3 ms·
This is not my reading at all. It brings _the_ withdrawal procedure to an end - the procedure under Article 50 is terminated. It does not preclude starting anot
by stordoff 8y ago
This is not my reading at all. It brings _the_ withdrawal procedure to an end - the procedure under Article 50 is terminated. It does not preclude starting another. Indeed, it would be contradictory - the purpose of the notice is to confirm membership is "under terms that are unchanged" -- if the State loses its right to invoke Article 50, the terms _have_ changed.
- gmueckl 8y agoNo, the reading is very clear to me: a withdrawal cannot be lawful if it is made with the intent to continue exit negotiations. If negotiations were to continue the proceedings have not ended. A new invocation of Article 50 can only be made as the start a new and completely independent process. Everything that has been negotiated and decided so far would have to be ignored.
- stordoff 8y ago> Everything that has been negotiated and decided so far would have to be ignored. I'm not disagreeing. The current procedures are brought to close. IF new proceedings were brought, the EU would be well within its rights to say no and that anything it agreed to previously no long applies if the UK tried to rely on anything negotiated previously. It does not, however, prevent those new, independent proceedings starting at all.
- gmueckl 8y agoThe question is whether it is even possible to get to the initiation of new proceedings from where we are now. I doubt it. Any restart in the near future would imply that the preceding withdrawal was unlawful.