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.
I think you have a supermajority requirement among votes cast, and a lengthy / practical voting period so that everyone has an opportunity to vote, and a vote turnout effort, and then you don’t really worry about the turnout. People who don’t bother to vote on a consequential matter given plenty of opportunity don’t care about that matter.
How difficult would it be for Ireland to replace it’s food imports from the UK in the case of a very bad no good Brexit?
Dunno, but I imagine the other EU countries — and their agribusinesses — would have strong motivation to step in.
I’d guess the biggest issue isn’t replacing the UK as a provider, but rather managing to get the food from the continent without going through the UK.
Sure, there might be stuff that’s irreplaceable, that’s UK made only, but Ireland doesn’t need to buy from the UK to feed itself, but it’s certainly the closest place to buy from.
It would be bad in the short term, but the EU already set in motion plans to reroute trade to Ireland
Why is May pushing this vote? She doesn’t have to do this. What has she to gain?
It seems to me like an 'all-in- sort of move that ends in her resignation if she fails. Maybe?
I presume because she thinks it will pass at the second attempt, once people are staring down the barrel of no deal. The only way she doesn’t have to resign or get forced out by March is if her deal passes, so it’s not like she has anything to lose.