The Student Room Group

Britain *can* stop Article 50 Brexit

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Not going to happen. There is little public support for a second referendum, and even if MPs did somehow manage to force a second one through before next March, I highly suspect the majority would vote 'leave' again, many would do so out of pure protest if nothing else. And parliament certainly wouldn't dare to just unilaterally revoke the EU Withdrawal Act and then revoke article 50, the very things they all voted in favour to just a few months ago. The public would crucify them for such a flagrant u-turn.
(edited 5 years ago)
Lol.

Shock as ECJ makes judgement that benefits the EU.

Given that the EU doesn’t want Brexit, why would it matter? This judgement says that UK can do something that benefits the EU without having to ask the EU if it’s ok to do something that benefits it.

Cool.
I’m fairly sure we already knew this.
Reply 4
Original post by Trinculo
Lol.

Shock as ECJ makes judgement that benefits the EU.

Given that the EU doesn’t want Brexit, why would it matter? This judgement says that UK can do something that benefits the EU without having to ask the EU if it’s ok to do something that benefits it.

Cool.


The EU itself argued against...
"The judges rejected arguments from both the UK government and the European commission that article 50, the two-year-long process that triggers a member state’s departure from the EU, could not be revoked unilaterally."
Original post by Doonesbury
The EU itself argued against...
"The judges rejected arguments from both the UK government and the European commission that article 50, the two-year-long process that triggers a member state’s departure from the EU, could not be revoked unilaterally."

It’s beyond parody. It’s Gina Miller style politics writ large. The fact that it was given emergency status by the ECJ tells you all you need to know.
Reply 7
Original post by Wōden
There is little public support for a second referendum.

48% of the UK population would be inclined to disagree, not to mention the 13 million people who didn’t vote as they thought “Brexit” was a joke.

The motives behind brexit were all wrong.
Original post by Trinculo
It’s beyond parody. It’s Gina Miller style politics writ large. The fact that it was given emergency status by the ECJ tells you all you need to know.


They rushed it through because both parties in the case urged them to and because it clearly is a pressing political decision time. The same has happened in UK-wide supreme court cases relating to urgent matters. Try again.
I hope the vile cancer that is the European Union meets a swift end and that Germany learns another lesson about trying to take over Europe. If we do not leave there will be civil unrest.
Reply 10
Original post by Andrew97
I’m fairly sure we already knew this.


Not the ECJ decision. This is new.

Posted from TSR Mobile
What is the meaning of democracy? It is periodically resubmitting decisions to the people.

" We're on our way back EU, sorry just got a bit occupied with a few closet racists and uneducated fools "

Don't agree with mob rule, or direct democracy, which is why things like first past the post and the Electoral College exists - sometimes the government must do what is in our best interest.

That time in the cycle has arrived when Tory ministers start threatening mob violence on the streets if they do not get their own way.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476693/Rosena-Allin-Khan-breaks-ranks-Jeremy-Corbyn-second-Brexit-referendum.html

For close historic comparisons, see Goebbels warnings to the German people in the run up to the '33 elections.
Original post by Doonesbury
The EU itself argued against...
"The judges rejected arguments from both the UK government and the European commission that article 50, the two-year-long process that triggers a member state’s departure from the EU, could not be revoked unilaterally."


Why the **** was the UK government wanting to deny itself its own ability to unilaterally revoke article 50?
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Why the **** was the UK government wanting to deny itself its own ability to unilaterally revoke article 50?


Just one of the many unfathomable actions of this sorry excuse for a 'government' that we are currently cursed with.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
That time in the cycle has arrived when Tory ministers start threatening mob violence on the streets if they do not get their own way.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476693/Rosena-Allin-Khan-breaks-ranks-Jeremy-Corbyn-second-Brexit-referendum.html

For close historic comparisons, see Goebbels warnings to the German people in the run up to the '33 elections.


saying "there might be a lot of civil unrest" is not the same as saying "we should all go and riot" stop being so silly and trying to slander other people.
Original post by AperfectBalance
saying "there might be a lot of civil unrest" is not the same as saying "we should all go and riot" stop being so silly and trying to slander other people.


I could believe he was just sounding off were it not for the fact that Brexiteers have regularly stated there was a huge risk of mass violence should people have the temerity to vote Remain. not least from Farage on referendum night, when he threatened civil war on hearing that the vote was apparently going against him. Kipper-Tories have form on this. It's a deeply fascist thing to threaten violence when things are going against you in a democracy.
Original post by Andrew97
I’m fairly sure we already knew this.

Incorrect. The Divisional Court and the Supreme Court in the Brexit litigation, i.e. whether the executive could make the notification using privilege without consulting Parliament, was premised on the notification not being revocable. You will find comments to that effect throughout both of the judgments; and dissent in the Supreme Court saying this idea was hugely controversial.

Have to say myself that this is no surprise, as international law is rather clear. Non-revocability must be stated in the withdrawing article, otherwise the withdrawal is revocable up until the withdrawal has taken effect.

And to others saying that EU is for this. It really isn't. Parliament and the Commission both said that it is not revocable. And think why -- it means we can have a nice deal, have a long negotiation, and still end up staying in. It makes their negotiating power much less significant. This judgment goes against the interests of the EU as a whole, and it is only justified by its being squarely based in international law.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
What is the meaning of democracy? It is periodically resubmitting decisions to the people.



We haven't left yet though. It would be like having a general election, then having another one before the new parliament has even taken their seats.

Quick Reply

Latest