Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

MPs will vote on Brexit deal before it goes to European parliament Watch

    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    That's quite a concession.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ff-tory-revolt
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    Is it truly a concession though :holmes: or is it just verbal bs lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    That's qute a concession.
    But one that cannot be sensibly used. The negotiating team will have a final position, horse-traded with the EU over a long period, and the two year deadline will be looming. MPs will get to choose between what is on the table and a default exit.

    There is no real alternative, though.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    But one that cannot be sensibly used. The negotiating team will have a final position, horse-traded with the EU over a long period, and the two year deadline will be looming. MPs will get to choose between what is on the table and a default exit.

    There is no real alternative, though.
    That's true. And the GE will be looming large too.

    But I'm not sure if anyone has fully confirmed that Article 50 is a one-way street... nulli tertius?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    That's true. And the GE will be looming large too.

    But I'm not sure if anyone has fully confirmed that Article 50 is a one-way street... nulli tertius?
    I'm no expert buy the article says:

    1. 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.

    which tells me that the exit is inexorable, with period between triggering article 50 and leaving the EU extensible (but only by unanimity) but the notice is not retractable.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm no expert buy the article says:

    1. 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.

    which tells me that the exit is inexorable, with period between triggering article 50 and leaving the EU extensible (but only by unanimity) but the notice is not retractable.
    Except:
    https://www.publications.parliament..../138/13804.htm

    15. There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like the dribbling Brexoids in the Tory backwoods aren't getting entirely their own way and she's having to cave to the sensible-oids. :teehee:

    I wonder where the likes of Bojo are in all this? He was previously always an EU-supporter, until he woke up one morning thinking this was his big chance to finally do the dirty on Dave. Perhaps the Fat Flipper has had another change of mind? :rolleyes:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    Pretty it is over, we will be leaving the EU at some point over the next couple years.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Looks like the dribbling Brexoids in the Tory backwoods aren't getting entirely their own way and she's having to cave to the sensible-oids. :teehee:

    I wonder where the likes of Bojo are in all this? He was previously always an EU-supporter, until he woke up one morning thinking this was his big chance to finally do the dirty on Dave. Perhaps the Fat Flipper has had another change of mind? :rolleyes:
    Hmm. And there was I thinking that constructive and intelligent debaters avoided the use of gratuitous insults. Still, if the whole argument is a collection of insults with no actual argument it is probably OK, isn't it?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    That's true. And the GE will be looming large too.

    But I'm not sure if anyone has fully confirmed that Article 50 is a one-way street... nulli tertius?
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm no expert buy the article says:

    1. 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.


    which tells me that the exit is inexorable, with period between triggering article 50 and leaving the EU extensible (but only by unanimity) but the notice is not retractable.
    This remains uncertain until the issue arises. There is an improbable attempt to persuade an Irish court to refer the issue to the ECJ. However yesterday's concession may mean that an application now in the UK courts for a declaration on irrevocability wouldn't be seen as premature or speculative given that there will not be time for a ruling from Luxembourg between negotiating a deal and Commons approval.

    In the Common Law world notices are generally irrevocable. In the Civil Law world, with major exceptions, juridical acts are irrevocable. The problem with Good Bloke's appeal to the text which is silent on the question, is that in neither system does the text control the issue. For example, in the common law, a waived Notice to Quit as a matter of law, and regardless of what the parties agree, creates a new tenancy rather than continues the old one.
    https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2013/08/ending-it-all-or-not/ In the Civil Law, is the juridical act leaving or giving notice to leave? I suspect it is leaving, but I am sure the contrary is arguable.

    Is it possible that a UK notice is irrevocable but a French one would be revocable? There is clearly a reference to own Constitutional arrangements.

    Article 68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says a notification may be revoked at any time before it takes effect but is it even part of EU Law? See the competing arguments here (though obviously the author is advances her argument, rather than providing a neutral commentary)
    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...erally-revoke/

    But do those arguments even hit the mark? Article 50 may be in comity with Article 68 even if Article 68 is not binding. For example Ireland normally enacts company law that matches UK law but no-one would suggest UK company law binds Ireland. Yet no Irish court would ignore interpretations by a UK court in construing those provisions.

    The English author of Article 50 thinks it can be revoked as do most Eurocrats. The ECJ places a lot of emphasis on preparatory acts produced in drafting legislation. What do they say? Moreover texts in all EU languages are equally authentic, It will be relevant but not decisive if one or more EU languages uses a different word for irrevocable and revocable notices. There will be a lot of guff at the beginning of the Treaty about peace, harmony, the brotherhood of man and the price of pork futures which the ECJ will use as an aid to construction. All too often, Britons try and construe EU legislation as though it is an English statute, and it isn't.

    The one certainty is that the Miller case didn't decide the issue as it was decided on an agreed assumption that the notice was irrevocable.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This remains uncertain until the issue arises. There is an improbable attempt to persuade an Irish court to refer the issue to the ECJ. However yesterday's concession may mean that an application now in the UK courts for a declaration on irrevocability wouldn't be seen as premature or speculative given that there will not be time for a ruling from Luxembourg between negotiating a deal and Commons approval.

    In the Common Law world notices are generally irrevocable. In the Civil Law world, with major exceptions, juridical acts are irrevocable. The problem with Good Bloke's appeal to the text which is silent on the question, is that in neither system does the text control the issue. For example, in the common law, a waived Notice to Quit as a matter of law, and regardless of what the parties agree, creates a new tenancy rather than continues the old one.
    https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2013/08/ending-it-all-or-not/ In the Civil Law, is the juridical act leaving or giving notice to leave? I suspect it is leaving, but I am sure the contrary is arguable.

    Is it possible that a UK notice is irrevocable but a French one would be revocable? There is clearly a reference to own Constitutional arrangements.

    Article 68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says a notification may be revoked at any time before it takes effect but is it even part of EU Law? See the competing arguments here (though obviously the author is advances her argument, rather than providing a neutral commentary)
    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...erally-revoke/

    But do those arguments even hit the mark? Article 50 may be in comity with Article 68 even if Article 68 is not binding. For example Ireland normally enacts company law that matches UK law but no-one would suggest UK company law binds Ireland. Yet no Irish court would ignore interpretations by a UK court in construing those provisions.

    The English author of Article 50 thinks it can be revoked as do most Eurocrats. The ECJ places a lot of emphasis on preparatory acts produced in drafting legislation. What do they say? Moreover texts in all EU languages are equally authentic, It will be relevant but not decisive if one or more EU languages uses a different word for irrevocable and revocable notices. There will be a lot of guff at the beginning of the Treaty about peace, harmony, the brotherhood of man and the price of pork futures which the ECJ will use as an aid to construction. All too often, Britons try and construe EU legislation as though it is an English statute, and it isn't.

    The one certainty is that the Miller case didn't decide the issue as it was decided on an agreed assumption that the notice was irrevocable.
    Thank you!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This remains uncertain until the issue arises.
    Thanks for that. The other point of interest is that it seems likely that things may be enacted in the next two years, during which we will be abstaining a lot, that Britain would not normally allow, making the EU less desirable for Britain.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Hmm. And there was I thinking that constructive and intelligent debaters avoided the use of gratuitous insults. Still, if the whole argument is a collection of insults with no actual argument it is probably OK, isn't it?
    I'm sorry. It's very difficult not to resort to insults when Boris Pfaffle Johnson comes to mind. I suppose one day he will save us the trouble and become Lord Hypocrite of Chelsea or similar. An economy screwed, a city damaged (his beloved London) - what will that matter when compared with elevating the Johnson and his massively under-praised ego? A worthy national goal if ever there was one. We should all be grateful for his mere existence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's very difficult not to resort to insults
    Well try harder. You damage the cause you espouse when you behave like that, as well as harming your own credibility.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well try harder. You damage the cause you espouse when you behave like that, as well as harming your own credibility.
    You manage enough for both of us, so I'll leave them to you.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.