Brexit white paper

[Workingman]

Suff, those views, like yours, are the opinions of people with no legal qualifications, none, they are nothing more than the millions of other opinions, on both sides, opinions. They are not factual.

The only opinions that will count are those of the judges who will sit, examine the evidence, and then come to a judgement should A50 be revoked. You are not one of them.

The revocation of A50, whichever way it is done, will be a legal test case. It could (will) go to the courts and while it is there Brexit will be put on hold - it could take years to resolve, with appeal after appeal.

Wrt Vienna, you do realise that not all of the EU27 are signatories and it only adds to the A50 revocation problem.

May and the UK are in a mess, admit it.

[cromwell]

It is obvious that we aen't much of a democracy. I wonder how many people will bother to vote at the next general election? Because I don't think we will leave the EU now.

And in the future, when we are asked to take "our fair share" of the endless flow of illegal immigrants coming over the med, will Parliament offer us another referendum on EU membership? I doubt it.

[medsec222]

It is so disappointing and depressing. I thought Theresa May started off quite well with strong resolve, but unfortunately it all seems to have ebbed away. Her behaviour towards David Davies' authority as BREXIT secretary was despicable.

[Suff]

WM, if you really want I'll go back to those UK legal opinion articles and put back in all the quotes where they say that “it doesn’t say you can’t but the EU would have to AGREE to anything you want to do”.

Those are all opinions from Legal experts in the UK.

Every one of them says “Yes it does not say you cannot withdraw the application, so therefore there is a possibility you can”.

Every one of them then says, buried at the bottom of the article. “The EU would have to agree to your attempt to withdraw”.

The EU parliamentary article may have been delivered by a political body, but it has been investigated as a Legal opinion, not a political opinion. I have not checked the Authors but I can go and dig out the legal credentials of the teams that delivered it. If you really must.

The executive summary is pretty clear. We have already left. The Article, whilst politically drafted and in political language, covers all the required options. There is an option to trigger, an option to extend, if 2 years is not enough and an option to re-join the EU should the member state change its mind.

It is only in the flights of fancy of the Remain campaign that the UK can just pop up and say “surprise we want to stay”. There is no doubt, at all, that the CJEU would preside over any judgement on A50. This is because A50 is an article of an EU treaty over which the institutions of the EU have sole competency.

This is not difficult to understand. Any other understanding is wilful misdirection.

I was quite pleased when I read that article from the EU parliament. Because it says we are ALREADY out of the EU and I, for one, believe them.

[AliasAggers]

Hasn't this Brexit business been a farce!

I don't know why we bothered to have a referendum on EU membership, or why I wasted time in voting.

All I can say is thank heaven I'm too old to really bother about what happens now.

[Workingman]

May's government team is collapsing right, left and centre.

She has lost ministers, two deputy chairs and any number of PPSs since the away day.

Mandelson and Blair have chipped in and Greening has caled for BrexRef2.

It is all going swimmingly well.

More tea, vicar?

Suff re your link:

DISCLAIMER (page 4)
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

It does not state that the UK cannot unilaterally revoke A50.

The legal opinions I mentioned are not confined to the UK, they are international. Try google for more details.

[Suff]

And at the top of Page 4

This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional
Affairs and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’
Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

Now I don't know about you but requested, overseen and published, to me, retains quite a significant portion of responsibility. But you are right, only the EU parliament could commission a document, oversee it and publish it then claim that it represents the opinions of the author....

Certainly it is published on the European Parliaments own web site under their think tank.

Absolutely no reason for thinking it represents the way they view it. None at all.

Of course the qualifications of the lead author are not very valid for this...

Qualifications



Field of research


FIELD OF RESEARCH: 2. Culture and Society; 2.7. Law; CERCS SPECIALTY: S155 European law

As for other articles on the unilateral revocation of A50?

This is a good argument in favour of interpreting a notification pursuant to Article 50 to be revocable provided there is political agreement among the repentant state and the EU-27.


Or, more interesting, the judgement of the UK High Court:

At paragraph 10 of Thursday’s judgment, the High Court outlined that it was ‘common ground between the parties …[that] a notice under Article 50(2) cannot be withdrawn, once it is given’.

There is, of course, this article from UK Matrix Law, which argues the semantics of "intent" over something more positive, like, actually leaving. For anyone who is unsure about the differences between EU law and UK law, I recommend wasting many hours looking at Caveat Emptor, as it applies in UK law, especially it's applicability in the UK and the opposite for any contract which extends beyond the UK into other EU parties.

Finally after a lot of digging, I found some of what you are getting at.

The three knights opinion

notification would have to be treated as having lapsed because the constitutional requirements necessary to give effect to the notified intention have not been met”…“it would be incompatible with the European Union Treaties for a Member State to be forced out of the Union against its will, or contrary to its own constitutional requirements

There is only one slight problem with that line of thinking. The Miller case did not mandate that the Government had to keep on going back to Parliament to get approval, only that the Government had to seek Parliamentary approval to notify intent. See the bill.

Under the terms of the treaty, the UK only has to

decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

Which it clearly did with the referendum and the bill to trigger A50.

Reading the letter from the PM to Tusk, There is not one single thing about the requirement of the member state to meet its constitutional requirements to agree to the "exit deal". There is a very good reason for this, the UK does not have that competence, the EU does.

Having read the arguments for unilateral revocation, I find that the Opinions against have stronger ground. The opinions for unilateral revocation all revolve around semantics, obscure points of law, an expectation that UK law overrules EU law in this case.

This is totally in opposition to the paper commissioned by the EU parliament and published on their website.

I also note that the "three knights" are all British....

[Workingman]

Suff, shout as loud as you like and diatribe as long as you want, but it does not change the fact that qualified and expert legal opinions do not agree with you, and you are not one of them.

There are opinions that once a country invokes A50 then tries to revoke it it would be an international test case. It would be in the courts for years as every i is dotted and t crossed. During that time all moves by both sides would be on hold.

Brexit could be the first ever case.

BTW: Your opinion is not the law even though you think it is. Sorry.

[Suff]

Suff, shout as loud as you like and diatribe as long as you want, but it does not change the fact that qualified and expert legal opinions do not agree with you, and you are not one of them.

BTW: Your opinion is not the law even though you think it is. Sorry.

So the qualified and legal opinions I point to are invalid, my comments are only on the inconsistency of them and the fact that those which support the withdrawal tend to be circumstantial and hairsplitting points of law from a UK perspective.

On the other hand I receive the comments above. No links, no analysis. Such is Brexit and the Remain argument and such it has ever been.

It's a moot point anyway. Nobody is going to withdraw in the next 7 1/2 months. So it is not worth discussing it further. Until some UK government even _talks_ about withdrawing the notification, it is not even worth the hot air to discuss it. That is for the press straw man remain articles. The only party which is openly committed to ignoring the will of the people and overturning the referendum vote was left isolated and bereft at the last election.