Just to put everyone’s mind at rest (apart from Imps) both ourselves and the EU will be in violation of international law under the Lisbon Treaty if we leave without a trade deal.
This Twitter thread is well worth a read, and shows why leaving with no deal was never contemplated by the Leave Campaign:
Quite obviously not true otherwise we wouldn't have had the last 2 years of kerfuffle. They wouldn't have fought so hard to "take no deal off the table" if it was illegal to be on the table.
Hopefully we won’t have to find out, but it could depend on the ECJ’s interpretation of that part of the Lisbon Treaty, and whether UK Law (Invocation of Article 50) trumps the Lisbon Treaty.
It is a good thread and he has obviously spent a lot of time compiling it however he is paraphrasing people and then selecting what the wants to present it as meaning. Yes we are all doing that aligned with our own points. For instance. The Cameron one where he ignores the "we will leave the single market an customs union" and just focuses on "and we will have to negotiate a trade deal." Then he emphasises the "have to" in order to try and suggest that the former can be ignored purely focusing on "have to negotiate a trade deal. His premise to the original statement by Morgan is fine. We didn't vote to leave without a deal. We voted to leave the EU. The process of leaving the EU has "no deal" as a default. So indirectly we were voting for the process of which "no deal" is a possible outcome if no deal is agreed.
So you are now trying to suggest that we cannot leave unless the ECJ rules we can? Come off it. You are now suggesting that the lovely EU club can hold any country hostage unless it cedes to it's demands? Namely present them with the duffest deal or you can't leave until our court says you can? You thinking that is a good thing is the most worrying about you Europhiles. You really do want a federation.
Labour in the headlines again: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/fury-after-labour-party-election-16075100
You’re twisting what I said to suit your argument. The Lisbon Treaty says that if a member state leaves the Union a trade deal must be concluded before they leave. As yet we have no deal. I honestly don’t know where that leaves us, or the EU, and be honest, neither do you, but you chose to bluster about federalisation, which I hadn’t mentioned. And thanks for the Europhile label by the way, I am happy to wear that. If you want to find an insult you’ll have to try harder.
I mean technically we will have a deal with them due to us following WTO rules. And under those rules it would be illegal for us not to as well. No deal is really no deal on top of that. Just to put it out there I want a federation as a long term goal.
I wasn't labelling you a Europhile as an insult, I am a Europhile. The EU is not Europe. The insult was the federalist bit. My point being that if what you are asserting is true then 3 years ago Mr Barnier, Juncker, Tusk plus every prominent remainer would have laughed at the first time it was mentioned and stated "you can't leave without a deal, not allowed." That the remainers have been so desperate to get "no deal" off the table with all the legal advice that they have shows that was never the case.
Took me till now to register that your profile pic is a mercian flag Still, if it does gain independence it'll be taken by wessex soon enough
I don’t think federalist is an insult either. The worst insult I can think of is any form of nationalism, which I am guessing a lot of leavers are at heart. The SNP, Sinn Fein, and probably Plaid will all use Brexit as an excuse to break up the UK, so us English can all end up throwing rocks at each other from the top of our particular hillocks.
