4 ms·
> Firstly - cancel article 50, then reenact it again. That is within EU rules and avoids needing any yay or nay from EU. This is not possible. The recent judge
by jmmcd 8y ago
> Firstly - cancel article 50, then reenact it again. That is within EU rules and avoids needing any yay or nay from EU.
This is not possible. The recent judgement that UK could unilaterally cancel A50 was predicted on a "good faith" cancellation, not gaming the system.
- Zenst 8y agoActually it is technically viable, going by the judgment. Though I'd still class that as gaming the system. I'm not seeing anything in the judgement that would prevent such an approach. https://twitter.com/EUCourtPress/status/1072039706123210752 https://twitter.com/EUCourtPress/status/1072039706123210752
- jayalpha 8y agoAs far as I know, this was not a judgment but a "legal opinion". Gaming the system is easier in a codified law system. The not in "good faith" is something from the common law system. I would not bet on it that your approach would work.
- Zenst 8y agoThe aspect of a second referendum would be the good faith balance that would plicate the EU. Though politically such avenues would be along the lines of leaking that option, then asking for extension and face saved on both sides.