If Parliament doesn't back the deal then we - by default - exit with no deal.

Unless there are only minute differences between what the government deal is and what Parliament wants, the other member states are unlikely to even countenance additional negotiations in such a scenario. Ultimately, either the government represents the "UK position" in negotiations or the other member states are wasting their time negotiating with it. And, it is up to our internal politics to ensure that the Government is not off on a solo run but instead negotiating the "UK position" which Parliament is in agreement with. The Government is supposed to be answerable to Parliament not a political Frankenstein blundering around the landscape destroying all before it.

They would be better giving money to a charity that does some good rather than simply waste it.

No. Parliament must approve the deal negotiated which will be approx. 6 months prior to the expiry of the two year deadline. If they don't like it then government must ask the EU to extend the negotiation period or revoke A50 (if ruled possible).

Also - don't forget that the "deal" is only covering the details of exiting, it has nothing to do with how we will work with the EU going forward. That can only be negotiated once the UK is a "third country".

I have seen the explanation and I don't find it convincing. The court can't just invent mechanisms to save us from making a mistake when none exist in the treaties. If you go down that road then we could end up with invented procedures where the court literally rewrites art 50 or any of our opt outs so they can all be ignored at will or so complex that they are unusable. And, for fairly obvious reasons, no member state would be happy with that.

Also, it should be pointed out, it fundamentally would not be in the interest of the EU for a situation to arise where one or more member states could invoke art 50 at will, go through a whole palaver of exit negotiations and then be free to cancel at the last minute. Either a member state is serious about leaving or it is not.

In that case revoking of A50 is irrelevant, as there will be no deal to put to parliament until we've left.

The EU are under no obligation to agree to such an extension and will not want one lest they get dragged into endless rounds of negotiations where it is dragged into an internal domestic dispute between the differing wishes of our Government and Parliament. They might agree to AN extension if there were minor differences but that is a might.


I suspect that will largely be the case. If we are going then the objective of the EU will be to get rid of us so they can get on with day-to-day matters.

A case asking the ECJ if article 50 once invoked can be withdrawn was to be expected. It hardly matters which way the ECJ may rule unless the government at some point decide to reverse their decision to accept the referendum result.

The court must rule on facts that are there in black and white (I appreciate it's difficult to ignore the way we make law in the UK and apply a different principle). Article 50 is silent on revocation, so it follows that revocation is legally possible until such time an agreement has been signed or the 2 years have expired... unless someone can prove the opposite to be true.

In addition to that, the ECJ in general applies the rule that a resignation may be retracted in circumstances where it was based on a wrong assessment of circumstances. This applies across any contract law and might well have a bearing on any ruling.

Of course they're not under any obligation, but the extension does not apply until the 2 years have expired. If A 50 is revoked prior to the two years being up and without an agreement being signed then an extension is irrelevant.

Of course there will be. Even the government is clear about parliament voting on the exit deal and then on the future relationship deal.

Although by agreeing to extend the period indefinitely is practically the same as reversing it.

I do wonder what is the point of this nonsense , unless the libdems who can get their MP's comfortably into a minibus win a snap election , this is just another lawyer benefit . It's almost a shame the fools paying for it are too stupid to realise it.

Considering the case will be heard in the Republic of Ireland, the benefit to the Lib Dems will be minimal.

I think he means that unless there are significantly more Lib Dems then it is unlikely that there would be sufficient votes to revoke A50.

Wasn't the EU proposing to negotiate in separate stages whereby the first was to agree things like repayments, borders etc. It was the second stage that was to decide any future relationship. The government had rejected this.

So if the EU has their way, it could in fact be the case that when Parliament votes for the A50 deal, they would not be voting on that stage on the future relationship at all or have any knowledge of it other than what the government hopes to achieve?

You are quite correct that the court must rule on facts. And, the fact is there is no mention in the article about the possibility of revocation. The court - ruling on facts - can't create one out of thin air.

The logic of your argument is that even though we have opt-outs on Schengen and the Euro the court could rule that the other member states could override these by QMV even though the Treaties provide no mechanism for opt-outs to be overriden.

The absence of an explicit mechanism in the treaties to do something does NOT mean that one exists. Rather the opposite.


It is very difficult to see how that would apply. The purpose of the article is clear - to leave the EU - and it is difficult to see how anyone could maintain that we had misunderstood what would happen once we trigger it. We were explicitly warned about the dangers of voting Leave and chose to ignore those warnings.

The result of the legal cases will be to establish what the correct legal procedures/mechanisms are for a possible exit.

It will then be up to either the government and/or parliament to make a political decision to follow those legal procedures in the full knowledge that they are correct.

Following incorrect legal procedures would mean we'd botch the exit process and would continue to remain a member.

Indeed..
It seems clear, that if a "withdrawal agreement" is not agreed within the two year period, and an extension time not agreed too, then at the end of the two year period withdrawal occurs, and and the treaties cease to apply to the exiting state.

It seems clear also, that should the exiting state attempt to revoke, reverse or withdrawal from the the A50 process, during the process, (that is before the exit) then any "withdrawal agreement" is therefore not agreed too, and therefore treaties cease to apply, to the exiting state at the end of the two year period.

The crux of A50 is that a "withdrawal agreement" must be reached, or exit without a "withdrawal agreement" occurs.

Logic would dictate, that any attempt to revoke/reverse, the A50 process exposes a situation where a "withdrawal agreement" has not been agreed too. Therefore exit occurs without a "withdrawal agreement".

Oh that's obvious. It appears they can't stop A50 being triggered so they are looking for a possible avenue to withdrawing it. On the face of there is no process in the treaty for withdrawing invoking A50 so the ECJ would need to make new law by saying there is.

Exactly - can't win through the ballot box so let's keep trying to find ways to subvert the referendum vote via the courts.

They can't block A50 being triggered now given the landslide Commons vote this week showed so now it's moving on to can we reverse the triggering to stay in the EU.

This is the scenario I've been bleating on about for past few weeks.

Article 50 hasn't been tested in court as it hasn't been used before. It's only a personal view but I think ECJ will rule it can be reversed. Then when Tory Brexit deal comes back to Parliament to be voted on it knows there is a 'third' way.

If at this point both Houses of Parliament won't vote for the deal it is either another referendum or most likely a no confidence vote in the government. Over to public to vote on actual deal - reality not blind faith this time.

What exactly is the "no deal" exit outcome? All assets in possession retained and all debts wiped? Revert to a standard diplomatic and trade relationship?
What are the incentives for every other EU country to agree to anything?

Well quite. Tories are relying on our deal or economic suicide being the options before Parliament in 2019. If 'could' be Tory deal / economic suicide / stay in EU.

The libdems are the only party campaigning to stay in the EU at any cost, hence my post .

Isn't there a slight problem with this? In that if it does find it can be reversed or revoked then the claim that there will be an inevitable loss of rights which was the common ground in the supreme court appeal doesn't apply and so article 50 can be triggered using the prerogative?