Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lancs blue said:
He did get something of a grilling about the details of the "undertaking" that Johnson would give if the court ruled against him.
Click to expand...

It’s all bollox they have passed legislation they wanted preventing no deal anyway yet they are up in arms.

If I were boris I would just say sod it all back to parliament please. You can all give up your conference season and your dinner parties and drinks with pals. All get your arses back to parliament I am not going to stop you debating more brexit stuff, crack on.

I wonder how many outraged Lib Dem’s would be sharing cabs back to Westminster, do you think labours annual shin dig would be cancelled ? Would it fuck.
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's the decision to withdraw that has to be "in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements." That decision has been made. The ECJ has since ruled that the decision can be revoked as no sovereign nation can be forced to leave the EU against its will. But if the nation in question has no functioning government capable of seeking an extension, or saying we're revoking, you'd effectively be arguing that the lack of capacity to make a decision voids the consequences of the original decision. Even if Parliament has been prevented by an unlawful act from exercising constitutional arrangements to extend or revoke, it's a long leap to the ECJ saying that it will retrospectively intervene to imagine what might have happened (the new Act meant asking for an extension but there was no guarantee the EU would agree).

It would be interesting if the EU says they will institute a standstill arrangement from 1st November (not sure under what provisions) on the grounds that the UK has no functioning constitutional arrangements and declare that (again by what provision?) we are stil a member state. Next question would be whether Farage refuses his MEP salary.
 
Last edited:
lancs blue said:
He did get something of a grilling about the details of the "undertaking" that Johnson would give if the court ruled against him.
Click to expand...

In the last Gina miller case all the bundles which are supposed to be identical were wrong and now he has just stated I am sorry there is no reference to this bit. It’s fucking amateur , cannot even get the trial bundles right.
 
Gaudion M said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah and now most would vote for a bloody time machine.
 
lancs blue said:
He did get something of a grilling about the details of the "undertaking" that Johnson would give if the court ruled against him.
Click to expand...
Literally a judge asked the Attorney General, "Can we have it in writing?"

(Not quite literally) "If there is a declaration (that Parliament should reconvene) will the PM undertake not to prorogue it again?"
 
Clement Attlee was right. 'Will of the people' based on a snapshot of opinion on one day 3 years ago. When does it expire ? I'll tell you when - when the liars and criminals are removed. When will that be ? Who knows !

“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism”
 
George Hannah said:
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
Click to expand...
Good bit of backtracking and squirming and using a Wikipedia interpretation as a source ahead of the actual text of Article 50 as published by the EU.
 
George Hannah said:
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
Click to expand...
Bold doesn't help. It's a mandatory two-year period (possibly extended) but if you negotiate the agreement, you don't have to wait two years. If you threatened to welch on your commitments (as we've tried) there would be no agreement, and the EU could say you're here for the full two years, but then you could break the Treaty and just walk away, and see what that does for your economy and international reputation.
 
west didsblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
"King said before the referendum that warnings of economic doom about leaving the EU were overstated. Since then, he has welcomed the fall in the pound and said he believes Britain can be better off out than in the EU."
Lying again
 
Vic said:
Bold doesn't help. It's a mandatory two-year period (possibly extended) but if you negotiate the agreement, you don't have to wait two years. If you threatened to welch on your commitments (as we've tried) there would be no agreement, and the EU could say you're here for the full two years, but then you could break the Treaty and just walk away, and see what that does for your economy and international reputation.
Click to expand...
You first repeat exactly what I posted and then wander off into incoherence - 'Threaten to welch on your commitments' - what are those? Your? We have no agreement - Parliament voted it down several times. Who has suggested the UK should break any EU treaty?
 
Vic said:
Literally a judge asked the Attorney General, "Can we have it in writing?"

(Not quite literally) "If there is a declaration (that Parliament should reconvene) will the PM undertake not to prorogue it again?"
Click to expand...

At work so not following this but the bits I have seen seem to suggest a bad day for the government.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
It’s either Swinson or not voting.

Corbyn or Johnson no thank you.
Click to expand...

I would rather vote for Johnson/Pol Pot/Pinochet/Orban/Bolsanaro before Swinson, the Lib Dems are worse than the Tories.

As there is no Communist Party standing where I live I will lend my vote to Labour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top