As with much in the EU, politics matter more than economics.
Amen to that. And European politicians make decisions, as a rule, based on extremely short-term self-interest.
Can the European Court of Justice issue an advisory option on the matter, or would they have to wait until the UK actually invokes then attempts to rescind it’s Article 50 invocation?
In any case, how could a court proactively decide its opinion is needed on something, and then arrive at it, without itself becoming a party to the issue and thereby ceasing to be a court?
Could you please point out where Article 50 says that? Where it says anything about withdrawal of notification?
I’m just seeing two paths from the Article 50 notification: (1) negotiation resulting in an agreement re terms of withdrawal, future relationship, etc. per Paragraph 2, resulting in withdrawal under the terms of that agreement becoming final, per Paragraph 3, on the date of entry into force specified in that agreement. Or (2) no agreement is reached, in which case, per Paragraph 3, withdrawal takes full effect 2 years after notification.
The 2 years can be extended by unanimous agreement of the European Council and the withdrawing nation, again per Paragraph 3, lengthening that second path but not removing the withdrawing nation from it.
But the wording of Article 50 is pretty straightforward. I’m not even seeing any ambiguities that could be latched onto. Once the UK gives notification, the clock starts ticking, and from that moment on it takes the EU’s agreement to obtain any result besides Brexit becoming complete and final two years later.
Show me where it says otherwise.
Cite?
So Germany sells a lot more stuff to the UK than the UK sells to Germany. Nothing stops the EU nations from selling stuff to non-EU nations. The barriers lie in the other direction, right?
Now the post-Brexit UK could always throw up tariffs, but that would make EU goods more expensive in the UK, which would go over like a lead balloon with the citizenry. So all I’m seeing is an even bigger German trading surplus with the UK. Germany would swallow hard at that prospect, I know, but I’m sure they’d find a way to deal with it. 
Yeah, there’s no one else in the world that can provide financial services on close to a par with London. :rolleyes:
When all the bluff and posturing dies down, the reality is that the one needs the 27 a lot more than the 27 need the one. When push comes to shove, the 27 can afford to say to the one, “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.”
You’re a little out of your depth if you need a cite.
It really isn’t about “the 27”. It’s about the Mrs Merkel. That would be your starting point: German economic imperialism.
If that sounds a bit undemocratic, you are staring to identify one of the issues with the EU.
More to the point, it’s a political necessity for them to demonstrate that leaving does not come without penalty.
Read it carefully with a lawyers eye. Nowhere does it say exit is inevitable.
Article 50
Print Email
-
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
-
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
-
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
-
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
- If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
International law on Treaties requires that treaties are maintained until exited properly. Before a final agreement, the UK is still a full member in good standing and can withdraw its request to leave with impunity.
The author of the article says that is the case.
Note Paragraph 3
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The treaties still apply until the agreed date of withdrawal!
Yes, it does. Right here:
That fairly clearly envisages three pathways. One, the treaties cease to apply with the withdrawal agreement enters into force. Two, if there is no withdrawal agreement, the treaties cease to apply two years after notification of intent to withdraw. Three, the treaties cease to apply after a longer period determined by the unanimous agreement of the states.
There’s no pathway four, the treaties continue to apply indefinitely. Pathway two is the default, and the only way to avoid pathway two is to agree on pathway one or pathway three, both of which also lead to the treaties ceasing to apply.
Nothing in Art 50 contemplates withdrawal of the notification and a halt to the process initiated by notification. Once you jump out of this particular plane your parachute opens or it doesn’t open, but there’s no getting back in the plane.
It seems to me the only way to halt the process initiated by notification is a treaty amendment (or a new treaty).
Try looking up ‘unless’ in the dictionary. I will go with the author’s interpretarion that Artcle 50 is not binding.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-how-does-article-50-work-2016-7
But the House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)
Here is what their advice said:
Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?
We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.” Professor Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:
“There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.”
… There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial.
So, to sum up, even if the UK triggers Article 50 we can still cancel that decision if, for instance, there was a change of government. But the government would be up against the clock: It would have to make that U-turn before the rest of the EU voted on the Article 50 request, and before the two-year deadline elapsed.
Given how long the exit process is likely to take, and how unpredictable UK politics has suddenly become, don’t rule out a change of government or a change of heart.
The likelihood of a change in the British government in the time before Brexit is triggered is remote indeed. With the Lords having given their assent there remains no obstacle for May to fulfil the wishes of the electorate as expressed in the referendum. A second Scottish referendum held by Sturgeon on leaving the UK might prove an embarrassment but no more as it would have no legal force.
The UK is out and we Brits may as well get get used to it.
I know what “unless” means, though I’m not certain that you do.
In this context, “unless” means that, if there is no withdrawal agreement, the only way to avoid automatic exit after two years is for the Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously to decide to extend the two-year period.
What you’d like Art. 50 to say is that, if there is no withdrawal agreement, there will be automatic exit after two years unless the Council extends that period or the Member State concerned withdraws its notification. It could have said that, and that would be the obvious way to express the position you are advocating for. However, that’s not what the treaty says.
This is a legislative text. The drafter’s intention or understanding is irrelevant. What matters is the intentions of the Member States when they made the Treaty, as expressed in the language of the Treaty. And it’s undeniable that the language of the Treaty does not at any point contemplate withdrawal of an Art. 50 notification.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s possible to say definitively that an Art. 50 notification can validly and effectively be withdrawn, or that it cannot. I incline to the latter view but I could be wrong.
We won’t get an authoritative statement on this unless the question is referred to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. There’s talkof court proceedings being launched in Ireland intended to raise this question, with a view to asking the Irish courts to refer this issue to the ECJ for a ruling. I’m not sure how far that effort has progressed, or whether anybody has ventured a prediction as to how long it will take to get an answer to the question through this route.
In the meantime, I think there must (at the least) be doubt over whether notice can be withdrawn, and therefore it would be foolish to serve notice with a view to withdrawing it at a later point in any circumstances; you can’t be sure that, in those circumstances, you will be able to withdraw it.
The point you are missing is that the ECJ is not the final arbiter, but the World Court. There is enforcable law on Treaties including a provision that unilateral unfair withdrawal may lead to damages. The EU would not let that happen- too risky, so a compromise is likely to be reached. The EU has a strong interest in either the UK remaining in the EU, or at least having reasonable relationships between the UK and EU compatible with stopping other waverers from leaving. Placed in that position, such a compromise will be reached.
Well, Parliament’s passed the Bill. And so the end of the United Kingdom draws nearer.
There is chatter in political circles on Twitter that the Brexit Billmwas misdrafted.
It is suggested that although it gives May permission to apply for withdrawal, it does not give her any authority to conclude a deal, and it could be rejected and returned to Brussels for reconsideration.
If the deal is rejected, then Britain leaves the EU with no deal. The worst possible outcome.