Is anybody happy with the Brexit white paper?

[Brevet Cable]

I'm not using an opinion or point of view, it is in the black and white. There is nothing in Article 50 which allows it to be "cancelled". The most likely fudge-around is to put it on hold forever, but this does not mean that Article 50 can be cancelled. Whomever is talking about stuff like Article 50 needs to be careful with "stopped dead" and "cancelled". The Article hasn't anything in it that says either.

Just checked, amongst the guests making the comments on Radio 4 were....

Alan Renwick, deputy director of the Constitution Unit, University College London
Professor Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe Initiative at King’s College London
Professor Matt Qvortrup of Coventry University

You'd have thought they know what they're talking about.

Edited to add.....
And as posted previously, the person who actually wrote Article 50, Lord Kerr, has said a number of times that despite the fact that it doesn't actually say it can be cancelled ( just as it doesn't specifically say it can't ) he says it can.
It's one of those things which has never happened before, so as has been posted by a number of people on here, it's entirely possible that if the UK did change their mind ( especially if there was another referendum ) the EU would allow them to remain - and possibly add a quick amendment to the wording of the Article to reflect this.

[ericbee123]

Article 50 Section 3.

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

What if the U.K. and the EU decide to extend the Article 50 period indefinitely - isn’t that the same as cancelling it in all but words.

[LN Strike Eagle]

I don't think the EU will agree to an extension unless it's for another vote.

[ericbee123]

I don’t too. As it is now in the EUs interest for the U.K. to leave and to have to reapply to join.

We would lose our rebate, probably have to join the Eurozone, probably have to join Schengen amongst other things we have successfully avoided - or at least have very long drawn arguments about why the U.K. should get any of the dispensations we used to have.

[Brevet Cable]

Another thing the experts on Radio 4 said - and I don't know what regulation or otherwise it's based on - is that the UK effectively have a get-out clause when it comes to Article 50, where HMG can apparently declare the invoking of Article 50 invalid by claiming it was only done due to false/misleading information ( such as the BREXIT campaign's claims about Turkey joining the EU, the "£350mil p/w" Brexit Bus claim, etc. )

One thing which may throw a spanner in the works is the claim that besides those who have already sent letters in to the Conservative 1922 Committee there are another 50 or so who are waiting to see what PMTM says in the forthcoming party conference before deciding whether or not to do the same, which would lead to yet another leadership battle.

[ericbee123]

And BTW. I dont have to be careful about saying Article 50 can or can’t be cancelled, as it doesn’t matter what I say.

I’m not that important that what I say needs to be believed or corrected to the n’th degree.

It’s not my life’s mission to not pick the smallest detail in people’s posts and I’m happy to come across as an idiot.

Whoever is as fault is irrelevant, unless you like to carry on blaming everyone else, we have stumbled into this mess.

We’ve played our hand.

There is no going back to as it was, we’ve told Europe we hate them and to stick their club where the sun don’t shine. We’ve filed for divorce and told everyone we will be much happier on our own.

We’ve found out that living by ourselves might be tough, we might not get the benefits we expected and our rent might be more. Some of our friends have decided they like our ex partner more than us and aren’t as suppoortive as we thought.

We’ve come to a major point in our lives now , we either bluff it out and make the best of our single life and get on with it, or we go back to our partner and beg forgiveness and hope they are not too harsh in their future treatment of us - it will never be the same loving relationship we had, there will be friction often, but we know we will have to give in to their demands eventually ( and they know it ) as living without them is impossible.

Only one of those options puts the whole of our future wholly in our own hands, for better or worse.

“Let’s not argue and bicker about who killed who” - said a wiser man than me. We have good pig farming land.

[Brevet Cable]

The irony is that whereas HMG are of the opinion that the UK's decision to leave is the most important thing the EU has to deal with, the EU don't.
At the moment their biggest concerns revolve around the ongoing illegal economic migrant crisis which is causing a rise in hard-line nationalist parties in many member countries & the number of member countries ( especially the Eastern European ones ) who are already telling the EU to stick their regulations when it comes to border controls, free movement of people & immigration.
That's got more potential to cause serious problems & potentially lead to the break-up of the EU than anything the UK does.

[LN Strike Eagle]

[Tommy]

I'm not using an opinion or point of view, it is in the black and white. There is nothing in Article 50 which allows it to be "cancelled". The most likely fudge-around is to put it on hold forever, but this does not mean that Article 50 can be cancelled. Whomever is talking about stuff like Article 50 needs to be careful with "stopped dead" and "cancelled". The Article hasn't anything in it that says either.

Just checked, amongst the guests making the comments on Radio 4 were....

Alan Renwick, deputy director of the Constitution Unit, University College London
Professor Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe Initiative at King’s College London
Professor Matt Qvortrup of Coventry University

You'd have thought they know what they're talking about.

Edited to add.....
And as posted previously, the person who actually wrote Article 50, Lord Kerr, has said a number of times that despite the fact that it doesn't actually say it can be cancelled ( just as it doesn't specifically say it can't ) he says it can.
It's one of those things which has never happened before, so as has been posted by a number of people on here, it's entirely possible that if the UK did change their mind ( especially if there was another referendum ) the EU would allow them to remain - and possibly add a quick amendment to the wording of the Article to reflect this.

They do/should know what they're on about, and I respect that they do, and I know who Lord Kerr is. There is currently a legal challenge which, ironically, is now going to the European Courts on whether Article 50 is revocable or not. As a matter of law, there is currently no way of "stopping dead", revoking, or cancelling it, because there is nothing in Article 50 that can be used to do that.

Unless or until the (now) European Court says that it can be interpreted in that way, or swift amendment can be made, it cannot be revoked.

I am not saying that Article 50 can never be stopped. There are all sorts of academic arguments on the point, ones I'll happily entertain. But ericbee123 was totally incorrect when he said that they had read it, and it can be "stopped dead". It's important that people know what is written, not what someone thinks is written.

[Tommy]

I don’t too. As it is now in the EUs interest for the U.K. to leave and to have to reapply to join.

We would lose our rebate, probably have to join the Eurozone, probably have to join Schengen amongst other things we have successfully avoided - or at least have very long drawn arguments about why the U.K. should get any of the dispensations we used to have.

That's a fair point in principle. I don't know about Schengen, but yes, I don't think so either. And I'm not really enthused about a second referendum, either, to be honest.

And BTW. I dont have to be careful about saying Article 50 can or can’t be cancelled, as it doesn’t matter what I say.

I’m not that important that what I say needs to be believed or corrected to the n’th degree.

In which case, what's the point in you saying anything? You might as well lie or be wrong about everything and then blaming everyone else for believing you. What absurd logic. If you're going to post incorrect information, expect it to be challenged.

Whoever is as fault is irrelevant, unless you like to carry on blaming everyone else, we have stumbled into this mess.

I note that you also consider this whole thing a mess now, too. I can't recall the last time a positive aspect of Brexit was championed in this thread. But anyway, it's absolutely not irrelevant. Adults should own and accept responsibility for a "mess" that they've caused. We hold people, especially those in the public service, accountable for their actions. We can't simply forget who was responsible for anything, otherwise our politicians would do absolutely what they like and not bother fearing ramifications.

[Mooshie1956]

Didn't Michel Barnier say that we could revoke article 50 quite early on. I'm pretty sure that I heard it and we would be welcomed to stay in.

[Brevet Cable]

Lord Kerr & a few others have been saying it would need a court decision to clarify whether or not Article 50 could be revoked, as currently it's been the case some experts are saying it can't because it doesn't say it can & others are saying it can because it doesn't say it can't!

As for what would happen if we left then changed our minds and decided to rejoin, that was part of the discussion on Radio 4 ... The only way we could retain the deals/opt-outs, etc. we have now is if every other member agreed to it,which would never happen. We'd have to rejoin as a new member, with all the baggage which goes with it.

[Brevet Cable]

Didn't Michel Barnier say that we could revoke article 50 quite early on. I'm pretty sure that I heard it and we would be welcomed to stay in.

Yes, based upon what Lord Kerr had already said.
The problem wouldn't be with Barnier and others like him, though, it would be with the other nations who'd also have to agree to it.

[Brevet Cable]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16951490.scots-battle-to-win-mps-right-to-halt-brexit-likely-to-succeed/

A dramatic legal bid to win the UK Parliament a right to revoke Article 50 which is due to be heard by the highest court in Europe is likely to succeed - raising the prospect of Brexit being halted before March next year, one of the nation’s leading experts on EU law insists.

Dr Tobias Lock, Director of European law post-graduate study at the Edinburgh Law School and author of The European Court of Justice and International Courts, said the case due to call within weeks could be decided by Christmas.
(snip)
Their previous attempts were rejected by government lawyers as “hypothetical and academic” and initially dismissed.
But on appeal to the Court of Session. Lords Carloway, Menzies and Drummond Young agreed it should be referred to the European Court of Justice as a matter of urgency, before Westminster votes on any Brexit deal, ahead of the current final deadline of March 29 next year.

Now Dr Tobias says it is his considered opinion, the European Court will most likely rule in their favour. That would open the door, in theory, to MPs being able to cancel Brexit and stay in the EU if no deal is reached or they are left dissatisfied with the proposed terms.
(snip)
The core of the argument is whether the UK could revoke Article 50 without requiring the assent of the other 27 EU members, and allow the UK Parliament the right to withdraw Article 50 - even if the UK Government itself still wanted to press ahead.

Writing in today’s The Herald, Dr Tobias says: “My bet would be that the European Court will rule that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked - although there is no certainty in this.
“Procedurally the ECJ would send the decision back the Court of Session, and they would then pass judgement and it will become authoritative in UK law.
“That in itself won’t change anything unless the UK Government changes its mind. But those bringing the case hope that it will change the parameters of the conversation.”

He explained: “The pursuers will argue that a ruling which states that members can revoke Article 50 at any time — so that Brexit is stopped with no conditions attached — would change the conversation in Britain and it is therefore relevant.
“There might be a ‘no deal’ looming in March and people might get cold feet, and if we know that we can change our mind and revoke Article 50 we might do it.
“If the UK can abandon Brexit before March 2019 that would kill off the argument by people like Guy Verhofstadt [the European Parliament’s top representative on Brexit] that Britain would lose its opt-outs and budget rebate if it wants to Remain.”

[AlexC]

Quite ironic really that as one of the main reasons given for voting leave was to end the jurisdiction of the European Court over us, that's if I'm reading the above correctly?

[Spiny Norman]

I remember Black Wednesday in 1992 when a palpable sense of panic forced the government to quickly act, thus losing face (and the next election).

I imagine a similar financial situation coming along next March could lead to a thankful government suddenly changing their mind about their dogged pursuing of Article 50. And any government would be glad to pull the brake lever on it.

Financial crises have a very pronounced effect and can happen very quickly. It might appear that Brexit hasn't had a huge effect but we're not there yet.

As they say: money talks and other stuff walks.

[Tommy]

That case is the one I referred to in my earlier post, Brevet. It's an interesting thing to follow if people should be so inclined.

And, naturally, if the ECJ finds that it is unilaterally revokable, then as a matter of law it *does* become revokable. But not before then.

Though the entrenchment of politics right now means that the result may end up being just academic.

[pb643]

Perhaps this should achieve some airtime on the major networks?

[pbeardmore]

Anyone see May's speech? People will have different opinions but I almost threw up when I saw the "Dancing Queen" sequence.

In the words of Andew Sheperd "We've got serious problems and we need serious people."

People on both sides realise these are critical times for the nation and we need strong, serious leadership. There is so much at stake. So, in response to ths, May thinks it's appropriate to come out on stage dancing!!. Imagine our reaction if Trump or Macron had done this.

[Georgeconna]

Perhaps this should achieve some airtime on the major networks?

That Dude Talking was not so vocal in his Katie Hopkins interview. Bit Different when he has no pressure on him as he did not have the answers to much.

[Ryan.]

Anyone see May's speech? People will have different opinions but I almost threw up when I saw the "Dancing Queen" sequence.

In the words of Andew Sheperd "We've got serious problems and we need serious people."

It was honestly quite unbelievable, I thought initially I was watching a video that someone had edited not something that actually happened. Of course there's an argument for relatabilty but at a truly critical moment in the UK right now, it's almost surreal.

[AlexC]

I almost threw up when I saw the "Dancing Queen" sequence.

Same here. She certainly is her own worst enemy, just what was she thinking?!

[Brevet Cable]

It was honestly quite unbelievable, I thought initially I was watching a video that someone had edited not something that actually happened. Of course there's an argument for relatabilty but at a truly critical moment in the UK right now, it's almost surreal.

Maybe BoJo slipped something in her glass of water.

[pbeardmore]

In terms of gravitas and presentation, this is the most priministorial speech I have seen for some time. Makes May look like an amateur.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y__GkNPKqeQ

[AlexC]

I may be wrong, but I think that should be 'prime ministerial'?