And what’s the point of these powers if she doesn’t use them for something like averting Brexit?
Not using them.
That’s literally the point. They’re there so that we have a mystic central figure all authority can descend from and which could theoretically step in but no account can that figure be allowed to actually exercise power.
In that event, the system strips a gear, and everything goes flying.
4 Likes
This sort of stuff is always interesting. But:
Can, could, can be argued, might, and has to agree don’t mean that as things stand they can.
From what I understand based on the current rules, and their common interpretation. It can’t be unilaterally revoked. And their isn’t even a pathway for revoking it bilaterally.
So basically what your looking at is one of several ways it’s being put out there that hey we’ll change that. There seem to be a bunch of proposals for how the rule might be reinterpreted, and outright changing it in some fashion seems to be on the table. But thus far the EU has been mostly on the hard line where you can’t undo it.
That’s the lovely thing about rules, you can change em. The UK could probably try to reverse their article 50 move but that doesn’t neccisarily stop Brexit. They’re gonna have to convince the EU in some fashion, get them on board. Whether that’s convincing the ECJ to run with it or going to court or whatever. They might win out if they tried to force it, but they might not. So it’s not exactly gonna be a unilateral process in practice even if it works. That’s why I say the UK has very little power over the subject. Which is where you get to the UK giving something up to get back in.
I’m sure it’s something that’s being talked about behind closed doors. The EU wouldn’t have started saying they’d accept Brexit being cancelled, and things like this wouldn’t be coming up if that wasn’t the case. But thus far there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a position to do anything about it on the UK side who’s publicly willing to consider it. So it’s a bit American style moot for the time being.
An alternative view would be they justify the most expensive welfare program (“programme”) in the world for a bunch of “posh wankers” who do “fuckall” 
2 Likes
But then there’s this:
The opinion I linked to explains that the above is not the case. There is no ‘common interpretation’. That is precisely what the case is to determine.
The AG’s opinion is that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally.
This isn’t someone saying
It’s the AG saying, in my opinion the ECJ should:
answer the question referred by the Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scotland) as follows:
When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows the unilateral revocation of that notification, until such time as the withdrawal agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.
Basically this:
is what is happening right now (as Papasan might say).
Not the UK government doing it (they tried very hard to get the ECJ not to take the case) but the question is in front of the ECJ.
The reality is that the UK is not going to try to withdraw Article 50 (under any conceivable future government) and anyone who thinks that is even halfway likely is, I’m afraid, hoping beyond hope.
So yes, it is moot (in all senses).
That too. Although again that sort of comes back to the same thing. All land ownership in the UK technically descends from the Crown which theoretically owns everything.
There are all sorts of practical things that rely on that being the case such as who gets the assets of dormant companies? Who has to deal with random bits of land where nobody knows who owns them?
That’s mainly theoretical since most of the land was parceled out to various thugs with big sticks almost straight away (but still subject to the Crown/the Monarch’s overall ownership) but the Monarch did still own an awful lot of the country outright until very recently and again theoretically still does.
The royals get their current stipends on the basis of a deal whereby they handed over control and effective ownership of most of ‘their’ property to the government in return for shedloads of wonga.
Stop the wonga and you have to deal with the ownership of the land. Which is most of what the government occupies, most of the military bases, etc.
It could be done but it’d be really complicated and no one has the appetite to try it.
2 Likes
Well that’s sort of what I’m getting at. That still needs to make it through the ECJ, at this point it’s just one part of the EU government trying to convince, or prove to, the rest that that’s what the rules mean. Most legal experts seem to roll with it not being possible under the current status quo, and that seems to be have been the original intent. Thus “common interpretation”, for the most part most people, especially those with authority on the matter have interpreted it that way. But like I said, you can change that. And obviously none of this has ever been tested. Quite a bit like the American concept of a Constitutional Crisis. A situation where there’s not a clear law based answer on how to move forward. So everybody fights.
That’s a bit semantics though. And there seems to be no will in the UK to follow any option up. Opening the possibly would increase pressure on the UK to call it off which is still probably the best possible outcome.
1 Like
That’s the bit I object to.
It is not the case. There is no consensus on this or even a majority. It’s legal academia’s field day (or would be if anyone was interested).
So much for “So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life.”
2 Likes
Maybe it’s American legal experts then? Or experts who will comment to American media. Coverage of the topic here has been pretty consistent here.
I feel like the EU is trying to not-so-subtly say, “We’re not saying you should cancel Brexit, but uh, you can totally cancel Brexit.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-article50-idUSKBN1O30QK?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5c06888304d30140c4a8bf95&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
5 Likes
That’s the read I have. They’re definitely throwing up “hey we’ll negotiate on that guys” flags all over. But if they were interested in going that route without concessions from the UK it would probably be a little more clearly on the table.
It looks a bit like they’re trying to make it clear it’s a possibility to put pressure on May’s government. Seems like the party line on the subject is that it’s too late and now Brexit has to happen, with the EU not allowing cancellation as one angle on that. If it’s clear that it is possible UK voters might put pressure on their government to consider it. BUT the EU wouldn’t want to commit to anything. Take a “hey just come back we won’t hold against you” position. Because they sort of need to get something out of it to mitigate the destabilization.
If the UK went through this whole thing and the worst they see out of it is a return to the status quo. Or god forbid they get a preferential deal. It starts to look like invoking article 50 is a sensible way to negotiate with the EU. Which would be a disaster.
ETA: oh and your link is a news story about the opinion @L0ki posted. The news radio here has been covering it heavily for the last couple hours. They’re not being quiet about this. Definitely a big ole “Hey guys…” moment.
1 Like
5 Likes
Except the EU Commission and the Council are arguing that you can’t unilaterally revoke.
Welcome to the joys of EU law…
1 Like
ETA: didn’t see @nungesser commented about this yesterday.
1 Like
3 Likes
We also discussed it at length.
It’s a framing issue, why I called it kind of semantic.
If you agree with that arguement you would say that’s already the state of things (or should be). If you disagree you’d say it isn’t.
If you take the legalese, pedantic approach. Which I do. Those circumstances don’t exist, until the arguement is accepted by the EU government and enacted.
It’s probably a good idea to build an out into article 50, given current events. But you don’t neccisarily want it to be unilateral and consequence free because you don’t actually want nations using article 50. It’s the same reason there’s no legal mechanism for secession in the US, you want to make it hard to leave.
But haven’t the judiciary of the EU just accepted that the circumstances do exist? This is a view shared by a majority of lawyers specialising in EU law.
The Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties says that any member withdrawing from a treaty can change their mind right up until the withdrawal happens, which in the UK’s case is 00:00:00 of the 30th March next year.
Unfortunately my notes on EU law from the foundation degree in law that I dropped out of 10 years ago (ill health) are in a box in the attic, so I’m not able to refer to them.
1 Like
Was there a ruling already? As of yesterday I thought the situation was that they’d agreed to rule. And the guy who does such things had recommended they rule in a particular way.
As an American I’m not 100% on EU structures. But if there’s any space for the other bits of the EU government to not accept said ruling, challenge, or just let it hang there without actually enacting the policy. Well it’s not really the state of thing then. It’s not the rule until it’s the rule. In a practical usable sense.
But at this point we’re edging even further into pointlessness and semantics.
Given the UK’s current unwillingness to seriously consider cancelling Brexit. It’s a good idea to put a clear pathway in front of them. Particularly if it still comes with strings of some sort. One of the big excuses for not considering it from May’s government and potential replacements is that “well actually we can’t”. So take away that excuse, and they’re stuck with much lamer and more cynical ones.
Which may be part of the reason I ended up with a skewed impression on this end of the Atlantic. Most of our press on the EU runs through England.
But I’m assuming it’ll end up with some sort of formal rule for calling off article 50, if not this one then another one.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
