Time to halt the A50 process?

[medsec222]

Same here - out means out and the sooner the better.

[cromwell]

I don't know what others think about this matter, but I'm getting fed up with it.

Oh Aggers, you and me both! every time I turn Sky news on it seems to be that smugster Adam Boulton and a team of over excited "experts" gibbering away about what type of Brexit.

Please, not two more years of this!

[Workingman]

Well people.

I freely admit that I voted Remain, but I thought that I had made it clear over the weeks and months that once the result was in I also wanted Brexit. That has not changed.

What I never wanted, and I suspect none of you wanted, was a fudged Brexit, but that looks like where we are headed due to changed circumstances.

Aggers asked/said: "I still can't see why we just can't say goodbye to the EU."

It was probably possible before the election, even though something like 460 MPs backed remain, and that was because all the parties agreed to respect the will of the people.

That has now gone out of the window because May asked us to giver her a stronger hand and she failed. We now have a minority government which is having to scramble about seeking support from anywhere and everywhere just to stay in power, and many of those MPs (from all parties) now feel able to push for some sort of Brexit deal. The *government* cannot now run a bath without reference to outside influences yet it is somehow expected to run the country AND negotiate Brexit.

Whether that is right or wrong is neither here nor there, it is politics and it is where we are. It is also why Boulton et al are questioning what sort of Brexit we are likely to get. They are doing so because nobody has a clue. The option of Brexit now or we walk away is dead and buried.

[TheOstrich]

Well, I remain a Leaver, but nowadays a pragmatic one. I had a vague faith (in human nature) that the catastrophic election result might mean that people, cross-party, would see sense, pull together for the common good, and quietly negotiate a soft Brexit all factions could live with, but I can see there's still too much division and in-fighting for that halcyon dream to fly.

I note the arguments for delaying the A50 timetable, but quite honestly, if you're going to do that, you might just as well elect to opt back into the EU for the foreseeable, because politics in this country are going to remain unstable for a considerable time. Personally, however, as there is little trust left now between the UK and the rest of the EU countries, I still favour just getting on with Brexit rather than be shackled with an organisation that engenders nothing but mutual dislike. If it's a fudged Brexit, so be it.

[Suff]

My opinion??

the following comes from openeurope.org



Our own UK government documented

There is no provision for withdrawing the notification

Followed by "analysts believe"... That is believe, not fact. That fact is in the quote


The point you are making is this piece from the FT.

Lord Kerr argues that the absence of explicit guidance is telling. “There is nothing in the treaty saying it’s irreversible. So it isn’t. But of course some might want some sort of price to be paid,” he says.

European Commission lawyers take a harder line. To them, a decision to invoke Article 50 is a legal act that cannot be withdrawn. In practical terms, one scenario they want to avoid is a hostile Britain withdrawing and resubmitting its notification, thereby resetting the two-year deadline. “This cannot be done unilaterally,” says a senior EU official.

There are a lot of if's and buts and "opinions" in there. But the hard fact is this.

European Commission lawyers take a harder line. To them, a decision to invoke Article 50 is a legal act that cannot be withdrawn.

And, in fact, the treaty does not legislate for withdrawal, only exit. In that scenario, to introduce exit, all 28 members would have to agree to a treaty change to include it.

Personally I believe the position you are making WM, is embodied in this Opinion.

The problem that I see with this opinion is that it fundamentally fails to address the one key weakness. In order to "enable" a member state to revoke their A50 application, the remaining states would have to legislate this ability into the Treaty on European Union. This is something that all the institutions of the EU, the presidents of the institutions and most of the member states of the EU have, constantly and repeatedly, said that they will not do.

This is not my opinion, this is simple fact and, if we apply Occam's razor to the issue, we come up with two possible outcomes.

1. The UK attempts to rescind and is told no
2. The UK attempts to rescind and almost every EU minister and almost every state goes back on their spoken position that the UK cannot just rescind and that they will not allow it.

This is also the same for asking for more time. The key point you are making about halting A50.

Again. All EU institutions, their presidents and most of the Member states have made clear statements that once A50 is triggered, that it will conclude within the two year period.

I don't suppose we need to apply Occam's razor twice do we?

None of that is my opinion. All of the above are repetition of the competences of the treaties, reiteration of statements made by people with the power to halt A50 and legal opinions made by analysts and also EU lawyers.

In answer to the question in the subject. We can choose to believe what the EU are saying or we can chose to believe that they are not going to do what they say.

Now here is a simple fact. It is a fact and it is not my opinion. The UK has no say on this process now. What happens from now on lies in the hands of the EU institutions and the member states of the remaining EU. That is a fact and a competence granted to them by the Treaty on European Union. The only competence that treaty granted to the UK was the right to start the process. After that? We're just passengers. We can ask. But we can't mandate.

[AliasAggers]

O.M.G.

What fools we were to get tied up in this blasted Union.

[Workingman]

Suff, I asked a perfectly reasonable question re A50 based on the absolute mess the country is in with regards to its internal governance. It was based, not on some journalistic opinion from a publication that agrees with my leanings on the matter, but this.

It is the answer to a request by the HoL European Union Committee for clarification on the A50 process. The advice, in part, came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers and others.

Your links to Open Europe, the FT and Columbis Law only provide more opinions. What stems from those opinions are not facts, as you claim, they are interpretations. They obviously match your view of the world, but that does not make them right, concrete and the only path to take.

The only fact of the matter is that there are no facts to go on, only opinions, and that will remain the case until a test is carried out in the courts.

Will the UK become that test case? Probably not, but that should not stop the question from being asked.

[Suff]

The only fact of the matter is that there are no facts to go on, only opinions, and that will remain the case until a test is carried out in the courts.

Will the UK become that test case? Probably not, but that should not stop the question from being asked.

WM, I know it's a reasonable question given the state of the UK. But the point is that the vast body of statements from the EU officials and the EU27 governments lead us to the only possible conclusion. Which is a no for an answer.

The only fact is what is written in the treaty. Whether the treaty forbids something or not is opinion. Test case or not, any change would require those 27 states to agree to it. They have said they will not. Without a change, the treaty says apply and leave within 2 years and if everyone agrees we can make that 2 years longer. Everything else is conjecture and opinion and subject to ratification.

The question may be entirely reasonable to us in the UK. To the EU, currently suffering on global markets because the UK triggered A50, it is not only unreasonable, it is highly inflammatory. That's not opinion btw, that's reading the statements of the EU ministers and the EU27 governments. The mildest of which was Germany who agreed we needed time to trigger A50. But even Germany, now, is saying "get on with it".