Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
She should do the right thing and resign.

He deals been voted against twice, no deals been voted against. At this point, you need to pass on the responsibility to someone else. Atleast that should give just cause to an extension.
 
NinjaFletch said:
There'd be nothing stopping us doing it. That was confirmed in January.

It would really feck everybody off though.
Click to expand...
The exact thing they said was that you can do it as long as it does not involve an abusive practice. The revocation has to be in good faith; immediately triggering A50 again is obviously the very definirion of an abusive practice.

So no, the UK can't feck around like that, not even technically.
 
Arruda said:
Can someone explain to me the logic behind this vote? Isn't NO DEAL something that inevitably will happen in the absence of an alternative? Why are they voting on this?

My understandig was that if you want NO DEAL you vote against any proposed deals or extensions, and if you wan't a deal then you have to vote for the single one available or for an extension to try and get another.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

This vote was largely about forcing the government towards alternatives, any respectable government would have taken action towards that but we don't have a respectable government
 
Ekkie Thump said:
If EU doesn't unanimously agree to an extension am I right in thinking that one (fairly comical) option is for the UK to unilaterally revoke article 50, then immediately reinstate it so we can all enjoy another two years of this nonsense.
Click to expand...
No, that's not possible. The ECJ ruling pretty explicitly ruled that out. The purpose of revoking A50 must be to confirm EU membership, in good faith and sincere cooperation.
 
Siorac said:
The exact thing they said was that you can do it as long as it does not involve an abusive practice. The revocation has to be in good faith; immediately triggering A50 again is obviously the very definirion of an abusive practice.

So no, the UK can't feck around like that, not even technically.
Click to expand...


This is the judgement:

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
Click to expand...

Your point was the EU's opposition to it, but the court found against those arguments.

I think you might possibly be confusing it with the UK's ability to leave the backstop which did have a good faith element.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
As far as I remember (I might be wrong) the ECJ ruled that a member state could unilaterally withdraw from Article 50 at any point so while doing so might annoy them I don't think other EU members have any say at all.
Click to expand...

I knew that we could unilaterally revoke it but could we invoke it again say the next day for another 2 years of fun? Or would the EU have something to say about that.
 
NinjaFletch said:
This is the judgement:



Your point was the EU's opposition to it, but the court found against those arguments.

I think you might possibly be confusing it with the UK's ability to leave the backstop which did have a good faith element.
Click to expand...
http://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2018/1...-50-notification-can-be-unilaterally-revoked/

At point 148 of the Opinion it is claimed that the principles of good faith and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) function as limits on the exercise of revocation. The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions. The only echo of any such further limitations imposed by EU law are that the notification of revocation must be ‘unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned’ (para 75). This approach avoids the possible pitfalls that may arise from attempting to apply the vague obligations of good faith and sincere cooperation to processes that have been explicitly recognised by the ECJ as subject to the voluntary sovereign choice of the Member State concerned.
Click to expand...
So no, I'm not mixing it up with anything. They just made it concrete what good faith means.

Edit: besides, the UK would never actually do it anyway. It would absolutely destroy any international credibility the country had, as well as making a No Deal exit certain - why would the EU even attempt to negotiate after this?
 
Adisa said:
The world is laughing at us.
Click to expand...

What are the chances that Brexit exposed how british politicians act and acted behind the scenes at EU level? I'm genuinely wondering if some of their public complains weren't a reflection of their own actions.
 
The real question for me, why did the government whip against their amended bill? How would rejecting it have benefited them? Why not just allow the free vote? It makes no sense.
 
rcoobc said:
The real question for me, why did the government whip against their amended bill? How would rejecting it have benefited them? Why not just allow the free vote? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Should be the UK's new official motto.
 
Siorac said:
http://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2018/1...-50-notification-can-be-unilaterally-revoked/


So no, I'm not mixing it up with anything. They just made it concrete what good faith means.

Edit: besides, the UK would never actually do it anyway. It would absolutely destroy any international credibility the country had, as well as making a No Deal exit certain - why would the EU even attempt to negotiate after this?
Click to expand...

That seems to indicate that there is no 'good faith' component to the ECJ ruling.

What I'm thinking is that if May's deal fails a third time and she goes back to the EU seeking an extension only for someone like Italy to reject it then that doesn't necessarily mean we're out of options. I'm not a massive fan of the idea or anything but as a backs to the wall thing it seems a legally viable method of extending the current purgatory.
 
RedChip said:
Presumably one or two of the countries might try to leverage their veto for some other purpose. But once the big players back it, I would imagine everyone will fall in line. The 27 have been very united (until now) on Brexit.
Click to expand...
Yes they have been united, that's true. To be honest the question from @afrocentricity threw me somewhat as it's mostly just the impression I've got from several commentators, that the EU are irritated by us now, and want Brexit concluded whatever happens. I concede they could accept an extension, but there would have to be a very good reason. A binding referendum is the only one I can think of.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
That seems to indicate that there is no 'good faith' component to the ECJ ruling.

What I'm thinking is that if May's deal fails a third time and she goes back to the EU seeking an extension only for someone like Italy to reject it then that doesn't necessarily mean we're out of options. I'm not a massive fan of the idea or anything but as a backs to the wall thing it seems a legally viable method of extending the current purgatory.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have used the phrase 'good faith', true, because the ruling doesn't either. But it does explicitly say that the purpose of revocation must be the confirmation of EU membership.

And as I said, even if it were technically an option, it would only mean two more years to prepare for no deal.
 
Siorac said:
http://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2018/1...-50-notification-can-be-unilaterally-revoked/


So no, I'm not mixing it up with anything.
Click to expand...

No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1
 
NinjaFletch said:
No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1
Click to expand...
This is the important part:

notification of revocation must be ‘unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned’

And I repeat, this sort of feckery would do serious damage to the UK's reputation and credibility without achieving anything.
 
711 said:
Yes they have been united, that's true. To be honest the question from @afrocentricity threw me somewhat as it's mostly just the impression I've got from several commentators, that the EU are irritated by us now, and want Brexit concluded whatever happens. I concede they could accept an extension, but there would have to be a very good reason. A binding referendum is the only one I can think of.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they are irritated for sure and it will have to be a legitimate reason for them to agree to extend, but I think they will act as one.
 
NinjaFletch said:
No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1
Click to expand...

True, but you’d have to expect any abuse of it to cause huge international condemnation, and lack of trust towards the UK. The EU would almost certainly also change the rules very quickly, which wouldn’t stop us dropping out again, but which would prevent it happening repeatedly. Most importantly of all, it would absolutely destroy any remaining goodwill on the side on the 27, and ensure any future real negotiations were punishing in the extreme.
 
Siorac said:
But what way is that? It's still not clear what it is that the UK actually wants.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's simple Siorac. Very simple;

- No immigrants but freedom for us to go wherever we want without any disruptions
- No pennies given to the EU for membership but maintain access to the single market on our own terms and stay as the financial hub for European banks
- No high export tarrifs for UK goods/services being sold in the EU but we get to increase the tarrifs on stuff coming in
- No pesky human rights charter, or any legislation that prohibits Tory donors from doing whatever the feck they want

Basically we're going to stop giving our fair share of the ingredients but insisting that the EU give us the first slice of the cake. And then we also want the rest of the cake.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, I'm not sure what was so confusing about it, Siorac. Now if you'll excuse me, the wardens have come to take me back to my cell brlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrl.
 
RedChip said:
Yeah, they are irritated for sure and it will have to be a legitimate reason for them to agree to extend, but I think they will act as one.
Click to expand...
I would hope so... This is all depending on our government acting in good faith though, which I'm not so sure about anymore.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Oh, it's simple Siorac. Very simple;

- No immigrants but freedom for us to go wherever we want without any disruptions
- No pennies given to the EU for membership but maintain access to the single market on our own terms and stay as the financial hub for European banks
- No high export tarrifs being sold in the EU for stuff we make but we get to increase the tarrifs on stuff coming in
- No pesky human rights charter, or any legislation that prohibits Tory donors from doing whatever the feck they want

Basically we're going to stop giving our fair share of the ingredients but insisting that the EU give us the first slice of the cake. And then we also want the rest of the cake.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, I'm not sure what was so confusing about it, Siorac. Now if you'll excuse me, the wardens have come to take me back to my cell brlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrl.
Click to expand...
:lol: all clear now, thanks! You should have been the chief negotiator.
 
Siorac said:
This is the important part:

notification of revocation must be ‘unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned’

And I repeat, this sort of feckery would do serious damage to the UK's reputation and credibility without achieving anything.
Click to expand...

Right, but that's not a good faith requirement, nor does it bind a member state's future actions for reasons set out in the summary of the judgement. There's nothing stopping a member state revoking their notification to leave and then going 'whoops, our bad, didn't mean to do that' the next day and notifying again, you just couldn't explicitly state that that was what you were doing in your notice of revocation. It's a technical possibility, which is what I said.

But yeah, I agree, it's not a remotely plausible course of action for a million and one reasons, but then again, we are talking about a government that seems to fail to understand that international treaties work on mutual trust and respect.
 
What needs to (and what I think will) happen:-

Parliament needs to work out what it wants (ie. Norway +)
Another meaningful vote. Amendment tacking on "the plan (Norway +)
Parliament accepts Theresa May's deal with the understanding that we aim for the plan (Norway +)
Ask for a short delay to Article 50 just to sort out everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.