Reply to: ECJ judgement is out

[AtW]

Apparently judgement text says that it can’t used in bad faith to effectively get free extension - so using it would mean Remaning, and it’s legally binding

This means it’s Hard Brexit folks, buckle up...

[meridian]

It may not be possible in UK, but it’s time bomb for EU - won’t take long before some nutters in Italy trigger it knowing they can cancel it easily.

ECJ really fooked up this one

By extension it means NOW EU won’t give in at all to prevent future blackmail

I disagree. With the ECJ judgement there is now no possibility for the U.K. to sleepwalk into No Deal by accident - the U.K. government/parliament is in full control of being able to revoke at any time.

There’s nothing for the EU to give in to. The backstop is their red line and won’t be renegotiated, there’s nothing in FoM for them to give further, and the ‘divorce’ bill is minor in the whole scheme of things.

[NotAllThere]

The EU hasn't. The EU were opposed to this decision. But the ECJ has tried to bail us out.

If the EU didn't want revocation, then it should have put it into Article 50. Interestingly, because Article 50 is silent on revocation, that normally means therefore there is no intention to permit revocation. So the advocate general relied on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to establish a precedent. I expect an appeal.

According to The Times, there is no possibility of appeal.

[AtW]

It may not be possible in UK, but it’s time bomb for EU - won’t take long before some nutters in Italy trigger it knowing they can cancel it easily.

ECJ really fooked up this one

By extension it means NOW EU won’t give in at all to prevent future blackmail

[meridian]

Extension rules are explicit, “withdraw-issue A50 again” is a loophole that was never intended, ECJ just gave invitation to chancers to invoke A50 in order to black mail EU basically

Sorry, I misread the difference between "extending" and "revoking".

My point still stands though - although in theory this might be possible, in practice it's not that simple. In order to revoke there is legislation that needs to be repealed in Parliament, and the legal opinions on who can actually revoke are still being discussed (Parliament, or Government on it's own).

If it was revoked then we would need to revisit the same roads again to retrigger it - Parliament authorising it to be triggered, new Withdrawal Acts through HoC and HoL, etc. There might be a few in the ERG that would contemplate this, but not 650 MPs plus the HoL plus the Queen. Anyone contemplating it would need to be prepared for a bigger constitutional crisis than the tulipfest that we already have.

[AtW]

There's nothing explicit about it. The ECJ has simply confirmed that member states have sovereignty, that it is a member state's sole decision as to whether they leave or not, and they cannot be pushed out of the EU if they change their minds.

On the face of it there is a possibility that a member state can revoke and then reinstate the notice to trigger another two years, but in practice this would be even worse for that member state - they would be showing the world that they are not negotiating in good faith. This isn't Del Boy down the Peckham market....

Extension rules are explicit, “withdraw-issue A50 again” is a loophole that was never intended, ECJ just gave invitation to chancers to invoke A50 in order to black mail EU basically

[meridian]

ECJ got decision wrong - extending A50 explicitly requires consent of all member states, but if the state can revoke it then it can give it again thereby effectively extending it by 2 years, unless ECJ says that withdrawal means you can’t use it for 50 years it’s a sham decision

There's nothing explicit about it. The ECJ has simply confirmed that member states have sovereignty, that it is a member state's sole decision as to whether they leave or not, and they cannot be pushed out of the EU if they change their minds.

On the face of it there is a possibility that a member state can revoke and then reinstate the notice to trigger another two years, but in practice this would be even worse for that member state - they would be showing the world that they are not negotiating in good faith. This isn't Del Boy down the Peckham market....

[AtW]

Tory Scum won’t revoke it - the wants to use their only scummy chance to leave EU, whatever the cost

[Whorty]

And how does the UK unilaterally revoking A50 fulfil the referendum result?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

:::

[AtW]

ECJ got decision wrong - extending A50 explicitly requires consent of all member states, but if the state can revoke it then it can give it again thereby effectively extending it by 2 years, unless ECJ says that withdrawal means you can’t use it for 50 years it’s a sham decision

[AtW]

Add in an AndyW option and you may be on to something.

It won’t be legally binding without it!

[AtW]

And how does the UK unilaterally revoking A50 fulfil the referendum result?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

Ref was advisory so could be legally ignored

[Paddy]

And how does the UK unilaterally revoking A50 fulfil the referendum result?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

The referendum was advisory according to the act of Parliament. Parliament makes sovereign decisions; they tried their best to make a reasonable arrangement but they failed.

[Uncle Albert]

I suggest several options with transferable vote. So: -

1. Remain
2. No deal
3. May deal
4. Sick to death of Brexit
5. I just want to whine at those who voted differently to me
6. I want an end to growing inequality in the UK
7. I am fed up with the establishment running the country

Add in an AndyW option and you may be on to something.

[GreenMirror]

I suggest several options with transferable vote. So: -

1. Remain
2. No deal
3. May deal
4. Sick to death of Brexit
5. I just want to whine at those who voted differently to me
6. I want an end to growing inequality in the UK
7. I am fed up with the establishment running the country