Print

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

[Doctor Gollum]

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.

Works both ways...

* insert random condition of choice.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

That will never fly.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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......

As there is nothing written in A50 regarding revocation after it has been invoked, the whole issue is wide open to interpretation and we are interpreting the situation very differently. 

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. 

Take the current 'negotiations', A50 says that the Withdrawal Agreement must take account of a framework for future relations and yet the EU thus far have pretty much refused to discuss the future, so they are not even adhering to A50 properly.    The phased negotiation that the EU has insisted on is absurd as everything is interlinked.  How can you decide what will happen at the borders when you havn't discussed the terms of trade?    The reason that they are not adhering to A50 properly is because it suits them. 

This whole discussion is hypothetical anyway as the government won't try to revoke A50, but I'll leave the last word to this Guy. 

“If Britain changes its mind, it would find an open door. But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, to a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity.”  Guy Verhofstadt MEP and BREXIT Negotiator for the EU Parliament.

https://www.politico.eu/article/guy-verhofstadt-brexit-european-parliament-to-uk-you-can-stay-in-eu-but-lose-perks/

[Nick W]

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

[Sir Tigger KC]

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. 

[Nick W]

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. 

Of course they will, because we do the same thing. It's Germans who think as originally quoted

[LC0112G]

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.

No. The treaties cannot have any additional conditions attached. That would be a change to the treaty. The treaty, as written, is either revocable or not. If it is revocable, then we can revoke. If it isn't, then we can't. Simple as that.

UK plc could just as easily say that it wishes to rekove A50 but only on condition of halving our contributions*

You can ask for anything you like, but unless the treaty allows it, it can't form a condition on invoking a right granted under a treaty. It could happen if all EU28 and the commission and the EU parliament agree to it.

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

Yes they could claim Art50 isn't revocable, and then the ECJ decide if it is or not. If it is we can revoke. If not then A49 is the only way back in.

[LC0112G]

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. 

I hold no such view. 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.

The ECJ is not the EU/commission. The EU/commission are politicians and so will lie and cheat to meet their own ends.

[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'.

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.

Yep - a point I made here :

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=143164.msg1868967#msg1868967

which is why I think we're headed for another referendum.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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?     

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I will be amazed if we have another referendum. If it did happen, I suspect the vote to leave would be considerably higher than it was last time.

[Sir Tigger KC]

I will be amazed if we have another referendum. If it did happen, I suspect the vote to leave would be considerably higher than it was last time.

Unless it was rigged! 

I'm starting to think that the establishment will do anything to keep us in, or at least keep us under the control of the EU. 

[LC0112G]

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?     

No, for the reasons outlined in the previous 4 pages.

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.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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!   

[LC0112G]

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!   

If the EU27 attempted to impose unacceptable conditions during agreed revocation negotiations, then we'd just have walk away, revoke unilaterally and take our chances in the ECJ (should the EU decide to contest it). I've no idea if the ECJ would determine Art50 is or is not revocable, but whatever they decide it would be unconditional and apply equally to all EU members from then on.

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.