I can't wait to see the Mail headline if, as would be likely, the Irish court refer it to the ECJ for a decision... and if they do, well compared to the ECJ, our 'steady as you go' Supreme Court moves like a whippet chasing a bitch on heat.
Dublin High Court Challenge to Brexit
2 of 4
How can an Irish court intervene on the constitutional matters of another member state?
The whole thing just beggars belief!
The whole thing just beggars belief!
Originally Posted by Aye Up:
“How can an Irish court intervene on the constitutional matters of another member state?
The whole thing just beggars belief!”
“How can an Irish court intervene on the constitutional matters of another member state?
The whole thing just beggars belief!”
Article 50 is EU law, not UK law. A court case about it can be taken in any member state.
Originally Posted by Aye Up:
“How can an Irish court intervene on the constitutional matters of another member state?
The whole thing just beggars belief!”
“How can an Irish court intervene on the constitutional matters of another member state?
The whole thing just beggars belief!”
The Irish High Court itself would have no authority to rule on Article 50. But they could decide to refer it on to the European Court of Justice for them to decide, as A50 is a process between the EU and the UK......in other words the Irish High Court would merely be used as a vehicle for the legal challenge.
And of course the ECJ would be totally impartial on this subject. Strange but when other countries want to be independent it's ok and should be supported.
Originally Posted by hufflestuff:
“And of course the ECJ would be totally impartial on this subject. Strange but when other countries want to be independent it's ok and should be supported.”
“And of course the ECJ would be totally impartial on this subject. Strange but when other countries want to be independent it's ok and should be supported.”
What a whiney post! The ECJ will rule on whether Article 50 is reversible or not, and the UK is already independent.
Originally Posted by Cheetah666:
“What a whiney post! The ECJ will rule on whether Article 50 is reversible or not, and the UK is already independent.”
“What a whiney post! The ECJ will rule on whether Article 50 is reversible or not, and the UK is already independent.”
Of all people you'd know a whiney post when you see one of course. Just amusing that Dublin has such a history of breaking away from the UK and now it's involved in this.
Originally Posted by hufflestuff:
“Of all people you'd know a whiney post when you see one of course. Just amusing that Dublin has such a history of breaking away from the UK and now it's involved in this.”
“Of all people you'd know a whiney post when you see one of course. Just amusing that Dublin has such a history of breaking away from the UK and now it's involved in this.”
Another whiney post. Dublin isn't involved in this. A British lawyer is using the Dublin High Court as a vehicle to appeal to the ECJ for a ruling on whether or not Article 50 is reversible.
Wouldn't this actually help May and her teams negotiations. At the moment once A50 is triggered then the EU have us over a barrel in the negotiations because they can say at the end of two years you're not getting any concessions off you go. If A50 is reversible if they don't give us the concessions we want we could at the end of two years reverse it and then invoke again to carry on negotiations. I expect the Irish will pass this onto the ECJ where they will stall until after A50 is triggered and then say as A50 was trigged pre decision they cant make a ruling on it.
Originally Posted by Cheetah666:
“Another whiney post. Dublin isn't involved in this. A British lawyer is using the Dublin High Court as a vehicle to appeal to the ECJ for a ruling on whether or not Article 50 is reversible.”
“Another whiney post. Dublin isn't involved in this. A British lawyer is using the Dublin High Court as a vehicle to appeal to the ECJ for a ruling on whether or not Article 50 is reversible.”
Note to self "point out every time Cheetah666 whinges going forwards" as otherwise it's too tempting to tell him to stfu.
Originally Posted by hufflestuff:
“Note to self "point out every time Cheetah666 whinges going forwards" as otherwise it's too tempting to tell him to stfu.”
“Note to self "point out every time Cheetah666 whinges going forwards" as otherwise it's too tempting to tell him to stfu.”
I'm not a him, and I don't care if some whiner on an internet forum posts stfu at me. You can even post it in caps if it makes you feel better.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“I can't wait to see the Mail headline if, as would be likely, the Irish court refer it to the ECJ for a decision... and if they do, well compared to the ECJ, our 'steady as you go' Supreme Court moves like a whippet chasing a bitch on heat.”
“I can't wait to see the Mail headline if, as would be likely, the Irish court refer it to the ECJ for a decision... and if they do, well compared to the ECJ, our 'steady as you go' Supreme Court moves like a whippet chasing a bitch on heat.”
Mail will go on a temper tantrum to end all tantrums. Thing is though this won't stop triggering of Article 50 in UK. Theresa May could carry on her stalling game pretending that she can't do it. Blaming EU would be great option for her. In reality she just needs to put an act of Parliament together and it could be done after Christmas.
Originally Posted by panixs:
“Wouldn't this actually help May and her teams negotiations. At the moment once A50 is triggered then the EU have us over a barrel in the negotiations because they can say at the end of two years you're not getting any concessions off you go. If A50 is reversible if they don't give us the concessions we want we could at the end of two years reverse it and then invoke again to carry on negotiations. I expect the Irish will pass this onto the ECJ where they will stall until after A50 is triggered and then say as A50 was trigged pre decision they cant make a ruling on it.”
“Wouldn't this actually help May and her teams negotiations. At the moment once A50 is triggered then the EU have us over a barrel in the negotiations because they can say at the end of two years you're not getting any concessions off you go. If A50 is reversible if they don't give us the concessions we want we could at the end of two years reverse it and then invoke again to carry on negotiations. I expect the Irish will pass this onto the ECJ where they will stall until after A50 is triggered and then say as A50 was trigged pre decision they cant make a ruling on it.”
No as this won't be ruled on in time for the Supreme Court judgement.
I've read his legal arguments and this is perfect timing. He waited until it was clear the government wouldn't change its position on A 50 reversiblity. Now the SC has to rule on the admissions made while he wants a ruling on whether iA50 is reversible or not.
If the SC upholds the HC ruling (likely) but doesn't rule in favour of the devolution claimants then A50 can be triggered by Parliament (likely) then by the time negotiations are complete it is likely to have been ruled that is can all be reversed so Parliament can turn down a deal they aren't happy with.
He is putting another safety net in place to avoid the UK falling into WTO territory.
Very clever move indeed.
Originally Posted by HR Guru:
“No as this won't be ruled on in time for the Supreme Court judgement.
I've read his legal arguments and this is perfect timing. He waited until it was clear the government wouldn't change its position on A 50 reversiblity. Now the SC has to rule on the admissions made while he wants a ruling on whether iA50 is reversible or not.
If the SC upholds the HC ruling (likely) but doesn't rule in favour of the devolution claimants then A50 can be triggered by Parliament (likely) then by the time negotiations are complete it is likely to have been ruled that is can all be reversed so Parliament can turn down a deal they aren't happy with.
He is putting another safety net in place to avoid the UK falling into WTO territory.
Very clever move indeed.”
“No as this won't be ruled on in time for the Supreme Court judgement.
I've read his legal arguments and this is perfect timing. He waited until it was clear the government wouldn't change its position on A 50 reversiblity. Now the SC has to rule on the admissions made while he wants a ruling on whether iA50 is reversible or not.
If the SC upholds the HC ruling (likely) but doesn't rule in favour of the devolution claimants then A50 can be triggered by Parliament (likely) then by the time negotiations are complete it is likely to have been ruled that is can all be reversed so Parliament can turn down a deal they aren't happy with.
He is putting another safety net in place to avoid the UK falling into WTO territory.
Very clever move indeed.”
Your post makes sense to me. Agreed.
I suppose for Mrs May this could be a problem for party management
Let's just say that the ECJ rules that the Article 50 submission is reversible
If she has no intention of reversing it then the judgment is irrelevant
But it might give MPs something to rally around if they don't like the way the negotiations are going
Personally I don't think there's any chance that May would consider reversing the Article 50 process, she'd be forced out within weeks by her backbenchers
Let's just say that the ECJ rules that the Article 50 submission is reversible
If she has no intention of reversing it then the judgment is irrelevant
But it might give MPs something to rally around if they don't like the way the negotiations are going
Personally I don't think there's any chance that May would consider reversing the Article 50 process, she'd be forced out within weeks by her backbenchers
If post-truth is the word of 2016, I can see whack-a-mole being a strong contender for next year's title.
Originally Posted by swingaleg:
“I suppose for Mrs May this could be a problem for party management
Let's just say that the ECJ rules that the Article 50 submission is reversible
If she has no intention of reversing it then the judgment is irrelevant
But it might give MPs something to rally around if they don't like the way the negotiations are going
Personally I don't think there's any chance that May would consider reversing the Article 50 process, she'd be forced out within weeks by her backbenchers”
“I suppose for Mrs May this could be a problem for party management
Let's just say that the ECJ rules that the Article 50 submission is reversible
If she has no intention of reversing it then the judgment is irrelevant
But it might give MPs something to rally around if they don't like the way the negotiations are going
Personally I don't think there's any chance that May would consider reversing the Article 50 process, she'd be forced out within weeks by her backbenchers”
It won't be up to her to make that call. The final deal has to go through Parliament (notwithstanding any other court rulings re A 50 trigger authority and devolution issues).
If the deal is no deal aka crashing into WTO rules then it won't be passed... and she will have to reverse A 50 and start from scratch. It perfectly fits in with the fact that the EU is insisting on negotiations being completed within 18 months so there are 6 months left to get it all ratified. Parliament will know the deal 6 months before the expiry of the deadline.
Seems a pretty open and shut case to me.........
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.
It can be extended beyond two years with everyone's agreement, but that seems to be it. It's not reversible according to the above.
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.
It can be extended beyond two years with everyone's agreement, but that seems to be it. It's not reversible according to the above.
Originally Posted by Resonance:
“Seems a pretty open and shut case to me.........
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.
It can be extended beyond two years with everyone's agreement, but that seems to be it. It's not reversible according to the above.”
“Seems a pretty open and shut case to me.........
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.
It can be extended beyond two years with everyone's agreement, but that seems to be it. It's not reversible according to the above.”
You're missing an important point. Article 50 is about an agreement on how to withdraw. As long as as such an agreement has not been signed and the two years have not expired, there is nothing at all that can be done if the departing country revokes its notification. It's legally impossible to force them.
And no, legally that does not need to be spelled out in Article 50 as that is not how the law works.
Crowdfunding page here: https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexit-for-the-100/
Already at just under £20k after a day and it's going up every few minutes. Very nice to see that the pledges are publicly available, which gives a nice idea that it's ordinary people pledging small amounts.
Already at just under £20k after a day and it's going up every few minutes. Very nice to see that the pledges are publicly available, which gives a nice idea that it's ordinary people pledging small amounts.
Originally Posted by HR Guru:
“You're missing an important point. Article 50 is about an agreement on how to withdraw. As long as as such an agreement has not been signed and the two years have not expired, there is nothing at all that can be done if the departing country revokes its notification. It's legally impossible to force them.
And no, legally that does not need to be spelled out in Article 50 as that is not how the law works.”
“You're missing an important point. Article 50 is about an agreement on how to withdraw. As long as as such an agreement has not been signed and the two years have not expired, there is nothing at all that can be done if the departing country revokes its notification. It's legally impossible to force them.
And no, legally that does not need to be spelled out in Article 50 as that is not how the law works.”
Well that's surely for the ECJ to decide.
I can't see it making a blind bit of difference anyway. Parliament is not going to revoke A50 imo.
It's just another installment in the remainer stay in the EU fantasy. It started off with there will be no referendum offered, then remain will win the referendum, then they won't trigger A50, once that's happened we move onto A50 will be reversed. Once we leave no doubt it will be we're having a referendum on rejoining, or you never know acceptance
Originally Posted by Resonance:
“Well that's surely for the ECJ to decide.
I can't see it making a blind bit of difference anyway. Parliament is not going to revoke A50 imo.
It's just another installment in the remainer stay in the EU fantasy. It started off with there will be no referendum offered, then remain will win the referendum, then they won't trigger A50, once that's happened we move onto A50 will be reversed. Once we leave no doubt it will be we're having a referendum on rejoining, or you never know acceptance”
“Well that's surely for the ECJ to decide.
I can't see it making a blind bit of difference anyway. Parliament is not going to revoke A50 imo.
It's just another installment in the remainer stay in the EU fantasy. It started off with there will be no referendum offered, then remain will win the referendum, then they won't trigger A50, once that's happened we move onto A50 will be reversed. Once we leave no doubt it will be we're having a referendum on rejoining, or you never know acceptance
”
Parliament, which includes both houses, will not ratify a deal that is no deal, i.e WTO only. They minimum is customs union which has a majority in the Commons and full backing of the Lords.
Originally Posted by HR Guru:
“You're missing an important point. Article 50 is about an agreement on how to withdraw. As long as as such an agreement has not been signed and the two years have not expired, there is nothing at all that can be done if the departing country revokes its notification. It's legally impossible to force them.
And no, legally that does not need to be spelled out in Article 50 as that is not how the law works.”
“You're missing an important point. Article 50 is about an agreement on how to withdraw. As long as as such an agreement has not been signed and the two years have not expired, there is nothing at all that can be done if the departing country revokes its notification. It's legally impossible to force them.
And no, legally that does not need to be spelled out in Article 50 as that is not how the law works.”
You are presuming that the court will rule that Art 50 is reversible. That is I suspect unlikely as there is no mention to in the article of such a mechanism for a would-be departing member state.
Originally Posted by Kiteview:
“You are presuming that the court will rule that Art 50 is reversible. That is I suspect unlikely as there is no mention to in the article of such a mechanism for a would-be departing member state.”
“You are presuming that the court will rule that Art 50 is reversible. That is I suspect unlikely as there is no mention to in the article of such a mechanism for a would-be departing member state.”
See above for my explanation. There is no legal merit contained to refuse a country's request to revoce notification prior to an exit agreement being signed or the two years having expired.
European law is not based on case law and does have to mention what is not possible in order for it to apply.
Originally Posted by HR Guru:
“Crowdfunding page here: https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexit-for-the-100/
Already at just under £20k after a day and it's going up every few minutes. Very nice to see that the pledges are publicly available, which gives a nice idea that it's ordinary people pledging small amounts.”
“Crowdfunding page here: https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexit-for-the-100/
Already at just under £20k after a day and it's going up every few minutes. Very nice to see that the pledges are publicly available, which gives a nice idea that it's ordinary people pledging small amounts.”
It's worth a look for a clear explanation of what he's doing, why, and what it could mean.
2 of 4
