The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[bickster]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Hmm. Not sure I agree.

What is "no deal" being defined as in this situation? 

No arrangements of any kind? So no visa reciprocity, no aviation treaties, no broadcasting licenses, no mutual recognition of driving licences, no food export authorisations? Because all of those things require "a deal".

As soon as any of the cretins who ever espouse leaving without a withdrawal agreement is questioned on it, it quickly turns that what they mean is not "no deal" but "lots of little side deals on our terms so we don't have to answer those difficult questions we didn't think about earlier".

Side deals which they wouldn't be making if a referendum had just told them that they couldn't. So it'll never appear as an option for people to vote upon.

I tend to agree because by the time any referendum happens it will be down to deal or no brexit essentially

[bickster]

anyhow, he's said it before but he said it again last weekend

Quote

I wrote Article 50 – and I know this government can reverse Brexit if it wants to
The die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.

BY JOHN KERR
 

Article 50 emerged 15 years ago, in a convention of 200 parliamentarians from all the countries who then were members of, or were then negotiating to join, the EU. I was their Secretary-General. One of their concerns was to demonstrate that the Union was a voluntary partnership of sovereign nation-states, based on treaties between states, not the incipient super-state of Eurosceptic nightmares.

Including an Article setting out a procedure for orderly divorce was one of several ways of underlining the voluntary nature of the Union, and I was its author. I'm certain no-one dreamed that in 2017, a member state would trigger the procedure, as Mrs May did on 29 March this year. But now that we're in the procedure, it's important to understand it; and I am concerned that some aspects of the Article seem to me rather inadequately reflected, or indeed misinterpreted, in our current public debate. This is the argument I made in a speech hosted by the Open Britain campaign today.

First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.

The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.

That has subsequently been confirmed by formidable legal experts. Let me cite just two. Jean-Claude Piris, Legal Counsel to the Council in my Convention days, is clear that “even after triggering Article 50, and notifying the EU of its intention to leave, there is no legal obstacle to the UK changing its mind." Sir David Edward, UK Judge in the European Court of Justice when the Article was drafted, says the same.

The government gives the impression that the Rubicon has been crossed, but it refuses to publish the legal advice they have received on the subject. I think we know why. The government has been careful not to say that we could not take back May's letter, because it knows that we could if we wanted to. The fact is that a political decision has been made, in this country, to maintain that there can be no going back. Actually, the country still has a free choice about whether to proceed. As new facts emerge, people are entitled to take a different view. And there's nothing in Article 50 to stop them. I think the British people have the right to know this – they should not be misled.

Supposing we were to exercise our right to withdraw May's letter, how would leaders across the Channel react? We know from what they have said: they would applaud. Let me cite a couple of Presidents. “If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.” That's Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament. “It is in fact up to London how this will end: with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.” That's Donald Tusk, President of the European Council. Or take the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar: “The door remains open for the UK to stay in the EU." Yes. It does. And President Macron has said the same.

Most EU leaders think Brexit would be a disaster, worst for us, but bad for all. Most believe that, in a world of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, of Daesh and Islamic State, of Asian competition, of climate change and migration misery, Europe should stick together and work together. If we were to change our minds, Putin and Trump would be disappointed, but our near neighbours, and our true friends across the Atlantic and in the Commonwealth, would cheer. I think the country should know that.

My second concern is less fundamental, but I am uneasy that the country isn't being told much about the possibility of taking more time. I don't know why May was in such a rush to send her letter in March, before her Cabinet had an agreed plan. And I don't know why both government and Opposition now seem to discount the possibility of our seeking an extension. If, for example, we were to need time for Parliament to consider a final deal, or to check that the country, having seen the facts emerge during the negotiation process, still wanted to Leave, I do not see any of 27 democracies denying us the chance to consult the people.

My last point can be briefly put. I think the country should be aware of one big difference between, on the one hand, negotiating for accession, and, on the other, drawing back from secession: in the former, there's a price to pay; in the latter, there isn't. While we're in, we're in; and there would be no price to pay if we were to decide to stay in. But if we later decided to apply from outside, to return, the budget rebate would have gone.

My conclusions are simple. The national debate about Brexit should take account of the facts that our Article 50 letter could be withdrawn without cost or difficulty, legal or political. While still in, we also have the option of stopping the clock, in order to consult the people again. But once out, there is no easy way back in. All these facts will still be relevant when Parliament next autumn gets the chance, as it must, to assess the outcome of the negotiations.

Lord Kerr was the Secretary General of the European Constitutional Convention, which drafted Article 50, between 2002 and 2003. He is a leading supporter of Open Britain.

3

New Statesman

[Xann]

Hoping that Corbyn's using this time, whilst Brexit blunders, to use the information they've only just been granted to bolster an already compelling case to change Labour's policy to one of Remain (unlikely) or PV. If they've any sense they'll announce a review of our relationship with the EU to follow.

I'd keep schtum too. People love/hate Corbyn (as depicted in the media). His shift in stance will send voters both ways.

Brexit's tearing chunks out of itself right now.

Infighting, mind changing, incompetence, greed and more revelations about Banks. They're building up faster than he can scoff at them.

So I'm hoping there's a steady trickle in numbers to Remain as reality crashes in on Brexit. 

Then, just as it seems hopeless, a precision political strike from Corbyn rescues the UK from shutting it's head in the door.

That last line could kill the bet? 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Xann

[peterms]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

anyhow, he's said it before but he said it again last weekend

New Statesman

Again, it's interesting as a conversation piece, but no more than that.

The question people should be asking him is "If you meant that it could be revoked unilaterally, why didn't you write that in when you were in a position to do so?"  And receiving no useful answer, move on.

This "esprit de l'escalier" stuff is unhelpful.  The court judgement is needed to give clarity.

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

Again, it's interesting as a conversation piece, but no more than that.

The question people should be asking him is "If you meant that it could be revoked unilaterally, why didn't you write that in when you were in a position to do so?"  And receiving no useful answer, move on.

This "esprit de l'escalier" stuff is unhelpful.  The court judgement is needed to give clarity.

I'm sure I've asked this before, but I'm still unclear of the answer.

What is this court case supposed to change?

We're currently in a position where both main parties say they have no intention of rescinding the request to leave.

We have pretty much everyone at all levels of the other 27 and the Commission saying that if we change our mind then we are welcome to stay.

So... CJEU says we can rescind it unilaterally. Cool, if we change our mind then we stay. 

CJEU say we can't rescind it unilaterally. Cool, if we change our mind they we stay.

I'm sure I must be missing something, I'm just not sure what.

[Chindie]

I think the hope is the court case will legitimise a remain option.

Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work.

[peterms]

The court case is intended to determine whether we can withdraw A50 unilaterally, or only with the consent of all 27 EU countries.

It changes the options open to us, and therefore, whatever they currently say, the options which parties will require to consider, and the options which people may choose to lobby for.

Whatever they say about having no intention...etc, such pronouncements will adjust as a consequence of a collision with a new legal reality.  Not adjusting would be perverse.  (I acknowledge that this may be an attraction for some MPs).

The issue is about if we change our mind (which btw will be a slow and ill-defined process, not a single moment of clarity), then what is the process, what are the rules, what are the steps by which this comes to pass.

It's an important part of the politcal landscape.  Far from the only one, but don't ignore it.

 

[peterms]

 

[chrisp65]

Fairly recently I've got myself a facebook account. I can now see and read the opinions of people from a variety of places on a variety of subjects.

Don't put too much hope in a second referendum, most people are absolute **** morans.

 

[ml1dch]

27 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I think the hope is the court case will legitimise a remain option.

Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work.

As you suggest, it's a bit of a risky strategy, if it's all about keeping the option in public consciousness, and not to do with caring all that much about the actual legal process.

At the moment, I don't think there's really any doubt in the public consciousness about whether we could just stay if the political will were there. 700,000 people weren't marching through London just because they fancied a walk in the sunshine. Everybody who gets a big say in whether we can stay if we asked to, has said we can. This ruling won't change the Realpolitik of that.

The one thing that would probably shut down the idea that we could, amongst the people who don't follow this subject as closely as the people reading and writing this thread? 

Newspaper headlines saying things along the lines of "Brussels (sic) Courts Say UK Has To Leave EU"

Edited November 18, 2018 by ml1dch

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

morans.

 

From your other posts I assume it's  a typo, but it's hard to pass by without commenting. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by peterms
typo in a comment about typos. such is life.

[mjmooney]

I have a friend who's a Moran. 

She's very intelligent. 

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

From your other posts I assume it's  a typo, but it's hard to pass by without commenting. 

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If he's lived to see it, he must be in seventh heaven these days. 

[StefanAVFC]

 

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Fairly recently I've got myself a facebook account. I can now see and read the opinions of people from a variety of places on a variety of subjects.

Don't put too much hope in a second referendum, most people are absolute **** morans.

 

Wait until you see twitter!

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

Meanwhile in Berlin, Macron calls for; closer ties, taxation to be set by EU, budgets to be set by EU and an EU army.

Looks like he’s joined the Leave campaign early just in case there is a second referendum! 

[TheAuthority]

7 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Fairly recently I've got myself a facebook account. I can now see and read the opinions of people from a variety of places on a variety of subjects.

Don't put too much hope in a second referendum, most people are absolute **** morans.

 

Who the hell decided to ask the proletariat anything anyway, let alone actually act on the result? That was mistake number 1.

Can't we just let those clever chaps who go to Eton run things while we satiate ourselves with IKEA and the Greatest League In The WorldTM ?

[TheAuthority]

54 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Meanwhile in Berlin, Macron calls for; closer ties, taxation to be set by EU, budgets to be set by EU and an EU army.

Looks like he’s joined the Leave campaign early just in case there is a second referendum! 

Wasn't the end game of the EU exactly that though? Standardization for all citizens - taxes, pay, quality of goods and life? and then we'd have the largest trading block on the planet.

As extreme nationalism starts to chip away at the EU dream, he is veering harder towards the EU dream of Utopia.
No point being a centrist anymore - that is soooo 1990's.

[TheAuthority]

Blair trying to work his way back into politics. A nice familiar centrist face to make things look nice and balanced? Swooping in under May and Corbyn. 

It's no secret he wants back in to British politics.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-46209433/brexit-blair-on-may-s-deal-and-call-for-new-referendum

Quote

Brexit: Blair on May's deal and call for new referendum

Theresa May's plan for Brexit will not suit Leavers or Remainers, and the deal on offer was "not the answer", Tony Blair has said.

The former prime minister said the current PM had been "dealt a very poor hand" and the only way out was to "put it back to the people" with a new vote.