Ecj - Uk Can Unilaterally Revoke Article 50

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-court-case-ecj-ruling-article-50-theresa-may-deal-uk-european-court-justice-latest-a8675541.html?amp

It's official: so long as we do it before a Withdrawal Agreement has entered into force, we can end Brexit unilaterally if we so desire.

This raises a few questions:

1) Should we? Will we? Has it been the plan all along?

2) Has the EU shot itself in the foot with this ruling? It seems to allow basically any disgruntled member to threaten leaving and renegotiate their membership securely.

At any rate, it's a pretty extraordinary precedent.

[cassa333]

Ichkeria, you seem to be in a bubble that thinks leavers don’t see the reality. It is in fact the other way around. Because the reality of Brexit is very appealing. The Brexit proposed is shockingly awful but that doesn’t mean we have to accept that version. The proper reality and version of Brexit should be leave and then negotiate a deal. Which is what is actually happening. But for the NI/backstop/EU unilateral decision making clause this would have reluctantly got through and we would be officially out and negotiating.

You can’t see the reality of a true Brexit becaue you don’t believe in it.

You need saving from yourself and delusions.

It is hard because it has been purposely made that way by remainers who see any withdrawal however soft as damage limitation. When the simple and unequivocal truth is that had it not been seen and played that way we would be in a much stronger position right now.

Why do a great many remainers think that just because it’s a bit tots up and they’ve been made a dogs dinner of it now we should remain? Is it because to carry on and get the right exit would mean they don’t get their way perhaps?

[mushroom25]

//According to the news at noon a government spokesperson has insisted that the vote will go ahead tomorrow. //

then said spokesperson is telling porkies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46509288

[Kromovaracun]

//You can’t see the reality of a true Brexit becaue you don’t believe in it. //

Reality isn't usually a question of belief, cassa.

[Kromovaracun]

From the FT just now:

//Theresa May has aborted a planned vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday — according to several people close to cabinet ministers — in a humiliating setback for a prime minister who was facing a heavy defeat in the House of Commons.

Downing Street said at 11.15am that the vote was going ahead “as planned” but shortly afterwards the UK prime minister told her cabinet on a conference call it would be postponed, according to officials briefed on the matter. Number 10 has so far declined to comment.//

Unbelievable.

[Khandro]

This woman loses all credibility.
Enoch said, “All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure". She really has to go, and soon.

[Old_Geezer]

But believing in reality, rather than a favourite fantasy, is important.

[Old_Geezer]

The reality of Brexit appeals to Brexiters but a bad deal denying us exit is still to be rejected in favour of a no deal option it seems.

[cassa333]

That’s true Krom but theres a difference in say, belief of a god and belief in exiting the EU

[New Judge]

“It seems to allow basically any disgruntled member to threaten leaving and renegotiate their membership securely.”

No it would not. If we revoke A50 now we revert to our membership on the same terms as were applicable before we invoked A50. There would be no change at all.

“This ruling seems far more likely to create problems for the EU in the long run (indeed they don't seem happy about it at all)..”

No I doubt they are happy because both the EU and the UK argued that it could not be unilaterally abandoned. The case was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians and the Good Law Project who wanted to know whether the UK could revoke the decision to leave the EU without getting approval from the other member states. They believed that if the ruling went in their favour, it could pave the way for an alternative option to Brexit, such as another referendum.

[New Judge]

“No agreement or permmision needed from the 27 EU members, for a second referendum. or to postpone article 50”

Incorrect, Gulliver (such a rare event for you!).

As explained above (and in the articles about it if you read them properly) the ruling relates to revoking A50, not postponing its implementation (i.e. lengthening the notice period). We can revoke unilaterally (and then hold a referendum or do whatever else we wish) but we cannot delay implementation without unanimous agreement of the EU27.

[ichkeria]

The right unilaterally to withdraw ones withdrawal is conditional on there being no conditions :-)
In other words no a country could not use this as a precedent to force a better agreement. They’d be back to square one again.

[Old_Geezer]

But a delay, whilst undesirable, is better than ignoring the people's vote we had. Someone foolish enough to cancel and make us a laughing stock would be counteracted by a new withdrawal.

So where's this new party associated with Farage then ?

[webbo3]

But I thought the EU didn'y meddle in the affairs of other countries, what next, the ECJ deciding on our PM?

[ichkeria]

Ironically the ECJ is here empowering the UK against the wish of the EU.
Just to be clear this ruling says the UK can unilaterally withdraw from Article 50 and go back to the way it was before. It’s not about an extension of the deadline of March 29