UKC

Brexit might become a bad dream!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Offwidth 22 Sep 2018

Some interesting legal moves on the consequencies of reversing Brexit that I had been unaware of (everyone seemed to say we would lose all the opt outs and discounts if we changed our mind and decided to stay in the EU and it turns out that might not be true).  Thank you Scotland for trying.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/21/triggering-article-50...

2
 Andy Farnell 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Let's hope the monumental cock up that is Brexit can be consigned to history. 

Andy F

 

 

6
 Robert Durran 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

But it's scary that it could potentially be blocked by a single EU member which stands to benefit from Brexit by taking over some of our manufacturing or service sector.

2
 john arran 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

That may be true, but given the pressure that would be brought on such a dissenter by the rest of the EU countries, all of whom would stand to benefit from UK's continued EU membership, I suspect that would be pretty unlikely in practice.

2
baron 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

It doesn't tell us anything new, does it?

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

> But it's scary that it could potentially be blocked by a single EU member which stands to benefit from Brexit by taking over some of our manufacturing or service sector.

The question for the ECJ is whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification.  The person who drafted Article 50 believes it can be withdrawn.  If ECJ rules we have a legal right to withdraw Article 50 and we exercise it then we are back where we were before we triggered it.  Other states do not need to consent and no terms of our membership would change.

Quite likely the UK government will argue we do not have this right: they argued against the referral to the ECJ in the Scottish courts.

2
 deepsoup 22 Sep 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Quite likely the UK government will argue we do not have this right

That would be pretty weird wouldn't it?  It might suit their purposes to tell us that we're totally committed now even if it is becoming increasingly clear that it'll be a f*cking disaster - but going to court and arguing that we should have *fewer* rights than might actually be the case? 

I don't see how they can.  No wonder they didn't want the case to go forward.

 

1
OP Offwidth 22 Sep 2018
In reply to baron:

Seems pretty new and newsworthy to me.

baron 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Sorry, the court case is new and newsworthy but the article is just speculation.

It would have been better balanced if it had mentioned previous comments from EU officials who have stated that the UK won’t be staying with its exemptions intact.

It will be interesting to see how quick this makes its way through the court and who supports the case and if any side appeals the decision.

Post edited at 12:27
2
 wercat 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

it  must be at least 6-12 months ago that I heard an interview with someone descrabed as the priginator of Article 50, his name escapes, but he then said there was no reason for thinking it couldn't be aborted and I've never believed it to be irreversible since then, and I've never been convinced that it was, except in the minds of the rabid

(BA (Hons) Law, Dunelm 74-77)

Post edited at 13:39
1
 MG 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

What are you thinking: Win court case>Tory collapse>election>Labour>second referendum>stay?  Would be nice but a lot of stages, and a reversal of Labour policy needed.

1
OP Offwidth 22 Sep 2018
In reply to MG:

I'm thinking we need a few more lights at the end of tunnels maybe? Plus legal steps like this are always a good idea: I'm not sure people were so postive when Gina Millar's campaign started and look at the effect that had in the end.

 jkarran 22 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Whatever the possible costs of rescinding our A50 notification the politics dictate the cost be low, it is the difficult to deliver win-win option nobody would wish to put up barriers to.

Jk

1
 Dax H 23 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

I may be wrong, I often am but I seem to remember reading that once it is evoked there was no framework for rescinding it written in to the law. I'm sure someone said that it was never envisioned that someone would want to leave. 

 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Hotel California!! The eu version of democracy. 

I think if the ecj tried to block a country's own electoral wishes, regardless of how close the vote was it would just increase anti eu opinion and kill any idea that the eu believes in democracy. 

15
 RomTheBear 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Hotel California!! The eu version of democracy. 

> I think if the ecj tried to block a country's own electoral wishes, regardless of how close the vote was it would just increase anti eu opinion and kill any idea that the eu believes in democracy. 

As usual you didn't even get the basics: The ECJ has simply been tasked to rule whether, legally speaking, a country could unilaterally withdraw article 50. Of course they can't force a country to stay.

3
 HansStuttgart 23 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

It would be a quite an irony if the court rules that member states can unilaterally rescind an a50 notification and thereby automatically become full EU members without opt-outs....

 

 

 JimR 23 Sep 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

 

Legally we'd be back where we started, practically we've already lost a lot as a lot of business is already transferring to mainland Europe

2
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

As usual rom I'll bow to your intellectual superiority which often mistakenly comes across as arrogance. 

Post edited at 10:14
17
 john arran 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Once again, if the message isn't palatable, try to discredit the messenger.

4
 skog 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

No, Rom's spot on on this one - this simply isn't about the EU interfering in Britain's choices.

Firstly, it isn't the EU doing it, it's one of the regions of the UK.

And secondly, it's trying to ADD an option, or at least clarify it.

1
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to skog:

Only the option is reversing an electoral result? Wonder if they would be so keen to meddle with Catalan voting etc.. I think the eu have over stepped the line interfering in national politics for their own benefit. 

Post edited at 11:11
8
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Once again, if the message isn't palatable, try to discredit the messenger.

Hardly discrediting is it. He is one of many on here who think because they have a certain opinion it makes a them some how morally and intellectually superior, and that everyone else are uneducated heathens. 

6
 skog 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

It's about what options exist should the electoral result be reversed, not about reversing the result. It isn't about meddling with voting.

Honestly now - have you actually read the article? You aren't making sense here.

If it came to it, reversing the result would be entirely democratic if it was the result of another referendum, or of an election where it was in party manifestos - there's nothing undemocratic about getting people to vote again on something, whether or not you think it's 'fair'. I don't think it's going to happen, but calling a vote on something is, pretty much by definition, not undemocratic.

The oft-quoted 'vote again until you get the right result' or 'neverendum' scenarios are nonsense - if a party tried to do that, the population would get fed up and vote them out at the next election, ending it.

But again, that isn't actually what's being done here.

And yet again, it isn't the EU doing this, it's one of the regions of the UK exploring what the legal options are, in order to try to provide more clarity and options, for the benefit of their electorate and the whole of the UK. That's democracy in action, in stark contrast to May's 'my way or the highway' stuff.

Post edited at 11:22
1
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to skog:

But isn't there something more deeply flawed if you are able to use the highest court in Europe to discuss matters relating to reversing what was a democratic referendum in a country that is considered to have one of least corrupt and most open democracies in the world?

Edit. It's as though the eu court condones reversing democratic votes. 

Post edited at 11:40
10
 RomTheBear 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> But isn't there something more deeply flawed if you are able to use the highest court in Europe to discuss matters relating to reversing what was a democratic referendum in a country that is considered to have one of least corrupt and most open democracies in the world?

> Edit. It's as though the eu court condones reversing democratic votes. 

Nope. You still don't get it. Unbelievable.

The only thing that could happen is that the ECJ says fine, Britain could reverse article 50 if they wanted, or no you can't. In any case it doesn't change anything to the UK ability to leave.

Post edited at 11:48
3
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to skog:

>  to May's 'my way or the highway' stuff.

I suspect it isn't though. I'm not a supporter, fan or voter of hers, but I suspect it is just a stance like the EUs that they move forward on, each side then gives a little in different areas. Both emerge having appeared to fight their individual corners etc.. 

2
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nope. You still don't get it. Unbelievable.

We can see where it goes over the coming months and then decide what is believable or not. Whilst many remainers and the eu would prefer otherwise, everyone is entitled to their own view or opinion. 

5
 RomTheBear 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> We can see where it goes over the coming months and then decide what is believable or not. Whilst many remainers and the eu would prefer otherwise, everyone is entitled to their own view or opinion. 

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to not understand the most basic and most simple facts. (Or rather, pretend to)

 

5
In reply to summo:

> But isn't there something more deeply flawed if you are able to use the highest court in Europe to discuss matters relating to reversing what was a democratic referendum in a country that is considered to have one of least corrupt and most open democracies in the world?

No, the role of the ECJ is to interpret EU law.  There is a legal question as to whether Article 50 can be rescinded once activated because the text of the treaty is not sufficiently clear.   The case went through two stages of appeal before the highest Scottish Court decided there was a legal question which should be referred to the ECJ.   It is absolutely proper for the ECJ to clarify EU law and inform the UK whether it could rescind article 50 should it choose to.

 

 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And I guess just by chance if a net contributor wanted to reverse article 50 it won't be a problem.

As I said to Rom, let's wait for verdict then see how it is used by the remain supporters and the eu. Then we'll see motives and intentions. 

7
 RomTheBear 23 Sep 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Forget it. Summo just likes to pretend to be a complete idiot who doesn't understand the obvious for the sake of the argument. A strange debating tactic I have to say.

Post edited at 11:58
3
 skog 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Let's try something for a moment.

I'm going to postulate the existence of what may or may not be a mythical beast - the Brexiteer who cares about more than just Brexit.

This person wants the UK to leave the EU, but cares about how this happens and what the consequences are; they want to minimise the costs of Brexit, and maximise the advantages. They may feel that the current government's handling of the matter leaves something to be desired.

I'm not sure whether such creatures exist any more, but I know some did before the referendum and even a short while after it; for the sake of discussion let's imagine that they do.


The UK threw away a lot of advantage when it invoked article 50 - before that, it could hang around and even be disruptive if it wanted, knowing that if negotiations didn't go its way it was still OK and could carry on battling for the deal it wanted; there was no time limit but it was in the EU's interests to bring the matter to a close.

Since invoking article 50, the UK is on the clock, essentially a transit van playing chicken with a juggernaut - no deal Brexit will hurt both sides, but the immediate consequences will be far worse for the UK.

Our hypothetical Brexiteer might look at this situation and wish for a way to improve it.


If the UK, having failed to secure a good deal, could turn to the EU and say "actually, this isn't over yet, but we're staying in for now with all our old advantages while we sort it out," the UK's negotiating position would be much stronger again, and a better deal might be possible either before the current deadline, or, more likely, a while later, perhaps after more competent negotiators had been put in place, with clearer objectives.

And, being a rational creature, if it transpired that the best deal on offer was still worse than staying in the EU with our current deal, our Brexiteer might be happy that we at least had that option as a fallback.

So while the Guardian inevitably spins this story for their own ends, it's really good news for everyone - apart from Brexiteers who care about nothing more than Brexit, who want to leave immediately, regardless of the cost and don't care what the deal is like.

Brexiteers who want the best result for the UK can also welcome this development as a small step towards better possibilities, although it's still quite possible that the courts will find that the UK does not have this option anyway.

2
 GridNorth 23 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

No dream is better than a bad dream

Al

OP Offwidth 23 Sep 2018
In reply to skog:

Thats a very good argument.

These hypothetical soft brexit or sensibly logical brexit voters are not mythical, I know quite a few and some posters here have said thats what they wanted. Equally many remain supporters , like me, remain ( if you excuse the pun) highly cynical about the way the EU is run and for all sorts of reasons. This doesn't take away from the messages of the demographics and the campaign. The vote was won by popularist dirty tricks in the face of economic fearmongering in the other direction (a shameful campaign on both sides). Its a fact that a huge majority of older people supported brexit and in the face of a huge majority of younger people (who are less likely to vote) who supported remain: so the change in demographics is meaningful, as are the exposed lies of brexiteer politicians and the bad economic predictions (unless we hit a very hard, or especially, a no deal brexit) . A very small proportion of degree educated people supported brexit.... this is worring to me but not as worrying as the fact that most white college educated people in the US voted for Trump (education clearly does not equate to honest intelligence: self interest and tribalism often wins out).

Lets not knock the likes of summo who engages in debate and raises interesting points. Play the ball not the man.

Post edited at 13:57
1
 wercat 23 Sep 2018
In reply to skog:

Nope,

That's not it.   If the whole body has elected for suicide there's no going back, even if a majority of later cells sees sense and thinks death might not be the answer it's undemocratic to ignore the first democratic urge to do oneself in.  Therefore we must go through with it.   

After all, there was no stopping of all the killing in WWI even though it was impossible to get the War Aims of the Allies divulged, as Siegfried Sassoon found out.  Once the decision is taken there's never any turning back, Summit or die!

 

I have to say that the equal and opposite reaction to the accusation of wanting to reconsider being waiting for the referendum that gives the answer you want is to see that the other side want a bad decision made in a moment of madness written in stone with no democratic method of undoing it.

God, even Parliament can't bind itself in the future!  That is not regarded as undemocratic!

Post edited at 13:54
 JimR 23 Sep 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Its actually quite clear, its whether the UK is capable of changing its mind by rescinding Art50 if it wishes to do so, not about whether the UK's mind will be changed by an EU body. Quite simply just a clarification of a treaty provision.

 

 RomTheBear 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> And I guess just by chance if a net contributor wanted to reverse article 50 it won't be a problem.

> As I said to Rom, let's wait for verdict then see how it is used by the remain supporters and the eu. Then we'll see motives and intentions. 

How the legal clarification on whether article 50 can be unilaterally revoked will be used will be up to the "one of least corrupt and most open democracies in the world" as you coined it.

But I guess with your paranoid delusions, no matter what they do it will be an evil plot concocted by evil eurocrats.

Post edited at 14:06
3
OP Offwidth 23 Sep 2018
In reply to JimR:

Hardly simple if it had to follow a complex and expensive and lengthy legal route in the face of UK government opposition.

 jkarran 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Whilst many remainers and the eu would prefer otherwise, everyone is entitled to their own view or opinion. 

But not their own facts.

Jk

 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to skog:

I agree. Not every Brexiteer is a rabid uneducated illiterate racist, some no doubt are and so are some remainers. Many Brexiteers have no problem with any flavour trade of deal, they simply dislike everything else the eu has added in on top of trade like CAP, fisheries, Strasbourg and so forth. Or it's incompetence in dealing with major events. 

By the very nature of negotiating if the eu thinks the UK will withdraw article 50 if it doesn't get the perfect deal. It will offer a horrendous deal, then wait for it be rejected etc. Etc. The UK has to play the high stakes game otherwise it's just going to get shafted from the off and now crunch time is close, the civil servants earn their keep negotiating as their respective politicians do the public posturing.  

Part of the problem is the UK should have been tougher on day 1 after the Brexit vote and fought for better terms on the negotiation period etc.. It tied it's own hands and committed to a tight timeline. 

Time will tell but with comments from tusk and others that are clearly just stoking the uk fire, things could back fire on the eu if there is a people's vote, then what peoples vote 2. Granted some voters on both sides won't even know who tusk is!! 

Post edited at 14:45
3
 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> But not their own facts.

> Jk

Why not. Seems to work for politicians of all colours.. red buses, full trains, wreaths.. 

1
 jkarran 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

Because it's dangerous.

Jk

 summo 23 Sep 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Because it's dangerous.

> Jk

Well. With the big two party conferences coming up, wonder how much fact versus speculation there will be. 

 HansStuttgart 23 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

 

> By the very nature of negotiating if the eu thinks the UK will withdraw article 50 if it doesn't get the perfect deal. It will offer a horrendous deal, then wait for it be rejected etc. Etc. The UK has to play the high stakes game otherwise it's just going to get shafted from the off and now crunch time is close, the civil servants earn their keep negotiating as their respective politicians do the public posturing.  

Hmmm, at the current state of British politics and the Brits' views on the EU, EU27 would rather throw some more concessions to the UK to prevent the UK from rescinding a50. The EU27 want the issue to be wrapped up as soon as possible.

> Part of the problem is the UK should have been tougher on day 1 after the Brexit vote and fought for better terms on the negotiation period etc.. It tied it's own hands and committed to a tight timeline. 

The UK did not have a choice in this matter. EU27 would just have refused to negotiate anything at all if the timetable was not accepted.

1
 Dr.S at work 24 Sep 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

Of course the EU27 could largely chose the negotiating terms, but by triggering A50 the U.K. lost any influence it had on those terms as Skig says. Skog - nice head on collision analogy, I might have to keep that one!

1
 Trevers 24 Sep 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But it's scary that it could potentially be blocked by a single EU member which stands to benefit from Brexit by taking over some of our manufacturing or service sector.

It's called "taking back control"

 mullermn 24 Sep 2018
In reply to summo:

> Many Brexiteers have no problem with any flavour trade of deal, they simply dislike everything else the eu has added in on top of trade like CAP, fisheries, Strasbourg and so forth. Or it's incompetence in dealing with major events. 

See, this is a good illustration of the major problem with the position held by most pro-Brexit people. They see wanting to remain as some statement that the EU is somehow perfect. It's not, but the point is it's a better starting point than any of the realistic alternatives.

You say the EU is incompetent at dealing with major events - compared to what? 28 independent countries without a preexisting framework for cooperation, discussion and civilised disagreement? If every country in the EU 'Brexited' do you really think Europe would be better placed to deal with problems?

 HansStuttgart 24 Sep 2018
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Of course the EU27 could largely chose the negotiating terms, but by triggering A50 the U.K. lost any influence it had on those terms as Skig says. Skog - nice head on collision analogy, I might have to keep that one!


Even the timing of the a50 notification was somewhat out of UK gov's control.

There was quite some EU pressure on May to get the process started.

The brexiters (both in CON and LAB) needed to trigger it, because otherwise plans would be developed that would show how inferior the outcome will be. Just imagine having the impact assessment discussion before the notification. The project required momentum.

It is also no accident that the UK will leave the union just before the next European parliament elections. UK gov desperately needed to avoid those because it would turn into a de facto second referendum.

(Similarly May's snap election was forced by external circumstances. May sent a50 while thinking EU would be quite accommodating and everything would turn out fine. EU set out tough negotiation outlines, May realized she did not stand a chance without a larger majority and called an election.)

1
 Dr.S at work 24 Sep 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

I dont really agree with your analysis of the snap general election being forced - May was in a good position in the poles andfelt she could strengthen her domestic and international hand. There was some good stuff in that Tory manifesto, but it was too strong for the electorate and May bombed dreadfully whilst Labour played a canny game.

1
OP Offwidth 25 Sep 2018
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I think he is right. May saw an easy increase of MP's to the point that rebels held no sway. She then ran one of the worst election campaigns in history... and assumed the swing voters feared Corbyn so much that he had no chance. Can't see them making that mistake so seriously again.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...