Discussion:
European Court of Justice says Britain can unilaterally revoke Article 50
Add Reply
MM
2018-12-04 09:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says

So the way is now clear for a third option:

Leave with no deal.

Leave with Theresa May's deal.

Stay in the EU.

While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.

MM
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 09:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-withou
t-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many
Aka 'a few bad losers’
Post by MM
have been asking for the public to have the chance
Bad losers who wish to overturn a democratic decision by whichever
quasi-anarchic policy they can shroud in populist propaganda; in an effort to
get their own way, irrespective of majority votes to the contrary.
Post by MM
to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Are now clutching at yet another straw in their bid, to deny the majority the
result they chose in 2016.
MM
2018-12-05 08:48:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:20:04 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-withou
t-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many
Aka 'a few bad losers’
Post by MM
have been asking for the public to have the chance
Bad losers who wish to overturn a democratic decision by......
...another democratic decision.

There. Corrected it for ya!

MM
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-05 17:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:20:04 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-withou
t-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many
Aka 'a few bad losers’
Post by MM
have been asking for the public to have the chance
Bad losers who wish to overturn a democratic decision by......
...another democratic decision.
There. Corrected it for ya!
MM
Don't be absurd. A second referendum so soon after the first one will
make a mockery of the democratic process...as it did in Ireland with
the two Treaty of Lisburn [sic] referendums.

There. Explained it for ya!
pensive hamster
2018-12-05 17:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, 5 December 2018 17:17:07 UTC, Shitsack Moishe Goldberg wrote:
[...]
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
A second referendum so soon after the first one will
make a mockery of the democratic process
No it wouldn't, it would be a magnificent vindication of the democratic
process.
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
...as it did in Ireland with
the two Treaty of Lisburn [sic] referendums.
Is that some kind of deliberate bad pun?
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
There. Explained it for ya!
You have completely failed to explain whatever it is you are on about.
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-12-05 17:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:40:58 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
A second referendum so soon after the first one will
make a mockery of the democratic process
No it wouldn't, it would be a magnificent vindication of the democratic
process.
It would be nothing of the kind. Having repeated referendums until
you get the result you want through a process of creating tedium and
inertia in the opposition makes a TOTAL mockery of the whole
democratic process. You do it once and you get it right. End of.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
...as it did in Ireland with
the two Treaty of Lisburn [sic] referendums.
Is that some kind of deliberate bad pun?
Deliberate, but not at all bad. Most boghoppers thought it WAS
Lisburn, Co. Antrim.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
There. Explained it for ya!
You have completely failed to explain whatever it is you are on about.
Isn't it clear from the above? You can't simply keep repeating
referendums until you bore the other side into inactivity. Only Irish
boghoppers do shit like that.
The Peeler
2018-12-05 20:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 09:57:53 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
No it wouldn't, it would be a magnificent vindication of the democratic
process.
It would be nothing of the kind. Having repeated referendums until
you get the result you want through a process of creating tedium and
inertia in the opposition makes a TOTAL mockery of the whole
democratic process. You do it once and you get it right. End of.
NOT when the result was THAT close, about a decision with such crucial
consequences and obviously was largely based on misinformation, psychopath!
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
Is that some kind of deliberate bad pun?
Deliberate, but not at all bad. Most boghoppers thought it WAS
Lisburn, Co. Antrim.
ALL your "jokes" and "puns" are of the bad, psychopathic kind, psychopath!
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
There. Explained it for ya!
You have completely failed to explain whatever it is you are on about.
Isn't it clear from the above? You can't simply keep repeating
referendums until you bore the other side into inactivity. Only Irish
boghoppers do shit like that.
Not at this stage when the whole procedure has turned into a farce!
--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").
The Peeler
2018-12-05 17:48:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 09:16:58 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by MM
...another democratic decision.
There. Corrected it for ya!
MM
Don't be absurd. A second referendum so soon after the first one will
make a mockery of the democratic process...as it did in Ireland with
the two Treaty of Lisburn [sic] referendums.
Not at this stage when the whole procedure has turned into a farce!
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
There. Explained it for ya!
The ONLY you manage to explain is that you are a psychopath! You NEVER yet
explained anything else!
--
Dumb anal Razovic's confession on June 30th, 2018:
"Oh no I got a jew hair in my mouth from sucking jew ani"
MID: <***@4ax.com>
The Todal
2018-12-04 09:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.

I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
Incubus
2018-12-04 11:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
It amazed me that the media was reporting it as though it was the final decision of the court.

It doesn't amaze me that MM is not discerning enough to understand that point.
Post by The Todal
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
If we're busy looking at what the left hand is doing, we might not look too
closely at what the right hand is doing.
MM
2018-12-05 08:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:26:03 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
It amazed me that the media was reporting it as though it was the final decision of the court.
It doesn't amaze me that MM is not discerning enough to understand that point.
Received wisdom post the announcement said that 80% of similar
opinions are subsequently backed by the whole court.

MM
GB
2018-12-04 11:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
True, but the Advocate General's opinion is normally regarded as a good
indicator of the end result.
Post by The Todal
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice.  Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
Ridiculous, isn't it.
abelard
2018-12-04 11:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
--
www.abelard.org
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 14:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 14:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 14:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party. Depending
on often changing circumstances, this may - or may not - be what the
people want. For example, how often do 'the people' willingly vote for
cuts and higher taxes? It's not what we want - but we usually get them.
What Parliament usually does is what they think is best for 'the people'
and/or the governing party (which do not always coincide).
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 14:45:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
Post by Ian Jackson
Depending
on often changing circumstances, this may - or may not - be what the
people want. For example, how often do 'the people' willingly vote for
cuts and higher taxes? It's not what we want - but we usually get them.
What Parliament usually does is what they think is best for 'the people'
and/or the governing party (which do not always coincide).
The Todal
2018-12-04 15:10:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
But there's no rule that requires the majority of the population to have
their way. Otherwise we'd probably have a return to capital punishment,
immigration banned, taxes reduced and the nation's books would never
balance.

If the government were to decide that Britain should aim to leave the EU
by (say) 2050, that would fully comply with the referendum decision in
2016 which set no time limit on the Will of the People.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 15:22:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
But there's no rule that requires the majority of the population to have
their way. Otherwise we'd probably have a return to capital punishment,
immigration banned, taxes reduced and the nation's books would never
balance.
I don’t remember those items in the Tory party manifesto. Perhaps you could
point me to the relevant paragraph.
Post by The Todal
If the government were to decide that Britain should aim to leave the EU
by (say) 2050, that would fully comply with the referendum decision in
2016 which set no time limit on the Will of the People.
But all the people were in the EU when they voted, and had full access to
Article 50 which was written in law.

So, no that wouldn’t comply with the result of the 2016 referendum.

What you mean is, the government could have waited a long time before
triggering Article 50, but come the next election the electorate would then
be able to decide on whether the wishes of the public (as shown by the result
of the 2016 referendum) had been upheld, and vote accordingly.
The Todal
2018-12-04 17:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by The Todal
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
But there's no rule that requires the majority of the population to have
their way. Otherwise we'd probably have a return to capital punishment,
immigration banned, taxes reduced and the nation's books would never
balance.
I don’t remember those items in the Tory party manifesto. Perhaps you could
point me to the relevant paragraph.
What has the Tory party manifesto got to do with it?

If electing a Tory government meant supporting all its manifesto, we'd
have enacted the "Dementia Tax" that was so unpopular during the election.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by The Todal
If the government were to decide that Britain should aim to leave the EU
by (say) 2050, that would fully comply with the referendum decision in
2016 which set no time limit on the Will of the People.
But all the people were in the EU when they voted, and had full access to
Article 50 which was written in law.
So, no that wouldn’t comply with the result of the 2016 referendum.
What you mean is, the government could have waited a long time before
triggering Article 50, but come the next election the electorate would then
be able to decide on whether the wishes of the public (as shown by the result
of the 2016 referendum) had been upheld, and vote accordingly.
How do you "vote accordingly" if both main parties are opposed to
triggering Article 50 for 20 years?
MM
2018-12-05 09:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:22:04 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by The Todal
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
But there's no rule that requires the majority of the population to have
their way. Otherwise we'd probably have a return to capital punishment,
immigration banned, taxes reduced and the nation's books would never
balance.
I don’t remember those items in the Tory party manifesto. Perhaps you could
point me to the relevant paragraph.
Post by The Todal
If the government were to decide that Britain should aim to leave the EU
by (say) 2050, that would fully comply with the referendum decision in
2016 which set no time limit on the Will of the People.
But all the people were in the EU when they voted, and had full access to
Article 50 which was written in law.
So, no that wouldn’t comply with the result of the 2016 referendum.
What you mean is, the government could have waited a long time before
triggering Article 50, but come the next election the electorate would then
be able to decide on whether the wishes of the public (as shown by the result
of the 2016 referendum) had been upheld, and vote accordingly.
Please tell me why was it so urgent for the government to invoke
Article 50 so rapidly, before any of the complexities that are now
apparent had been discussed.

In other words, why the rush?

MM
Ian Jackson
2018-12-05 11:06:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Please tell me why was it so urgent for the government to invoke
Article 50 so rapidly, before any of the complexities that are now
apparent had been discussed.
In other words, why the rush?
Most probably it was because of pressures from powerful forces
threatening her relatively newly-acquired position as PM (especially in
the light of the results of her snap referendum), and she found it
necessary to put a stamp on her authority as leader.
--
Ian
MM
2018-12-05 08:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
If the government were to decide that Britain should aim to leave the EU
by (say) 2050, that would fully comply with the referendum decision in
2016 which set no time limit on the Will of the People.
That is actually a ~very~ good point, as no Brexiter could claim such
a move to be anti-democratic. So, given that it seems we do have the
unilateral right to revoke Article 50, why can't we revoke it while
promising Brexiters to re-invoke it in, say, 10 years' time?

MM
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 15:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
That's rather naive. Sometimes they do, sometimes they try to, but fail
- and sometimes they totally 'forget' what they promised their
electorate.
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 15:30:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
That's rather naive.
That is patronising.

The statement was that parliament tends to carry out the wishes of the
governing party, and not the people.

I was just making the point that we have a democracy, and the wishes of the
people do not get stuffed in the bin, once parliament has been elected.

Sadly, certain MPs may think that way, but they will be exposed for their
self-interest in the end.
Post by Ian Jackson
Sometimes they do, sometimes they try to, but fail
- and sometimes they totally 'forget' what they promised their
electorate.
I am well aware of that.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 15:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
That's rather naive.
That is patronising.
Just stating what seem to be the case.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The statement was that parliament tends to carry out the wishes of the
governing party, and not the people.
I was just making the point that we have a democracy, and the wishes of the
people do not get stuffed in the bin, once parliament has been elected.
That's rather naive.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Sadly, certain MPs may think that way, but they will be exposed for their
self-interest in the end.
Regardless of what they fail to achieve, there are some MPs who still
seem to get repeatedly elected. Some people will vote for a gob on a
stick - provided it keeps saying what they want to hear.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Sometimes they do, sometimes they try to, but fail
- and sometimes they totally 'forget' what they promised their
electorate.
I am well aware of that.
I'm glad the truth has penetrated!
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 15:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
That's rather naive.
That is patronising.
Just stating what seem to be the case.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The statement was that parliament tends to carry out the wishes of the
governing party, and not the people.
I was just making the point that we have a democracy, and the wishes of the
people do not get stuffed in the bin, once parliament has been elected.
That's rather naive.
That is extremely arrogant, but then I have learned to expect put-downs from
those who consider themselves to be far better educated, which I find ironic
in the extreme.

In my day, a better education included the ability to accept naive views
without derogative comment.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 16:07:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
That's rather naive.
That is patronising.
Just stating what seem to be the case.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The statement was that parliament tends to carry out the wishes of the
governing party, and not the people.
I was just making the point that we have a democracy, and the wishes of the
people do not get stuffed in the bin, once parliament has been elected.
That's rather naive.
That is extremely arrogant, but then I have learned to expect put-downs from
those who consider themselves to be far better educated, which I find ironic
in the extreme.
Oh come on! It's only a tiny bit arrogant!
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In my day, a better education included the ability to accept naive views
without derogative comment.
'My day' must be different from yours. In my day we had thicker skins,
and were happy to engage in robust (but honest) debate without taking
the huff at every opportunity. I hate to think what your reaction would
have been if I'd said "That's a load of totally unadulterated bollocks"!
--
Ian
MM
2018-12-05 09:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:50:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
That's rather naive.
That is patronising.
Just stating what seem to be the case.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
The statement was that parliament tends to carry out the wishes of the
governing party, and not the people.
I was just making the point that we have a democracy, and the wishes of the
people do not get stuffed in the bin, once parliament has been elected.
That's rather naive.
That is extremely arrogant, but then I have learned to expect put-downs from
those who consider themselves to be far better educated, which I find ironic
in the extreme.
In my day, a better education included the ability to accept naive views
without derogative comment.
You mean, political lampooning is a modern trait?

"Winston Churchill (After being disturbed while at the toilet by the
Lord Privy Seal): 'Tell him I can only deal with one shit at a time.'"

MM
MM
2018-12-05 08:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:45:19 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament tends to carry out the will of the governing party.
But parliament tends to be composed of a party or parties who have a
majority, and have been elected on a manifesto. Therefore they are indirectly
carrying out the will of the people.
Only if the manifesto is carried out in all respects. What about the
Coalition's tuition fees pledge, for example?

MM
MM
2018-12-05 08:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:28:52 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
Whose wishes does the UK Parliament have a duty to carry out?
Parliament's.

It's what's called having parliamentary sovereignty, which is what you
wanted.

MM
abelard
2018-12-04 18:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:22:58 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-5
0-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
Almost but not quite - it's the opinion of one man and the judges have
not yet given a decision on the point.
I don't know why the British Government has been opposing this lawsuit,
arguing that they don't *want* a decision on whether Britain would be
entitled to withdraw Article 50 notice. Surely all options ought to be
available to the British Parliament?
it is not a matter for the uk parliament...they have already
delegated that decision to 'the people and 'the people'
have made that decision...
the only duty of parliament is to carry out that decision
You're wrong. The UK Parliament has NO duty to carry out TWOTP. The fact
that it sometimes does is more often one of good luck, coincidence and
practicability.
nonsense
--
www.abelard.org
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 09:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-
without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
I guess that we can now, as insurance, revoke A50, and this will give us
time to arrange another - but this time fact-based - referendum. If the
result is still to leave, we can reinstate A50, and rejoin the same road
to disaster that we're presently descending along.

However, before we celebrate too soon, it now appears that the ECJ's
'judgement' is only the Advocate General's legal opinion, and therefore
not definitive.
--
Ian
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 09:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-
without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
I guess that we can now, as insurance, revoke A50, and this will give us
time to arrange another - but this time fact-based - referendum. If the
result is still to leave,
What? Are you honestly saying that in order to leave we must have two results
from referendums?

Whereas if it is a 1-1 draw in results, then we stay?

What kind of “democracy” do you think we live in?
Post by Ian Jackson
we can reinstate A50, and rejoin the same road
to disaster that we're presently descending along.
Where is your evidence for the disaster?Why the apocalyptic rhetoric?

Why do all the remainers continue to use the 'project fear’ tactics they
insist they despise?
abelard
2018-12-04 11:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:36:05 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-
without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
I guess that we can now, as insurance, revoke A50, and this will give us
time to arrange another - but this time fact-based - referendum. If the
result is still to leave,
What? Are you honestly saying that in order to leave we must have two results
from referendums?
no, he's dishonestly saying that
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whereas if it is a 1-1 draw in results, then we stay?
What kind of “democracy” do you think we live in?
Post by Ian Jackson
we can reinstate A50, and rejoin the same road
to disaster that we're presently descending along.
Where is your evidence for the disaster?Why the apocalyptic rhetoric?
Why do all the remainers continue to use the 'project fear’ tactics they
insist they despise?
--
www.abelard.org
MM
2018-12-05 09:10:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:36:05 +0000, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-
without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
I guess that we can now, as insurance, revoke A50, and this will give us
time to arrange another - but this time fact-based - referendum. If the
result is still to leave,
What? Are you honestly saying that in order to leave we must have two results
from referendums?
Whereas if it is a 1-1 draw in results, then we stay?
What kind of “democracy” do you think we live in?
The kind in which we are permitted to change our minds.

MM
Incubus
2018-12-04 11:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-
without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
I guess that we can now, as insurance, revoke A50
Actually, no, we cannot. It was not the judgement of the court.
Post by Ian Jackson
and this will give us
time to arrange another - but this time fact-based - referendum.
In other words, based on the 'facts' that the Remainers approve of.
MM
2018-12-05 09:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-
without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
I guess that we can now, as insurance, revoke A50
Actually, no, we cannot. It was not the judgement of the court.
Not yet. Have some patience!

MM
A. Filip
2018-12-04 15:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
MM
BULLSHIT. Wait for the *formal* judgement with no way to change it [1].
From EU perspective it would be a trouble making interpretation.
It _may_ "fix" Brexit but it may encourage "half way exits" as
a quite "routine" negotiation tactics inside EU. Making formal exit
reversal _fully_ unilateral decision by the exiter would be incredible
_political_ stupidity IMHO.

There are days _after_ tomorrow, stupid.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Post by MM
European court of justice *likely to endorse* opinion in case taken by
anti-Brexit campaigners.
--
A. Filip
| I can't stand squealers; hit that guy. (Albert Anastasia)
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-04 15:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-with
out-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
MM
BULLSHIT. Wait for the *formal* judgement with no way to change it [1].
From EU perspective it would be a trouble making interpretation.
It _may_ "fix" Brexit but it may encourage "half way exits" as
a quite "routine" negotiation tactics inside EU. Making formal exit
reversal _fully_ unilateral decision by the exiter would be incredible
_political_ stupidity IMHO.
Could we have that translated into proper grammatical English?
There are days _after_ tomorrow, stupid.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-wi
thout-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Post by MM
European court of justice *likely to endorse* opinion in case taken by
anti-Brexit campaigners.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-04 16:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
BULLSHIT. Wait for the *formal* judgement with no way to change it [1].
From EU perspective it would be a trouble making interpretation.
It _may_ "fix" Brexit but it may encourage "half way exits" as
a quite "routine" negotiation tactics inside EU. Making formal exit
reversal _fully_ unilateral decision by the exiter would be incredible
_political_ stupidity IMHO.
Could we have that translated into proper grammatical English?
Looks like a case of 'not having sufficient English for the judging'.

--
Ian
A. Filip
2018-12-04 16:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-with
out-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Leave with no deal.
Leave with Theresa May's deal.
Stay in the EU.
While many have been asking for the public to have the chance to stay
in based on a People's Vote, this ruling now gives it official
backing.
MM
BULLSHIT. Wait for the *formal* judgement with no way to change it [1].
From EU perspective it would be a trouble making interpretation.
It _may_ "fix" Brexit but it may encourage "half way exits" as
a quite "routine" negotiation tactics inside EU. Making formal exit
reversal _fully_ unilateral decision by the exiter would be incredible
_political_ stupidity IMHO.
[...]
Could we have that translated into proper grammatical English?
You want it => Do It Yourself.
--
A. Filip
| egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast
| deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space.
| (unix manuals)
James Hammerton
2018-12-05 01:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Hmmm.

So an ECJ advisor gives his legal opinion that the UK can unilaterally
revoke A50 notifications, but this is not a formal ruling of the ECJ.

The media play this up by saying usually his opinion is what the ECJ
finally follows, and you elsewhere state that this happens 80% of the time.

All of which makes me wonder why any government would rely on this
option *prior* to getting an actual ruling from the ECJ that backs this
legal *opinion* up.

Especially when there's a case to be made that allowing *unilateral*
revocation by a state that triggered A50 would mean that triggering A50
initiated a course of action that was entirely in the triggering state's
control, as they could trigger and revoke it as and when it suited them,
and thus risks destabilising the EU, and removes much of the negotiating
advantage from the EU in favour of the triggering state.

I don't see this position on revocation of A50 as being in the EU's own
interests, and I wonder at the politics behind the releasing of the
opinion ahead of the ECJ's own judgement in this case.

It appears to me aimed at trying to persuade the UK to abandon brexit,
by saying 'hey, you can forget it ever happened', but without committing
to actually allowing unilateral revocation in practice, just as MPs are
being tasked to debate and vote on the deal.

In any case, ISTM a prudent person would wait for the court to make its
ruling before relying on this when there's a 1 in 5 chance (based on
your 80% claim) that the ECJ might decide otherwise.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
The Todal
2018-12-05 10:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-without-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Hmmm.
So an ECJ advisor gives his legal opinion that the UK can unilaterally
revoke A50 notifications, but this is not a formal ruling of the ECJ.
The media play this up by saying usually his opinion is what the ECJ
finally follows, and you elsewhere state that this happens 80% of the time.
All of which makes me wonder why any government would rely on this
option *prior* to getting an actual ruling from the ECJ that backs this
legal *opinion* up.
Especially when there's a case to be made that allowing *unilateral*
revocation by a state that triggered A50 would mean that triggering A50
initiated a course of action that was entirely in the triggering state's
control, as they could trigger and revoke it as and when it suited them,
and thus risks destabilising the EU, and removes much of the negotiating
advantage from the EU in favour of the triggering state.
I don't see this position on revocation of A50 as being in the EU's own
interests, and I wonder at the politics behind the releasing of the
opinion ahead of the ECJ's own judgement in this case.
It appears to me aimed at trying to persuade the UK to abandon brexit,
by saying 'hey, you can forget it ever happened', but without committing
to actually allowing unilateral revocation in practice, just as MPs are
being tasked to debate and vote on the deal.
In any case, ISTM a prudent person would wait for the court to make its
ruling before relying on this when there's a 1 in 5 chance (based on
your 80% claim) that the ECJ might decide otherwise.
Regards,
James
I think a similar point was made in the Commons debate yesterday - by an
MP who urged the government to postpone the crucial vote on the May plan
until after the ECJ had issued its decision. Then the House would have
all options open to it.

But I don't think Theresa May wants all options to be open to the House
of Commons. Her stance is that she's doing all she can to push her deal
through and if it doesn't go through we'll have a no-deal Brexit which
she believes would be a disaster. In her mind, that puts her in the
clear. It can't be her fault, whatever happens. It will be a decision of
the House of Commons. It would poison her career and her place in
history to admit that actually she doesn't want Brexit. But I don't
think she wants Brexit. She wants to be "forced" into revoking Article 50.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-12-05 10:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
The opinion of the Advocate General came about an hour ago. Britain
can, if it chooses, revoke Article 50 without getting agreement from
any other EU state.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/uk-can-stop-article-50-wit
hout-eu-approval-top-ecj-adviser-says
Hmmm.
So an ECJ advisor gives his legal opinion that the UK can unilaterally
revoke A50 notifications, but this is not a formal ruling of the ECJ.
The media play this up by saying usually his opinion is what the ECJ
finally follows, and you elsewhere state that this happens 80% of the time.
All of which makes me wonder why any government would rely on this
option *prior* to getting an actual ruling from the ECJ that backs this
legal *opinion* up.
Especially when there's a case to be made that allowing *unilateral*
revocation by a state that triggered A50 would mean that triggering A50
initiated a course of action that was entirely in the triggering state's
control, as they could trigger and revoke it as and when it suited them,
and thus risks destabilising the EU, and removes much of the negotiating
advantage from the EU in favour of the triggering state.
I don't see this position on revocation of A50 as being in the EU's own
interests, and I wonder at the politics behind the releasing of the
opinion ahead of the ECJ's own judgement in this case.
It appears to me aimed at trying to persuade the UK to abandon brexit,
by saying 'hey, you can forget it ever happened', but without committing
to actually allowing unilateral revocation in practice, just as MPs are
being tasked to debate and vote on the deal.
In any case, ISTM a prudent person would wait for the court to make its
ruling before relying on this when there's a 1 in 5 chance (based on
your 80% claim) that the ECJ might decide otherwise.
Regards,
James
I think a similar point was made in the Commons debate yesterday - by an
MP who urged the government to postpone the crucial vote on the May plan
until after the ECJ had issued its decision. Then the House would have
all options open to it.
But I don't think Theresa May wants all options to be open to the House
of Commons. Her stance is that she's doing all she can to push her deal
through and if it doesn't go through we'll have a no-deal Brexit which
she believes would be a disaster. In her mind, that puts her in the
clear. It can't be her fault, whatever happens. It will be a decision of
the House of Commons. It would poison her career and her place in
history to admit that actually she doesn't want Brexit. But I don't
think she wants Brexit. She wants to be "forced" into revoking Article 50.
That is certainly a new angle to view proceedings; but she didn’t do
all the negotiating herself, and it seems strange to refer to it as
“herâ€
Loading...