View Single Post
  #137  
Old 01-09-2016, 02:25 PM
eagleborn eagleborn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Age: 27
Posts: 787
Rep Power: 11459077
eagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dieteagleborn came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy diet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oisin View Post
There's a piece in the FT comment today from a former director-general of the Council of the European Unionís Legal Service in which he claims Article 50 is legally reversible. The comments are more interesting than the piece actually, plenty of senior lawyers are FT subscribers.

If the Government was smart it would seek legal clarification on that before triggering Article 50, it gives it a much stronger negotiating position.

To view the link you have to Register or Login
It's an interesting argument raised there, in any event. However, I don't think it raises anything new. Ultimately the wording of Article 50 is unclear and can be construed in a number of manners. I ultimately think that there will be a number of legal challenges in relation to whatever plan of action the government finally settles on.

The exact way in which Article 50 is enacted may well come down to a decision in the Supreme Court and/or ECJ as to the proper interpretation of the Article. There will be consideration over whether Parliament needs to "approve" the referendum result, whether it is possible to back out once Article 50 has been invoked, and so on.

These are all arguments which can be properly argued due to the unclear nature of the drafting and the lack of previous experience on this. There are some very good lawyers out there who will be able to make some very compelling arguments one way or the other.

Of course, Mat and Will on here will continue with their baseless and repetitive arguments that Brexit means Brexit, despite being clueless as to the meaning of that.
Reply With Quote