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notice. As I’ve long expected and posted.

 

Article 50 is as clear as primary legislation gets, and there is no provision in it for withdrawing the notice once it’s been served. I’ve been saying as much since before the Referendum.

 

The question referred to ECJ by the Scottish Court is not about what’s written in Art.50, but about what’s not written in it (capacity of declarant member state to withdraw the notice). My money is (still) on an ECJ ruling that the notice can’t be withdrawn (period: with or without consent of EU27, and regardless of following constitutional requirements).

 

The logic they’ll follow is basically that if the legislator had intended for the notice to be rescindable, then the legislator would have inserted a relevant provision. Because that’s how Civil Law works (as opposed to the more ‘fudgy’ Common Law).

 

If there was a new referendum that resulted in a majority remain vote, the only “fudge” you'd see, is the EU27 facilitating high-speed readmission of the U.K. under Article 49 TEU. Because that approach would vindicate the purpose (and actual wording) of Art.50, in case any other member state was minded to trigger it for s**ts and giggles political gain like the U.K.

 

Don’t kid yourself that there wouldn’t be a heavy price to pay, either. Rebate, opt-outs, etc. all in the bin, for starters. Been saying as much since before the ref, again.

 

You can think of that Art.50-then Art.49 dynamic as teaching the ways of life to an unruly kid: you bear the collective responsibility of your collective choices.

Edited November 14, 2018 by L00b

[woodview]

The Attorney General answers to MPs in the Commons all point to the U.K. being unable to unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notice. As I’ve long expected and posted.

 

Article 50 is as clear as primary legislation gets, and there is no provision in it for withdrawing the notice once it’s been served. I’ve been saying as much since before the Referendum.

 

If there was a new referendum that resulted in a majority remain vote, the only “fudge” you'd see, is the EU27 facilitating high-speed readmission of the U.K. under Article 49 TEU. Because that would vindicate the purpose (and actual wording) of Art.50, in case any other member state was minded to trigger it for political gain.

 

Don’t kid yourself that there wouldn’t be a heavy price to pay, either. Rebate, opt-outs, etc. all in the bin, for starters.

If re-admission were on those lines, any possible repeat referendum result would be swung further towards Leave.

[L00b]

If re-admission were on those lines, any possible repeat referendum result would be swung further towards Leave.

Do you seriously believe that you’re going to get another referendum in the U.K. in your lifetime? (beside the Indy ref 2.0 in 5,4,3,2,1...)

 

If all the U.K. had to surrender were its rebate and opt-outs, you should count your lucky stars: keep in mind that the U.K.’s kegs are around its ankles, and that the EU27 could always insist on the € and Schengen as well(they’re both mandatory for new EU states, aka the Brexited U.K. applying to rejoin). But the EU27 probably wouldn’t, as a sweetener + to make the (next) government’s life easier.

Edited November 14, 2018 by L00b

[woodview]

Do you seriously believe that you’re going to get another referendum in the U.K. in your lifetime? (beside the Indy ref 2.0 in 5,4,3,2,1...)

 

If all the U.K. had to surrender were its rebate and opt-outs, you should count your lucky stars: keep in mind that the U.K.’s kegs are around its ankles, and that the EU27 could always insist on the € and Schengen as well(they’re both mandatory for new EU states, aka the Brexited U.K. applying to rejoin). But the EU27 probably wouldn’t, as a sweetener + to make the (next) government’s life easier.

I was answering your point regards a second referndum! Either way, if it was along the lines of 'you can come back, but we're gonna make you pay for your insolence' it wouldn't result in a Remain result, that's way to much for swaying voters to accept. A 'come back, with better concessions' would possibly work.

[ads36]

if it was along the lines of 'you can come back, but we're gonna make you pay for your insolence'

 

don't you mean : "but you'll have to give up all the cushy opt-outs, rebates, etc."

 

?

[I1L2T3]

I was answering your point regards a second referndum! Either way, if it was along the lines of 'you can come back, but we're gonna make you pay for your insolence' it wouldn't result in a Remain result, that's way to much for swaying voters to accept. A 'come back, with better concessions' would possibly work.

 

You’re guessing that would happen, and perhaps your guess is driven by a view of the EU based on myths and lies.

 

The reality is that as long as we haven’t diverged too far, which in practical terms we won’t basically because we can’t, then rejoining will be a no-brained.

 

As for the Euro there are convergence criteria that could take decades to meet. You can’t just join it. It’s therefore a non argument. Schengen again a non argument. We have a natural physical border.