Brexit, for once some facts.

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
Perhaps you didn't quite listen to all Kerr had to say yesterday, 'Danidl' but he was making exactly the point that we can withdraw and continue as normal at any time during the process. He made it very clear that May and others have been entirely wrong to suggest otherwise.

Moreover, I can't remember if it was Tusk or one of the other senior EU figures who said it but some time ago, long before Kerr made his speech, one senior EU official stated in a televised interview that the UK can rescind their formal notice of secession at any time and that it would be welcomed by the 27.

Tom
No I did not listen to your mr Kerr. I do understand and appreciate the point that flecc was making ,.. but it's all conjecture. The only facts are those written down.
I have no doubt that any EU official would welcome a communication from the UK seeking annulment of their article 50. The practical difficulties let alone the fillip to EU community prestige, make this a no brainer......BUT.
It is no longer in the gift of Barnier, Thusk or any individual. It is now a decision of all the states of the EU. That's what's written down. I don't doubt that senior officials would try and ease the path back, and I would wholeheartedly support them as would the Irish representatives., But likewise it's not in our gift...
There is no credible position other than the UK government, by free act of its parliament, with enormous support for the motion, decided that it wished to vacate the EU. There was no wriggle room in their motion nor in their letter of intent. Very simply the UK cannot demand to be allowed remain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robdon

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
I don't think the expression, 'demand' was ever mentioned but 'rescind' and 'withdraw' were mentioned and EU spokespersons indicated that would be the most satisfactory outcome for all.

Tom
I choose the word " demand " deliberately in order to make the position of the UK crystal clear. One of the previous contributions ,the link was posted on this thread, possibly relating to comments by this Lord Kerr . ... sought to make the point that the UKs letter of secession was an invitation to treat, not a binding contract and the UK could withdraw it at their prorogative. That view in IMHO is sophistry and I cannot see it being realistically pursued... I cannot see the ECJ being convinced about it either.
I would agree with the EU officials referred to that that would be the most favourable outcome possible, but I would not be in any way sure that all 26 states would vote for it. We all have grievances with the UK , be it not enough votes in Eurovision, too many welsh players on the Lions, Gibraltar, or any other issue. Some of the middle European countries neither have a love of the UK or beholding to them for trade So could veto it ....
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
I choose the word " demand " deliberately in order to make the position of the UK crystal clear. One of the previous contributions ,the link was posted on this thread, possibly relating to comments by this Lord Kerr . ... sought to make the point that the UKs letter of secession was an invitation to treat, not a binding contract and the UK could withdraw it at their prorogative. That view in IMHO is sophistry and I cannot see it being realistically pursued... I cannot see the ECJ being convinced about it either.
I would agree with the EU officials referred to that that would be the most favourable outcome possible, but I would not be in any way sure that all 26 states would vote for it. We all have grievances with the UK , be it not enough votes in Eurovision, too many welsh players on the Lions, Gibraltar, or any other issue. Some of the middle European countries neither have a love of the UK or beholding to them for trade So could veto it ....
France would dig up the General De Gaulle, explain the situation and he would vote against all the while muttering "Je vous l'avez dit !" :D
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,379
16,876
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
I watched Michael Gove on Marr's show yesterday.
He is a danger to this country.
I wish some politician would go on TV to explain to the hard brexiters that in case of no deal brexit, we still have to pay more or less the same divorce bill and get nothing in return.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,379
16,876
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk

oldtom

Esteemed Pedelecer
I choose the word " demand " deliberately in order to make the position of the UK crystal clear. One of the previous contributions ,the link was posted on this thread, possibly relating to comments by this Lord Kerr . ... sought to make the point that the UKs letter of secession was an invitation to treat, not a binding contract and the UK could withdraw it at their prorogative. That view in IMHO is sophistry and I cannot see it being realistically pursued... I cannot see the ECJ being convinced about it either.
I would agree with the EU officials referred to that that would be the most favourable outcome possible, but I would not be in any way sure that all 26 states would vote for it. We all have grievances with the UK , be it not enough votes in Eurovision, too many welsh players on the Lions, Gibraltar, or any other issue. Some of the middle European countries neither have a love of the UK or beholding to them for trade So could veto it ....
'Danidl', forgive me for being a little pedantic but although I may have missed it, I'm unaware of any major political figure having adopted your stance in response to Kerr's comments on A50.

Your use of the word 'sophistry' is interesting as that was exactly the accusation used by Kerr against Mrs May. Surely you must know that the construction of A50 is generally accredited to Kerr himself? That being the case, it is therefore no surprise that leading pro-secession figures and the tory media have chosen to deliberately ignore his speech and exclude it from front-page headlines.

His timely interruption into the ongoing saga referred to as 'Brexit' discussions was purely to correct the lie promulgated by May & Co that A50 was irreversible when in fact any decision to rescind the matter before the final deadline for discussions remains within the gift of the UK parliament. The other 27 nation states therefore have no say in a matter which no longer exists should the UK announce it has changed its mind.

The UK is not being expelled.

Tom
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

oldtom

Esteemed Pedelecer
I watched Michael Gove on Marr's show yesterday.
He is a danger to this country.
I wish some politician would go on TV to explain to the hard brexiters that in case of no deal brexit, we still have to pay more or less the same divorce bill and get nothing in return.
It isn't only Gove!

Any political party that can see fit to select figures such as Gove and Johnson for important positions within government is a danger to the country.

As for a politician explaining the financial consequences of leaving the EU by whichever method, that would be to imagine that our politicians actually understand the ramifications of our foolhardiness. Even any who do have sufficient knowledge and understanding are not going to stand up and broadcast to the nation what the reality of a post-'Brexit' UK will be like. That is why the studies and reports into various scenarios has been suppressed. It is now sheer dogma driving this fiasco along the road.

Tom
 

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
'Danidl', forgive me for being a little pedantic but although I may have missed it, I'm unaware of any major political figure having adopted your stance in response to Kerr's comments on A50.

Your use of the word 'sophistry' is interesting as that was exactly the accusation used by Kerr against Mrs May. Surely you must know that the construction of A50 is generally accredited to Kerr himself? That being the case, it is therefore no surprise that leading pro-secession figures and the tory media have chosen to deliberately ignore his speech and exclude it from front-page headlines.

His timely interruption into the ongoing saga referred to as 'Brexit' discussions was purely to correct the lie promulgated by May & Co that A50 was irreversible when in fact any decision to rescind the matter before the final deadline for discussions remains within the gift of the UK parliament. The other 27 nation states therefore have no say in a matter which no longer exists should the UK announce it has changed its mind.

The UK is not being expelled.

Tom
Of course the UK is not being expelled. It decided by a large majority in its houses of parliament to enact a decision to leave...we are way beyond the the referendum at this stage so it is irrelevant.
I will take your word that your Lord Kerr was the architect of the inclusion of the clause relating to article 50.
What I cannot at face value accept is that there is a" get out of jail " card embedded in the text. It is very simple text. I wish there was!. If the pro EU lobby believed it, would not Mr Barnier and co not have been suggesting it for months now?
In one of my admittedly very few face to face conversations with real English people on the subject, ..and these would be committed europhiles, there was a resigned acceptance that the UK was going.. They like presumably millions of others would have formed a resistance had they believed it was still negotiable.
I would wish Lord Kerr the best of luck with his endeavours, but seriously believe that kite won't fly. .. l would be delighted to be proved wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robdon

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
Of course the UK is not being expelled. It decided by a large majority in its houses of parliament to enact a decision to leave...we are way beyond the the referendum at this stage so it is irrelevant.
I will take your word that your Lord Kerr was the architect of the inclusion of the clause relating to article 50.
What I cannot at face value accept is that there is a" get out of jail " card embedded in the text. It is very simple text. I wish there was!. If the pro EU lobby believed it, would not Mr Barnier and co not have been suggesting it for months now?
In one of my admittedly very few face to face conversations with real English people on the subject, ..and these would be committed europhiles, there was a resigned acceptance that the UK was going.. They like presumably millions of others would have formed a resistance had they believed it was still negotiable.
I would wish Lord Kerr the best of luck with his endeavours, but seriously believe that kite won't fly. .. l would be delighted to be proved wrong.
I think this clearly makes the point that Dan is putting forward. Lord Kerr was a bit of a clown.

CAN BREXIT BE REVERSED?


Although the UK voted to leave the EU on Jun. 23 last year, it wasn’t until Mar. 29 that it formally began the exit process. Brexit was officially initiated when prime minister at the time Theresa May sent a notification to the EU that triggered Article 50, a clause in the Lisbon Treaty that binds together the bloc’s members.

The clause gives the UK two years to negotiate the terms of its exit. What is not clear, however, is whether the triggering of Article 50 can be revoked and thus whether Brexit can be reversed. It’s a crucial question, because if the answer is yes, that means the UK would have an insurance policy against disaster: that if things were to go horribly wrong in the exit negotiation process, the UK could walk back the decision to leave the EU.

The trouble is, as legal blogger David Allen Green explained in a series of recent tweets, “nobody knows for certain.” There is no mention of revocation in the article text. “But then Article 50 is an atrocious piece of legal drafting,” Green wrote. “Written by diplomats, not lawyers. It shows.”

The two-year negotiation period would be pointless if revocation were possible, Green argues, because then any EU member could continually start-stop the process and thus reset the countdown indefinitely until a time when it find itself in a favorable negotiating position.

Leaving out a mention of revocation may have been purposeful because Article 50 was intended never to be used. “It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened,” Giuliano Amato, a former prime minister of Italy who helped draft the Lisbon Treaty, told the Independent. Article 50 was included to assuage nationalists that no member state of the EU was forever bound to remain part of the union.

Still, Green says, there’s little doubt that Article 50 could be revoked if all the remaining member states of the bloc agreed to allow that to happen. It’s not because the clause itself provides for such an arrangement, but because a unanimous agreement among all member states should be enough to allow it.

What we don’t know yet is whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and thus reverse Brexit. A London-based lawyer filed a lawsuit in an Ireland court hoping to find the answer. But he withdrewthe case after the Irish government came out in opposition to the case, and their legal team determined that the case was very unlikely to make it to the European Court of Justice, the highest court under EU law and the only legal body that can answer the question definitively.

“On one hand, most notices and notifications in law can be withdrawn,” Green says. “But on [the] other hand, unilateral revocation would undermine [the] scheme of Article.”

One of the authors of Article 50, John Kerr, believes it is unilaterally revocable. “During [the negotiation] period, if a country were to decide actually we don’t want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time,” he told the BBC. “They might try to extract a political price, but legally they couldn’t insist that you leave.”

But Green doesn’t buy it: “And those who quote the author’s intentions for Article 50, all [I can] say is: they should [have] done a better job of drafting it.”
 
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: robdon and Zlatan

Steb

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 15, 2017
328
613
46
london
I watched Michael Gove on Marr's show yesterday.
He is a danger to this country.
I wish some politician would go on TV to explain to the hard brexiters that in case of no deal brexit, we still have to pay more or less the same divorce bill and get nothing in return.
oddly I feel increasingly grateful for him (he embodies brexit with his blend of self serving insincerity and narcissism), I'd feel the same about boris if he didn't jeopardise the lives of innocent civilians. at the risk of going completely Shakespearian (Macbeth comes to mind) we may try and gloss over the madness of brexit as a country - for now, but the true ethics of it will reveal itself in all its ugliness via key proponents like gove or boris. I hope they take the tories as far as possible down the sewer with them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

oldtom

Esteemed Pedelecer
I think this clearly makes the point that Dan is putting forward. Lord Kerr was a bit of a clown
It doesn't seem to clarify anything; indeed, it is contrary, seemingly attempting to balance two arguments and come out with a different answer to that of a man responsible for the authorship of A50.

We have not been made party to the legal opinion, (usually the province of the Attorney General), which gave rise to May's claim about the irreversibility of the 'Brexit' process but it certainly didn't come from a maverick lawyer who's a bit of a blogger.....or maybe it did!

I'm sure your opinion of Lord Kerr is probably accurate but I think it should be remembered that he worked with European representatives when he constructed the A50 provisions so presumably, there was a broad consensus about its meaning and intent.

Given that, the only way we would ever know for sure is if the UK turned up for discussions one day and stated 'We've changed our minds - cancel the whole thing!' We shouldn't have to wait long for an EU response and I doubt very much that they would say, 'Well you can't!' That would then mean, effectively, the EU would be expelling a member state and I'm not sure there is a mechanism for that.

Tom
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
It doesn't seem to clarify anything; indeed, it is contrary, seemingly attempting to balance two arguments and come out with a different answer to that of a man responsible for the authorship of A50.

We have not been made party to the legal opinion, (usually the province of the Attorney General), which gave rise to May's claim about the irreversibility of the 'Brexit' process but it certainly didn't come from a maverick lawyer who's a bit of a blogger.....or maybe it did!

I'm sure your opinion of Lord Kerr is probably accurate but I think it should be remembered that he worked with European representatives when he constructed the A50 provisions so presumably, there was a broad consensus about its meaning and intent.

Given that, the only way we would ever know for sure is if the UK turned up for discussions one day and stated 'We've changed our minds - cancel the whole thing!' We shouldn't have to wait long for an EU response and I doubt very much that they would say, 'Well you can't!' That would then mean, effectively, the EU would be expelling a member state and I'm not sure there is a mechanism for that.

Tom
I noted that there had been a case put to the Irish Courts to determine the truth but, probably rather smartly it was withdrawn because the Irish thought it unlikely to reach the ECJ which obviously is the only body able to answer the question. Now, the question that poses is why wouldn't they, ECJ (answer it)?

Never ask a Diplomat a tough question.
 

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
an academic study last November found the link between brexit vote and increases in Chinese imports over the last 3-4 decades.
Apparently, Chinese imports destroyed manufacturing jobs. The effect on towns that are blighted by globalisation is actually higher than EU immigration.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2870313_code962400.pdf?abstractid=2870313&mirid=1
On the back of that I'm surprised that OG didn't vote for Brexit! There again some could probably claim there to be a link with Global Warming and Brexit?
 

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
I think this clearly makes the point that Dan is putting forward. Lord Kerr was a bit of a clown.

CAN BREXIT BE REVERSED?


Although the UK voted to leave the EU on Jun. 23 last year, it wasn’t until Mar. 29 that it formally began the exit process. Brexit was officially initiated when prime minister at the time Theresa May sent a notification to the EU that triggered Article 50, a clause in the Lisbon Treaty that binds together the bloc’s members.

The clause gives the UK two years to negotiate the terms of its exit. What is not clear, however, is whether the triggering of Article 50 can be revoked and thus whether Brexit can be reversed. It’s a crucial question, because if the answer is yes, that means the UK would have an insurance policy against disaster: that if things were to go horribly wrong in the exit negotiation process, the UK could walk back the decision to leave the EU.

The trouble is, as legal blogger David Allen Green explained in a series of recent tweets, “nobody knows for certain.” There is no mention of revocation in the article text. “But then Article 50 is an atrocious piece of legal drafting,” Green wrote. “Written by diplomats, not lawyers. It shows.”

The two-year negotiation period would be pointless if revocation were possible, Green argues, because then any EU member could continually start-stop the process and thus reset the countdown indefinitely until a time when it find itself in a favorable negotiating position.

Leaving out a mention of revocation may have been purposeful because Article 50 was intended never to be used. “It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened,” Giuliano Amato, a former prime minister of Italy who helped draft the Lisbon Treaty, told the Independent. Article 50 was included to assuage nationalists that no member state of the EU was forever bound to remain part of the union.

Still, Green says, there’s little doubt that Article 50 could be revoked if all the remaining member states of the bloc agreed to allow that to happen. It’s not because the clause itself provides for such an arrangement, but because a unanimous agreement among all member states should be enough to allow it.

What we don’t know yet is whether the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and thus reverse Brexit. A London-based lawyer filed a lawsuit in an Ireland court hoping to find the answer. But he withdrewthe case after the Irish government came out in opposition to the case, and their legal team determined that the case was very unlikely to make it to the European Court of Justice, the highest court under EU law and the only legal body that can answer the question definitively.

“On one hand, most notices and notifications in law can be withdrawn,” Green says. “But on [the] other hand, unilateral revocation would undermine [the] scheme of Article.”

One of the authors of Article 50, John Kerr, believes it is unilaterally revocable. “During [the negotiation] period, if a country were to decide actually we don’t want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time,” he told the BBC. “They might try to extract a political price, but legally they couldn’t insist that you leave.”

But Green doesn’t buy it: “And those who quote the author’s intentions for Article 50, all [I can] say is: they should [have] done a better job of drafting it.”
I am not suggesting that Lord Kerr is or was a clown. I think the term forlorn hope might more accurately describe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robdon

Advertisers