I am sorry Cologne but this is not a grey area - it is something a few people clutching at straws tried to argue. It is not how law works. Article 50 says certain things - it also does not say an infinite number of things - the law does not pick one unsaid thing and allow it because it was not said. Article 50 is clear. There is no question of "against their will" - invoking Article 50 IS their will - there is nothing to undo it. No such article or legislation exists. If we try to return it will be entirely a new agreement to join. You are correct that the referendum is binding in morality only - but that is not the question here. If we invoke Article 50 it is irreversible.
The UK. can change it's mind after the article 50 request as long as no final agreement on terms has been reached - otherwise there would be no point in negotiations. Any country going along this path has 2 years to reach a pact - the reference to rejoining by article 49 only applies once a country is out. Britain remains a member for 2 years after Article 50 has been evoked - if that were not the case then a country could simply say 'bugger you lot' we're not paying one cent more to the EU. and could, effectively, withdraw completely with just those words, and without any negotiations whatsoever.
Cologne - speak to a lawyer on this - I have. You are just wrong. Article 50 triggers an unalterable leave procedure. The two years is just to make the divorce work better - no agreement has to be reached - at the end of 2 years divorce is final - the only thing that would delay note "delay not undo" it is if ALL 27 other members agreed to give us an extension. Article 49 is not relevant. We are a member until the end of that two years (or longer if 27 members all agreed) but that does not mean we are able to stop the divorce. I wish I were wrong.
You are wrong Leo, sorry to be so blunt about this, but there is no contract on this earth, or divorce proceeding etc. which cannot be reversed if both sides want to do it, within the given time period - if that were not the case then the time period would be meaningless.
Then we agree to disagree. You do not understand contracts - for my sins I have studied them most of my working life. You can renegotiate a contract but once certain things are done they cannot be undone. The trigger to leave is the day we invoke Article 50. The rest is just two years to agree what trade and other terms will apply in the future. The two years has a meaning in that context. Two years is for terms alone.
I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We need to talk to a hundred lawyers on this and not just to a few - and there tends to be disagreement amongst them on this. So, that being the case, common sense prevails. There is no legal process on this earth which cannot be stopped if all parties agree to stop it - we are not living in a World where a piece of paper is more powerfull than the wishes of all concerned. Even a judge's decision can be overturned if the available evidence has changed.
So what do lawyers and EU experts think? There was a House of Lords report. Two leading experts told the Lords EU Committee that the UK can change its mind on Article 50. Sir David Edward, who used to be a judge at the EU court, said that: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.” Derrick Wyatt, an EU lawyer and former Oxford professor, took a similar view andtold the committee that: “There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door.” That view is backed up by Professor Kenneth Armstrong of Cambridge, as well as an analysis of international law by the barrister Charles Streeten. Andrew Duff, a British former Member of the European Parliament, agrees: “It would be perfectly possible for the UK to revoke its decision to quit. That Article 50 is silent on the matter of revocation does not mean that a change of direction would be illegal under EU law”. Kate Gibbons, a commercial lawyer at Clifford Chance, wrote in June that “The prevalent view is, perhaps, that notice can be withdrawn prior to actual withdrawal from the EU but the position is not clear”. Professor Michael Dougan agrees that this is the view of “most lawyers”, adding that “the French government legal service has told the French government the same answer”. So if French lawyers believe the UK could change it's mind, it has to be right.
They are clutching at straws. The Treaty cannot be overturned just because we do not like it. Article 50 does one thing and one thing only - it gives a country power to quit. If the UK quits - it is over. The two years is just terms. Nobody ever managed to insert into a treaty something that was not there. If it had been intended to be reversible it would have said so. Al the junk about nobody evert thought it would be exercised is tommy rot - who knows what was in people's minds. Sorry out means out - more than Brexit means Brexit
If they had thought for one minute that this article would ever be actually invoked then it would have been more than 500 words long ! More comparable to their regulations on cabbages. We are not clutching at straws Leo, because (in contrast to other legal procedures) there is absolutely no precedent for this and so anything can happen. In terms of Realpolitik it is unlikely - because trying to reverse it would involve a large 'loss of face', in which we would probably lose what concessions we have from the EU. More likely is, that the activation of Article 50 will be permanently delayed until such changes in circumstances occur which would justify a second referendum - the longer they 'play for time' the more of a possibility that will become. We live in a parliamentary democracy and are not bound to take a permanent step which 61% of the electorate did not vote for.
Sorry Leo, but I do not agree. It was the UK that wanted Article 50 to be inserted into the treaty as there was no way until then for any country to leave. A diplomat by the name of John Kerr framed it and it was thought by him to never be used. It was so loosely worded that it could mean whatever you wish it to mean, a typical piece of British legislation. The very fact that expert lawyers have been called to give evidence to a government committee suggests to me that their opinions are to be taken seriously. "It is called the exit clause but it’s actually a trap that would mean Britain would be reduced to a colonial state,” said Nigel Farage. I would never normally quote the man, but even he could see that it doesn't mean out is out.
Not getting into the legality debate... However was quoting an MP.. .and he and colleagues must believe there is significant wriggle room. May being interviewed last night was wriggling a lot in her seat as Laura Kuennsberg for once put a Tory under the cosh. It does make me wonder if May will turn out to be the sacrificial lamb here for the Tories as she had preciouls little ot offer but rhetoric which became more fraught as the interview proceeded. I think there is a way to go. £ at its lowest for 31 years, FTSE on a spike... and can only go down once the medium term effects of the £/$ hit UK imports etc. Italian banks on a knife edge, New EC states balking at migrant issue etc etc
Lawyers, like economists and accountants are paid for their opinion so you can always find someone to argue a hopeless case. Even a mass murderer gets a legal team. Let's look at the Article Article 50 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Clear. None of Cologne's "being forced out". Our choice - we just have to make sure we do it constitutionally. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. We notify our intention. An agreement is then negotiated. Article 218 is about the EU deciding who does their negotiation. Negotiations are held and a qualified majority is needed to approve it. That is 72% of the remaining 27 Member States, representing 65% of the population. The final agreement would also need to be approved by the European Parliament, voting by a simple majority 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. This says that we have left the EU at the end of 2 years or if earlier when the agreement is concluded. (It could be later if ALL 27 states agreed). 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. The UK gets no voice in the above. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.As above 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. This is the only way back in. We have left and we re-join. Nothing about we halt the leaving process. Now forget all the nonsense about ambiguity and it is such a small clause etc. Article 50 is total and specific. It does not require a single extra word. Unless you change the Treaty it applies. You cannot say it does not even cover the eventuality of a change of mind - because it specifically tells you how to rejoin. There is no interim stage in the leaving process. We resign and terms get set. If it intended a state to be able to halt its leaving process paragraph 5 could have easily covered it - but it did not because it is not allowed.
The government showing their true colours now - and some have the gall to describe SNP as racist nazis... With just over a month to go before the anniversary of Kristallnacht, I wonder what we can expect next?
I cannot see what it says and am too savvy to think a Headline explains an article. What does it say and how is it to be likened to racist nazis? Or is this just left wing bias? If "the people" have demanded a reduction in immigration then the government is duty bound to try to achieve that - and if making companies employ unemployed people who are already here - of any race - then is that not what the 17 million told them to do? Do we now have 17 million racist nazis?
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Just taking this point, it is totally unclear what the constitutional requirements are, which is why it is being taken to the courts to decide. Does May have the power to invoke Article 50, or should it be with the consent of parliament? These cases are likely to go all the way to the supreme court, showing that until a final ruling is given neither side of the debate can say with certainty what the situation really is. Government lawyers gave an assurance at a preliminary hearing that there would be no movement this year until the matter was settled.
Well it's The Times, so hardly left wing... You'll find the story in other papers too. Basically, Amber Rudd announced at the Tory Conference that she wants to introduce a rule requiring businesses to maintain a list of foreign workers - aimed at ensuring 'British jobs for British workers'. This goes hand in hand with the effective 'deportation notices' handed out to foreign doctors earlier. Typically, there's no definition of what constitutes a 'British job' - eg, can work at Hinkley Point be claimed to fit the bill considering the Chinese/French involvement? This problem has already surfaced in Australia, where foreign investors have insisted on bringing their own workforce in & the government introduced '457' visas to the detriment of the local workforce. Do you now have 17 million racist nazis? All I can say to that is possibly yes. The majority of Scots welcome immigration and won't have a bar of this attitude - and are totally backed in this by the Scottish Government. If the SG chose to implement a nonsense like this, the outcry would be universal and vicious - they have, after all, already been labelled as racist nazis whilst holding the opposite viewpoint.
All that does is to cast doubt on how to invoke Article 50. If it is not legally invoked then that is an entirely different position to one that says we can withdraw it.
It was you I was referring to as left wing. Do you object to trying to employ people who are already here? A country must always keep checks on non nationals - for work visa and a variety of reasons. Most countries do. There was no "effective deportation notice on foreign doctors" The policy is to try to increase training of our own. At 1500 a year (the numbers quoted) and a seven year training it will be well into the 2030s when we could even begin to be self sufficient in doctors. (35,000 foreign doctors here).You handle the luxurious position of then by beginning to reduce imports of doctors not by deportation. Another left wing lie. Large foreign projects are complicated. Let's see the Corbyn solution. Some argue the SNP are racist - and very anti-English so beware the ground you tread on. You do not see them in that light - how surprising is that? What information shows the majority of Scots welcome immigration? All a red herring anyway as Scotland is underpopulated and does not face anything like the pressures of many English areas.
