Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Paul the Wolf]

Not really. The government just decided to unnecessarily punch themselves in the face for a bit, as is their wont.

Are Brexiters actually sure they really want sovereignty of their parliament.

 

[JPRouve]

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

Here you have the actual answer:

154. As regards the tactical revocations, mentioned by the Commission and the Council, there are two reasons why I do not attach the same importance to such revocations as those institutions.

155. The first reason is that there is nothing in the question referred – which is the only question that the Court of Justice has to answer – to suggest the misuse (in the sense of a misuse of powers, as a ground of invalidity of an act adopted by a public authority, referred to in Article 263 TFEU) of the power to revoke the initial decision. Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first.

156. The other reason is that it appears to me that, in practice, it would be extremely difficult for tactical revocations to proliferate, undermining a possibility which undoubtedly has serious consequences. The revocation is a decision that the departing Member State has had to adopt in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Since it entails the reversal of a previous decision of a constitutional nature, the change would require an alteration of the governing majority, the holding of a referendum, a ruling by the highest court of the country annulling the withdrawal decision or some other action that would be difficult to implement and would require the use of protracted and complex legal procedures. The obligation that a revocation must be carried out in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements is thus a filter which acts as a deterrent in order to prevent the abuse of the withdrawal procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU through such tactical revocations.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Here you have the actual answer:

You're quoting the opinion of the advocate general again, not the judgement.

 

[Siorac]

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.

Yeah I guess you're right, as long as the notification itself is unequivocal and doesn't even hint at the true intentions.

Surely even this government wouldn't do this though? Surely...?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

all clear now, thanks! You should have been the chief negotiator.

That's the problem. I was.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Yeah I guess you're right, as long as the notification itself is unequivocal and doesn't even hint at the true intentions.

Surely even this government wouldn't do this though? Surely...?

Say the UK wants an extention to article 50 in order to have a second referendum but one of the 27 members refuses for some reason or another. In such a circumstance the majority of the EU might be sympathetic to the UK's cause but rules make it clear there's nothing they can do. UK then still has the ability to revoke article 50, hold indyref 2 and retains the right to invoke article 50 again after the result.

 

[Siorac]

Say the UK wants an extention to article 50 in order to have a second referendum but one of the 27 members refuses for some reason or another. In such a circumstance the majority of the EU might be sympathetic to the UK's cause but rules make it clear there's nothing they can do. UK then still has the ability to revoke article 50, hold indyref 2 and retains the right to invoke article 50 again after the result.

Yes but in that case the EU should stand by the member states that actually wish to stay and not do this farce all over again. If they revoke and then trigger A50 again, there should be no negotiations.

 

[JPRouve]

You're quoting the opinion of the advocate general again, not the judgement.

Which is the actual answer. The court didn't answer it because it wasn't the question, the advocate general answered it in his opinion by explaining why it wasn't relevant.

 

[Stanley Road]

Say the UK wants an extention to article 50 in order to have a second referendum but one of the 27 members refuses for some reason or another. In such a circumstance the majority of the EU might be sympathetic to the UK's cause but rules make it clear there's nothing they can do. UK then still has the ability to revoke article 50, hold indyref 2 and retains the right to invoke article 50 again after the result.

That 1 country gets a phone call from Germany and its miraculously unanimous.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Yes but in that case the EU should stand by the member states that actually wish to stay and not do this farce all over again. If they revoke and then trigger A50 again, there should be no negotiations.

I entirely agree with you there.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

There's a British/Dutch journo called Simon Kuper who writes some really good stuff on football for some Dutch magazines. Not sure if he's rated in England as well where he seems to be writing for the Financial Times, but one of his Brexit articles from 2016 got republished in Dutch recently and it sums up things quite well I thought (though presumably you guys are very much aware of this already of course and it might've been discussed countles of times so it could be just a pointless addition to this thread).

Still funny to see how that type elitism and fooling of the masses seems to work the same everywhere. He went to school with a whole load of Brexit figureheads:

https://www.ft.com/content/f4dedd92-43c7-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d

Brexit: a coup by one set of public schoolboys against another


"I went to university with both sets, and with hindsight I watched Brexit in the making. When I arrived at Oxford in 1988, David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove had just left the place. George Osborne and the future Brexiters Jacob Rees-Mogg and Daniel Hannan were all contemporaries of mine. I wasn’t close to them, because politically minded public schoolboys inhabited their own Oxford bubble. They had clubs like the Bullingdon that we middle-class twerps had never even heard of.

Their favourite hang-out was the Oxford Union, a kind of children’s parliament that organises witty debates. A sample topic: “That sex is good . . . but success is better”, in 1978, with Theresa May speaking against the motion. May is now running for Tory leader without the usual intermediate step of having been Union president, though her husband Philip, Gove and Johnson did all hold that post. (Beautifully, Gove campaigned for Johnson’s election in 1986.)

"The public schoolboys spent decades trying to get British voters angry about the EU. But as Gove admitted to me in 2005, ordinary voters never took much interest. Perhaps they didn’t care whether they were ruled by a faraway elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster. And so the public schoolboys focused the Brexit campaign on an issue many ordinary Britons do care about: immigration. To people like Johnson, the campaign was an Oxford Union debate writ large."

And this in a nutshell is everything wrong with Britain. Being ruled by elite arseholes who think the country and its population are their own personal fiefdoms and the people just serfs to be manipulated, and just as bad the servile spineless wankers who keep electing them

 

[Mr Pigeon]

UK: I'm hungry.
EU: OK, I'm making pizza. Do you want some?
UK: No.
EU: Beans on toast?
UK: No.
EU: That's all I've got.
UK: Well...I want pasta.
EU: Oh, actually I have some of that too...
UK: Not that kind. Other kind.
EU: Well, take your pick because that's all I've got.
UK: Bye then...

Later that day, back home...

UK: Get me pasta.
May: Ok, here.
UK: Don't want that pasta, want other pasta.
May: Oh, well give me a minute.
UK: Hurry up...
May: Here...
UK: Looks at bowl Ew, no.
May: WHAT DO YOU WANT?!?!
UK: Chips.
May: Curly fries or chunky chips?
UK: Yes.
May: Which one?
UK: No.
May: shoots self

The Great British Empire now consists of two blokes arguing in a pub over which way to properly push open a door that says "Pull".

 

[sun_tzu]

About sums it up

Pretty shambolic

 

[diarm]

The world is laughing at us.

We were laughing two years ago but at this stage it's getting uncomfortable to watch. Like a car crash everyone slows down to gawk at but then wishes they hadn't.

 

[Drifter]

What happens next?


Under plans outlined by Theresa May last week, MPs will now be asked to vote to approve a “short, limited extension to article 50”.

Tonight, the Government confirmed that's what they intend to do tomorrow - along with details of what MPs will have to vote on.


How long would the extension be?

If MPs vote in favour of tomorrow’s motion, they’re voting to:

Delay Brexit no matter what AND

a) if there's a deal by this time next week, the delay will be three months (a technical extension).

OR

b) if there's not a deal by this time next week, the govt has no view on length of delay and says it's up to the EU.

Either way, unless we leave by June 30, we'll have to take part in EU elections.


And Jean Claude-Juncker said yesterday that he wouldn't approve any delay beyond May 23, when the elections start.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Which is the actual answer. The court didn't answer it because it wasn't the question, the advocate general answered it in his opinion by explaining why it wasn't relevant.

Ah, I wasn't sure by the tone of your reply what you actually meant, but, yes, agreed – I don't accept the author of that piece's interpretation that that was a point of difference.

 

[Silva]

failing upwards is basically life for these people

 

[GloryHunter07]

About sums it up

Pretty shambolic

"Losing her way to victory" love that.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Don't worry guys, I listened to LBC earlier and Julie from Canterbury says we will be okay because we get to keep the 39 billion divorce bill in a no deal. She was told that might not actually be the case, even in a no deal scenario, but she still says it'll all be okay.

 

[redman5]

Screaming Lord Sutch will be turning in his grave at the joke British politics has become.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The UK has taken back is out of control.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Don't worry guys, I listened to LBC earlier and Julie from Canterbury says we will be okay because we get to keep the 39 billion divorce bill in a no deal. She was told that might not actually be the case, even in a no deal scenario, but she still says it'll all be okay.

Better than Susan on BBC 5 Live yesterday who said "I don't care what happens as long as all the immigration is stopped. Not that I have any problems with black people or the coloured..."

 

[JPRouve]

Don't worry guys, I listened to LBC earlier and Julie from Canterbury says we will be okay because we get to keep the 39 billion divorce bill in a no deal. She was told that might not actually be the case, even in a no deal scenario, but she still says it'll all be okay.

That's when you realize that people are out of touch with reality, 39 billion doesn't represent much for the UK and it's even less when you consider that it's not a recurring "gain".

 

[NinjaFletch]

That's when you realize that people are out of touch with reality, 39 billion doesn't represent much for the UK and it's even less when you consider that it's not a recurring "gain".

At least it's better than thinking the rabbits will save us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0UyICDs8Gg6PyCbhn6WJbC&ust=1552603145185538

 

[Henrik Larsson]

And this in a nutshell is everything wrong with Britain. Being ruled by elite arseholes who think the country and its population are their own personal fiefdoms and the people just serfs to be manipulated, and just as bad the servile spineless wankers who keep electing them

Not just in Britain mate, it's the same over here in the Netherlands (though Universities and schools are open to everyone not just the elite, and they charge no or very low tuition fees, yet the elite still group together in special clubs and fraternities and end up later ruling the country).

Same in the USA as well, Washington Post did an article earlier about KellyAnne Conway and her husband, in between the lines it showed very nicely how intertwined the Washington Political elite is regardless of party.

 

[Rado_N]

Been out all night and just seen the vote result, a bit bloody close!

 

[JPRouve]

At least it's better than thinking the rabbits will save us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjB1OrIl4DhAhWv1-AKHda3DvEQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-vote-no-deal-leave-eu-rabbits-potatoes-bbc-five-live-8820896&psig=AOvVaw0UyICDs8Gg6PyCbhn6WJbC&ust=1552603145185538

To be fair Rabbits are tasty and roasted potatoes good with everything. If you add some pigeons, you could land a Michelin star.

 

[golden_blunder]

Don't worry guys, I listened to LBC earlier and Julie from Canterbury says we will be okay because we get to keep the 39 billion divorce bill in a no deal. She was told that might not actually be the case, even in a no deal scenario, but she still says it'll all be okay.

I’ve noticed that a lot of them like to say “we will all pull together” like they’ve been indoctrinated

 

[SteveJ]

NEWSCASTER: "So, the all-important vote is at half-ten."
MRS GERRONWIVIT: "What...five?"

 

[Paul the Wolf]

 

[Kentonio]

I’ve noticed that a lot of them like to say “we will all pull together” like they’ve been indoctrinated

They were spouting that shite during the referendum. I had Leave mates posting shit on FB about how ‘we need to leave and work together to build a better country’. While they sat on their arses at home, with absolutely no intention of doing anything to change anything. It’s always some mythical others who are supposed to actually do the graft after these numpties vote us into chaos.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Whether intentional or not, seems to be a case where everyone will be backed into a corner where there will be no option other than Mays deal. Seems crazy to have 3 votes on it but 2nd referendum is completely out the question.

 

[Kentonio]

Whether intentional or not, seems to be a case where everyone will be backed into a corner where there will be no option other than Mays deal. Seems crazy to have 3 votes on it but 2nd referendum is completely out the question.

The commoners don’t matter, just the people who went to the right schools. We should know that by now.

 

[CA_vampire]

Parliament's next vote: Is Captain Marvel going to beat Thanos?

Fortunately, the vote result is not binding.

 

[Wibble]

Because to ignore a vote is to set a dangerous president. From a psychological POV, you can transpose it ideologicially to what the nazis did - which is repeat a lie often enough and eventually you'll believe it. You have to respect the people. If there is no respect to begin with then what does it say about the country? Are we still wearing diapers? Can we not accept a choice that people made and be positive? Diversity is our strength yes? It is or it isn't? We're pretty diverse....so what exactly are we doing as a nation? Progressing or regressing?...

 

[4bars]

And this in a nutshell is everything wrong with Britain. Being ruled by elite arseholes who think the country and its population are their own personal fiefdoms and the people just serfs to be manipulated, and just as bad the servile spineless wankers who keep electing them

Are they wrong though?

And not exclusively UK

 

[LARulz]

May voted for there to be no no-deal Brexit right? If so, how is it a defeat for her?

 

[Carolina Red]

From a psychological POV, you can transpose it ideologicially to what the nazis did

And there we have it folks. Godwin’s Law.

 

[SteveJ]

 

[SqueakyWeasel]

I don't understand how, the same people who argue against a final OK from a better informed British public, say "but, that would result in no BREXIT – which is simply revoting until you get the outcome that suits you".

Isn't this what exactly what May is doing by going back to vote again on her plan that has been more than unanimously rejected twice already?

"She's losing her way to victory" I read somewhere here this morning and it seems that nothing could be more true:

… other Tory rebels sounded far less certain. Simon Clarke said there was “a gun to my head at this point” and suggested he could back the deal next time.

Even if this happens, surely it has to be put back to the country as accepting something crap "because there is a gun to my head" is not what anyone voted for? Or very few anyway.

If the options on the original ballot had read:
1. An extremely bad BREXIT deal
2. No BREXIT
we wouldn't be in this mess, would we?

Everyone keeps talking about honouring the wishes of the British voting public but they seem loath to actually put those words to the test. All because they know that, in all likelihood, the outcome would not suit their personal agenda.