1306
General Discussion Area / Re: Mother Theresa Takes Control
« on: 28 July 2018, 21:29:24 »
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.
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?
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.
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.
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, ifOlly RobbinsTheresa 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.