OV9

GG. wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:55 pm

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:48 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:45 pm Not following you there...

We've covered this point. That is, we can rescind Art50 whenever, up to the day.

That's nice. How does this relate to the silly analogy that we're discussing?

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:11 pm I think my new hobby might be telling GG jokes.

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:01 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:55 pm

Beany wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:48 pm

We've covered this point. That is, we can rescind Art50 whenever, up to the day.

That's nice. How does this relate to the silly analogy that we're discussing?

OC noted that we haven't left till we've left. Which is a point we've covered a long time ago.

Aren't those in the legal profession supposed to be better than this at following the flow a written dialogue?

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:22 pm If you'd have been paying attention to this thread, you would know that it's actually all perfectly clear and understandable. Ask GG, he's very useful on this subject.

scotta wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:19 pm So does anyone know what the fuck is going on now then? we leave in 9 days unless they let us extend it. Given they have fucked off Mays deal and no deal - what happens if they say fuck off on an extension? we leave anyway with no deal?

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:36 pm who the f*** knows what will happen.

scotta wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:37 pm in other news....Morons Assemble.

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:39 pm

scotta wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:37 pm in other news....Morons Assemble.

Given the numbers that turned out for the Leave Means Leave March, I'm not even remotely worried by this, or the threatened "riots".

GG. wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:43 pm Presuming you're referring to MPs rejecting any proposed extension then I'm not going to pretend the position is all that clear on that point...

May has written to the commission today asking for an extension without a vote of MPs on how long it would be (though there have been requests to be submitted for an emergency debate). I presume that she can do this because it is simply a "will you give us one?" letter. I still expect that there would need to be a motion to accept the terms and duration of whatever extension is actually offered by the EU.

If the terms of that extension were declined (and no statutory instrument is passed to extend the exit date under the UK statute repealing the ECA 1972) then there is an argument that we're still in as EU law trumps UK law and under international law we're still an EU member but there is no basis for enforcing EU law in the UK (so essentially, a mess).

There looks also to be a counter argument that the acceptance of any extension needs to be valid in accordance with UK law, i.e. if MPs reject then no matter that the fact the EU has offered an extension, we're out. I personally prefer (from a legal certainty point) the latter position - that the MPs vote definitively to accept/decline - as it avoids the conflict of laws issue noted above. It would also avoid the odd and undesirable situation where in theory May could keep requesting extension and the EU giving them, without the consent of parliament - which you would think cannot be right.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:53 pm

GG. wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:43 pm Presuming you're referring to MPs rejecting any proposed extension then I'm not going to pretend the position is all that clear on that point...

May has written to the commission today asking for an extension without a vote of MPs on how long it would be (though there have been requests to be submitted for an emergency debate). I presume that she can do this because it is simply a "will you give us one?" letter. I still expect that there would need to be a motion to accept the terms and duration of whatever extension is actually offered by the EU.

If the terms of that extension were declined (and no statutory instrument is passed to extend the exit date under the UK statute repealing the ECA 1972) then there is an argument that we're still in as EU law trumps UK law and under international law we're still an EU member but there is no basis for enforcing EU law in the UK (so essentially, a mess).

There looks also to be a counter argument that the acceptance of any extension needs to be valid in accordance with UK law, i.e. if MPs reject then no matter that the fact the EU has offered an extension, we're out. I personally prefer (from a legal certainty point) the latter position - that the MPs vote definitively to accept/decline - as it avoids the conflict of laws issue noted above. It would also avoid the odd and undesirable situation where in theory May could keep requesting extension and the EU giving them, without the consent of parliament - which you would think cannot be right.

There you go Scott - all clear now eh.