Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

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

Oh WOO!!!!!

 

[1966efc]

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.

I haven't said that A50 can't be reversed ... it was written loosely by a bloke who didn't imagine it would ever be utilised. It can doubtless be diddled with till the cows come home.

As to the expiry of the two window leading to exit / Brexit - you'll want to argue that one with the FT whose correspondent mentioned it.

The political question you might want to consider is whether or not a Tory P M would dare revoke. I'm confident that Vienna v a second term in office will have one outcome.

 

[The Esk]

Hardly Joey, just identifying the reasons why Brexit does not mean Brexit. It might happen but it might not.

 

[peteblue]

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.

I thought I read it the other week and that it would have to go before the Eu Court for judgement......if it's wrong fair enough.......

 

[Duncan Disordely]

Quick question: Is article 50 revokable ?

Relevant thread of tweets:



Apparently the UK Gov may argue in the Supreme Court that it is, as a way around the High Court ruling as then invoking a50 won't automatically affect UK human rights as it'd in theory be reversible.

 

[Tubey]

I thought I read it the other week and that it would have to go before the Eu Court for judgement......if it's wrong fair enough.......

Nah - all details here: https://www.ft.com/content/b9fc30c8-6edb-11e6-a0c9-1365ce54b926

 

[SNova]

On the one hand I want to leave the EU as soon as possible, but on the other hand I'd prefer a right wing euroscepric party to come to power, which could very well happen if the will of the people is ignored.

The 17 million people will be primed to vote against the establishment in the next general election if they are ignored.

 

[peteblue]

Nah - all details here: https://www.ft.com/content/b9fc30c8-6edb-11e6-a0c9-1365ce54b926

You're just trying to get me to subscribe......not falling for that......

 

[The Esk]

right wing euroscepric party to come to power

Don't you already have one in power?

 

[SNova]

Don't you already have one in power?

I very much doubt it.

 

[Joey66]

Hardly Joey, just identifying the reasons why Brexit does not mean Brexit. It might happen but it might not.

It will happen clutching straws IMO

 

[Toffeelover]

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.

Bruce in a word rubbish. More constituencies voted out than voted in so these MPs should accept that.

 

[Toffeelover]

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

Yep I know but nevertheless, the Brexit is a bit of a revolution.

 

[Toffeelover]

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.

No doubt you would be pleased if it turned out like that. So Parliament gives those who voted to leave two fingers.

 

[The Esk]

No doubt you would be pleased if it turned out like that. So Parliament gives those who voted to leave two fingers.

So Parliament does what is right for the country. That's my only interest to be honest.