Off Topic Brexit may not mean Brexit

A fresh legal challenge to Brexit is to go ahead after £70,000 was raised to take the case to court. Jolyon Maugham launched a crowd-funded bid on Friday evening, and the target figure was successfully raised within 48 hours following donations from more than 1,800 individuals. He expects the action to begin within the next two weeks.

On his crowdfunding page, he argues that if Article 50 cannot be revoked then the Government will be forced to accept whatever Brexit deal the EU puts before it, good or bad. He writes: “If we cannot withdraw our Article 50 notification then Parliament will have to accept those agreements - whatever their content. Like a Model T Ford, it will be able to choose any colour it wants, but only so long as it's black. The Government will have free reign to do exactly what it wants. There will be no control by Parliament. But if the notification can be withdrawn Parliament will have a choice: it will be free to reject that deal. And, because the Government knows this, and because it wishes to deliver the result of the Referendum, it will have to try to do the deal that Parliament wants or it will risk the possibility that Parliament throws the deal out. So it is only by establishing whether we can revoke Article 50 that Parliament can fulfil its obligation to deliver a Brexit for the 100%.

The challenge, which will now go before Ireland's High Court, contends Article 50 should be revocable once it is activated. Under EU law, a member state has two years after Article 50 is triggered before it must leave the union. But the new legal bid argues that the European Council and the European Commission may have breached EU law in relation to Article 50. The case is being brought to Ireland, as an EU member state needs to be named in the legal action and Ireland is the UK's closest neighbour and has a similar legal system.

It is expected the Irish High Court will be reluctant to get involved in the issue at length, increasing the chances that it will be referred on to European courts instead - where those behind the challenge hope to force a ruling on whether Article 50 can be revoked once it has been activated.

Given the nature of Brexit, the potential involvement of European courts in the matter is expected to be controversial for Leave supporters.

Professor Gavin Barrett, a law professor at University College Dublin, told Irish national broadcaster RTE: “I can image that there would be a certain degree of scepticism that this case is being brought in Ireland as opposed to being in a United Kingdom court. There are good strategic reasons for doing it in the sense that Irish courts would probably be historically less reluctant about referring matters to the European Court of Justice. The action will also be led by Dublin solicitor Simon McGarr and barrister Joseph Dalby SC. The group is seeking a British MEP to agree to join them as plaintiff.

 

The truth is Leo, that we are being hoodwinked into believing that there is a 'government negotiating position' on this - there isn't because Britain plays no part in those negotiations. They take place behind closed doors. We must either accept their conditions or try to reverse Article 50 if we don't like them. It appears that the entire referendum campaign was conducted without any real knowledge of article 50 whatsoever.

 

When I first read this yesterday I did think that is was very strange to bring the case in Ireland. However thinking about it more there is a certain logic about it. No one in the UK or the EU knows if Article 50 can be withdrawn or not. The UK government is pressing ahead to their own agenda which they keep telling us will provide the "best possible deal." What happens when they get a deal that is clearly bad for the country and will not be acceptable to those who thought they would get something that was never on offer? Can the UK government go back to the electorate and say we cannot get the deal we thought we could, so would wish to drop our departure? It is at that point that withdrawing Article 50 comes into play and if it is possible. The only ones able to make a judgement are the ECJ, and if that takes time it will put the whole procedure into a right mess with various elections, both national and Europe wide. In research published today people from the north east of England have said by a large margin that they do not want withdrawal to make them poorer in any shape or form. How can the government sell an agreement that some will show will cost those who voted to leave money through increased cost of living as a minimum?

 

I am quite sure the government had no strategy at all. They did not expect to lose the referendum and totally overlooked the fact that if they did it is the Tory party that has to work it out -and half of them did not want it either. Also we all know the basic position - we want as much free trade as we can get without people movement. It is not rocket science. Until we sit down with the EU there is nothing really to plan or work out.
What I like about this is that it is an attempt not to say Article 50 is just reversible - that is a moot point. They are trying to say it is actually illegal. If that comes about and it is known that we do not have to accept brexit the whole negotiations take on a totally different colour.

 

Rereading my article and your original post Leo, the point that I took was that the EU was acting in an illegal way because they had excluded the UK from some of their business meetings already, unless the UK saying that it would invoke Article 50 by the end of March has been taken as notification. Farron has held talks with the EU and has said following them it is reversible. There is no clear opinion on this and only the ECJ can make a judgement. Your article and the one I read seem to have a different view of what is being sort.

 

Not sure about your article OFH. This one is an attempt to say that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is illegal unless it allows the UK to choose to stop the divorce.
If they managed to win this it would mean that at the end of negotiations the British people could say "thank you very much but we have changed our minds" - and NOT leave. A result !!

 

I prefer your article Leo.

 

It was all going to be so easy. The 27 would give us what we wanted, or we would fall back on WTO rules. Seems as if we will not have a simple choice as there are 160 countries to approve that option.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-argentina-spain-brexit-latest-a7468766.html

 

Well are any of us remainers surprised? Brexit was not ill thought out - it was just NOT thought out. I have seem the likes of Farage saying that brexit always meant not having access to the single market and it was that we voted for. Excuse me - was not one of the so called good options to go for a "Norway style" deal? We took a leap into the dark. It would be fantastic for the EU to rule their Article 50 is flawed and that it is reversible. It would mean the UK would only leave if the people were happy with the negotiated deal. If not Parliament would take account of the people's view on what had been done on their behalf - and like with Cameron's deal - give it a massive thumbs down.

Come on Ireland

 

The theme of the negotiations is Britain's exit from the EU. not the conditions under which it could stay a member. The lawyers are divided as to whether Article 50 is reversible once activated - is anything legal which is not expressly forbidden, or anything illegal which is not expressly allowed ? There is no definite answer to this, but what is clear is that many in the EU. have an interest in Britain's believing it is not reversible. Similarly, for the British, believing it could be reversed, would raise the chances of it being activated. There is no mechanism in place for throwing a country out against its will. A countries membership can be suspended, but only in case of human rights violations. At the end of the day there is no legal document which cannot be revoked if all parties agree, but would they ? In the end, I think there will be a second referendum, because the EU. would only allow Britain to remain if they have an indication that it is the will of the British people.

 

We have debated all this. As you say, lawyers (who are paid to disagree) disagree on reversibility.
This is different.
It is an action which claims that if Article 50 IS irreversible it is not legal. If that goes to the Irish Court who send it up to the ECJ then you could get a definitive ruling. If the ruling says it is illegal and that Article 50 should have included a reversibity clause then it means the government would have to get such a good negotiated deal that the UK people would accept it. That is unlikely. Therefore if the people show they are not happy with the terms negotiated all Parliament has to do is reverse it.

If the ruling does take place and says Article 50 IS irreversible and that is legal then we cannot withdraw our application whatever the terms of the deal.

 

This all sounds very Irish to me Leo If all parties want it reversed then it is reversible. But the aims of the negotiations (where Britain is not even represented - although this, itself, is a legally debateable theme) are not to find a solution which satisfies the British but to pave the way for a smooth divorce. Finding common ground which would enable Britain to stay is not on the agenda, although could be for future negotiations if Britain decides not to go ahead.

The damage has been done already - namely to Britain's image. I know that many people had different reasons for voting for Brexit (some of them valid) but the one which has come over internationally is that of immigration. Only a second referendum would have the chance to put this right. The EU. would never accept any compromise which allowed Britain to remain unless they knew it represented a change of heart by the British people.

 

We debated this before - a contract cannot be undone because all parties want it. If you sell your house and sign a contract it is IMPOSSIBLE to undo it. You would have to buy it back. If Article 50 is not reversible then just because everyone wanted it to be reversed would not hold sway in Court. All you could do is to get every country to agree to readmit us on the exact same terms - that is unlikely. So this is vitally important. Article 50 needs to be declared not legal. If it is then the other EU countries will have no choice - it would be for the UK alone to withdraw its notice.

Why do you say Britain will not be represented in negotiations? We cannot be in those of the 27 but will negotiate after Article 50 is triggered.

If Article 50 is declared illegal and the ECJ rules it has to be reversible it means that we can change our minds if we do not like the deal.
(Ireland is just being used by Jolyon Maugham as a sort of stalking horse - the case has to be brought in one of the 27 countries - and their legal system is most similar to ours. It is assumed they will not want to rule on it though so will refer it up to the ECJ.)

 

We have debated this before Leo, and will not agree on it. There is no mechanism whereby a country can be forced out of the EU. against its will, and that is fact, which means that Article 50 is reversible. The EU. does not want you to know this, because then Britain could go along with it knowing that there was a possible way back, which is not in anyone's interests. Britain cannot creep back in on a technicality. The only way back is to reverse the harm which has been done by the referendum itself. The referendum result, and the reasons which people had for voting, have already created a wall between people - because Britain's aim of access to the free market, without free movement is another way of saying 'we want your money but we don't want you' which has proved offensive to many people. Do you think that, even if Britain achieved that end, people would still buy British goods and services ? The only way which Britain can undo this harm is through another referendum. The mistake is to think that you can divide Europe - that you can say 'the Poles and Rumanians are unwelcome, but the Germans, Dutch, French etc. are not a problem'. You cannot divide in this way. If I think that my wife is not welcome in Britain - or that she has to suddenly get a Visa to travel there then I will not go there either, nor will I buy British products if the same is possible from somewhere else - and I don't think I am unique in this. The only way to undo this is through a second referendum - and that also before Britain has realized it's not going to get the deal it wants.

 

All very interesting, but presumably if the EU forces on the UK a set of terms that is clearly unacceptable (i.e. we are seriously worse off out rather than in), then we can leave, in accordance with the rules, and apply to rejoin. If the EU would prefer the Uk to be in rather than out, (which seems to be the impression given so far) they will accept our application. Simples.

 

The problem with leaving and then rejoining is that we would go back to stage one. Joining the EU. from scratch takes even longer than leaving it. It is also unlikely that we would be granted the same concessions as we now have. Another problem is that we may no longer satisfy the entry requirements re. national debt in relation to GDP. And the last point is that they may see us as unreliable partners, or feel bitter that we left, and it only takes one country to veto our application.

The light at the end of the tunnel is that Europe is not going anywhere, neither are we. We remain one hours journey from France and Belgium - the same goes for Europe itself, Cologne remains 2 hours journey from Brussels. There will always be more intercourse of people and goods between us than there would be with eg. Australia. Even if the Euro collapsed Europe would still exist - the same goes for the EU. it would quickly be replaced by something else, which we would need to be a part of. The present race of politicians , on both sides of the Channel, are not 'Europe' - and will, within a decade, be gone from the scene.

 

The guy is an idiot - although Henry Ford wrote in his autobiography that he said that to his management, the Model T Ford wasn't available in black until 1914,six years after it was launched.

 

Surely, if Northern Ireland is involved, Brexit should be Ukexit because they are not in Britain.

 

Yep - we have debated it before. Yet still I have not been able to explain to you that if you resign then you have not been forced out.
If you resign knowing it is irreversible OR knowing it is reversible OR not having a clue about its reversibility then you have simply resigned and not been forced out.
I honestly cannot see how you can think one leads to the other.
I go back to basics - if you sell your house then you have not been forced out - whether or not you can cancel the sale is irrelevant.
Ask any lawyer.

 

I don't see what this has to do with houses Leo. If a footballer signs a contract with a club and all parties agree to tear up the contract (by mutual agreement) then it is 'basta' over. No amount of 'law' can force through a legal process which all parties want stopped. The point of law which may be controversial is if Britain wants to stop the process but another member state objects - this could get messy. The EU. would only accept a change of heart if it were accompanied by a second referendum, whatever the legal position is.