A football contract is a personal performance contract - you cannot force service (the footballer could deliberately fail to play well) but a party can successfully sue for breach. International treaties are rather more complicated than that. A country is bound by treaties - hence the current case in the Supreme Court to see the "correct" way to trigger Article 50. Treaties cannot be broken when all sides say let's pretend it did not happen. Those who think it can are fooling themselves. My main point though was to demonstrate that if we willingly sign a treaty with no escape clause we have not been "forced out" That is why this case is being brought in Ireland - to see if the Article is legal - if it is we are stuffed. On what basis do you know that the EU will only accept a change of heart if accompanied by a second referendum? There is no evidence to support that at all. If Article 50 is declared illegal and that it is mandatory for it to have "reversibility" then a simple vote in Parliament to halt the process will become legal. The EU will have no say at all. That is the power of this legal case. It means if the UK cannot get a deal that the UK Parliament will approve then we get to choose unilaterally whether or not we remain.
I have, of course, no absolute basis for saying that the EU. would only accept such a step if accompanied by a referendum. But, as I said in another post, the damage has been done already through the referendum - and it can only be undone through another one. The EU. does not want a country which stays in through some sort of technicality - it wants one which does so with the support of its population.
I agree with that - but if the terms of any deal were rubbish - which they will be - Parliament will vote on it and if people have had second thoughts MPs would be freed to vote remain. As I say the EU would get no more choice than they have over whether we trigger the clause in the first place. This is an entirely UK matter.
The EU. may have no choice Leo but could you imagine 'forcing' Britain's membership on a club which may no longer want you. I would prefer Britain to stay in the EU. but I don't want it to be a case of 'Britain has been to the abyss, looked over, doesn't like it and now wants to come back' - there is a certain level of pride involved in this as well.
I think it is too late for that. Unless you are happy for the UK to leave there is no way of undoing what is done. Most in the EU though I suspect realise that the referendum was poorly conceived and ill executed. That only just over 1 million people have forced brexit on the rest. More people who would probably have voted for remain were excluded from voting - 16 to18 year olds and those abroad - enough to have swayed the balance. The EU has several times encouraged countries to think again after a referendum and I am sure most will feel the EU is better with Britain inside. For all these reasons I believe the EU would welcome a reversal of brexit if it could come about. They will also have had a good laugh at our expense - and the UK will have looked silly in the eyes of the EU and indeed the whole world. No I have no fears about reversing a stupid decision - it is only the fool who pursues a poor path for fear of losing pride. If you wish to worry about reversal of the brexit decision you would need to consider the wrath of the brexiters.
You are right that the referendum was ill conceived Leo. If you add to the 16-18 year olds, and those resident overseas the fact that 28% of the electorate did not vote at all then you have a highly unsatisfactory result. In many countries non voters would be seen as 'de facto' voting for no change - in other words they would be interpreted as being happy with the way things were. This is why nearly all referendums in Europe which could involve a change in the law stipulate that half of the electorate must actively vote in favour of change before legislation can take place. Other countries eg. Switzerland also stipulate that there should be uniform agreement ie. with all regions voting in a similar fashion. There is no other country which would be naive enough to make a question of this importance a simple first past the post thing.
If this were to be proved, just what would hit the fan? There were rumours doing the rounds that UKIP were being funded by Russia just before the referendum. It is time for the West to wake up and realize what is happening. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...obable-referendum-hacking-putin-a7472706.html
I thought that, or something similar, was already in place here? That's exactly why the 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum result was passed over - a 52% Yes vote, but a turnout of only 64%.
In his evidence today Davis said, " It is very, very difficult to see [article 50] being revoked. We don’t intend to revoke it, and it may not be revocable, I don’t know." Up until now the government has said it could not be revoked. From the above it sounds as if they are no longer sure.
The Lords have advised to assume it is irrevocable. That is why this case is being brought in Ireland - claiming that if it is irrevocable it is against human rights. If an EU Court said it Is illegal for it to be irrevocable it changes the game plan. It will not happen but keeps dreams of sanity alive a little longer
How can a court decide whether Article 50 is illegal or not ? - there is nothing contained in it on the subject of a possible reversal, whether possible or not - the only question is - what does the absence of this mean yeah or nay ? In reality it is the same as a divorce - one side may petition for it. It is reversible up to the time of the Decree Absolute - but this reversal needs to come from both sides. Britain cannot force itself back upon the EU. having once signalled its wish to leave - this needs the accord of both sides (which I imagine would probably happen).
You have missed the entire point Cologne. You need to read the first post on this thread. It is not about the old "does it or does it not mention reversibility". It is about "would lack of reversibility infringe human rights" Suggest you find the link to the story.
Lack of reversability would probably be a violation of something or other Leo - but human rights ? The theme of reversability is not even mentioned in Article 50, so how can there be a court proceeding about it ?
I sincerely hope we do leave the EU. With the UK already being excluded from some committees, just what status will the UK have if, somehow the various factions trying to keep us in win the legal argument and, we do in fact remain? We didn't seem to be liked much before, but tolerated because we were a major economic force, I don't think even that counts for anything in our present position and in the near future if we, as a nation, were to go back asking for re-admittance we would be on a hiding to nothing. As already reported some European leaders have implied we will not have a Britain-friendly deal, our position is such that leave or stay we are damned, unless we can get some half-decent trade deals outside the EU. Irrespective of the whys and wherefores of the voting process used to obtain the vote the majority of those who could be bothered to vote wanted to leave, you may or may not agree with the outcome and to add those who didn't vote into the remain is not a valid proposition, they cannot be regarded as holding a position of support for the status quo, if that was the case before the vote was taken all the remain camp would have had to do was stay at home. To me any decision taken by the ECJ will be in the favour of their employers so it is blindingly obvious that there will be an adjustment made to Article 50 to make it non-binding and reversible, one only has to look at some of the previously held referenda to see the EU will go the extra mile to keep its influence. Also had the vote gone the other way would the Brexiteers have been allowed anywhere near a law court to make a legal challenge to the way the government was handling re- or fuller integration?
I agree with some of that zen. If we did leave then there would be no point in trying to get back in - the deal on offer would not be good - any more than the deal we will get for brexit. That is the point though - if the ECJ ruled Article 50 illegal on humanitarian grounds as this case is aiming for then we would never get to leave unless we accepted the sh*t terms we will be offered. Instead we would just have Parliament vote to reverse the application to trigger Article 50. We would remain in the EU on exactly the terms we have now. It would mean that the people get to decide on whether we leave or not based on truth and fact, not on the lies during the referendum. If people still want to leave they need do nothing.
The case which I would like to see come before the courts (preferably the ECJ) is whether a tax paying EU. citizen who has not committed any crime can be legally disenfranchised. Britain is the only country which has a 15 year absence ruling on whether ex pats can vote - if those same people are not naturalized in the countries which they have moved to then they end up with no voting rights at all - are they suddenly non citizens ? Can a person be legally disenfranchised in this way ? If not then was the referendum result invalid ? There are around 3-4 million ex pats Worldwide who come under this ruling and, whether they live in the EU. or not, are very much affected by the result. Many of these, who are pensioners, are also still paying taxes to the UK. Government.
That of course applies both ways - but I agree with your point. I've never really understood why so many people go to the trouble of enrolling on the register only to not do what it entitles them to do, and tend to think that non-voters should simply be left out of the equation altogether. Presumably their registration has another purpose?
