Another new Brexit thread

[Chris in London]

The ECJ has certainly said that a member state can revoke its notice to withdraw but I'm not sure it would say that a country being in political chaos is a reason for the letter of Article 50 to be set aside until we were not in chaos. If there is no extension or revocation by 31st October your argument would be tested in court long after that date so it would need the EU and whatever is left of the UK government to pretend nothing had changed. I don't think the EU would be so inclined.

Revoking is a separate question, as is the question of whether we're in chaos. What you said in your otherwise excellent reply was (in essence) that what happens in Westminster does not impact on whether we stay or leave, and in my view it isn't necessarily that straightforward. Article 50 talks about a member 'withdrawing in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements.' That begs the question 'what if it isn't in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements? What happens then?' to which there is at present no answer, and the only way you could find out definitively would be to ask the ECJ.

A private citizen could in theory test the question whether the government of a country may effectively withdraw from the union where it has to break its own domestic law in order to do it. If in say May 2020 the ECJ were to determine that we haven't lawfully left, then perhaps the consequence of that would be we haven't left at all. If the ECJ says that, neither the UK nor the EU can pretend that hasn't happened.

 

[BobKowalski]

May's mandate was to deliver Brexit "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Every single Tory MP was elected to deliver Brexit and over 400 MP's voted for no deal and to put the mechanism in place that gives it.

I'm not arguing for no deal anyway, I'm arguing for the common sense and compromise that should of taken place years ago but it's probably too late now.

Is that the mandate May sought from the electorate in 2017 and the electorate went ‘Thanks but no’ and she lost her majority? Also Labour may have voted to trigger A50 but they committed to only leaving with a deal in the 2017 election. Their manifesto commitment was a qualification of their A50 support.

 

[George Hannah]

But if 'no-deal' is full of opportunity, with nothing to worry about and no danger to the British economy, why didn't we just leave?
Just maybe, BoJo and his mates have known all along what a shit-storm this will be and are just lining up the fall guys who will consist of; every European government, the Judiciary if today doesn't go as planned (and who would bet on him not wanting to lose) and anyone who had the temerity to vote remain or oppose the government view.

An effective no deal outcome would be to our political and economic advantage according to the likes of Mervyn King. Remember that is all the current WA actually offers, delayed by couple of years ( or just a couple of days if we like ) while the backstop sabotage clause hobbles any negotiations for trade deals with them or any other country. To mitigate the inevitable short term damage we needed proper advance preparation and an early rejection of the EU sequencing of talks ie divorce settlement paid up front. The best option now is to reman inside and find another solution to preventing the EUs superstate ambitions or leave when it inevitably collapses through following its current federalist path.

 

[George Hannah]

No - 2 years is how long the 'treaties' will apply while you agree a WA. You can agree to leave without a WA and then you are out that can take literally days. You would still subject to the rules as per the treaties unless you agree otherwise, no reason why the EU would hold you in if other terms are agreed. In any event after 2 years the treaties/rules fall away. So the EU have very little control over the process - unless you want a WA.

The only way out of the EU which they recognise is via Article 50 which is a mandatory two year process. The agreement or non agreement to a WA is irrelevant, everything you have just posted is simply wrong I'm afraid. It clearly should be in both parties interest to have an orderly exit but obviously the EU judged its other interests prevailed and negotiations were a sham from the outset.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The only way out of the EU which they recognise is via Article 50 which is a mandatory two year process. The agreement or non agreement to a WA is irrelevant, everything you have just posted is simply wrong I'm afraid. It clearly should be in both parties interest to have an orderly exit but obviously the EU judged its other interests prevailed and negotiations were a sham from the outset.

BS read it yourself:-

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.

2 years is the default for how long the treaties apply, it is time to agree a WA. If your WA is just an agreement that you want no further involvement and want a hard exit then that is it - done deal. That can take days. If it is not a done deal than it becomes the default in 2 years in any event. It is very simple and is not the conspiracy that you want it to be.

 

[west didsblue]

An effective no deal outcome would be to our political and economic advantage according to the likes of Mervyn King.

King actually said:
"But the important thing is that I don’t believe that with adequate preparation, or in the long term, that the economic costs of leaving would be very different from staying in the European Union..... The issue should not be about economics."
Whilst he is pro No Deal, he has NOT said there will be an economic advantage.
Another post from you and another misrepresentation of facts.
You really need to stop bullshitting.

 

[west didsblue]

BS read it yourself:-

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.

2 years is the default for how long the treaties apply, it is time to agree a WA. If your WA is just an agreement that you want no further involvement and want a hard exit then that is it - done deal. That can take days. If it is not a done deal than it becomes the default in 2 years in any event. It is very simple and is not the conspiracy that you want it to be.

He's not interested in facts. I've already quoted that.

 

[kaz7]

Credible? With you probably not but (yet again) check Sky Press Preview - Carole something - no idea who she is, Jon Craig, Adam Parsons all reporting on the ambush - middle aged expats, same as banners etc as Parliament Green and so on

Carole Malone is a rabid leaver and adores Boris,she is getting more hysterical by the day and is incapable of any rational discussion
You're welcome

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Is that the mandate May sought from the electorate in 2017 and the electorate went ‘Thanks but no’ and she lost her majority? Also Labour may have voted to trigger A50 but they committed to only leaving with a deal in the 2017 election. Their manifesto commitment was a qualification of their A50 support.

Well may be they should have read article 50 more closely then which stated that we leave with a deal or no deal.

Or may be they just thick and did not know what they were voting for ?

 

[BobKowalski]

Well may be they should have read article 50 more closely then which stated that we leave with a deal or no deal.

Or may be they just thick and did not know what they were voting for ?

Honestly I don’t think anyone did at the time. Two years seems a reasonable time to get some sort of amicable divorce deal. Tories had a majority. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Honestly I don’t think anyone did at the time. Two years seems a reasonable time to get some sort of amicable divorce deal. Tories had a majority. What could possibly go wrong?

Well it’s pretty clear it says leave with a deal or no deal. This is not Mrs miggins from St. Helens these are MPs

They would have been welcome to have sought to change it before they voted not argue now. But Back then they were still in the we will honour the referendum result stage.....

It then morphed to the we will honour the referendum result but not on the basis of Theresa mays deal

It then moved to we will honour the referendum result but not with no deal.

Now it’s moved to we don’t honour the referendum result and will do anything to stop it.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Well may be they should have read article 50 more closely then which stated that we leave with a deal or no deal.

Or may be they just thick and did not know what they were voting for ?

To be fair - you can't change A50. So there was little choice - but it was passed subject to meaningful votes. Those meaningful votes are what brought down May and resulted in the two extensions to date.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Just watching a little of the sky I see the government have got another numpty QC representing them .

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

To be fair - you can't change A50. So there was little choice - but it was passed subject to meaningful votes. Those meaningful votes are what brought down May and resulted in the two extensions to date.

There was a choice they could not have voted for it , a few did for that very reason or for reasons that they did not agree with brexit.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Well it’s pretty clear it says leave with a deal or no deal. This is not Mrs miggins from St. Helens these are MPs

They would have been welcome to have sought to change it before they voted not argue now. But Back then they were still in the we will honour the referendum result stage.....

It then morphed to the we will honour the referendum result but not on the basis of Theresa mays deal

It then moved to we will honour the referendum result but not with no deal.

Now it’s moved to we don’t honour the referendum result and will do anything to stop it.

Worth also noting that there were good reasons behind rejecting both May's deal and no deal. And a good deal of that reasoning came from the tories as well as other parties. Both May's deal and No Deal are very bad outcomes IMO and rightly stopped.

 

[lancs blue]

Just watching a little of the sky I see the government have got another numpty QC representing them .

He did get something of a grilling about the details of the "undertaking" that Johnson would give if the court ruled against him.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Worth also noting that there were good reasons behind rejecting both May's deal and no deal. And a good deal of that reasoning came from the tories as well as other parties. Both May's deal and No Deal are very bad outcomes IMO and rightly stopped.

There were and there are but there also those who play politics with this who whilst the wind blowed towards brexit wanted to be seen to be doing the democractically right thing , and who now claim ignorance.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

An effective no deal outcome would be to our political and economic advantage according to the likes of Mervyn King. Remember that is all the current WA actually offers, delayed by couple of years ( or just a couple of days if we like ) while the backstop sabotage clause hobbles any negotiations for trade deals with them or any other country. To mitigate the inevitable short term damage we needed proper advance preparation and an early rejection of the EU sequencing of talks ie divorce settlement paid up front. The best option now is to reman inside and find another solution to preventing the EUs superstate ambitions or leave when it inevitably collapses through following its current federalist path.

Sorry George, but just because you want things to be true, doesn't mean that they are. I believe that Mr King said it would take a great deal of preparation and time to not be affected economically but it wasn't all about economics. I am quite happy with that view as it doesn't seek to misrepresent the facts.

It is somewhat amusing though that one ex BOE govenor is to be treated like a soothsayer whilst the current one doesn't know what he is talking about!

It is a similar view to a Corbyn government. As in: The IMF and the CBI say Brexit will be terible, economically. "What do they know, they can't predict anything"? comes the reply. "A Corbyn government would be an economic catastrophe." Why do you say that? "It's not me, it's the IMF and the CBI", comes the response, from the exact same people, without any hint of irony. Strange times we are living in, that's for sure.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

There was a choice they could not have voted for it , a few did for that very reason or for reasons that they did not agree with brexit.

Agree - My MP was one that voted against. But even as the staunchest remainer on here I thing we needed to go through this shambles to fully bottom out what brexit really would mean. Only then can we make an informed choice.

 

[George Hannah]

BS read it yourself:-
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.
2 years is the default for how long the treaties apply, it is time to agree a WA. If your WA is just an agreement that you want no further involvement and want a hard exit then that is it - done deal. That can take days. If it is not a done deal than it becomes the default in 2 years in any event. It is very simple and is not the conspiracy that you want it to be.

One side having the political will is not enough though - it needs both sides to agree and that seems virtually impossible - but you are perfectly correct I should have made it clear the mandatory period or its extension ends if a WA is agreed. My understanding still is that even if both sides agreed that no deal was possible and further negotiations pointless it would not affect the exit date. I may be wrong of course.
This is another quote from the same source we have both cited:
"Unless the Council of the European Union unanimously agrees to extensions, the timing for the UK leaving under the article is the mandatory period ending at the second anniversary of the country giving official notice to the EU. The assumption is that new agreements will be negotiated during the mandatory two-year period, but there is no legal requirement that agreements have to be made.[17