Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.

I didn't say that the commission would put conditions on the ECJ. 

I said that the commission might put conditions on allowing the UK to revoke A50 and stay in the EU.  As far as I'm aware there is nothing in the treaties that cover a country changing it's mind after invoking A50, so I think that it would work in the same way as extending the A50 period. ie with the agreement of the 27. 

So hypothetically the UK changes its mind and decides to stay.   The commission says that's fine but the rebate will go and also the veto over the EU military, and that stance is backed up by the 27. If the UK contests this and takes it to the ECJ, do you really think that the ECJ would rule in the UK's favour?   

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Retaining the status quo, realistically wont be an option. The EU is well down tis chosen road of federalisation. The UK has always been in the slow lane on this road (although ultimately would at some point arrive at the same destination). If we changed our minds and remained, I don't see how it would be possible for the UK to be the problem child / constant objector / slow lane nuisance etc.
They would laugh at us and back us into a corner where we were obliged to stfu and get on with it the same as everyone else.
Our bluffed would have been well and truly called and we bottled it. We would have no bargaining power at all.

What you are effectively saying is that you don't trust the current lot of politicians to stand up to the EU if we remain, yet these are the same lot that are supposed to negotiate with the EU for a soft brexit deal, or failing that negotiate with the RoW for trade deals after a Hard Brexit. So heads they win, tails we lose?

The number one bargaining power we have is that we are a net contributor to the EU budget. Maggie T knew that. We just need someone to say No and stick to their guns.
 

At the moment, I think the most likely scenario is that Boris will be PM by Christmas. But a week is a long time in politics.

If Boris is as bright as many politcos say, then he won't want such a poisoned chalice just yet. No one will, which is why I reckon TM is safe till (very close to) the next general election. The Tories don't want a GE just yet because they may lose, and Corbyn is a bigger fear to them than the EU.

The current negotiations are to all intents & purposes being carried out by Ollie Robins, who is an arch Europhile, he reports to Theresa the Appeaser. Dominic Raab , like David Davis before him, is not much more than her bag carrier.

I don't think Boris is as bright as he or his supporters think he is, but he wants the job as much as Gordon Brown did. He thinks he was born to it, and wont turn it down under any circumstances imo.

The fact that we are one of the few net contributors, and the fact the we have a huge trade surplus with the 27, seems to be completely ignored by those who are negotiating on our behalf. You could almost be forgiven for thinking they don't want to succeed. 
If they dont get any more of our money they are going to be in deep trouble, and Im sure they know it. They are playing high stakes poker, and our side are folding every time the cards are dealt.
Another thing which has been conveniently ignored is that the odious little shit who is currently Irish premier, let slip recently that Juncker and others have assured him on many occasions that even if we leave with no deal, the EU will not place any border infrastructure or customs checks between R.O.I and the U.K. 
We are in a strong negotiating position, but we appear not be taking the slightest advantage of it. 

[LC0112G]

The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.

I didn't say that the commission would put conditions on the ECJ. 

I said that the commission might put conditions on allowing the UK to revoke A50 and stay in the EU. 

The commission cannot put conditions on the revokeability of Art50 because it's a decision for the ECJ, and the commission cannot put conditions on the ECJ. The ECJ has to rule on what it says in the current Art50, and changing Art50 is a treaty change so not going to happen. If there is a dispute about whether it's revocable or not, the ECJ decides.

The minute the other side publishes anything that says "you can if..." then they are conceding that Art50 is revocable.

As far as I'm aware there is nothing in the treaties that cover a country changing it's mind after invoking A50, so I think that it would work in the same way as extending the A50 period. ie with the agreement of the 27. 

I disagree. The rules for extending the Art50 deadline are explicitly described in the treaty. I agree there is nothing in the treaty about a country revoking Art50. If there is a disagreement about the meaning of Art50 then the ECJ will need to rule one way or t'other. The ruling will be on the meaning of the words in the treaty. The EU could I suppose try to argue that the same rules for extending should be applied to revoking, but the counter argument would then be why doesn't it say so in the Art50 text.

So hypothetically the UK changes its mind and decides to stay.   The commission says that's fine but the rebate will go and also the veto over the EU military, and that stance is backed up by the 27. If the UK contests this and takes it to the ECJ, do you really think that the ECJ would rule in the UK's favour?   

Again, that would be the commission trying to put conditions on the revoking of Art50. The Art50 wording is there in black and white, and you can't change it without a new treaty. There is nothing about linking it to other conditions. The ECJ will rule on the wording as is. Art50 is either revocable or not. There can be no additional conditions.

The ECJ may well decide Art50 cannot be revoked. If it does, then we're effectively out on March 29th anyway - probably Hard WTO Brexit out unless an Art50 extension is agreed.

[LC0112G]

Another thing which has been conveniently ignored is that the odious little shit who is currently Irish premier, let slip recently that Juncker and others have assured him on many occasions that even if we leave with no deal, the EU will not place any border infrastructure or customs checks between R.O.I and the U.K. 
We are in a strong negotiating position, but we appear not be taking the slightest advantage of it. 

I wonder what percentage of Eire imports/exports pass through the UK en route mainland Europe. Do lorries cross Calais-Dover, drive through the UK to Holyhead/Fishguard and cross to Dublin? Or do they cross direct from mainland Europe to Eire - That's a much longer sea crossing.

If it's the former, then border/customs checks at Dover/Calais are just as important to Eire as they are between N Ireland and the South.

[Sir Tigger KC]

The commission cannot put conditions on the revokeability of Art50 because it's a decision for the ECJ, and the commission cannot put conditions on the ECJ. The ECJ has to rule on what it says in the current Art50, and changing Art50 is a treaty change so not going to happen. If there is a dispute about whether it's revocable or not, the ECJ decides.

Yes, but the ECJ would only get involved if there is a dispute and I say again, there is nothing in A50 about whether it can be revoked or not.  If the 28 heads of state and the commission agree that A50 can be revoked then there is no need for a decision from the ECJ.

Again, that would be the commission trying to put conditions on the revoking of Art50. The Art50 wording is there in black and white, and you can't change it without a new treaty. There is nothing about linking it to other conditions. The ECJ will rule on the wording as is. Art50 is either revocable or not. There can be no additional conditions.

Why do you think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions to the UK revoking A50?    You are right, the A50 writing is there in black and white.  There isn't a word about revocation and you are right there is nothing about conditions, but there is nothing forbidding the attachment of conditions either.  I suspect that if the UK tried to revoke A50, the 27 and the commission would breathe a huge collective sigh of relief, outwardly welcome back the black sheep of the family and then start calculating what concessions they could wring out of us.   

I suppose that if the UK did try to revoke A50 and it was all agreed with the 28 heads of state, the commission and the EU Parliament that this could happen, someone, somewhere in the EU could mount a legal challenge against it that got passed up to the ECJ for a final decision.  That would take years though.... 


It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon.  No deal is much more likely. 

[Rods2]

Like all dictatorships rules are there for the little people & countries, not for the big ones. The Greek bailout rules were decided by Germany & France on the basis that the money Greece owed to German & French banks if Greece had defaulted on there loans it would have been a major financial crisis for their banks. What the bailout forced was what was owed to German & French banks had to be socialized as Greek sovereign debt by the bailout and immediately transferred to pay off German & French debt. When Greece resisted they forced the Greek banks to shut so they had no money until they surrendered, all of this was outside of EU & ECB rules, but it involved the big countries, so rules were ignored.

Because of the funny Russian money in Cyprus they forced a bailin of account & bond holders and revised the EU / ECB rules that all bank bailouts would involve deposit holders & bond holders in an future bank bailouts.

When Italian banks needed bailing out there was a problem due to mis selling of bonds as savings accounts to small depositors, so their bailouts were done at the weekend and did not bailin depositors or bond holders.

When France broke the 60% of GDP debt and 3% deficit rules they and Germany agreed they shouldn't be fined as per EU/ECB rules as they only applied to the little countries.

In EU terms Germany & France are the big countrie and then there are all the other small ones so EU rules apply to them and obviously to us as France & Germany are the big countries and can make them up or change them as required to their advantage as they go along, acting like a pair of mafia Dons as that is how the EU works.

I said from day one that the EU commission would want to punish us for leaving and the UK Remainer 5th column are determined lead by Olly Robbins and Treason May are determined to get us the worst deal possible. I have not seen such disgusting, betrayal politics like thia before from even the majority Europhile fanatic Conservatives. Our democratic stability and survival and the Conservative party's future are now on the line as a result of May's deceit and betrayal.

Guido Fawkes website on what Trator May said on her election as PM, in her election manifesto and what the bare faced liar says now is very telling.

https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/

[LC0112G]

The commission cannot put conditions on the revokeability of Art50 because it's a decision for the ECJ, and the commission cannot put conditions on the ECJ. The ECJ has to rule on what it says in the current Art50, and changing Art50 is a treaty change so not going to happen. If there is a dispute about whether it's revocable or not, the ECJ decides.

Yes, but the ECJ would only get involved if there is a dispute and I say again, there is nothing in A50 about whether it can be revoked or not.  If the 28 heads of state and the commission agree that A50 can be revoked then there is no need for a decision from the ECJ.

Yep, agree with all that.

Again, that would be the commission trying to put conditions on the revoking of Art50. The Art50 wording is there in black and white, and you can't change it without a new treaty. There is nothing about linking it to other conditions. The ECJ will rule on the wording as is. Art50 is either revocable or not. There can be no additional conditions.

Why do you think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions to the UK revoking A50?   

Because there is no legal basis to impose new rules on a member state without their agreement. If all EU28 and the commission have agreed Art50 is revocable, then how can anyone attach further conditions? The Uk just says no to the conditions, and revokes anyway.

You are right, the A50 writing is there in black and white.  There isn't a word about revocation and you are right there is nothing about conditions, but there is nothing forbidding the attachment of conditions either.  I suspect that if the UK tried to revoke A50, the 27 and the commission would breathe a huge collective sigh of relief, outwardly welcome back the black sheep of the family and then start calculating what concessions they could wring out of us.   

And the UK just says No. Technically they wouldn't need to welcome us back either since revoking Art50 means we'd never actually left.

I suppose that if the UK did try to revoke A50 and it was all agreed with the 28 heads of state, the commission and the EU Parliament that this could happen, someone, somewhere in the EU could mount a legal challenge against it that got passed up to the ECJ for a final decision.  That would take years though.... 

Possible, but the rules on referral to the ECJ are fairly tight. I think (but I'm not certain) only a member state can refer a case to the ECJ on a treaty matter. The ECJ website says...

Referral of cases to the European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice has its own rules on the referral of cases.

As a general rule, only Member States, the institutions of the European Union and national courts can refer cases to the Court of Justice. In some circumstances, a firm or a private individual can bring a case before the Court. This is the case for appeals to the Court regarding decisions taken by the institutions of the European Union in the field of competition, Community grants, contracts with European Union institutions or the European public service. The rules of procedure can be consulted on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon.  No deal is much more likely. 

Parliament has to approve a no deal Brexit.

[Sir Tigger KC]

I think it's best to agree to disagree Malcolm, as it's clear that we have very different views on the EU and how it operates.   

You take a very British view that if it's not written down it can't happen and that the EU will do things by the book.  I think that the EU interprets treaties and the law to suit itself and it regularly turns a blind eye when it suits.    Budget deficit and debt rules spring to mind. 

Take the Irish border for example.  The EU say that a hard border or any sort of infrastructure at the border will contravene the Good Friday Agreement and basically blackmailed Theresa May into agreeing the 'backstop' where NI stays in the single market and customs union.  Thankfully she later backtracked and said that she would not agree to a border down the Irish Sea effectively splitting the UK up.    So on one hand a hard border between ROI and NI would contravene the GFA, but they don't seem worried about the fact the splitting NI from GB would also contravene the GFA. 

Personally I think putting a border down the Irish Sea would be far more damaging to NI than a hard border across Ireland, but I'll leave that to our Ireland expert for comment! 

Because there is no legal basis to impose new rules on a member state without their agreement. If all EU28 and the commission have agreed Art50 is revocable, then how can anyone attach further conditions? The Uk just says no to the conditions, and revokes anyway.

If the UK gets to a point where it wants to revoke A50, we will be weak, humiliated and desperate.  If the commission, the EU27 heads of state and the EU parliament present a united front and decide that the UK can revoke A50, but only if conditions are met such as adopting the Euro, we would have little option but to comply.  Without agreement from the EU institutions I don't believe that we could unilaterally revoke A50 and carry on as if nothing had happened.

We could of course take it to the ECJ for a decision.  Hmmm take the EU to it's own court....    Good luck with that then, and all the while the clock is ticking.  Tick tock! 

It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon.  No deal is much more likely. 

Parliament has to approve a no deal Brexit.

As I understand it, Parliament gets to have a 'meaningful vote' over the deal, but dosn't hold a veto.  It's what Dominic Grieve and his cronies tried to achieve, but he backed down and voted against his own amendment.    If on the 29th March 2019 there is no deal in place we will leave anyway.  Amid much wailing and knashing of teeth no doubt!    Tick tock! 

At the other end of the spectrum, if Olly Robbins Theresa May decided to abandon BREXIT, I'm sure Parliament would have to approve the attempt to revoke A50, given that they overwhelmingly approved starting the process in the first place.  It would be politically explosive, might lead to civil unrest and would certainly bring down the government leading to a GE.   

Cue the return of Farage and if he organised UKIP properly they might do well in a GE amid such circumstances, given that 3/4 of English and Welsh constituencies voted leave and across the UK 2/3 of all constituencies voted leave. 

That's hypothetical speculation though.    

[STEMO]

Hypothetical speculation is not allowed on here. Facts only, please.   

[Sir Tigger KC]

Hypothetical speculation is not allowed on here. Facts only, please.   

Dammit! You've just demolished the entire debate I was having with Malcolm!                                                     

[Varche]

tick tock

[LC0112G]

I'll have one more go at trying to explain why the EU27/Commission cannot and will not try to impose additional conditions on revoking Art50.

The principle in English common law is "What the Man on the Clapham Omnibus should understand the Law to mean". Ok, this is EU law/treaties, so perhaps it's the Homme on the Paris Metro, or Herr on the Berlin S-Bahn, but the principle is the same - what would most people believe the words to mean.

The words in Art50 are completely silent on revocation. Hence there is no way for a man on the bus to know whether it's revocable or not. If there is a disagreement, then the ECJ must rule. The disputing parties all put their case, including any other court rulings which support their interpretation, and after all the argey-bargy the ECJ decides. I think we both agree on that?

So what happens if the EU27/commission try to say that Art50 is only revocable if we agree to X, Y, Z? We say piss off, and revoke anyway. The EU27/Commission decide to take it to the ECJ.  The UK's case is that both sides agree Art50 is revocable. The EU say yes, but only if we adhere to X,Y,Z. We then produce the text of Art50, and state we simply invoking/revoking our treaty rights under Art50, and no-where does it mention X,Y,Z. There is no way on gods green earth that even the dimmest of passengers on the No88 can read the Art50 text and come to the conclusion that it allows additional conditions to be imposed on either the invocation or revocation of Art50. That would amount to a treaty change, and would apply to all EU members equally.

It's an unwinnable position, so the EU27/commission won't take it. If anyone did I'd expect the ECJ to reject the application out of hand. The only question is "is Art50 revocable or not". If it is we can, if it isn't we can't.

If the UK gets to a point where it wants to revoke A50, we will be weak, humiliated and desperate.  If the commission, the EU27 heads of state and the EU parliament present a united front and decide that the UK can revoke A50, but only if conditions are met such as adopting the Euro, we would have little option but to comply.  Without agreement from the EU institutions I don't believe that we could unilaterally revoke A50 and carry on as if nothing had happened.

You mean we have the right to unilaterally invoke treaty rights (such as Art50), but don't have the right to unilaterally revoke treaty rights (such as Art50) unless we agree to X, Y, Z?  Where does the treaty say that?

We could of course take it to the ECJ for a decision.  Hmmm take the EU to it's own court....    Good luck with that then, and all the while the clock is ticking.  Tick tock! 

I have more trust in the ECJ judges than I do in all politicians put together. They're at the top of their particular tree, and as independent as it is possible to be.

It's all hypothetical anyway because I can't see the UK trying to revoke A50 anytime soon.  No deal is much more likely. 

Parliament has to approve a no deal Brexit.

As I understand it, Parliament gets to have a 'meaningful vote' over the deal, but dosn't hold a veto.  It's what Dominic Grieve and his cronies tried to achieve, but he backed down and voted against his own amendment.    If on the 29th March 2019 there is no deal in place we will leave anyway.  Amid much wailing and knashing of teeth no doubt!    Tick tock! 

At the other end of the spectrum, if Olly Robbins Theresa May decided to abandon BREXIT, I'm sure Parliament would have to approve the attempt to revoke A50, given that they overwhelmingly approved starting the process in the first place.  It would be politically explosive, might lead to civil unrest and would certainly bring down the government leading to a GE.   

Cue the return of Farage and if he organised UKIP properly they might do well in a GE amid such circumstances, given that 3/4 of English and Welsh constituencies voted leave and across the UK 2/3 of all constituencies voted leave. 

In the UK, Parliament is always sovereign, not the Govt. Parliament will decide what the Govt does next as a result of the 'meaningful vote'. That includes all the options - Soft Brexit, Hard Brexit and Revoke/Remain.

The best reason I can think of for the EU arguing that Art50 is not revocable is that if it were revocable, we could revoke on March 28th 2019, and then invoke again on March 30th 2019. This would give us another 2 years to get a deal we like. And do the same again in 2021. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate. When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.
Parliament knows this, which is why many of its inhabitants are desperately trying to find a way of stopping the decision being implemented, without overtly being seen to be guilty of doing so.
The EU also know this, which is why each time a member state has been silly enough to allow its people to have a referendum on important EU matters, and then got a decision it didn't like, they used very crafty methods to have another vote, and made damn sure it went the way they wanted it to.
The slight changes to the EU constitution and it being renamed the Lisbon treaty being a case in point.
The EU barely tries to disguise its contempt for democracy. UK politicians love everything about it, until the people don't vote as they are advised they should.
Vile, loathsome creatures, the lot of them.

[LC0112G]

Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate.

No, it's not. Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since it took those powers from the last 'dictator/King'.

When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.

Yes, it does. The referendum was advisory only. The government promised to enact the 'will of the people'. Parliament didn't.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Parliaments sovereignty is loaned to it by the electorate.

No, it's not. Parliament has been sovereign in the UK since it took those powers from the last 'dictator/King'.

In A strictly legal sense you are correct. However it is only with the consent of the people that they hold this power. We can take it off each off them at every election, and if we all wrote on our ballot papers at the next election "none of the above", then there would be no parliament to hold any power or sovereignty.
So, ultimately it lies with the people.

When it decided to give the electorate a binding referendum on the EU, it handed the sovereignty back to the people for that decision. The people took their decision, and Parliament does not have the power / sovereignty to overturn that decision.

Yes, it does. The referendum was advisory only. The government promised to enact the 'will of the people'. Parliament didn't.

Again, you are correct in a strictly legal sense, but not only did the Government promise to enact the will of the people, parliament has endorsed this by its various votes since then. As for having the power to overturn it - they couldn't possibly dare to try in any overt way, because it would end democracy as we know it in the UK.