kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Folkstonian wrote: » Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.
Folkstonian wrote: » Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time.
DOCARCH wrote: » EU could possibly refuse to allow A50 be revoked if it appeared that was the strategy/approach. There is something in 'there' (Advocate General recommendation to the Court of Justice) saying yes, A50 can be revoked, as long as it does not involve an abusive practice.
SimonTemplar wrote: » What do you see as the path to a 2nd ref. Is it: - TM's deal not passing HoC vote, then - MPs voting to hold second ref as the next step forward
Nody wrote: » No, your assumption only works if you assume EU AND May will agree to an extension on the 15th of March out of the blue. No extension = Crash out no matter what the parliament votes for and that extension can ONLY be requested by May and only if EU approves it because the deal needs at least 3 months to go through all 30ish parliaments in EU for approval (and that's assuming they approve it). EU has not been talking about the deal require signature in November/December for the fun of it; no signature by UK = full swing on hard crash set up inc. all plans swinging into motion accordingly in EU with all the implications this will have in the countries voting for an extension because UK can't organize a basic vote in parliament. That's from a basis of basically zero good will as it stands today and after significant expenses have been taken by said countries come March 15th; I'd not be surprised if it would get voted down simply out of frustration...
mickmac76 wrote: » Given the news today that the British government can withdraw the article 50 notice could the following situation happen. The UK government is unhappy with the negotiated deal so with only a few days to a no deal brexit the government revokes article 50 and publicly states that this is a negotiations tactic. A few days after the expiry of the original drop out date they once again serve notice to the European Parliament that they are withdrawing from the EU and reinstate article 50. The negotiations begin again and even if the EU refuse to engage in any more pointless negotiations the clock starts ticking for another two years of count down. That would give the UK two years to actually plan some sort of brexit. If necessary the process could be repeated as many times as needed until the UK feel they are ready for a no deal brexit. The above would seem legal even if disastrous from a political viewpoint. The EU would be paralyzed until something is sorted out. In the meantime you will have people like BoJo grandstanding in Parliament going on about the UK should stand up to the bullies in the EU and leave without a deal but they wouldn't actually do anything. I feel that this would be worse for the EU than anything else. At the moment they can wait for the UK to crash and burn in a no deal brexit. This would be difficult for other countries that occasionally threaten to withdraw from the EU as Brussels could point to the UK as an example of the faith of blundering out of the EU. But if the above happened the EU could end up looking helpless and weak to people with a limited understanding of politics and they could cooperate less with the EU and over time that would leave the EU unable to lead or agree on lots of issues.
Calina wrote: » Obviously we have to wait for the judgement but today's opinion says you would be wrong to presume it. It would be the behaviour of a deeply untrustworthy country. Would you truly be proud of a country like that?
Econ__ wrote: » The EU might not grant an extension in the event that the UK passes a deal that the EU negotiated, in order to allow the UK time to go through the required legislative processes? That suggestion is for the birds. Again, a theoretical footnote.
Akrasia wrote: » The legal opinion said that it cannot be withdrawn in bad faith. If it is withdrawn and they activate it a week later there's no way the EU will be restarting the 24 month deadline
ambro25 wrote: » Why? There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith, cannot be recalled. So yes, you're back to square one, with a new 24 months period. Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.
Fann Linn wrote: » And to think they did this themselves. Marvellous just watching them tear each other apart.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I'll hold the AG's considered advice above yours if you don't mind
Professor Moriarty wrote: » That's hardly a great starting point from which to improve a deal that you already agreed.
SimonTemplar wrote: » Sorry, things move so fast I've been kept out of the loop on this. Why did the government attempt to keep the legal advise secret. It is supposed to contain some damning criticism of Brexit or TM's deal?
ambro25 wrote: » Why? There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the 1st notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith preceding that revocation, cannot be recalled after-the-fact. So yes, you'd be back to square one, with a new 24 months period. Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.
ambro25 wrote: » It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.
briany wrote: » It sounds like the political equivalent of tying a string to a 50p coin so as to have as many games of Street Fighter as you like (or at least a second go). Maybe the British could do it, but it'd be a cynical move and an opening gambit guaranteed to taint the atmosphere of future negotiations. Besides that, would the UK be any further toward internal agreement after another 2 years? Would they be another further along in trying to extract compromises from the EU? Neither would I have too much confidence in.
ambro25 wrote: » I don't mind...but have you read his opinion? I have, but I must have missed the bit about how he proposes to handle just such an abuse of power after-the-fact: he's only opined on potential procedure before-the-fact. Article 50 only relates to 'a' notice, doesn't matter if it's the 1st, or a 2nd after the 1st was revoked through promising the EU the moon on a stick. So, er...you can take the non-existent word of the AG about this if you wish It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.
LeinsterDub wrote: » And what make you more qualified than the AG?
ambro25 wrote: » The likelihood of the UK doing that is admittedly very remote. 'Within a week' is not the least believable, either. But quid of fast-changing HoC arithmetic? That likelihood is most strongly influenced by domestic politics in the UK and, on that particular front, they are still as collectively snookered about Brexit today, as over the past 2 years. As we've all observed, just about anything is possible over there these days: even for the British government to be held in contempt of Parliament for the very first time in history, I am led to believe.
