moon2 wrote: » Suppose Boris asks for an extension as per the Benn law, don't the UK have full authority to unilaterally exit the EU at any point during that extension period, with or without a deal? Couldn't they also exit the current extension today?
Scoondal wrote: » UK government will apply for a Brexit extension as per UK law but Hungary will deny such an extension.
sondagefaux wrote: » Very doubtful. Hungary has to live with another very pissed off 26 EU member states if it does that, member states that are already potentially set to impose sanctions on Hungary over its violations of the rule of law provisions of the EU treaties.
fash wrote: » https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1180552966190895109 Sometimes cryptic, but an interesting tweeter, this is an interesting piece of information on the CTA and the memorandum of understanding that the UK recently signed in relation thereto
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I said this months a go that this would be Britain's last card. People did not believe me then but I still expect a threat to come in this direction. I don't think the CTA matters all that much nowadays anyway. May as well join schengen.
The high horse brigade wrote: » We should just let them leave without a deal. They'll be back within a week grovelling and we'll insist on the withdrawal agreement
prawnsambo wrote: » sondagefaux wrote: » Very doubtful. Hungary has to live with another very pissed off 26 EU member states if it does that, member states that are already potentially set to impose sanctions on Hungary over its violations of the rule of law provisions of the EU treaties. And what would they have to gain? The square root of feck all. They don't even get to benefit from the UK being at the table with them to push whatever case they may have.
CelticRambler wrote: » Meandering off from that tweet took me to twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1128359321501425664 this (NSFW) Aussie video explanation of how preferential voting works. Maybe something to use from now on whenever the adjective "undemocratic" is used in the context of Brexit.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/09/23/virgin-atlantic-steps-in-to-offer-jobs-to-displaced-thomas-cook-employees/ Brexit very much was a factor in its collapse. The straw that broke camel's back. But hey maybe brexiters can blame diesel somehow.
Hurrache wrote: » The UK behind the curve again. The EU have already looked into what damage they could do from the inside if they were given an extension and the conclusion was nothing once they're gone before the budget vote. Whatever about the practicalities, the very idea that this may even be considered a plan by a country such as the UK about to enter international negotiations for trade agreements.https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1180587230382833664?s=19
sondagefaux wrote: » The European Council can impose whatever conditions it wants to grant an extension. It could decide that an extension would only be granted on condition that Johnson change his name by deed poll to Doris if it wanted to and there's nothing in EU law to prevent it doing so.
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.
The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference . . . . As to the content of the principle in customary law, the Court defines the constitutive elements which appear relevant in this case: a prohibited intervention must be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely (for example the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and formulation of foreign policy). Intervention is wrongful when it uses, in regard to such choices, methods of coercion, particularly force, either in the direct form of military action or in the indirect form of support for subversive activities in another State
GM228 wrote: » You can not make demands which go against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state to be used as negotiating tactics, making such a demand such as a requirement to have a GE which is a purely domestic matter that goes against the principles of the UN Charter (which is enshrined in the TEU) or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is also against Customary International Law which the European Union is bound by as confirmed by the ECJ in the Western Sahara Campaign UK vs Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Case C‑266/16 case. Interfering with purely domestic sovereign matters is a no no for the EU, this is well established and most recently in the Article 50 ECJ case.
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Reading the Barnier interview. That’s hard language. In no uncertain terms letting Johnson et al know the time for us letting you fool around is over. Is this him signaling there will be no further extensions granted?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The Daily Express has helpfully put up an image of who the biggest loser will be in the EU for it's readers in it's latest pro Brexit article
Water John wrote: » With suggestions like, making Farage their EU Commissioner, they are really into Trump territory.
threeball wrote: » Isn't that exactly what Johnson wants. If there's no extension it's a default no deal so the hard line Tories get what they want and the EU are the bad boys.
