Current Affairs EU In or Out

[The Esk]

Quick question: Is article 50 revokable ?

 

[Tubey]

Quick question: Is article 50 revokable ?

Yes. It's just a declaration of intent.

It's like saying "I want to buy that Mars bar" but then changing your mind when at the counter.

 

[peteblue]

Quick question: Is article 50 revokable ?

I believe that it is not, but that the European Judges would probably have to rule on that.......

 

[Tubey]

I believe that it is not, but that the European Judges would probably have to rule on that.......

Genuine question - what made you say that?

Because it's wrong like, but I'm wondering where you got the information from that made you think it isn't.

 

[Joey66]

Good old Nige saying the truth the UK public backed

 

[Joey66]

And that's fine. The MPs should vote to represent their constituents.

That said, given that no constituent has been asked to vote on the terms of Brexit, the MPs should also vote in the interests of their constituents.

So two options - either give the MPs a vote on the concrete terms of Brexit so as to do their jobs and look out for the interests of their constituents, or have a second referendum with the full terms known.

Right now, all we have had a referendum on is "should we leave the European Union" - but not how and on what terms.

the high court only gave a verdict on a vote to sign article 50 end of not a vote on how we leave end of!

 

[Joey66]

That folk are easy to wind up

Is that another word that you googled the wrong facts Bruce

 

[The Esk]

I asked about the ability to overturn Article 50 as it may form part of the Supreme Court hearing.

One of the principles of contract law is that you can't be held to the terms of the contract unless there is agreement on both sides. Thus if we decided that the exit terms offered to Britain were not suitable, then we would not be obliged to accept them within the time limit imposed by Article 50, or we could withdraw our Article 50.

The reason why this is important is that it could sway the Supreme Court into rejecting the High Court ruling as there is no certainty that British citizens rights will be removed because there is no certainty that Article 50 will be invoked.

This is very significant in my view, as it shows once and for all that Brexit does not mean Brexit. It only means that Brexit means Brexit when Parliament agrees to the terms of exit either before or after invoking the article,

So which ever way we look at it Parliament is going to get its say and there is no certainty that Brexit will occur. It maybe that Parliament has two further bites at the cherry, before invoking and before conclusion.

 

[1966efc]

Brexit means Brexit when Parliament agrees to the terms of exit either before or after invoking the article.

Yup. And, as I understand it, failure to agree terms for withdrawal within the two year window would also lead to treaties being considered no longer binding - i.e., we'd be out.

 

[The Esk]

Yup. And, as I understand it, failure to agree terms for withdrawal within the two year window would also lead to treaties being considered no longer binding - i.e., we'd be out.

No because we would withdraw our Article 50 on the basis of not having agreement.

There's also the Vienna convention on the law of treaties to consider. This states that something can be reversed unless the Treaty says specifically it cannot be reversed.

Nowhere does it state that Article 50 cannot be reversed.

 

[Old Blue 2]

MPs exist to represent their constituency, so I'd fully expect the 3 MPs for my borough to do that, and as 70% voted to remain, they should surely act accordingly? Likewise the MPs for Manchester, Liverpool, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Bath, Brighton, Leeds, York, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff, each and every one of whom saw a majority vote to remain. Indeed, the capital cities of each of the four nations of the United Kingdom all voted to remain. So you could easily argue that the economic, scientific and intellectual (in terms of universities) bulk of the country voted differently to what is about to happen.

The very notion that this should be brushed aside is preposterous.

If you believe the first six words of the above quote, Bruce, then quite simply, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!!!

They are self-serving, self-publicising [insert any word you like here].

I would only exempt Jack Ashley and Dennis Skinner from my previous paragraph.

The rest of the quote above is sanctimonious rubbish, 100%. Conveniently forgetting that the vote was COUNTRYWIDE, not limited to the big cities. Still being selective in what you quote and say, Bruce.

This, Bruce, is one of the worst things you have ever posted: "...bulk of the country voted differently to what is about to happen..." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that of all those eligible to vote, and taking those who did not vote as abstentions, the bulk of the country DID NOT VOTE DIFFERENTLY TO WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. I've put the latter part of the last sentence in capitals so you do not miss it, Bruce. The bulk (i.e. majority) voted 'Leave'. You have tended to 'miss' several of the things I have mentioned in recent weeks, when it has suited you...

Still, the Remainers go on and on and on and on...

 

[Old Blue 2]

I asked about the ability to overturn Article 50 as it may form part of the Supreme Court hearing.

One of the principles of contract law is that you can't be held to the terms of the contract unless there is agreement on both sides.

Jeez, Esk, so the bank, in reducing the interest rate on my ISA many times over the years were doing it illegally, because it had to be agreed by both the bank and MYSELF? I want all that stolen interest back!!!

 

[Old Blue 2]

After the Brexit vote, I thought all things considered this was appropriate.

If you are saying that the Brexit vote advocated revolution, then listen again to the words. Lennon wrote the exact opposite...

 

[The Esk]

Jeez, Esk, so the bank, in reducing the interest rate on my ISA many times over the years were doing it illegally, because it had to be agreed by both the bank and MYSELF? I want all that stolen interest back!!!

Not quite OB. In the product terms you will have given the bank permission to vary the rates of interest paid.

 

[Joey66]

I asked about the ability to overturn Article 50 as it may form part of the Supreme Court hearing.

One of the principles of contract law is that you can't be held to the terms of the contract unless there is agreement on both sides. Thus if we decided that the exit terms offered to Britain were not suitable, then we would not be obliged to accept them within the time limit imposed by Article 50, or we could withdraw our Article 50.

The reason why this is important is that it could sway the Supreme Court into rejecting the High Court ruling as there is no certainty that British citizens rights will be removed because there is no certainty that Article 50 will be invoked.

This is very significant in my view, as it shows once and for all that Brexit does not mean Brexit. It only means that Brexit means Brexit when Parliament agrees to the terms of exit either before or after invoking the article,

So which ever way we look at it Parliament is going to get its say and there is no certainty that Brexit will occur. It maybe that Parliament has two further bites at the cherry, before invoking and before conclusion.