• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Im unaware of the legalities involved, how much of a say to the EU have? Do they have to simply accept our decision or vote on it etc?

Ive always maintained (and given how they have leveraged their position so far) that they would likely want us "all in" if we decided to back out.

No Veto, into the €URO, the lot. Quite frankly, why wouldnt they?

Force us into full and committed participation, instead of the arms length attitude we have always maintained.
Click to expand...

That information comes from the guy who wrote Article 50, I'd imagine he would know as well as anybody what is and isn't possible. We may yet find out.
 
the dza said:
Because Canada were not asking for the benefits of single market and customs union membership. Canada weren't asking for a lot, so had no need to have free movement, it would never have come up as an issue. If we want a deal "like" Canada, then free movement won't be an issue for us either.
Click to expand...

What are we asking for, that Canada were not?

And what does "asking for a lot" have to do with free movement of people?
 
I think the Euro/Schengen/no rebate membership becomes the only way after GBBO day on 31 March. I think that's why Brexiteers in cabinet are currently placated by the 'eyes on the prize' mantra.

They know after that point EU membership becomes unpalatable to most soft-leavers, as well as the 52%.
 
the dza said:
That information comes from the guy who wrote Article 50, I'd imagine he would know as well as anybody what is and isn't possible. We may yet find out.
Click to expand...

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
If I am reading his brief comment correctly, we can simply "cancel" then?
Click to expand...

Kerr wrote A50. But if there's a dispute, what counts is a judge's interpretation of what he wrote. That would be an ECJ judge.

A50 was a slapdash piece of legislation, never really intended to be used. Kerr doesn't get many brownie points for having written it and the legal community won't defer to him. They will care about the precedent for similar situations and similarly worded legislation.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I think the Euro/Schengen/no rebate membership becomes the only way after GBBO day on 31 March. I think that's why Brexiteers in cabinet are currently placated by the 'eyes on the prize' mantra.

They know after that point EU membership becomes unpalatable to most soft-leavers, as well as the 52%.
Click to expand...

Great British Bake Off? Is that back on already?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
LOL - sorry!

Im unaware of precedent, and if it sits ultimately with the ECJ Id be inclined to think it more likely my own assumption (all in) would be insisted upon rather than a forgive and forget approach.
Click to expand...

There's been some equally impressive-looking, detailed and impenetrable legal arguments for both sides published online. I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the ECJ would be considering the legal matter rather than the consequences or the realpolitik.

The other thing to bear in mind is this: if we ask, we'll be allowed back in. That at least is nailed on. Almost certainly, still with a Eurozone and Shenghen opt-out. If we can't revoke unilaterally, we may have to accept a few annoyances, eg on location of agencies. Nothing like as bad as any of the Brexit options, but still the sort of thing that Express commentators and friends on this site could describe as "EU bullying", and so a political consideration to bear in mind,
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Kerr wrote A50. But if there's a dispute, what counts is a judge's interpretation of what he wrote. That would be an ECJ judge.

A50 was a slapdash piece of legislation, never really intended to be used. Kerr doesn't get many brownie points for having written it and the legal community won't defer to him. They will care about the precedent for similar situations and similarly worded legislation.
Click to expand...

Austria leaving the German Confederation in 1866 because they couldn't stomach the Zollverein (the Prussian-led customs union)?
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
There's been some equally impressive-looking, detailed and impenetrable legal arguments for both sides published online. I think the key thing to bear in mind is that the ECJ would be considering the legal matter rather than the consequences or the realpolitik.

The other thing to bear in mind is this: if we ask, we'll be allowed back in. That at least is nailed on. Almost certainly, still with a Eurozone and Shenghen opt-out. If we can't revoke unilaterally, we may have to accept a few annoyances, eg on location of agencies. Nothing like as bad as any of the Brexit options, but still the sort of thing that Express commentators and friends on this site could describe as "EU bullying", and so a political consideration to bear in mind,
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to me that the EU would want us on board properly.

Given their approach already - exploitative at least, IMO - though I appreciate many see it simlpy as "good business" - I dont see why they would allow a forgive and forget approach.

I think "Good business" would be getting us in on the same terms as everyone else, and full and equal member.

They have a stated aim of closer political union, this would service that.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
It makes perfect sense to me that the EU would want us on board properly.

Given their approach already - exploitative at least, IMO - though I appreciate many see it simlpy as "good business" - I dont see why they would allow a forgive and forget approach.

I think "Good business" would be getting us in on the same terms as everyone else, and full and equal member.

They have a stated aim of closer political union, this would service that.
Click to expand...

Surely this whole thing could be properly explored by our government and their legal advisors, with the EU?

As in "If we were to revoke Article 50, would we be able to remain on the exact same terms as now, Mr. Barnier/EU27?"
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Can you think of any?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on supranational treaty law. I'm not even a lawyer. I could cheat and google for a precedent, but that would be caddish behaviour and a shocking waste of time which I'm meant to be spending working. My wife is even taking the children and dog away so that I can get on with the project I'm several months late on. Searching through case law online would be a horrible betrayal of her trust.
 
the dza said:
Surely this whole thing could be properly explored by our government and their legal advisors, with the EU?

As in "If we were to revoke Article 50, would we be able to remain on the exact same terms as now, Mr. Barnier/EU27?"
Click to expand...

The government has taken legal advice on the matter and refuses to publish it, even to the House of Commons. Presumably, they didn't like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back