Brexit, for once some facts.

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

.. hi KudosDave, have you forgotten my request to you to identify the EU source which could allow the UK to recind their letter of secession?

The guy who wrote it?

Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, says "you can change your mind while the process is going on." He told the BBC: "During that [two year] 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 ... They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

Speaking in the House of Lords this month, Kerr added: "When the government says as a matter of policy that they will not withdraw the notification ... they implicitly confirm that in law they could withdraw it and they could. It is revocable."

From conversations I've had with various Lords, they pretty much allowed it to be submitted knowing they'd be able to fight another day when the public mood would be different.

 

[Danidl]

That's brilliant..when I used to write lessons plans for kids unable to glean the enforced curriculum I,d use words like promote, foster, develop There,s nothing there KTM..one crime not committed, one family out of poverty trap, one country exceeding fiscal expectations. Social care targets achieved. That list of nothings would be shot down in flames at any successful organisation.
I asked what it had achieved. Fostering gowth with no yardtick, measures , calibration, validity, reliability or even numbers is at best superficial.
They really are poor objectives KTM. I,d have failed any inspection the minute line managers read those wishy washy statements.
Again, I,ll ask. What has EU achieved ?
Yep, a great road network in Northern Spain . The investment was supposed to lift communities. It did no such thing. The rich contractors benefited, paid under eu minimum wages, forgot EU safety rules , made loads of cash to invest In Majorca..and the roads or empty..Drive to Girona and back towards Pyrenees. Beautiful roads, not a pot hole in site..but virtually no tourists and still plenty of beggars, prositutes ( on road sides in high vis jackets !) and robberies.
Complete waste of money. Yes ,they,ve built the roads but what social objectives have been achieved. None.
I,ll concede raising UK learner limit to 15kw..gave learners another couple of bhp to play with..and raising pedelec limit to 250 from 200..but again both totally redundant. No kids in Spain,France or Italy follow 15kw limit,its ignored by most.( many ride with no insurance in all 3) and nobody but nobody takes any notice of the 250w limit. ( Reckon my certified Haibike is capable of double that..and continually with that damned badass gadget on it)
EU laws are a joke everywhere ..except here.
The EU cant even arrange common standards for driving tests, speeding fines,matriculation of vehicles or testing.( no MOT for motor bikes in France,unbelievable harsh rules for cars..but ignored. A Renault wife took for testing passed, no problems. I drove it following day..engine and gearbox mounts broken, exhaust blowing and brakes binding .It passed because examiner charges 200euro or so and he took a shine to wife..Thats in France..now imagine Greece. Its a complete and utter shambles.

... I didn't know that Renault did wives, are they reliable?
If your point was that there are venal Frenchmen, well quelle surprise.

 

[Woosh]

Well Thersa May has not had long on her EU negotiations but she seems to ignoring pretty much everything that the leavers voted for,is this abiding by the 'will of the people'

then the 52% will vote them out.
remainers will have nothing to worry about.

 

[Danidl]

The guy who wrote it?

Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, says "you can change your mind while the process is going on." He told the BBC: "During that [two year] 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 ... They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

Speaking in the House of Lords this month, Kerr added: "When the government says as a matter of policy that they will not withdraw the notification ... they implicitly confirm that in law they could withdraw it and they could. It is revocable."

From conversations I've had with various Lords, they pretty much allowed it to be submitted knowing they'd be able to fight another day when the public mood would be different.

That is exactly the source I was expecting. He is not talking from the EU. I believe, with regret, that that was wishful thinking. Where it not so, it would have been included in the article 50 text.

 

[Woosh]

That is exactly the source I was expecting. He is not talking from the EU. I believe, with regret, that that was wishful thinking. Where it not so, it would have been included in the article 50 text.

If the UK wants to rescind the letter, the matter will be decided by the ECJ, not 27 remaining members.

 

[flecc]

but let me tell you it gets much more deeper than that.

No.

It can get deeper, or it can get more deep.

But it can't get more deeper, those two comparatives making nonsense. More than what and deeper than what, there has to be an anchor point?
.

 

[Danidl]

If the UK wants to rescind the letter, the matter will be decided by the ECJ, not 27 remaining members.

.. That makes more sense . I could not see it within the competence of the council or parliament to parse an item of text. That is where a judicial process is required. But the UK must surely have an uphill struggle, it would not be automatic, and they would have to plead. Would it be on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

 

[Danidl]

No.

It can get deeper, or it can get more deep.

But it can't get more deeper, those two comparatives making nonsense. More than what and deeper than what, there has to be an anchor point?
.

.. well it could get far badder! (A Dublin saying)

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

That is exactly the source I was expecting. He is not talking from the EU. I believe, with regret, that that was wishful thinking. Where it not so, it would have been included in the article 50 text.

I think he's also admitted it was written with no intention of ever being needed.

But this has also been said.

European Council President Donald Tusk suggested last year that Britain could change its mind. "In my opinion, the only real alternative to a 'hard Brexit' is 'no Brexit'" he said last October, adding that once exit discussions were over Britain must "assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest."

The House of Lords was advised by its own legal counsel: "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 ... There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a member state from reversing its decision."

However I'm pretty certain with even my limited knowledge that if the 27 agreed, and the UK wanted it to happen, that it would simple be forgotten about, though the creation of a new Article 967 or something similar.

 

[Woosh]

But the UK must surely have an uphill struggle, it would not be automatic, and they would have to plead. Would it be on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

No, I think we'll claim it is within our rights because the treaty did not make arrangements for rescinding A50.

 

[Danidl]

I think he's also admitted it was written with no intention of ever being needed.

But this has also been said.

European Council President Donald Tusk suggested last year that Britain could change its mind. "In my opinion, the only real alternative to a 'hard Brexit' is 'no Brexit'" he said last October, adding that once exit discussions were over Britain must "assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest."

The House of Lords was advised by its own legal counsel: "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 ... There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a member state from reversing its decision."

However I'm pretty certain with even my limited knowledge that if the 27 agreed, and the UK wanted it to happen, that it would simple be forgotten about, though the creation of a new Article 967 or something similar.

... The EU is pretty flexible about finessing solutions, and as you suggest if there's a will a way would be found. But I still think that the advice rendered in the house of lords was more whistling in the wind. What Donald Thusk said, might be more credible, but even that would not be fair accompli.
An appeal by the UK to the ECJ, uncontested by the EU, would allow honour and process be satisfied.

 

[flecc]

No, I think we'll claim it is within our rights because the treaty did not make arrangements for rescinding A50.

But Article 50 did state the reversal procedure:

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.
.

 

[mountainsport]

No.

It can get deeper, or it can get more deep.

But it can't get more deeper, those two comparatives making nonsense. More than what and deeper than what, there has to be an anchor point?
.

Ok professor flecc, thank you for that correction, I am humble enough to say that I am not that educated, and that is how it was meant to be and I am very happy for being at this level in my life for various reasons. The anchor point is that at the end of the day like I have always said we will never be happy under this skin of ours because jealousy is one hell of a thing.

MS.

 

[flecc]

Ok professor flecc, thank you for that correction,

I'm not normally pedantic about such issues so don't usually correct.

But on this occasion you were getting all mysterious and religious sounding about the end of earth and the solar system, so I thought bringing you back down to terra firma appropriate.
.

 

[Danidl]

But Article 50 did state the reversal procedure:

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.
.

... Agreed but I think Woosh was referring to the transient state where the state has not yet withdrawn, but had invoked A50 . Under those conditions, the ECJ would be the competent body.

 

[Danidl]

Are you sure? The sun is supposed to turn itself into a red giant star in about 5 bn years and the earth is going to be burnt into ashes.

... Yep you're right,

 

[flecc]

... Agreed but I think Woosh was referring to the transient state where the state has not yet withdrawn, but had invoked A50 . Under those conditions, the ECJ would be the competent body.

Agreed under current circumstances, but section 3 of article 50 (copied below) gives the EU a loophole enabling an immediate consideration of article 49, i.e. the treaties no longer applying to us.

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.

I'm firmly of the opinion that if the UK attempted reversal, the EU would expedite it, since it's so much in the EU's interests that the UK backs down.
.

 

[flecc]

Woosh said: ↑
Are you sure? The sun is supposed to turn itself into a red giant star in about 5 bn years and the earth is going to be burnt into ashes.

... Yep you're right,

I'm sure the human race will have achieved that end for earth long before 5 billion years have elapsed.

We just can't resist fiddling.
.

 

[mountainsport]

I'm not normally pedantic about such issues so don't usually correct.

But on this occasion you were getting all mysterious and religious sounding about the end of earth and the solar system, so I thought bringing you back down to terra firma appropriate.
.

I am far from being religious and what compelled you to push me into that category. If you can not prove something it is best to keep your thoughts to yourself. And again by bringing me back "down" to whatever makes you think that I am in the wrong way of thought? If that makes any sense. Not all dogs bark the same tone in order to communicate.

 

[Woosh]

We just can't resist fiddling.

that's how discoveries are made. The history of physics is full of stories like that.