If article 50 were withdrawn can we stay in the EU on the same terms?

[dollybird]

DH is certain that he heard that we couldn't, does anyone have a definitive answer?

Yes UK would stay on the same terms if revocation happened before Brexit day (March 2019), but the judgment (based on my initial quick reading) suggests there needs to be a proper democractic/constitutional basis for the revocation of Article 50.
Therefore a general election or a second referendum seems sensible. It would indeed be way too divisive and unfair on those who voted leave to simply revoke Article 50 now without consulting the public again. Far too much has happened since the last general election and the referendum.

Is there time to do all of this though??? What an utter mess.

What would be more interesting is to find out the reactions from other European leaders.
The legal position of being ABLE to is only one small facet to this story.
Had the UK asked to revoke say a year ago before the worst of the name calling and stupid shenanigans it may have been welcomed, now I am not so sure.
If your abusive partner had been wandering around the house smashing the crockery and slagging you off to your friends, would you want them to stay?

trouble is, she can't walk away and Remain I agree, but she could say parliament wont accept the offer on the table, so the choice is to either crash out, which is no good for anyone, or come back with a better offer. She could easily say that if there isn't a better offer, she will withdraw a50, and them immediately re-apply, given another two years.

Ifailed - thanks to Gina Miller, invoking Art 50 requires a parliamentary vote. Can't see parliament voting to invoke Art 50 again straight away!

Thegirlinthefireplace my point is that she is only temporarily revoking, then revoking to gain extra time, it's just a negotiating tactic.

So, now we know that the UK can revoke if it wants to.
It's all up to us!

So the ECJ has ruled that we could stay "under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state", according to the press release.

Nomad, a second referendum or GE are not our constitutional requirements (although they might be politically helpful), but I would guess that after the Miller ruling on the requirements for issuing an A50 notice, parliament's approval would be required to withdraw it.

By the way, up to us is the definition of sovereignty, is it not?

I understand that ifailed, I'm saying Parliament won't vote for that, why repeat the last 2 years all over again. What an utter waste of everyone's time that would be just to find ourselves in the same place again after two more years of chaos and uncertainty.

The EU negotiators have been watching this massive 'game' that the government have been playing for the last 3 years. They also know what was said in ALL the meetings that have been held by May, Corbyn, uncle tom cobley and all.
Going to make one hell of a film one day!

If only we had some grown ups on the front benches

I am a staunch remainer and would revoke tomorrow if I had the power, but, I also think the UK should commit to paying costs of this whole fiasco and show some commitment to EU (not sure what exactly would cut the mustard). That would be the hard sell not just to leavers but to lukewarm/reluctant retainers.

So basically what you’re saying is you are in favour of a population being punished for daring to step out of line.

If a country had wanted to leave the British Empire, for example, would you have approved of them manipulating a deal to force them to remain then punished them for transgressing?

How about Northern Ireland? How about we make the population there pay for the damage of any bombs that went off and the peace process? It’s only fair. If Britain deserves punishing by the EU, then so do any other countries which want to leave a Union.

How about when Eastern European countries wanted to leave the USSR? Would you have thought the USSR reasonable if it imposed sanctions on dissent?

Why don’t we just sack people who voted from leave having jobs, confiscate their property and ban their older children from education? Let’s take their younger children off them at birth so they can be given to deserving remain voters and learn how to think the right things. You’re so keen on emulating the USSR and British Empire punishing dissenters then go the whole hog.

The worst think is, even though I am being sarcastic, I know there are many remainers on here who would actually endorse that, even if they wouldn’t publicly admit it.

Calling for punishment on a country for expressing dissent and dissatisfaction with a political system? You want something that only the richest AB classes in our society voted for and the votes of millions of working class people tossed aside because they’re stupid? And you think you are the good guys and the nice people?

You’re not. You’re not by a long stretch. You’re advocating things which have been done by some of the most evil and oppressive regimes in history.

Not to mention punitive reparations don’t have a great record (see Hitler).

The shit Remainers are coming out with on here is getting more and more extreme, aggressive, anti-democratic and imperialist by the day.

I'm a staunch remainer and i think this talk reparation etc is total bollocks and when used before has led to unintended consequences, so i agree with Augusta on this.

Part of the brexit argument was to bring back parliamentary sovereignty IF parliament decides on a 2nd vote or revocation or no-deal then we all have to accept this, they'll have to account for their actions at the next GE.

fwiw i'd like to see Cameron put on trial for dereliction of duty in office, its terrible what he has caused, division and hasn't it already cost 10s of billions in lost GDP and associated costs?

The UK has to pay around £19 Billion for the 'services' it is getting until 29 March 2019.
The UK, in saying it wants to leave the EU is FORCING THE EU to invest in infrastructure, systems and staff to 'facilitate' trade with the UK once the UK leaves, so again the UK should be stumping up for that. The EU has said repeatedly, and even Guy Verhofstadt said this morning that the EU would prefer the UK to remain but as the UK seems insistent on leaving it is only right that it pays.
This nothing to do with punishment, just necessary business.
If the UK were to decide it does not want to trade with the EU ever again, then it would be up to the UK to pay for necessary upgrading of transport and infrastructure to get food and goods from Russia/USA/China wherever.

We are talking about reparation if we revoke not if we leave.

imho regardless of brexit, we need to have a serious look at inequality and redistribution from the SE to the regions because remain or leave, if we do not, we are heading for protests and riots, this is where monies need to be spend.
also, directors pay and remuneration across the board needs to be looked at and action taking, some of the pay awarded is not helping to form a cohesive society.
If we don't we are heading for trouble.

Of course the UK should put it's hands in it's pocket and make some form of reparation. The UK messing about for 2 1/2 years has cost Billions to the EU who did not ask for it to be spent.
If you went down to the supermarket and deliberately smashed the windows then decided you weren't going to actually buy anything there, who would you expect to be paying?

The EU will not ask for reparations from the UK
in the same way it did not ask for reparations from Greece
stupid irrelevant talk

We did lead them up the garden path and they spent money on the basis of our representation we were leaving (althogh I supp think we will be leaving in March so it is fairly academic. I don't think it should be capable of being withdrawn since served and for the future as the CJEU thinks it can they should do a treaty amendment to apply to the other countries to make it clear you take your decision and that's it.