Please play nicely. No one wants to listen/read a keyboard warriors rants....
Isn't it some kind of rule that manufacturers have to maintain a parts supply for 10yrs after a car has left production?If so that time is now long past for the Omega.
?
So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds? After all that's democracy in practice right?
Ah no, that would be silly!Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'!
If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy.
Personally, I would never bother voting again.
White isn't a colour
We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.
No. If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost
and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament.
It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The only way conditions could be attached is if we try to negotiate with the EU27/commission in an attempt to avoid it going to the ECJ in the first place. If everyone then agrees on the conditions for revoking Art50, then it won't go to the ECJ. However, I don't think that approach is very likely to work because I don't fancy our chances of negotiating an acceptable deal, and if things like budget rebates get tangled up in it then the Govt won't be able to agree to the deal. The EU know that.
All the stuff I've written has assumed that no acceptable deal can be reached with the EU27/commission. At that point the only route is an official request to the ECJ on whether Art50, once issued, is revocable. IMV the only possible 'verdicts' are yes and no.
As I've said earlier, if we get to the point where the government attempts to revoke A50, we will be so weak and humiliated that they will will agree to almost anything. There will be no red lines or tough talking and the EU will have the whip hand.
The UK will be in no position to demand what sandwiches to have for lunch let alone whether we get to keep the rebate or not!
Slowly but surely, I think you are coming round to the idea that conditions could be attached to the revocation of A50!
I take the view that "the ECJ will rigidly stick to the EU's own laws and rules and will not deviate". If it's written down, then the ECJ will hold that what is written down must be followed. If it's not written down then the ECJ will have to decide based on which of the two sides presented the most persuasive arguments.
So you think it's possible that the ECJ could hold that the UK could revoke A50, but only with conditions attached?
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.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.
You take the view that the EU will rigidly stick to it's own laws and rules and will not deviate. If it's not explicitly written down allowing something to happen, it cannot. I take the view that the EU will cynically manipulate a situation to suit it's own ends, especially where nothing is written to prevent it taking a particular course.
you have that completely the wrong way around: anything that ISN'T explicitly written down can happen. If it is written down, then that's the only way it can occur
That's Malcolm's point of view not mine.
I agree with you Nick and believe that the EU will use any ambiguity in it's own laws or treaties to suit it's own ends.
If we agree that A50 may or may not be revoked by virtue of the absence of any mention in the rather succinct, plain text, then surely by the very same tokens, conditions may or may not be attached either way.
UK plc could just as easily say that it wishes to rekove A50 but only on condition of halving our contributions*
in the same way as the EU could turn round and say that it isn't revocable and as such we must leave and rejoin as per A49, and then only with xyz terms
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.
