No people like that on this forum

[meridian]

not wrong, only partially qualified but you attempt to portray it as doom being a nobrainer.

Not doom. Just wrong.

The EU has publicly offered the chance to delay on this basis so yes we can!

Have they? Show us where "the EU" (i.e. all 27 individual Member States) have offered a delay. Because that is what is required, unanimous agreement in the European Council (EU Member State heads of state and government).

There have been noises made, and lobbying, but it requires unanimous agreement of all 27 heads of state.

Where does it say that in law about article 50? Sounds like wishful thinking, a lie just Nick "I see no Army" Clegg or the "Kangaroo Court" EU Brexit: EU to have power to punish UK at will during transition | Politics | The Guardian.

In the ECJ judgement. Here's a commentary about it:

Article 50 can be revoked: here's what it means for Brexit

it’s important to note that the court added that the decision to revoke Article 50 must be “unequivocal and unconditional”.

Your statement was that "We could also possibly rescind it and invoke it again. Would hack the EU off but give us 2 years to prepare no deal.", implying that we would be able to rescind and then revoke immediately and retrigger the clock for another 2 years. That is factually incorrect.

As I said, there are differing legal opinions on whether we could revoke and then retrigger at a much later stage, but it's generally understood to mean at least a change in government would be required.

Doesn't seem to say that about the GATT here:

Britain’s Brexit Plan B – POLITICO

or here

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...rade-deal-myth

or even here

WTO | Regional Trade Agreements - GATT Article XXIV

It does, actually. Read the second of your links (the Bloomberg one) more carefully. An interim arrangement (a bare-bones FTA) needs to be agreed first.

In a "No Deal" situation, have a guess what the EU will ask for before any interim arrangement is agreed. Top marks if you guess "citizen's rights, a backstop in Ireland, and £39b".

[shaunbhoy]

We cannot rescind and then revoke, at least not easily. According to the judgement we can unilaterally revoke but it must be an honest revocation.

And the definition of "honest" in an EU context would be????

Convention suggests it need simply be doing what happens to suit you best at any given point of time.

Ought to be doable.

[meridian]

And the definition of "honest" in an EU context would be????

Convention suggests it need simply be doing what happens to suit you best at any given point of time.

Ought to be doable.

It's "honest" in a UK context. Good luck with that, whether it's Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn.....

[meridian]

And the definition of "honest" in an EU context would be????

Convention suggests it need simply be doing what happens to suit you best at any given point of time.

Ought to be doable.

It's "honest" in a UK context. Good luck with that, whether it's Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn.....

Realistically though, even if May crossed her fingers and revoked (I don't think she will, but even if), what would the EU do? Their only option would be to go to the ECJ and make a case that they didn't think that the revocation was sincere. Not likely to happen.

But then in six months' time or so, the UK triggers A50 again. Likely? Unlikely? What would the reaction be from

a) the EU, would they have any goodwill left to negotiate or would they just tell the UK to Foxtrot Oscar without any deal?

b) the UK public. Politicians are already despised for not being leaders, all this dithering about doesn't endear them to the public any further

c) potential trade partners. If we're not to be trusted with a simple A50 declaration, who wants to do a trade deal with us?


All in all I don't see us revoking, and if in the slim chance we did, I don't see it being invoked again in a hurry.