Bye bye Theresa

[Jobbo]

I didn't see that there was an ECJ case ongoing on this point. It is very interesting but do you seriously think that the ECJ is going to establish legal precedent for a member state being able to submit an Art. 50 notice and then whip it back out again at the last minute (precipitating the negotiation that we've had for the past two years in the meantime)? I just think that's never going to be where they come out in their judgment.

They've already said they wouldn't allow it to be used as a negotiation tactic, but nowhere in the treaties is there stated an EU intention or desire to force out a member state which doesn't want to leave. And where a member state changes its mind after making an Art.50 notification, that's what would happen. Art.50 doesn't state anything about the notice being irrevocable.

That's a very hopeful interpretation in my opinion. Another would be that if you invoke a mechanism to leave that mechanism runs its course. If the UK changes it mind it would have to re-join, unless the other members agree to let you terminate that mechanism in a way which is not expressly provided for. I'm sure you of all people know that if you don't provide for something in a contract or an agreement a court will be loathe to insert it after the fact without the agreement of both parties if your argument is based on a less than clear statement of what the complainant thought was the 'intent' was behind the drafting or the overall agreement between the parties.

Aren't you interpreting an EU treaty in accordance with England & Wales law there? That's not the way to read it, and nor are E&W legal principles the way to deal with lacunae in the drafting.

Anyway, it's not me making the case in the ECJ; the legal arguments are available to you if you want to read them.

[Rich B]

Defeatist. If there ever has been anything at all we can do, now is the time. A groundswell of support for, say, this deal would make the MPs much happier to vote for it and give us some stability.

Genuinely interested to hear how you plan to go about that?

Actually contacting our MPs would be my suggestion. Since they were already the people who will have to vote on whether to accept the withdrawal agreement.

is that what you’ve done?

[GG.]

They've already said they wouldn't allow it to be used as a negotiation tactic, but nowhere in the treaties is there stated an EU intention or desire to force out a member state which doesn't want to leave. And where a member state changes its mind after making an Art.50 notification, that's what would happen. Art.50 doesn't state anything about the notice being irrevocable.

That's a very hopeful interpretation in my opinion. Another would be that if you invoke a mechanism to leave that mechanism runs its course. If the UK changes it mind it would have to re-join, unless the other members agree to let you terminate that mechanism in a way which is not expressly provided for. I'm sure you of all people know that if you don't provide for something in a contract or an agreement a court will be loathe to insert it after the fact without the agreement of both parties if your argument is based on a less than clear statement of what the complainant thought was the 'intent' was behind the drafting or the overall agreement between the parties.

Aren't you interpreting an EU treaty in accordance with England & Wales law there? That's not the way to read it, and nor are E&W legal principles the way to deal with lacunae in the drafting.

Anyway, it's not me making the case in the ECJ; the legal arguments are available to you if you want to read them.

You are right - if I find time I'll try and have more of a read to see what their thinking is and what the EU/PIL law angle is on it.

[GG.]

Looks like the letters may be going in. The title of this thread may be gaining relevance...

[Zonda_]

There’s no winners in this shit show - we all knew that in June 2016.

Indeed. So you're going to sit and let it play out in the worst way possible?

Not sure why there are so many suggestions of a Tory leadership challenge or a general election. Who on earth wants to take over from Theresa May and deal with this

Rees-Mogg

[PaulJ]

There’s no winners in this shit show - we all knew that in June 2016.

Indeed. So you're going to sit and let it play out in the worst way possible?

Not sure why there are so many suggestions of a Tory leadership challenge or a general election. Who on earth wants to take over from Theresa May and deal with this

Rees-Mogg

Apparently he's travelled forwards in time and is consulting the 1922 committee as we speak... Thinking about it I reckon he'd make a great Doctor when Jodie is fed up of the role.

[Carlos]

Feels like ages since this thread.

So the options are:
1. No deal (not an option constitutionally since it would break the Good Friday Agreement to have a hard border with Ireland)
2. This deal (awful)
3. Don't leave

Anyone got a preference between the latter two which are the only possible options?

Is 3 really an option ? It makes a mockery of the UK Political system if Parliament agreed against the outcome of such a vote !

For better or worse, more people voted to leave. The cowardly Politicians resigning are a distraction to the real task at hand, failing to represent constituents and the Parliament itself.

I wish they would just get on with it, leave in an orderly manner as proposed and let future governments post 2020 tweak our position as they go.

[Simon]

A few things:

1) The EU have said on many occasions that it's not too late for us to change our mind. They don't want us to go, and if we turned around and said 'ok we'll revoke our A50 then' I don't see any arguments from them, irregardless of whether they have the 'right' to prevent such a move or not.

2) I watched Barnier live last night and downloaded the 585 page text and started to read it at the same time. FWIW I don't think this transition deal is really such a bad deal. It gives us till Dec 31st 2020 where basically nothing changes from where we are now, except we don't have any say in the rules because technically we'd be a third country. Fair enough. It also coincidentally takes us to the end of the current EU budget period, so we'd continue to pay our commitments as we would anyway. Again, fair enough. Barnier said that all existing financial commitments would be met, and rightly so. It was agreed and stated that if by July '20 we don't think that our future relationship was ready, that we could extend it by one further year if we both agreed. Finally, Barnier himself said yesterday that you can't compare the time taken for a future trade deal with Canada, Japan etc, because we're coming from the same base. So he was confident we could conclude a trade deal in the time.

All sides also want to respect the GFA so doing this this way is the only way to achieve that.

3) I really don't understand what Labour are playing at. Corbyn was on Twitter last night saying they wouldn't vote for this draft, before it was even released. Considering their '6 tests' are basically maintaining all the benefits of current membership, and for this transition period it is EXACTLY THAT, then why wouldn't they support it? This is only the transition text (with a political statement on a future 'ambitious FTA' (Barniers words last night)) it should be exactly the thing that Corbyn wanted, protecting jobs etc. He's a twat though.

So, I really believe this is the best we could've hoped for, and it does seem fair. The NI backstop post Dec'21 (assuming the 1 year transition extension AND assuming we don't agree an FTA in that time) is only to continue to respect the GFA. I don't know what Johnson, Mogg etc could really think they could achieve more than this. It's impossible for it to be any better. So, accept it, or go to the country again with another ref.

[GG.]

Feels like ages since this thread.

So the options are:
1. No deal (not an option constitutionally since it would break the Good Friday Agreement to have a hard border with Ireland)
2. This deal (awful)
3. Don't leave

Anyone got a preference between the latter two which are the only possible options?

Is 3 really an option ? It makes a mockery of the UK Political system if Parliament agreed against the outcome of such a vote !

For better or worse, more people voted to leave. The cowardly Politicians resigning are a distraction to the real task at hand, failing to represent constituents and the Parliament itself.

I wish they would just get on with it, leave in an orderly manner as proposed and let future governments post 2020 tweak our position as they go.

It isn't really a viable option Carlos, no. It really only works if the following happens:

1) the ECJ case concludes we can unilaterally revoke Article 50, OR the EU27 agree to us doing so; and
2) Parliament votes to have another referendum to determine whether we should revoke Article 50 (to give them the political mandate to do so)... but which they don't have time to arrange before March... OR they decide to revoke without doing so (which even the "People's Vote" proponents aren't advocating).

So, for perhaps the only time in my life I agree with Guy Verhofstadt on that point.

[ZedLeg]

I wish they would just get on with it, leave in an orderly manner as proposed and let future governments post 2020 tweak our position as they go.

Where was there any proposal on how we would go about leaving before the vote?

What we had was a bunch of rhetoric about how Europe needed us more than we needed them and they'd be begging us for an amicable break up. Which was of course, bollocks.

Just going "welp lets gtfo and let someone else clean it up" is pretty much the worst thing that could happen.

[GG.]

A few things:

The EU have said on many occasions that it's not too late for us to change our mind.

Which of course they categorically have not done. When you say "EU" you are referring to (presumably) various members of the Commission, the Council or Parliament or various other politicians that may have casually expressed that view. That is totally different from the EU27 actually saying "OK you can revoke Art.50.

Remember, you only need ONE hold out from the 27 if you're relying on their consent to revoke and stop the process. What chance of that without them wanting to axe the rebate or insist on us then joining (ergo, supporting) the Euro, etc.?

On your point 2, you are missing the main risk. There's little chance (on recent evidence) of us agreeing a trade deal by 2020/1 which means we'd then revert to the UK wide backstop. If we cannot agree a deal we stay there and we cannot get out unless an arbitration panel deems the EU to be acting in bad faith in not agreeing a trade deal (which they never will). That is a backstop that means we are in the customs union with no ability to set our own tarrifs (i.e. agree free trade deals with anyone else) plus a whole host of other 'alignment' provisions on various other items such as tax, state aid, etc. This is a nightmare scenario.

[Simon]

You're a cynic GG. I've watched too many of Barnier's and Junkers addresses over the last few months. They specifically HAVE said it.

[GG.]

Barnier and Junker's vague wishes do not bind the EU27 on this though. If, say, Tusk in Poland wants to object to derail it, he could.

[Simon]

Fair point. The reality is though that without us others' membership bills are larger, plus without a deal they lose access to our markets. I'm sure there is a consensus amongst the 27 to not object to revocation.

[Carlos]

I wish they would just get on with it, leave in an orderly manner as proposed and let future governments post 2020 tweak our position as they go.

Where was there any proposal on how we would go about leaving before the vote?

Proposed this week lol

The vote is done, order in implementing Brexit is whats needed now, not whining carpet munching vegans wanting to go back in time .

[ZedLeg]

I wish they would just get on with it, leave in an orderly manner as proposed and let future governments post 2020 tweak our position as they go.

Where was there any proposal on how we would go about leaving before the vote?

Proposed this week lol

The vote is done, order in implementing Brexit is whats needed now, not whining carpet munching vegans wanting to go back in time .

Broccers, give Carlos his login back.

[Simon]

What I don't understand is why Raab has resigned. It's what HE negotiated! That's like literally marking AND FAILING your own homework. Ridiculous. Moron!

[NotoriousREV]

I wish they would just get on with it, leave in an orderly manner as proposed and let future governments post 2020 tweak our position as they go.

Where was there any proposal on how we would go about leaving before the vote?

Proposed this week lol

The vote is done, order in implementing Brexit is whats needed now, not whining carpet munching vegans wanting to go back in time .

What a load of fucking horseshit. what we need is to tell the thick, the racists, and old folk to fuck off.

[GG.]

What I don't understand is why Raab has resigned. It's what HE negotiated! That's like literally marking AND FAILING your own homework. Ridiculous. Moron!

Oh for fuck sake you think he negotiated this in the last few weeks since he took over from David Davis (who ALSO did not negotiate this)?? It is a combination of the cabinet office, TM and Olly Robbins. Raab has precious little to do with the detail of this which he would have influenced very little.

[GG.]

Where was there any proposal on how we would go about leaving before the vote?

Proposed this week lol

The vote is done, order in implementing Brexit is whats needed now, not whining carpet munching vegans wanting to go back in time .

What a load of fucking horseshit. what we need is to tell the thick, the racists, and old folk to fuck off.

That's the way to win them over Rev! People's Vote should make you their representative