Advanced search

Westminstenders: A vote too far?

(1000 Posts)
RedToothBrush Mon 10-Dec-18 09:16:13

The ECJ have ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke A50.

There maybe lots of other news today, but that's the big one.

May has her big vote tomorrow. Or does she.

Will she survive until the end of the week?

TokyoSushi Mon 10-Dec-18 10:24:22

Thanks @Red, PMK, what a week this is going to be!

nuttynutjob Mon 10-Dec-18 10:29:24

Plaice Mat King... Things are moving fast.

I have joined the Facebook 48% Preppers Group-

Not Brexit related but expect some news in the next few months/ years on NHS Direct Engagement- how the NHS is aggressively avoiding tax and paying a lot of money to tax consultants.

SusanWalker Mon 10-Dec-18 10:30:57

I have a feeling that in the not too distant future the EU will look to amend A50.

My DS who has autism put a popcorn kernel in his ear last night. He then got very upset and decided it was all my fault. Reminds me a lot of brexiteers really.

DGRossetti Mon 10-Dec-18 10:31:58

i'm looking forward to the flood of brexiters to join the thread because this will have rattled a lot of cages

Just sprinkle some facts into the thread. It's quite an effective deterrent, I've found. You may need to retreat a couple of times, and then leave some reasoned arguments overnight. They'll be gone come morning.

1tisILeClerc Mon 10-Dec-18 10:38:22

DGR, if only cranefly, Japanese knotweeed and those awkward stains on your best pale top were as easy to eradicate.

SusanWalker Mon 10-Dec-18 10:38:25

i'm looking forward to the flood of brexiters to join the thread because this will have rattled

I like it better when they start their own batshit thread. Although I won't now be able to break out the popcorn.

howabout Mon 10-Dec-18 10:44:18

Just put my browser up to 250% to read the decision in full.

The ECJ uses "unequivocal and unconditional" in accordance with "national constitutional requirements" - no mention of "good faith" and emphasis on Nation State NOT EU sovereignty.

In closing paras explicit explanation of why the EU Commission's position that the revocation should be subject to unanimous EU Council approval is inconsistent with the purposes of the EU Treaties.

I may have to reappraise my opinion of Joanna Cherry and Jo Maugham's dogged determination but DD1 already has a wee crush on the Scottish Green's Ross Greer so she'll be impressed. grin

howabout Mon 10-Dec-18 10:52:11

Susan I am Brexit minded. I am very pleased with the judgement. It puts a LOT of cards back in the UK's hands.

I wonder how many decisions the EU has made while excluding the UK over the last 2 years this calls into question? I wonder of the EU's position of conducting the Exit agreement as a 2 sided negotiation rather than a multi-party round table can / should be challenged? I wonder how many other provisions of the Lisbon Treaty which encroach on National Sovereignty may be open to similar challenge?

My whole Brexit position, as with many, was / is predicated on the loss of sovereignty from Lisbon. The UK Parliament is sovereign, as per Gina Miller, and Lisbon as it has been interpreted / used by the EU with acquiescence of successive UK Governments has undermined this.

Holidayshopping Mon 10-Dec-18 10:54:41

Interesting! Time for a second referendum?!

lonelyplanetmum Mon 10-Dec-18 10:56:41

* I am very pleased with the judgement. It puts a LOT of cards back in the UK's hands.*

Not quite.It doesn't put cards back, as that implies cards were taken away. All the ECJ judgment did is confirm where the cards were in the first place.

DGRossetti Mon 10-Dec-18 10:59:50

All the ECJ judgment did is confirm where the cards were in the first place.

or, TL;DR - the "sovereignty" argument was always bollocks.

prettybird Mon 10-Dec-18 10:59:58

Thanks for clarifying that Howabout smile

Sky News has just mentioned that it uses the word "definitively" - ie that we want to remain, not just wanting to revoke to stall for time.

I suspect there will be an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty to shut down the potential for abusers of the process (I'm not suggesting that this would be aimed purely at the UK) to invoke/revoke at will.

But that will itself also open a can of worms as don't some of the E27 require referendums (shockwink) to agree changes to the EU treaties? hmm

lonelyplanetmum Mon 10-Dec-18 11:00:35

Really interesting question from MNHQ about handing over the process to a people's assembly...

OhLookHeKickedTheBall Mon 10-Dec-18 11:02:57

Just for a giigle, was this posted at all yesterday?
Leaked footage from No 10
Laughed so much it hurt at blue passportssess

DGRossetti Mon 10-Dec-18 11:03:26

No worries. Here's the UK car industry to the rescue.

Growth in the UK's economy has slowed as car sales fell and the manufacturing sector stalled, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has said.

The economy grew by 0.4% in the three months to October, slower than the 0.6% in the three months to September.

"GDP growth slowed going into the autumn after a strong summer, with a softening in services sector growth mainly due to a fall in car sales," said the ONS's Rob Kent-Smith.


(Cars being one of the oft-cited things that will show the UKs strength in Brexit ....)

DGRossetti Mon 10-Dec-18 11:04:20

Meanwhile, in other news ...

Shares in Interserve - one of the UK's largest providers of public services - have collapsed after it revealed it is seeking a rescue deal.

The firm, which works in prisons, schools, hospitals and on the roads, has £500m of debts and says its rescue plan will involve issuing new shares.


Carillion - part deux ??????

howabout Mon 10-Dec-18 11:05:05

You and I agree lonely but the EU Commission and Council, TM's Government, and The UK Supreme Court held a different view.

I really don't see how a change to Art 50 would get through. It was only passed through Member States last time because there were all sorts of assurances about no ceding of sovereignty which have been trampled on systematically ever since.

Buteo Mon 10-Dec-18 11:08:37

The ECJ decision is here:;jsessionid=30070EAD3C16AB345376A71509ACC49D?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

On those grounds, the Court (Full Court) hereby rules:

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

I'll leave howabout to do the lawerly breakdown though.

Mrsr8 Mon 10-Dec-18 11:11:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

howabout Mon 10-Dec-18 11:16:33

I was only interpolating cos I was too lazy to track down an easy to read version Buteo. Don't venture into lawyerly thought very often these days so properly chuffed to be in agreement with the ECJ this morning. smile

MangoSplit Mon 10-Dec-18 11:18:49

Place marking

Buteo Mon 10-Dec-18 11:20:23

So would the Miller case, which required a Parliamentary vote to trigger Article 40, also mean that a Parliamentary vote would be required to revoke it?

OhLookHeKickedTheBall Mon 10-Dec-18 11:32:03

buteo I think David Allen Green (could be someone else) has something this morning about this ruling making the Miller case void as the ruling relied on the assumption the revokation not being possible.

lonelyplanetmum Mon 10-Dec-18 11:33:55

Yes Buteo . Not really the Miller case than means tis happens.All that case did was just confirm what we assumed was the situation. It confirmed the long-standing and fundamental assumption that any huge UK changes should be brought about by full Parliamentary process and not government or ministerial short cuts acting alone.

We have a woolly constitution but it was always assumed that Parliament should be supreme.It was bizarre, quite frankly, that TM has tried on so many occasions to circumvent Parliament.If you believe something is right then stand up for it- within our Parliamentary process.

howabout Mon 10-Dec-18 11:36:00

The ECJ seems to think so Buteo, although I think that would be open to challenge. The Supreme Court treated the original decision to trigger as a question of sovereignty which also impacted on UK Law (The 1972 Act) and therefore required Parliamentary approval. If in fact, Art 50 has no impact on Sovereignty and UK Law then I think (?) there is an argument to challenge this via the Supreme Court.

I think it doubtful that the Government would raise such a challenge as they don't want to revoke Art 50. The more likely route is either that the Government tables a motion (not sure what sort (?)) to revoke Art 50 in Parliament. I think it may be harder for backbenchers in Parliament to initiate but could have been done as an amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Now seems far more likely the Withdrawal Agreement will fall / be scrapped and everything starts from scratch.

Not sure how any future Government gets round the headache of honouring the 1st Referendum if we rejoin with a view to renegotiating (ie back at Cameron and Merkel)

This thread is not accepting new messages.