EU can’t stop the withdrawal.
Their own top judge ruled the UK can withdraw, I.e. stop the process, unilaterally.
Extending the negotiation period requires EU consent.
As I suggested earlier, we should stop the process, clarify what we want and what we are pissed off with (and preferably find our own solutions) and without the crazy pressures have now, return and negotiate our leaving, if we still want it.
You are correct in essence although not in detail.
Yes, parliament (not just the HoC) could pass legislation to cancel the A50 notification without a referendum(*). As with the referendum legislation this would (as I understand it) effectively require the consent of the government.
(*: It actually makes no difference if the referendum was legally binding or not - parliament’s sovereignty includes the right to change its mind).
The obstacle here is the act that initially enabled the A50 notification - it sets an exit date that cannot be changed without the cooperation of the government. That’s legislation, so it can’t be overridden except by further legislation.
If there’s a majority to revoke, there’s a majority to repeal.
Not a judge, and opined.
Did Hammond actually argue that, thought it’s true Brexit will harm the UK, it would be worse not to Brexit because the people who voted for it expect it?
That’s…statesmanship.
That’s the argument we’ve heard over and over, the people have voted, it’s what they want, we can’t not give the people what they want.
It’s as if the other 48% didn’t exist, and that 100% won’t have to live with a ruined economy. It’s an abdication of responsibility, jus’ following orders…
I wonder how difficult it would be to convince the EU to let the UK back in, after say a year. Leave with the not-very-great deal currently on the table, but include a referendum requirement after a year…stay separate or go back to the EU. The people get to have their say again. But I suppose the EU would probably refuse to let the UK back in if that vote goes for the EU.
Oh, they’d allow it. But no rebates and no carveouts, and “by the way we’ve introduced all the financial regulations that you blocked” in the interim.
And you have to join the euro.
The opinion specifically mentions several conditions, one of which is good faith and sincere cooperation.
Other EU members cannot block the revocation should the UK change its mind. But emphasized several times in the opinion is that the UK has to actually change its mind. Revoking A50 with the intent to just increase negotiation time for Brexit would be immediately challenged and might have a decent chance to invalidate the revocation itself outright.
There are also practical issues in that regard. In many ways the UK already is and is treated as a non member. EU elections are in May. If the UK revokes A50 that means there will be British members for the EU parliament. Which is fine if the UK stays a member but would become a really, really, annoying issue should they continue with Brexit. The UK could be represented but be de facto unable (and maybe unwilling) to actually participate. A situation pretty much unacceptable.
Same with the EU budget. While each year’s budget is done separately there is a higher level agreement (Multiannual Financial Framework) those budgets must adhere to. That framework is agreed upon for seven year terms. Should the UK revoke A50 just to start it over later the resulting commitments would be substantially different (and not simply monetary) to the measly 40 billion agreed upon right now for the previous term. The UK could simply refuse to participate if it intends to go ahead with Brexit but that also would be hugely problematic regarding what actually constitutes membership status.
The UK can revoke A50 unilaterally if it wants to stay a member and follows its own parliamentary procedures in that opinion’s opinion. The problem persists though that currently it’s not an official policy goal of either the Tories or Labour to remain a member. Revoking A50 just to extend the negotiation time for Brexit a bit later is -not- covered by the legal opinion and is a huge can of worms in a million new ways.
Well, it is covered. It would not be good faith.
'ware the Idiocracy
yeah that shit needs to be hammered hard into people’s skulls.
No deal means chaotic withdrawal.
May’s deal mean an orderly but disadvantageous withdrawal, a reduction of our status and wealth etc.
I would like that we revoked article 50, in good faith, participated in and LED the EU in good faith (instead of bitching) and, 5 years from now, as a nation, sat down and had a gasp fucking grown up discourse about what membership is, what it means etc.
This would require honesty and public spiritedness from our politicians, which is highly unlikely in the era of sound bites, and not as long as people are willing to scapegoat others (instead of attempting to improve one’s prospects) but which needs to happen.
Its a great pity that the referendum didn’t require more than a simple majority before proceeding to actual brexit. eg 65% in support of leave as a threshold. Seems weird that a 52/48 vote was enough.
52:48 of those that voted.
Ought to have been 70% of all eligible to do so, non voters split evenly.
The entire referendum was called to calm an internal Tory party schism and wasnt planned or detailed because hey, it doesnt really matter because remain will win eh guys
This is not an exageration. The country is run by spivs and chancers.
ECJ will hand down judgment on Monday morning.
I was still fairly young at the time, but I remember in the '92 Québec sovereignty referendum discussion about what sort of result would be sufficient to satisfy requirements for separation. Would 50 +1 be enough to break up a country? I thought (and still do) that no it’s not. We’re used to deciding things by simple majority but we’re not talking about ordering a pizza here.
edit Oops, I see the referendum was actually in '95 so I wasn’t that young. I also see that the turnout of the referendum was 94%. Brexit was only 65% if you take into account numbers of people by voting age (rather than registered voters) so obviously there was some complacency there by one side or the other (or both).
I could see some type of scaled threshold based on total turnout. Something like you need a three-quarters majority if less than half of the registered voters show up, a two-thirds majority if less than 75% of the voters show up, and a simple majority if you get three quarters of the populace to vote.
Though I could see that might be too confusing for most of the voters to conceive of and may lead to some weird gamesmanship scenarios where the side that’s down in the polls encourages their supporters NOT to vote in order to raise the threshold necessary for passage.