Not really, they can't revoke the notification, I suspect that Lord Kerr believes that the EU will diplomatically pretend that nothing happened if the UK wanted to stay but that's not a given.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Not really, they can't revoke the notification, I suspect that Lord Kerr believes that the EU will diplomatically pretend that nothing happened if the UK wanted to stay but that's not a given.
According to Lord Kerr they can.
There will be repercussions of course but those repercussions are somehow limited. The EU is a lion without teeth. You can't even kick somebody who had voted to leave in the first place.
And according to his text, they can't. They are not even in a position to unilaterally lengthen the negotiation process, let alone revoke the notification, since when the withdrawal notification is sent and received the withdrawing country can't be a member of the EU council and lose all voting rights. It is also clearly stipulated that the absence of agreement still leads to the withdrawal.
Just read the text.
I will.
There again, if you can't trust the one who actually wrote this damn article then who can you trust? Why such great nation had ended up with so many incompetents in power?
My favourite post amidst the hail storm of toys exiting prams on the last few pages.
"People should accept the vote and move on, like I'm doing even though I don't live in the UK".
It's not a matter of 'accept, and move on', it's more a matter of 'how the **** do we make this work?'
In the previous page, Pedro Mendes and I posted almost all you need to know, just look it up.
Of course you can. That's not even a question.
You can't. The EU can suspend an EU country from enjoying the benefits from the EU (and that option is almost impossible to activate). It can't kick a country out of the union
But when you invoke the article 50 and the EU receives it you are out, it's almost immediate. You are not out after two years, the two years are only the time during which you are allowed to use EU treaties while negotiating for your future treaties but from the moment you withdraw yourself, you lose all executive rights, basically you are out.
There is no one to kick out, because you left.
My favourite post amidst the hail storm of toys exiting prams on the last few pages.
"People should accept the vote and move on, like I'm doing even though I don't live in the UK".
Your chidlike response assumes that that i have zero ties to the uk. No family, no capital, no house or anything that will be affected by eu exit.
Yet i am for it and channel my energy into more positive things, i have taken measures to make sure what i have left in the uk, will be unaffected by any outcome.
I have my doubts mate. I mean you're basically saying that Lord Kerr doesn't know what he wrote
No, I'm telling you that Lord Kerr for good reasons believes that the EU will be flexible because that word is actually used in the Lisbon Treaty and that the EU will be kind enough to accept a revoking in exchange of a king ransom. And in theory it's possible because nothing can legally prevent the EU from doing just that.
It's more likely he's trying to create a situation where things can be wound back, despite that not being the original intent. Bear in mind that he never actually expected us to ever do this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
He explained: "It is not irrevocable.
"You can change your mind while the process is going on.
"During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time.
"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."
Well he did sound clear to me.
"You can change your mind while the process is going on.
"During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time.
"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."
*sigh*
JP is correct in saying that the texts of article 50 don't mention the option to revoke. Therefore, Lord Kerr's position would need to be taken to the Court of Justice - the irony would be priceless.
However, let's pretend the EU would just 'forget' about the notification. It is entirely possible that they are so annoyed with this back and forth and waste of resources that they won't make the concessions Cameron had negotiated. Bottom line would be a worse deal.
But in any case, this won't happen. The UK will leave, the question is just by when and under which terms.
Edit: BTW, the EU can force member states out. The hurdles are high though.
And that's the thing, they don't have to insist that you leave because you already left. The period he is talking about is the very short period between the notification of the withdrawal and the official reception/recognition of the said withdrawal by the EU institutions. It's not the 2 years of legal negotiations because when that period starts you are already out.
So if the EU doesn't wait and immediately recognize the withdrawal, there is no legal comeback.
I suspect nobody here has read it in full
I suspect even if anybody had they probably wouldn't understand it fully
I suspect even if they did they wouldn't understand it as well as the chap who actually wrote it
I suspect plenty of people on here will still think they know exactly how it all works...
I am directly quoting a post from a German citizen from CiF in the Guardian. It perfectly conveys my fears regarding this current situation:
British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
Back in June the initial the reaction here in Germany was shock that the British electorate could be so uninformed. That was followed by amusement as they witnessed Boris Johnson (as foreign secretary, he-he-he) and Liam Fox displaying total ignorance of facts and Theresa May repeating the mantra "Brexit means Brexit" to an empy dining room with the waiters waiting to clear up.
Now it has turned scary. When the majority of UK newspapers denounce British High Court judges as traitors it is no longer funny. Germans, along with other Europeans, are getting worried. After all they remember that Hitler liked referendums, he held four!
The first one in 1933 was on withdrawing from the League of Nationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1933
The second referendum in 1934 allowed him to hold the dual office of head of state and head of government. http://history.info/on-this-day/1934-hitler-declared-fuhrer-after-referendum/
Then he destroyed the free press and the judiciary
British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
Back in June the initial the reaction here in Germany was shock that the British electorate could be so uninformed. That was followed by amusement as they witnessed Boris Johnson (as foreign secretary, he-he-he) and Liam Fox displaying total ignorance of facts and Theresa May repeating the mantra "Brexit means Brexit" to an empy dining room with the waiters waiting to clear up.
Now it has turned scary. When the majority of UK newspapers denounce British High Court judges as traitors it is no longer funny. Germans, along with other Europeans, are getting worried. After all they remember that Hitler liked referendums, he held four!
The first one in 1933 was on withdrawing from the League of Nationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1933
The second referendum in 1934 allowed him to hold the dual office of head of state and head of government. http://history.info/on-this-day/1934-hitler-declared-fuhrer-after-referendum/
Then he destroyed the free press and the judiciary
As said, I find it very hard to believe that this man doesn't have a clue what he wrote. He doesn't strike me to be of the same ilk of Boris and Davis
That's not what the text of the document says though unfortunately. It basically doesn't matter what he says now, if it wasn't written in as a legal option.
It's not uncommon to see legislators interpret their own text differently than how they actually wrote it.
It's very true that nobody on the caf knows more than the guy who wrote it.
However, it really isn't unusual for people to write a law or legal document only to be surprised when it is interpreted to mean something other than what they intended.
The fact that he wrote it doesn't automatically mean he's right when he comments on its details as it's the interpretation of others that counts more than his own view or intentions.
Even without being a Boris, he could still be wrong.
I am aware that there are Brexiteers who genuinely believe that the UK is better off outside the Union. However I also believe that a big chunk of them supported the nuke option because they thought that the EU is too weak to let the UK go and would therefore bend over backwards to their demands. Some might even saw it as a way to destroy the union and return to a time when the UK could exploit a divisive Europe for its own benefit.
Which makes me wonder how these people would react if Europe manage to raise to the occasion and it refuses to give the UK a good deal?
Till the time of writing, most if not all European countries seem to be determined to protect the EU project. They are aware of the economic challenges ahead but seem ready to tank these challenges rather then allow the EU to get weakened furthered by giving concessions to a third party country. Considering that the UK would end up cut away from an entire continent with little to no political influence over the continent would that push those Brexiteers to a tactical retreat. I know its a long shot but imagine what the British people's reaction would be if the EU (unshackled by what is becoming known at the continent as the 'enemy within') does prosper while the UK ends up in a recession. We all know who would take the blame for that.
Media and politicians really have descended into the gutter, judges not so much.
That 'openly gay judge' comment by The Daily Mail is outrageous really. I know they're scum of the earth but that's just next level fascism now.
Scary times.
Scary times.
With politicians and broadsheets now attacking the integrity and independence of the judiciary, it feels like the transformation into banana republic (without bananas but with added Queen) is gathering pace. Even if we clawback something workable from this mess, our global reputation for stability and pragmatism has gone out of the window.
How they're allowed to openly incite conflict like that is mind-boggling. That is not free press, it's rogue press. A similar action or speech from an individual would get you arrested.
In before a Brexiter strolls in and tells us all to 'man up'.
In before a Brexiter strolls in and tells us all to 'man up'.
So is the danger the gay judge will try to impale me on his sword?
I have a lot of problems with MPs of all parties but I wouldn't advocate abandoning our parliamentary democracy. It seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to want to get rid of Parliamentary sovereignty because the MPs might be less eurosceptic than the public.
And on undermining/diluting Brexit - 48% of those who voted wanted no Brexit, so the overall solution should hopefully try to find a middle way. And at the very least should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. If Parliament decides extreme Brexit is for the best then that's our democracy at work. We probably do need an election now though.
All are part of the policy framework set out by Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign. Thus, they can be reasonably defined as those measures for which people voted. In the same fashion, Remain hinted at future reform but essentially stood for no change whatsoever.
It means that there is scope for limited Freedom of Movement, while still remaining true to the result. It could be something which might help in EU negotiations.
You, and most Remaienrs in this thread, are expecting to be appeased to a degree that would not have been reciprocated were the roles reversed? I struggle to see why such a special status should be granted, not in the context of all that has gone before.
I am curious to know what you and others would see as palatable or workable, whilst at the same time being a fair representation of Leave's victory the referendum?
Exactly. It's not as if there is a recent of example of someone being labelled "an enemy of the people" or "traitor", leading to them being murdered in the street or anything.
Well the question was straight up black and white, but there are a variety of shades of grey available as answers? Seeing as it was 52/48, that would be #858585.
Oh come on, we all know that was staged by the remainers to swing the referendum our way.
To be honest both sides are as bad as each other, Jo Cox stabbing though isn't representative of the leave side. Both sides have belittle each other and made sweeping generalisations. The right and left wing media have both attempted to create an us and them divide between the two sides.
Can we have the proportions from the Brexit side though?
It would be lovely to know what percentage of the voters were:
- Biffers, kippers and assorted swivel eyed loonies looking to protect our nation from the muslim invaders.
- Tin foil hatted fruitcakes who believed the illuminati and big business were running the EU.
- What percentage wanted to reclaim our sovereignty but could not name a single rule imposed on us by the EU other than mumbling something about bananas.
- What percentage believed it was all about paying the NHS £350M a week more
- What percentage actually have some salient reason they could rationally explain as to how Brexit will be of any benefit to the UK.