8 ms·

This is only useful if the binding vote is to decide whether to accept the deal or revert Article 50.

by matthewrudy 9y ago

amyjess 9y ago
EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted. The binding vote is between accepting the deal and a hard drop.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted Those rules can be changed by the unanimous opinion of European states. Practically speaking, the deal Britain had before is gone. It might be able to re-enter if it gives up its asterisks, though. Bone-headed move by its people, either way.
  - danpalmer 9y ago
    > Bone-headed move by its people By a minority I'd like to clarify. 51.8% voted for it, of a 72% turnout, of an electorate that is only around 69% of the population. That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      I dislike this argument. By that line of reasoning, every government we've had in my lifetime has been illegitimate, elected only by a tiny minority of the population.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        That argument sets no principle for declaring a government illegitimate, so you should really have started the second paragraph with “By my hostile reimagining of that line of reasoning...”
      - mattgibson 9y ago
        It's arguably more significant in this case as those that didn't vote were around 75% in favour of remain. It's not common to hear of such a differential between the intentions of those who did not vote compared to those who did. Had everyone voted, remain would have won by a large margin. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-w...
        PeachPlum 9y ago
        That's the thing about referenda, if you want to have a say in the outcome, you have to cast your vote, not sit at home Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, February 2016 2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final.
        ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        There is a key difference betwen "this is the will of the people" and "this is the will of the people that we allowed to vote, and who found the time to make it along on the day". People aged 16-18 and people living abroad are two groups that had no option but to sit at home and are both considered anti-Brexit.
        MarkCole 9y ago
        British Expats living abroad were allowed to vote. As long as you lived in the UK within the last 15 years you can vote in Elections and Referendums.
      - danpalmer 9y ago
        I'm not saying it wasn't legitimate or legal, just that _most_ of us did not vote for it, which is why I felt "bone headed people" was too much of a generalisation.
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        With power comes responsibility. The flip side of suffrage is responsibility. Abstaining from (or casting a blank ballot in) an election or referendum is, practically, dividing your vote amongst those who show up. (Someone who is not eligible to vote is not really one of a country's people. They're its visitors, children, felons, what have you.)
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      Young people were excluded from the referendum vote. Certain demographics living outside of the UK - who are normally allowed to vote in elections - were excluded from the referendum vote. A non-trivial number of ballots for foreign residents were sent out too late to be counted. The original Parliamentary Act for the referendum explicitly defined it as advisory. Most referenda are run on the basis that a super-majority is required for any significant constitutional change. The suggestion that the referendum was truly representative and binding is an horrific travesty of democracy.
      - blibble 9y ago
        I don't think you could be more intellectually dishonest if you tried > Young people were excluded from the referendum vote. same franchise as a general election, and the past AV referendum > Certain demographics living outside of the UK - who are normally allowed to vote in elections - were excluded from the referendum vote. same franchise as a general election, and the past AV referendum > A non-trivial number of ballots for foreign residents were sent out too late to be counted. too few to have have changed the outcome (Leave had a majority of more than 1.2 million) > The original Parliamentary Act for the referendum explicitly defined it as advisory. the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means it is impossible to have a truly binding referendum: they are all advisory as nothing can bind parliament, even a referendum result > Most referenda are run on the basis that a super-majority is required for any significant constitutional change. all past UK referendums have been 50%+1, as was the Scottish independence referendum you might not like the result, but it was still perfectly legitimate
        tom_mellior 9y ago
        > it is impossible to have a truly binding referendum: they are all advisory as nothing can bind parliament, even a referendum result That may be the case in theory: Even if Parliament made a law saying a referendum was binding, it could later undo it. But they didn't even pretend it was binding, although there was a precedent from the alternative vote referendum, which was explicitly binding according to the act authorizing it. That also would have saved all the High Court hoopla that followed.
    - dkersten 9y ago
      > of a 72% turnout If the other 28% disagree, then they really should have voted against...
      - eertami 9y ago
        It shouldn't have been a vote without requiring a Supermajority and it certainly shouldn't have been a vote without a third, alternative option.
        lucozade 9y ago
        > It shouldn't have been a vote without requiring a Supermajority Works well on the internet. Bad idea in practice. You have to remember that the government didn't want a referendum. They wanted UKIP neutered and the issue put on the backburner. If there had been a referendum with anything other than a straight majority, and Leave won a straight majority, all hell would have broken loose. It would likely have split the Tory party and made Farage the most important politician in the country. Similar argument goes for a 3rd option. They didn't want a sensible alternative, they wanted a "put up or shut up" straight fight. Same as had occurred in Scotland. These referenda (and the AV vote before that) were to put constitutional issues to bed not to find alternatives.
        rweir 9y ago
        It shouldn't have been a vote without an actual /plan/. "Would you like to 1) no change or 2) SUMMARY OF A DETAILED PLAN INCLUDING E.G. WHETHER THE U.K. REMAINS IN THE SINGLE MARKET OR THE CUSTOMS UNION OR HAS A HARD 1980s STYLE BORDER WITH IRELAND ETC" is one thing. "Would you like 1) no change or 2) some vague thing everyone can project their desires upon and scrawl fantasies on the side of a bus" is not a great way to make policy decisions.
    - SllX 9y ago
      This type of turnout is not uncommon in democratic states with voter turnout in the UK in particular hovering around that figure[0] since 1945. Yet they still decide laws, amend constitutions, control their military and command a domestic monopoly on sanctioned violence. By the laws and constitution[1] of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the people voted for Brexit. [0] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
      - danpalmer 9y ago
        I agree it was legal, I'm just clarifying that it was not all of us who voted for it (or who thought there should have been a public referendum).
      - andy_ppp 9y ago
        I mean sure, but I'd personally assume people who didn't vote are happy with the status quo. Huge constitutional changes should be difficult.
        SllX 9y ago
        I prefer not to make assumptions, particularly as it relates to the finicky nature and opinions of millions of people. It actually doesn't even matter what the people who didn't vote think because they removed themselves from the voting pool and lost the only ground they had to stand on when they had their personal chance to prevent Brexit from happening. The result came out to be what it was maybe because they chose not to vote, maybe if they had voted it would have been a different result and yet they still chose not to for whatever reasons made sense to them at that time on that day. I also agree huge constitutional changes should be difficult, but so far Brexit has overcome every challenge and roadblock including a democratic referendum that may not have been the right referendum to hold, that may have even set the threshold too low, and yet it was what it was, with the ground rules declared in advance including the simple majority requirement, and still passed. Clearly the people in favour of Brexit were the more determined part of the voting public to make their voices heard. Whether it was the political will of the people that did vote, or the political apathy of the people that didn't, that hardly matters now.
    - Tech-Noir 9y ago
      > That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it. Correct, newborn babies were denied a vote. What percentage of the British population voted to Remain in the EU, out of curiosity?
      - danpalmer 9y ago
        And those who will _on average_ die before we leave, voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving, tipping the balance.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        What point or argument are you making here? Old and terminally ill people shouldn't have a vote?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
        Should those people be excluded from every vote or only the votes whose outcome you disagree with?
        presidente20 9y ago
        That's right, lets disregard the views of the people with life experience in favour of a bunch of highly impressionable, inexperienced teenagers.
    - neilwilson 9y ago
      But about 76% of the population didn't vote to stay. So that is why we're leaving - by a massive majority I hasten to add. Two can play stupid percentage games.
    - Zenst 9y ago
      Not all the population qualified to vote as they are not UK nationals. There again, statistics often get skewed to fit a narrative-for example: take 100 people and 99 earn barely minimum wage, the 100th is a footballer and paid millions a year. WIth statistics you can claim that those 100 people contribute lots as high earning tax payers. Which highlights how statistics can and do get abused to fit a narrative.
    - presidente20 9y ago
      That's massive by the standards of modern democracy. Can you name any issue which more people have voted on? Far less people than that vote in most governments.
      - inopinatus 9y ago
        Yes I can. Here in Australia we've just held a non-compulsory national poll (technically a survey not a vote, although it's been debated in public as though it were a plebiscite) on making the legislative changes to permit same-sex marriage. The turnout is 78.5% of eligible voters, thereby exceeding the Brexit voter participation rate. NB: The comparison may be confounded by local behavioural standards. Participation in this survey wasn't compulsory, but Australia has mandatory voting in most local and national elections. So there may be a prevailing culture of compliance. Nevertheless, a cursory review of the popular press suggests the turnout is substantially higher than that expected by most pundits.
        presidente20 9y ago
        I had no idea. My claim was clearly hyperbole but I think the substance of the point still stands... it was a high turnout.
        akhatri_aus 9y ago
        People could be more passionate about the issue. With Brexit people didn't care as much. Im even doubtful it will really make much of a difference looking at it backwards 10 years from now.
- akhatri_aus 9y ago
  Actually the article 50 notification can be withdrawn prior to the 2 year cliff.
- pknight 9y ago
  Nonsense, only the ECJ can rule on this and it can only do so if a case is brought.
Nursie 9y ago
The idea that Article 50 is unilaterally reversible is an odd one. I know that one of the people that helped write it says it was written with that intent, but the wording gives no indication or mechanism to reverse it. And if it is unilaterally reversible, surely that's a really bad thing? There are two reasons I can think of for that. Firstly, countries might start to use it as a form of leverage and brinkmanship in order to extract concessions or exert their will over the EU. And secondly, if the EU doesn't want a country to leave for whatever reason, it's a huge incentive to stall and mess up any sort of talks or prospective trading relationship in order to scare them or force their hands. Basically it allows for a lot more "playing politics" and makes for a far less honest exit process. A retraction of A 50 followed by a multilateral vote to accept or reject that reversion, I can see that working.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Practically speaking, if the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2019 declares its previous Article 50 declaration was unlawfully issued, I have a hard time seeing the EU gathering the stomach to essentially enforce sanctions against the United Kingdom. This could all end up being a weird "did you know Britain isn't technically in the EU?" factoid in a hundred years.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> Practically speaking, if the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2019 declares its previous Article 50 declaration was unlawfully issued I'm not quite sure how that would work, given article 50 was issued after an act of parliament.
    - blibble 9y ago
      the Act in question: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/pdfs/ukpga_20170009_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/pdfs/ukpga_201700... very simple and unambiguous saying that, the UK parliament can declare things to be unlawful retroactively, so it's possible just at "bernie can still win" levels of possibility
    - 9y ago
tehwalrus 9y ago
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/why-one-lib-dem-expert-shuns-his-partys-remain-stance-and-advocates-a-ukranian-model-instead https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/why-one-lib-dem-exp... ^ Best article I've seen on Brexit options and why "reversing article 50" is not a viable option as far as the EU is concerned. It is based on an interview with a former Lib Dem MEP (Andrew Duff), who is basically a consultant constitutional lawyer advising both sides.
PeachPlum 9y ago
Sorry, no can do: The process for withdrawing from the European Union, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, HM Government https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504216/The_process_for_withdrawing_from_the_EU_print_ready.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, February 2016 2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision. The Prime Minister made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away”.
- lumisota 9y ago
  The document you're quoting is not law. The referendum itself was non-binding.
neilwilson 9y ago
You would never revert A50. It makes no sense whatsoever. If there was a change of government in the UK it would do a new treaty with the EU to recover the position and all parties would sign that off. The only time you would revert A50 would be if the EU refused re-entry to the club and you were trying to get in anyway. Corbyn may by a bit of a Marxist, but it is Karl, not Groucho.

This is only useful if the binding vote is to decide whether to accept the deal or revert Article 50.

amyjess 9y ago

EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted. The binding vote is between accepting the deal and a hard drop.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted Those rules can be changed by the unanimous opinion of European states. Practically speaking, the deal Britain had before is gone. It might be able to re-enter if it gives up its asterisks, though. Bone-headed move by its people, either way.
- danpalmer 9y ago
  > Bone-headed move by its people By a minority I'd like to clarify. 51.8% voted for it, of a 72% turnout, of an electorate that is only around 69% of the population. That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    I dislike this argument. By that line of reasoning, every government we've had in my lifetime has been illegitimate, elected only by a tiny minority of the population.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      That argument sets no principle for declaring a government illegitimate, so you should really have started the second paragraph with “By my hostile reimagining of that line of reasoning...”
    - mattgibson 9y ago
      It's arguably more significant in this case as those that didn't vote were around 75% in favour of remain. It's not common to hear of such a differential between the intentions of those who did not vote compared to those who did. Had everyone voted, remain would have won by a large margin. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-w...
      - PeachPlum 9y ago
        That's the thing about referenda, if you want to have a say in the outcome, you have to cast your vote, not sit at home Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, February 2016 2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final.
        ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        There is a key difference betwen "this is the will of the people" and "this is the will of the people that we allowed to vote, and who found the time to make it along on the day". People aged 16-18 and people living abroad are two groups that had no option but to sit at home and are both considered anti-Brexit.
        MarkCole 9y ago
        British Expats living abroad were allowed to vote. As long as you lived in the UK within the last 15 years you can vote in Elections and Referendums.
    - danpalmer 9y ago
      I'm not saying it wasn't legitimate or legal, just that _most_ of us did not vote for it, which is why I felt "bone headed people" was too much of a generalisation.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        With power comes responsibility. The flip side of suffrage is responsibility. Abstaining from (or casting a blank ballot in) an election or referendum is, practically, dividing your vote amongst those who show up. (Someone who is not eligible to vote is not really one of a country's people. They're its visitors, children, felons, what have you.)
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Young people were excluded from the referendum vote. Certain demographics living outside of the UK - who are normally allowed to vote in elections - were excluded from the referendum vote. A non-trivial number of ballots for foreign residents were sent out too late to be counted. The original Parliamentary Act for the referendum explicitly defined it as advisory. Most referenda are run on the basis that a super-majority is required for any significant constitutional change. The suggestion that the referendum was truly representative and binding is an horrific travesty of democracy.
    - blibble 9y ago
      I don't think you could be more intellectually dishonest if you tried > Young people were excluded from the referendum vote. same franchise as a general election, and the past AV referendum > Certain demographics living outside of the UK - who are normally allowed to vote in elections - were excluded from the referendum vote. same franchise as a general election, and the past AV referendum > A non-trivial number of ballots for foreign residents were sent out too late to be counted. too few to have have changed the outcome (Leave had a majority of more than 1.2 million) > The original Parliamentary Act for the referendum explicitly defined it as advisory. the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means it is impossible to have a truly binding referendum: they are all advisory as nothing can bind parliament, even a referendum result > Most referenda are run on the basis that a super-majority is required for any significant constitutional change. all past UK referendums have been 50%+1, as was the Scottish independence referendum you might not like the result, but it was still perfectly legitimate
      - tom_mellior 9y ago
        > it is impossible to have a truly binding referendum: they are all advisory as nothing can bind parliament, even a referendum result That may be the case in theory: Even if Parliament made a law saying a referendum was binding, it could later undo it. But they didn't even pretend it was binding, although there was a precedent from the alternative vote referendum, which was explicitly binding according to the act authorizing it. That also would have saved all the High Court hoopla that followed.
  - dkersten 9y ago
    > of a 72% turnout If the other 28% disagree, then they really should have voted against...
    - eertami 9y ago
      It shouldn't have been a vote without requiring a Supermajority and it certainly shouldn't have been a vote without a third, alternative option.
      - lucozade 9y ago
        > It shouldn't have been a vote without requiring a Supermajority Works well on the internet. Bad idea in practice. You have to remember that the government didn't want a referendum. They wanted UKIP neutered and the issue put on the backburner. If there had been a referendum with anything other than a straight majority, and Leave won a straight majority, all hell would have broken loose. It would likely have split the Tory party and made Farage the most important politician in the country. Similar argument goes for a 3rd option. They didn't want a sensible alternative, they wanted a "put up or shut up" straight fight. Same as had occurred in Scotland. These referenda (and the AV vote before that) were to put constitutional issues to bed not to find alternatives.
      - rweir 9y ago
        It shouldn't have been a vote without an actual /plan/. "Would you like to 1) no change or 2) SUMMARY OF A DETAILED PLAN INCLUDING E.G. WHETHER THE U.K. REMAINS IN THE SINGLE MARKET OR THE CUSTOMS UNION OR HAS A HARD 1980s STYLE BORDER WITH IRELAND ETC" is one thing. "Would you like 1) no change or 2) some vague thing everyone can project their desires upon and scrawl fantasies on the side of a bus" is not a great way to make policy decisions.
  - SllX 9y ago
    This type of turnout is not uncommon in democratic states with voter turnout in the UK in particular hovering around that figure[0] since 1945. Yet they still decide laws, amend constitutions, control their military and command a domestic monopoly on sanctioned violence. By the laws and constitution[1] of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the people voted for Brexit. [0] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
    - danpalmer 9y ago
      I agree it was legal, I'm just clarifying that it was not all of us who voted for it (or who thought there should have been a public referendum).
    - andy_ppp 9y ago
      I mean sure, but I'd personally assume people who didn't vote are happy with the status quo. Huge constitutional changes should be difficult.
      - SllX 9y ago
        I prefer not to make assumptions, particularly as it relates to the finicky nature and opinions of millions of people. It actually doesn't even matter what the people who didn't vote think because they removed themselves from the voting pool and lost the only ground they had to stand on when they had their personal chance to prevent Brexit from happening. The result came out to be what it was maybe because they chose not to vote, maybe if they had voted it would have been a different result and yet they still chose not to for whatever reasons made sense to them at that time on that day. I also agree huge constitutional changes should be difficult, but so far Brexit has overcome every challenge and roadblock including a democratic referendum that may not have been the right referendum to hold, that may have even set the threshold too low, and yet it was what it was, with the ground rules declared in advance including the simple majority requirement, and still passed. Clearly the people in favour of Brexit were the more determined part of the voting public to make their voices heard. Whether it was the political will of the people that did vote, or the political apathy of the people that didn't, that hardly matters now.
  - Tech-Noir 9y ago
    > That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it. Correct, newborn babies were denied a vote. What percentage of the British population voted to Remain in the EU, out of curiosity?
    - danpalmer 9y ago
      And those who will _on average_ die before we leave, voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving, tipping the balance.
      - Tech-Noir 9y ago
        What point or argument are you making here? Old and terminally ill people shouldn't have a vote?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
        Should those people be excluded from every vote or only the votes whose outcome you disagree with?
      - presidente20 9y ago
        That's right, lets disregard the views of the people with life experience in favour of a bunch of highly impressionable, inexperienced teenagers.
  - neilwilson 9y ago
    But about 76% of the population didn't vote to stay. So that is why we're leaving - by a massive majority I hasten to add. Two can play stupid percentage games.
  - Zenst 9y ago
    Not all the population qualified to vote as they are not UK nationals. There again, statistics often get skewed to fit a narrative-for example: take 100 people and 99 earn barely minimum wage, the 100th is a footballer and paid millions a year. WIth statistics you can claim that those 100 people contribute lots as high earning tax payers. Which highlights how statistics can and do get abused to fit a narrative.
  - presidente20 9y ago
    That's massive by the standards of modern democracy. Can you name any issue which more people have voted on? Far less people than that vote in most governments.
    - inopinatus 9y ago
      Yes I can. Here in Australia we've just held a non-compulsory national poll (technically a survey not a vote, although it's been debated in public as though it were a plebiscite) on making the legislative changes to permit same-sex marriage. The turnout is 78.5% of eligible voters, thereby exceeding the Brexit voter participation rate. NB: The comparison may be confounded by local behavioural standards. Participation in this survey wasn't compulsory, but Australia has mandatory voting in most local and national elections. So there may be a prevailing culture of compliance. Nevertheless, a cursory review of the popular press suggests the turnout is substantially higher than that expected by most pundits.
      - presidente20 9y ago
        I had no idea. My claim was clearly hyperbole but I think the substance of the point still stands... it was a high turnout.
      - akhatri_aus 9y ago
        People could be more passionate about the issue. With Brexit people didn't care as much. Im even doubtful it will really make much of a difference looking at it backwards 10 years from now.
akhatri_aus 9y ago
Actually the article 50 notification can be withdrawn prior to the 2 year cliff.
pknight 9y ago
Nonsense, only the ECJ can rule on this and it can only do so if a case is brought.

Nursie 9y ago

The idea that Article 50 is unilaterally reversible is an odd one. I know that one of the people that helped write it says it was written with that intent, but the wording gives no indication or mechanism to reverse it. And if it is unilaterally reversible, surely that's a really bad thing? There are two reasons I can think of for that. Firstly, countries might start to use it as a form of leverage and brinkmanship in order to extract concessions or exert their will over the EU. And secondly, if the EU doesn't want a country to leave for whatever reason, it's a huge incentive to stall and mess up any sort of talks or prospective trading relationship in order to scare them or force their hands. Basically it allows for a lot more "playing politics" and makes for a far less honest exit process. A retraction of A 50 followed by a multilateral vote to accept or reject that reversion, I can see that working.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Practically speaking, if the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2019 declares its previous Article 50 declaration was unlawfully issued, I have a hard time seeing the EU gathering the stomach to essentially enforce sanctions against the United Kingdom. This could all end up being a weird "did you know Britain isn't technically in the EU?" factoid in a hundred years.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> Practically speaking, if the United Kingdom on January 1st, 2019 declares its previous Article 50 declaration was unlawfully issued I'm not quite sure how that would work, given article 50 was issued after an act of parliament.
  - blibble 9y ago
    the Act in question: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/pdfs/ukpga_20170009_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/pdfs/ukpga_201700... very simple and unambiguous saying that, the UK parliament can declare things to be unlawful retroactively, so it's possible just at "bernie can still win" levels of possibility
  - 9y ago

tehwalrus 9y ago

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/why-one-lib-dem-expert-shuns-his-partys-remain-stance-and-advocates-a-ukranian-model-instead https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/why-one-lib-dem-exp... ^ Best article I've seen on Brexit options and why "reversing article 50" is not a viable option as far as the EU is concerned. It is based on an interview with a former Lib Dem MEP (Andrew Duff), who is basically a consultant constitutional lawyer advising both sides.

PeachPlum 9y ago

Sorry, no can do: The process for withdrawing from the European Union, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, HM Government https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504216/The_process_for_withdrawing_from_the_EU_print_ready.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, February 2016 2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision. The Prime Minister made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away”.

lumisota 9y ago
The document you're quoting is not law. The referendum itself was non-binding.

neilwilson 9y ago

You would never revert A50. It makes no sense whatsoever. If there was a change of government in the UK it would do a new treaty with the EU to recover the position and all parties would sign that off. The only time you would revert A50 would be if the EU refused re-entry to the club and you were trying to get in anyway. Corbyn may by a bit of a Marxist, but it is Karl, not Groucho.