Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The author of the article 50 clause says it absolutely can be.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/i-wrote-article-50-and-i-know-government-can-reverse-brexit-if-it-wants

And regardless, leavers cannot both argue that the EU is desperate for our money and therefore for us to stay, and also that the EU would not let us stay and therefore would not let us give them our money.

According to bbc he also said this

Lord Kerr - the former British ambassador to the EU, who helped draft Article 50 - agreed.
"You can change your mind while the process is going on," he said.
He acknowledged that this might annoy the rest of the EU, and be seen as a huge waste of time.
"They might try to extract a political price," Lord Kerr said, "but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

What is your interpretation of that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mrginge wrote: »

It doesn’t matter anyway, because all the remainers have definitely agreed to respect the result of the referendum :

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."
~Nigel Farage - May 2016

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

What is your interpretation of that.

The same as his... that "legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

And the EU has already been clear that they have no desire for us to leave, and that the door remains open for us to stay.

Political shenanigans will always exist.

But the reality is that when push comes to shove, the UK has been remarkably successful in influencing EU legislation.

In fact when it comes to EU legislation, UK ministers were on the winning side 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side just 2% of the time.

An extraordinary success rate.

mrginge

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."
~Nigel Farage - May 2016

Oh look it’s trawl out Nigel time again. how incredibly boring.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The same as his... that "legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

And the EU has already been clear that they have no desire for us to leave, and that the door remains open for us to stay.

Political shenanigans will always exist.

But the reality is that when push comes to shove, the UK has been remarkably successful in influencing EU legislation.

In fact when it comes to EU legislation, UK ministers were on the winning side 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side just 2% of the time.

An extraordinary success rate.

That's pretty meaningless it doesn't mean we were influencing legislation just that we agreed with majority of it.

Yes it says that they can't force us to leave and that's it and like everybody else you have no idea what the consequences of reversing article 50 would be and if we are going to the consequences will need to be spelt out.

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

...
What is your interpretation of that.

It suggests politics allows for interpretation of the rules.

I doubt we would really know the true answer, when the second ref question was asked anyway. We'd have to rely on trust.

"Dear EU. We've decided we are not leaving at all. This should be joyous news to you, and mean you don't have to say goodbye to your work colleague Mr N Farage after all !" :rotfl:

Zero_Gravitas

mrginge wrote: »

Oh look it’s trawl out Nigel time again. how incredibly boring.

But actually spectacularly relevant...

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ummm, who committed to the absurdly fanciful statements Enterprise 1701C made?

Where is the proof?

Where is the official EU policy statement laying them out?

Was he just making them up?

I take your point as an indicator, although

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/816923/Brexit-news-EU-Guy-Verhofstadt-UK-lose-rebate-opt-outs-if-rejoins

Yes I know it's the expressed, it's also Van thingy

Interesting.


So if you are correct, the logic of that being a right not needing EU approval means that the UK could threaten to rejoin and once rejoined could veto everything for 6 months, including any change in articlea50, and then invoke article 50 again, and continue until it got a good deal.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

.string. wrote: »

I take your point as an indicator, although

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/816923/Brexit-news-EU-Guy-Verhofstadt-UK-lose-rebate-opt-outs-if-rejoins

Yes I know it's the expressed, it's also Van thingy

If the UK sought to rejoin after leaving we would almost certainly not get as good a deal as the exceptionally good one we have today..

However, and as the article notes, the UK already enjoys a veto over almost all important decisions and that does not legally change if we revoke article 50.

So the opinions of politicians are trumped by the legalities and facts.

We cannot be forced to join the Euro, join Schengen, or anything else, if we choose to revoke article 50 and remain.

And as we'll continue to have our veto over all important matters, in practical terms they cannot force us to give up the rebate either.

So if you are correct,

I am.

the logic of that being a right not needing EU approval means that the UK could threaten to rejoin and once rejoined could

Not quite.

The UK can revoke article 50 and then it doesn't need to rejoin as it's never left - and continues to enjoy all the same conditions of membership it does today, including the veto.

.veto everything for 6 months, including any change in articlea50, and then invoke article 50 again, and continue until it got a good deal.

Yes.

That's entirely possible.

vivatifosi

Breaking news: David Davis has resigned... source Sky.