4 ms·

will there be a "reinvoke article 50" after this?

jackweirdy 8y ago
When this stage of leaving is complete and discussion turns to the future relationship, I expect the EU will replace article 50 with something fit for purpose. Article 50 itself is very short and doesn’t explain any ifs and buts of the process. The courts had to interpret it a few times to determine things like how revocation works, how can extensions happen, etc.
- chillydawg 8y ago
  To be honest I think it works pretty well. It's the UK government that's broken.
- Zenst 8y ago
  Indeed, Article 50 is flawed in many areas. One big flaw I raised with the EU authorita's in 2015 was that it has no provision for displaced nationals. I raised that several times, serveral MEP's from many countries, Tusk, you name it. The response - nada, nothing, zilch and even too this day, not one single MEP or eurocrat has bothered to fix that glaring flaw that sees and allows innocent nationals to be used as negotiation pawns. Even now, no attempts are being made or driven to fix this oversight in Article 50 and that kind of lack of priority and care is never going to win votes in the public's eye's. So it could all happen again, causing undue and unfair stress upon innocent people caught up in a situation that could of been totally avoided.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    Ironically, the EU itself is unable to fix it. The contract has to be amended by the member state governments. The MEPs are powerless on this.
    - Zenst 8y ago
      Not totally true, MEP could raise a motion that would then go down the process and eventually come up as an amendment that the EU member countries would have a final vote upon and. But I don't foresee any wanting to block something as fundamental as that. Just sad that that initiative has just never happened, actually it exacerbates me personally even though it has no effect upon me whatsoever; Just irks me as one of those great unfairness that could and should be fixed even if too late now for the current utilisation, but any future use. Though I'm wondering if the EU likes it as it stands so it will cause friction and allow that friction to be laid upon those who action article 50. Who knows, beyond it's a massive oversight upon peoples rights from a collective that trumpets, peoples rights. Though we do live in strange times.
gmueckl 8y ago
Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU. So if Britain wants to do it all again, they need to clear that bar.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU So Britain would try to invoke Article 50, the EU would say “no,” and then...? Civil war? Hard Brexit?
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    They would have to remain until they can negotiate a change of the Treaty that would allow them to exit.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  I'm not sure there's any "court ruling" of that sort. The only applicable case would be Wightman, which just confirms that revocation must be and “unequivocal and unconditional decision” on accordance with a country's “own national constitutional requirements”. You may be thinking of the Advocate General's initial opinion, which accepted that unilateral revocation would be possible only if it did not involve an "abusive practice", under which the idea of revocation followed be immediate re-notification might be considered "abusive". However, no reference to this appears in the final judgement of the CJEU.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    Please see the quote in my other response. In a way, the criteria are much harder: the withdrawal must the end of the endeavor to leave the EU. That is, if Britain withdraws, then only if it is the end of Brexit. They could not that with the intent to continue exit negotiations.
- stordoff 8y ago

When this stage of leaving is complete and discussion turns to the future relationship, I expect the EU will replace article 50 with something fit for purpose. Article 50 itself is very short and doesn’t explain any ifs and buts of the process. The courts had to interpret it a few times to determine things like how revocation works, how can extensions happen, etc.

chillydawg 8y ago
To be honest I think it works pretty well. It's the UK government that's broken.
Zenst 8y ago
Indeed, Article 50 is flawed in many areas. One big flaw I raised with the EU authorita's in 2015 was that it has no provision for displaced nationals. I raised that several times, serveral MEP's from many countries, Tusk, you name it. The response - nada, nothing, zilch and even too this day, not one single MEP or eurocrat has bothered to fix that glaring flaw that sees and allows innocent nationals to be used as negotiation pawns. Even now, no attempts are being made or driven to fix this oversight in Article 50 and that kind of lack of priority and care is never going to win votes in the public's eye's. So it could all happen again, causing undue and unfair stress upon innocent people caught up in a situation that could of been totally avoided.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Ironically, the EU itself is unable to fix it. The contract has to be amended by the member state governments. The MEPs are powerless on this.
  - Zenst 8y ago
    Not totally true, MEP could raise a motion that would then go down the process and eventually come up as an amendment that the EU member countries would have a final vote upon and. But I don't foresee any wanting to block something as fundamental as that. Just sad that that initiative has just never happened, actually it exacerbates me personally even though it has no effect upon me whatsoever; Just irks me as one of those great unfairness that could and should be fixed even if too late now for the current utilisation, but any future use. Though I'm wondering if the EU likes it as it stands so it will cause friction and allow that friction to be laid upon those who action article 50. Who knows, beyond it's a massive oversight upon peoples rights from a collective that trumpets, peoples rights. Though we do live in strange times.

gmueckl 8y ago

Not easily. There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU. So if Britain wants to do it all again, they need to clear that bar.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> There is a court ruling that states that invoking Article 50 repeatedly can be seen as an illegal abuse of the rule to exert undue pressure on the EU So Britain would try to invoke Article 50, the EU would say “no,” and then...? Civil war? Hard Brexit?
- gmueckl 8y ago
  They would have to remain until they can negotiate a change of the Treaty that would allow them to exit.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
I'm not sure there's any "court ruling" of that sort. The only applicable case would be Wightman, which just confirms that revocation must be and “unequivocal and unconditional decision” on accordance with a country's “own national constitutional requirements”. You may be thinking of the Advocate General's initial opinion, which accepted that unilateral revocation would be possible only if it did not involve an "abusive practice", under which the idea of revocation followed be immediate re-notification might be considered "abusive". However, no reference to this appears in the final judgement of the CJEU.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Please see the quote in my other response. In a way, the criteria are much harder: the withdrawal must the end of the endeavor to leave the EU. That is, if Britain withdraws, then only if it is the end of Brexit. They could not that with the intent to continue exit negotiations.
stordoff 8y ago