An argument for the revocability of the Article 50 notification

[James Hammerton]

Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/07/why-its-not-too-late-to-step-back-from-brexit):

"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.

As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."

Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Regards,

James

[True Blue]

"As a lawyer, I agree with them."

To paraphrase one famous trial witness - "Well, she would, wouldn't she...?"

Just think, lawyers wishing the country to remain under the waterfall of legislation that is the European Court of HR, membership of which is mandatory for EU member States. Who'da thought it??

We are reminded of that former star of Matrix Chambers, Cherie Blair, who appeared on TV to inform us all of what a blessing the European Convention of HR was to everyone who was going to be lucky enough to be protected by it. Call me a cynic, but there was something in her manner that day which conveyed a joy beyond that caused by happiness for her future clients.

[MM]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 04:36:07 -0700 (PDT), True Blue

Post by True Blue

"As a lawyer, I agree with them."

To paraphrase one famous trial witness - "Well, she would, wouldn't she...?"
Just think, lawyers wishing the country to remain under the waterfall of legislation that is the European Court of HR, membership of which is mandatory for EU member States. Who'da thought it??
We are reminded of that former star of Matrix Chambers, Cherie Blair, who appeared on TV to inform us all of what a blessing the European Convention of HR was to everyone who was going to be lucky enough to be protected by it. Call me a cynic, but there was something in her manner that day which conveyed a joy beyond that caused by happiness for her future clients.

As an attempt to rubbish James Hammerton's excellent post, this has
failed miserably.

MM

[True Blue]

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 04:36:07 -0700 (PDT), True Blue

Post by True Blue

"As a lawyer, I agree with them."

To paraphrase one famous trial witness - "Well, she would, wouldn't she...?"
Just think, lawyers wishing the country to remain under the waterfall of legislation that is the European Court of HR, membership of which is mandatory for EU member States. Who'da thought it??
We are reminded of that former star of Matrix Chambers, Cherie Blair, who appeared on TV to inform us all of what a blessing the European Convention of HR was to everyone who was going to be lucky enough to be protected by it. Call me a cynic, but there was something in her manner that day which conveyed a joy beyond that caused by happiness for her future clients.

As an attempt to rubbish James Hammerton's excellent post, this has
failed miserably.

As has your trolling in this instance......

[Ophelia]

"James Hammerton" wrote in message news:xHnCB.1627253$***@fx30.am4...


Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/07/why-its-not-too-late-to-step-back-from-brexit):

"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.

As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."

Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Regards,

James
==

It makes no difference. We were promised that the results of the referendum
would be respected!

I have no doubt that even if the comments from the QC were not correct, they
would try to find some other way of keeping us in the EU.

[James Hammerton]

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).
Regards,
James
==
It makes no difference.  We were promised that the results of the
referendum would be respected!

Indeed we were. That's why I'm annoyed at the oft repeated claim that
the referendum was 'advisory' - Parliament voted the legislation through
knowing that the government's repeatedly stated intention, including in
statements to parliament itself, was to respect the result. The govt
repeatedly promised to respect the result during the campaign itself and
even sent a leaflet to every household reiterating it.

The referendum was not legally binding, and perhaps should have been
(e.g. requiring an article 50 notification within at most a year of the
result) but that's beside the point, and I don't recall anyone making a
fuss about the validity or desirability of respecting the result
*before* the result was known.

Post by James Hammerton
I have no doubt that even if the comments from the QC were not correct,
they would try to find some other way of keeping us in the EU.

Well the real question is, even if the QC is correct, is that enough to
go back on the promise above?

Regards,

James

[Ophelia]

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).
Regards,
James
==
It makes no difference. We were promised that the results of the
referendum would be respected!

Indeed we were. That's why I'm annoyed at the oft repeated claim that
the referendum was 'advisory' - Parliament voted the legislation through
knowing that the government's repeatedly stated intention, including in
statements to parliament itself, was to respect the result. The govt
repeatedly promised to respect the result during the campaign itself and
even sent a leaflet to every household reiterating it.

The referendum was not legally binding, and perhaps should have been
(e.g. requiring an article 50 notification within at most a year of the
result) but that's beside the point, and I don't recall anyone making a
fuss about the validity or desirability of respecting the result
*before* the result was known.

Post by James Hammerton
I have no doubt that even if the comments from the QC were not correct,
they would try to find some other way of keeping us in the EU.

Well the real question is, even if the QC is correct, is that enough to
go back on the promise above?

Regards,

James

==

Hopefully not. I repeat, we were told the results of the referendum would
be respected. If this is disregarded, it must be remembered there are
17,410,742 people out there who will not be be very happy and I foresee
either a resurrection of UKIP or a similar party, the thought of which ought
to give politicians pause for thought.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have, at a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is littered with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

To illustrate my point I leave you with section 4A of the Public Order Act.

" *Intentional* harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if, *with intent* to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)

displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)

An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)

It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)

that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)

that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)

F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

I think all reasonable prsons (to coin another term in law, would agree as to the meaning of intent, intentional, intended etc. and its association with purpose.

[James Hammerton]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have, at a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is littered with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

I don't see how the use of intention in the UK law alters the QC's
argument here.

Surely the point the QC makes is that an intention is not a binding
commitment or promise - it's a statement of desire - and a change of
intention might therefore be permitted to halt the Brexit process?

The UK laws you reference refer to intention in the context of deciding
guilt for a crime already committed, here we're talking about changing
one's mind about a course of action that hasn't happened or at least
hasn't completed.

The elephant in the room is that a political commitment was made by the
Tory party to hold and honour the EU referendum and that helped them win
in 2015, and Parliament subsequently approved both the holding of the
referendum with that promise in mind and the subsequent actions to make
good on the promise. The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Regards,

James

[Ophelia]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have, at
a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is littered
with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

I don't see how the use of intention in the UK law alters the QC's
argument here.

Surely the point the QC makes is that an intention is not a binding
commitment or promise - it's a statement of desire - and a change of
intention might therefore be permitted to halt the Brexit process?

The UK laws you reference refer to intention in the context of deciding
guilt for a crime already committed, here we're talking about changing
one's mind about a course of action that hasn't happened or at least
hasn't completed.

The elephant in the room is that a political commitment was made by the
Tory party to hold and honour the EU referendum and that helped them win
in 2015, and Parliament subsequently approved both the holding of the
referendum with that promise in mind and the subsequent actions to make
good on the promise. The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Regards,

James

==

Exactly!

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Hammerton

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have, at a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is littered with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

I don't see how the use of intention in the UK law alters the QC's
argument here.
Surely the point the QC makes is that an intention is not a binding
commitment or promise - it's a statement of desire - and a change of
intention might therefore be permitted to halt the Brexit process?
The UK laws you reference refer to intention in the context of deciding
guilt for a crime already committed, here we're talking about changing
one's mind about a course of action that hasn't happened or at least
hasn't completed.
The elephant in the room is that a political commitment was made by the
Tory party to hold and honour the EU referendum and that helped them win
in 2015, and Parliament subsequently approved both the holding of the
referendum with that promise in mind and the subsequent actions to make
good on the promise. The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Indeed but there is also a number of other considerations.

intention
noun aim, ambition, consilium, design, desire, destination, *determination*, direction, earnestness, end in view, end intended, fixed direction, *fixed purpose*, goal, institutum, mark, object, objective, plan, propositum, *purpose*, resolution, resolve, set purpose, *settled determination*, target, *ultimate purpose*

This list of synonyms is taken from a legal dictionary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intention

Then there is the contextual implications which must come into the equation.

From the word 'intention' on (ss 2) the text goes on to describe a process that ends (ss 3) in a particular outcome.

Nowhere is the reversal or revocation of this outcome mentioned except on the matter of rejoining (ss 5)

When we get down to meanings of words, they come to mean something different to one party as opposed to another. Even QC's can disagree over the meanings of words. Indeed they earn fat fees doing just that.

They can't both be right.

[James Hammerton]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have, at a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is littered with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

I don't see how the use of intention in the UK law alters the QC's
argument here.
Surely the point the QC makes is that an intention is not a binding
commitment or promise - it's a statement of desire - and a change of
intention might therefore be permitted to halt the Brexit process?
The UK laws you reference refer to intention in the context of deciding
guilt for a crime already committed, here we're talking about changing
one's mind about a course of action that hasn't happened or at least
hasn't completed.
The elephant in the room is that a political commitment was made by the
Tory party to hold and honour the EU referendum and that helped them win
in 2015, and Parliament subsequently approved both the holding of the
referendum with that promise in mind and the subsequent actions to make
good on the promise. The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Indeed but there is also a number of other considerations.
intention
noun aim, ambition, consilium, design, desire, destination, *determination*, direction, earnestness, end in view, end intended, fixed direction, *fixed purpose*, goal, institutum, mark, object, objective, plan, propositum, *purpose*, resolution, resolve, set purpose, *settled determination*, target, *ultimate purpose*
This list of synonyms is taken from a legal dictionary.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intention

Thanks. I had no idea that in legal terms an intention may mean e.g.
settled determination or fixed purpose.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then there is the contextual implications which must come into the equation.
From the word 'intention' on (ss 2) the text goes on to describe a process that ends (ss 3) in a particular outcome.
Nowhere is the reversal or revocation of this outcome mentioned except on the matter of rejoining (ss 5)

Agreed.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
When we get down to meanings of words, they come to mean something different to one party as opposed to another. Even QC's can disagree over the meanings of words. Indeed they earn fat fees doing just that.
They can't both be right.

Agreed - ISTM the revocability of Article 50 is an untested proposition,
legally speaking. I.e. a court hasn't adjudicated on it yet...

Ultimately I think if the EU finds it in its interests to treat Article
50 as revocable (in the event we notified them of such a revocation)
then they'll permit such a revocation - the politics will trump the law
(or at least some legal acrobatics will be performed to allow the policy
goal to be achieved). More likely they'll permit it subject to some
conditions.

Regards,

James

[Ophelia]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the
notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have,
at a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is
littered with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

I don't see how the use of intention in the UK law alters the QC's
argument here.
Surely the point the QC makes is that an intention is not a binding
commitment or promise - it's a statement of desire - and a change of
intention might therefore be permitted to halt the Brexit process?
The UK laws you reference refer to intention in the context of deciding
guilt for a crime already committed, here we're talking about changing
one's mind about a course of action that hasn't happened or at least
hasn't completed.
The elephant in the room is that a political commitment was made by the
Tory party to hold and honour the EU referendum and that helped them win
in 2015, and Parliament subsequently approved both the holding of the
referendum with that promise in mind and the subsequent actions to make
good on the promise. The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Indeed but there is also a number of other considerations.
intention
noun aim, ambition, consilium, design, desire, destination,
*determination*, direction, earnestness, end in view, end intended, fixed
direction, *fixed purpose*, goal, institutum, mark, object, objective,
plan, propositum, *purpose*, resolution, resolve, set purpose, *settled
determination*, target, *ultimate purpose*
This list of synonyms is taken from a legal dictionary.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intention

Thanks. I had no idea that in legal terms an intention may mean e.g.
settled determination or fixed purpose.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then there is the contextual implications which must come into the equation.
From the word 'intention' on (ss 2) the text goes on to describe a
process that ends (ss 3) in a particular outcome.
Nowhere is the reversal or revocation of this outcome mentioned except on
the matter of rejoining (ss 5)

Agreed.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
When we get down to meanings of words, they come to mean something
different to one party as opposed to another. Even QC's can disagree over
the meanings of words. Indeed they earn fat fees doing just that.
They can't both be right.

Agreed - ISTM the revocability of Article 50 is an untested proposition,
legally speaking. I.e. a court hasn't adjudicated on it yet...

Ultimately I think if the EU finds it in its interests to treat Article
50 as revocable (in the event we notified them of such a revocation)
then they'll permit such a revocation - the politics will trump the law
(or at least some legal acrobatics will be performed to allow the policy
goal to be achieved). More likely they'll permit it subject to some
conditions.

Regards,

James
===

Of course they will! Down to money, as always!

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by James Hammerton
Ultimately I think if the EU finds it in its interests to treat Article
50 as revocable (in the event we notified them of such a revocation)
then they'll permit such a revocation - the politics will trump the law
(or at least some legal acrobatics will be performed to allow the policy
goal to be achieved). More likely they'll permit it subject to some
conditions.

Politics 'trumping law'

That's novel!

[MM]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Ultimately I think if the EU finds it in its interests to treat Article
50 as revocable (in the event we notified them of such a revocation)
then they'll permit such a revocation - the politics will trump the law
(or at least some legal acrobatics will be performed to allow the policy
goal to be achieved). More likely they'll permit it subject to some
conditions.

Politics 'trumping law'
That's novel!

When a law is repealed, who does that? Oh, that's right, politicians!

MM

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by MM

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Politics 'trumping law'
That's novel!

When a law is repealed, who does that? Oh, that's right, politicians!

That's not what I meant and you know it.

Politicians do not reverse judicial decisions. Once all judicial process has been exhausted on a particular issue that has been exhausted then that is it. The judgement stands even it sets a legal precedent from which future decisions may be based.

Indeed that is how a body of case law develops on the bones of statute law.

Governments cannot arbitrarily change laws in any way. If any government deems any law inappropriate in any way then, if they want to change it, then the courts insist that they have the inconvenience of going through the Parliamentary process so to do.

Of course politicians do change laws from time to time. However, when they do, it is rare if not quite unknown, for such changes to be retrospective. One can see an obvious reason for that.

Here we have a situation where a sovereign government has followed to the letter a provision to a treaty that was negotiated and signed by a previous government. A provision that sets out in clear terms what that government has to do if it desires to follow a certain action. We have complied.

Now you come along and say that it doesn't matter. It's inconvenient, it is non binding, we've cangd our mind, it's against the national interest etc. etc. it should be set aside. That is no way go on.

The same article of the same treaty sets out the process though which we must go through if we really do change our minds.

It would be a brave government that followed that course of action without resort once more to either referendum or general election. It would be brave because it would be telling me and more than 17m others like me that there was no point in ever entering a polling station again since democracy was dead. We now live under a system of taxation without representation. A system that ultimately can open up certain outcomes and consequences, none of which are pleasant.

[James Hammerton]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by MM

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Politics 'trumping law'
That's novel!

When a law is repealed, who does that? Oh, that's right, politicians!

That's not what I meant and you know it.
Politicians do not reverse judicial decisions. Once all judicial process has been exhausted on a particular issue that has been exhausted then that is it. The judgement stands even it sets a legal precedent from which future decisions may be based.
Indeed that is how a body of case law develops on the bones of statute law.
Governments cannot arbitrarily change laws in any way. If any government deems any law inappropriate in any way then, if they want to change it, then the courts insist that they have the inconvenience of going through the Parliamentary process so to do.
Of course politicians do change laws from time to time. However, when they do, it is rare if not quite unknown, for such changes to be retrospective. One can see an obvious reason for that.
Here we have a situation where a sovereign government has followed to the letter a provision to a treaty that was negotiated and signed by a previous government. A provision that sets out in clear terms what that government has to do if it desires to follow a certain action. We have complied.
Now you come along and say that it doesn't matter. It's inconvenient, it is non binding, we've cangd our mind, it's against the national interest etc. etc. it should be set aside. That is no way go on.
The same article of the same treaty sets out the process though which we must go through if we really do change our minds.
It would be a brave government that followed that course of action without resort once more to either referendum or general election. It would be brave because it would be telling me and more than 17m others like me that there was no point in ever entering a polling station again since democracy was dead. We now live under a system of taxation without representation. A system that ultimately can open up certain outcomes and consequences, none of which are pleasant.

No problem with what you're saying here but perhaps I should clarify
what I meant with my 'politics trumping law' comment, which is this:
were the UK and EU to agree that the UK should remain in the EU after
all of this, due to a change of mind on our part and a desire to keep us
paying into the EU budgets on theirs, I don't see the EU letting the
technicalities of the Article 50 process get in the way of that course
of action.

ISTM they'd have various options open, even if they interpret the
Article 50 notification as technically non-revocable:

* obey the letter of the Article 50 process but extend the deadline
indefinitely (say to the year 9999) via unanimous agreement, whilst
announcing a similarly long suspension of the negotiations. This might
be described as taking the piss though...
* obtain a ruling on the revocability of Article 50 notifications from
the ECJ to the effect they are revocable.
* Draw up a new treaty that reestablishes our membership from 'Brexit
day' onwards.
* Have us leave but fast track the accession process during a transition
period where we've left only in technical terms (there would be a treaty
establishing the terms of the transition).

Of these the 4th are probably the most likely routes as they seem to me
to be the least likely to be challenged in the ECJ.

There is also the possibility of them interpreting the treaty so that it
allows revocation by uanimous consent of the member states prior to
Article 50 deadline.

To be sure, I regard these as remote prospects, but I'd expect if
there's a will then the way will be found. I also expect that any
attempt to go down this route on our part will come at a price from the
EU, e.g. join schengen, join the Euro, return without the rebate, etc.

Regards,

James

[James Harris]

On 10/10/2017 22:14, James Hammerton wrote:

...

Post by James Hammerton
* Have us leave but fast track the accession process during a transition
period where we've left only in technical terms (there would be a treaty
establishing the terms of the transition).

That does seem particularly feasible.

[MM]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:14:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by MM

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Politics 'trumping law'
That's novel!

When a law is repealed, who does that? Oh, that's right, politicians!

That's not what I meant and you know it.
Politicians do not reverse judicial decisions. Once all judicial process has been exhausted on a particular issue that has been exhausted then that is it. The judgement stands even it sets a legal precedent from which future decisions may be based.
Indeed that is how a body of case law develops on the bones of statute law.
Governments cannot arbitrarily change laws in any way. If any government deems any law inappropriate in any way then, if they want to change it, then the courts insist that they have the inconvenience of going through the Parliamentary process so to do.
Of course politicians do change laws from time to time. However, when they do, it is rare if not quite unknown, for such changes to be retrospective. One can see an obvious reason for that.
Here we have a situation where a sovereign government has followed to the letter a provision to a treaty that was negotiated and signed by a previous government. A provision that sets out in clear terms what that government has to do if it desires to follow a certain action. We have complied.
Now you come along and say that it doesn't matter. It's inconvenient, it is non binding, we've cangd our mind, it's against the national interest etc. etc. it should be set aside. That is no way go on.
The same article of the same treaty sets out the process though which we must go through if we really do change our minds.
It would be a brave government that followed that course of action without resort once more to either referendum or general election. It would be brave because it would be telling me and more than 17m others like me that there was no point in ever entering a polling station again since democracy was dead. We now live under a system of taxation without representation. A system that ultimately can open up certain outcomes and consequences, none of which are pleasant.

No problem with what you're saying here but perhaps I should clarify
were the UK and EU to agree that the UK should remain in the EU after
all of this, due to a change of mind on our part and a desire to keep us
paying into the EU budgets on theirs, I don't see the EU letting the
technicalities of the Article 50 process get in the way of that course
of action.
ISTM they'd have various options open, even if they interpret the
* obey the letter of the Article 50 process but extend the deadline
indefinitely (say to the year 9999) via unanimous agreement, whilst
announcing a similarly long suspension of the negotiations. This might
be described as taking the piss though...
* obtain a ruling on the revocability of Article 50 notifications from
the ECJ to the effect they are revocable.
* Draw up a new treaty that reestablishes our membership from 'Brexit
day' onwards.
* Have us leave but fast track the accession process during a transition
period where we've left only in technical terms (there would be a treaty
establishing the terms of the transition).
Of these the 4th are probably the most likely routes as they seem to me
to be the least likely to be challenged in the ECJ.
There is also the possibility of them interpreting the treaty so that it
allows revocation by uanimous consent of the member states prior to
Article 50 deadline.
To be sure, I regard these as remote prospects, but I'd expect if
there's a will then the way will be found. I also expect that any
attempt to go down this route on our part will come at a price from the
EU, e.g. join schengen, join the Euro, return without the rebate, etc.

Hey, that could be the best result of all! We stay in (or fast-tracked
back into) the EU, AND get the euro and Schengen!

What's not to like?

Bring it on, Barnier!

MM

[James Harris]

On 12/10/2017 09:30, MM wrote:

...

Post by MM
Hey, that could be the best result of all! We stay in (or fast-tracked
back into) the EU, AND get the euro and Schengen!

You could have all these things now ... if you were prepared to live in
an EU27 country.

Post by MM
What's not to like?

Indeed! The EU is your oyster! ;-)

[Ophelia]

"James Harris" wrote in message news:ornqq1$bde$***@dont-email.me...

On 12/10/2017 09:30, MM wrote:

...

Post by MM
Hey, that could be the best result of all! We stay in (or fast-tracked
back into) the EU, AND get the euro and Schengen!

You could have all these things now ... if you were prepared to live in
an EU27 country.

Post by MM
What's not to like?

Indeed! The EU is your oyster! ;-)

James Harris

===

Not enough freebies there for him.

[MM]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:27:14 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

Well all I can say James is the him and the Guardian between them have, at a stroke wiped away a huge number of sections on UK law which is littered with the words, intent, intended, intention, etc.

I don't see how the use of intention in the UK law alters the QC's
argument here.
Surely the point the QC makes is that an intention is not a binding
commitment or promise - it's a statement of desire - and a change of
intention might therefore be permitted to halt the Brexit process?
The UK laws you reference refer to intention in the context of deciding
guilt for a crime already committed, here we're talking about changing
one's mind about a course of action that hasn't happened or at least
hasn't completed.
The elephant in the room is that a political commitment was made by the
Tory party to hold and honour the EU referendum and that helped them win
in 2015, and Parliament subsequently approved both the holding of the
referendum with that promise in mind and the subsequent actions to make
good on the promise. The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Indeed but there is also a number of other considerations.
intention
noun aim, ambition, consilium, design, desire, destination, *determination*, direction, earnestness, end in view, end intended, fixed direction, *fixed purpose*, goal, institutum, mark, object, objective, plan, propositum, *purpose*, resolution, resolve, set purpose, *settled determination*, target, *ultimate purpose*
This list of synonyms is taken from a legal dictionary.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intention

Thanks. I had no idea that in legal terms an intention may mean e.g.
settled determination or fixed purpose.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then there is the contextual implications which must come into the equation.
From the word 'intention' on (ss 2) the text goes on to describe a process that ends (ss 3) in a particular outcome.
Nowhere is the reversal or revocation of this outcome mentioned except on the matter of rejoining (ss 5)

Agreed.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
When we get down to meanings of words, they come to mean something different to one party as opposed to another. Even QC's can disagree over the meanings of words. Indeed they earn fat fees doing just that.
They can't both be right.

Agreed - ISTM the revocability of Article 50 is an untested proposition,
legally speaking. I.e. a court hasn't adjudicated on it yet...
Ultimately I think if the EU finds it in its interests to treat Article
50 as revocable (in the event we notified them of such a revocation)
then they'll permit such a revocation - the politics will trump the law
(or at least some legal acrobatics will be performed to allow the policy
goal to be achieved). More likely they'll permit it subject to some
conditions.

Yes, I believe several politicians in the EU have said we would be
welcomed back.

MM

[MM]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.

MM

[James Hammerton]

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

Regards,

James

[MM]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!

MM

[James Hammerton]

Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!
MM

So you're saying that promises made to get elected don't deserve
anything but repudiation should the party making them get elected?

Regards,

James

[MM]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:57:34 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!
MM

So you're saying that promises made to get elected don't deserve
anything but repudiation should the party making them get elected?

But this particular promise was never stated. Nowhere did Cameron et
al say that the Referendum was entirely intended to protect their
arses from UKIP in order to get the Tories re-elected.

MM

[James Hammerton]

Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:57:34 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!
MM

So you're saying that promises made to get elected don't deserve
anything but repudiation should the party making them get elected?

But this particular promise was never stated.

FFS, the promise to honour the result of the referendum was repeatedly
stated, in the manifesto, in statements to Parliament as the referenduym
legislation went through, during the referendum campaign itself and in a
leaflet sent to every household during that campaign.

Post by MM
Nowhere did Cameron et
al say that the Referendum was entirely intended to protect their
arses from UKIP in order to get the Tories re-elected.

Now you're talking about a supposed reason for making the promise.

You sure know how to talk complete rot.

Regards,

James

[MM]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:06:40 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:57:34 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!
MM

So you're saying that promises made to get elected don't deserve
anything but repudiation should the party making them get elected?

But this particular promise was never stated.

FFS, the promise to honour the result of the referendum was repeatedly
stated, in the manifesto, in statements to Parliament as the referenduym
legislation went through, during the referendum campaign itself and in a
leaflet sent to every household during that campaign.

But not in the Act itself. That's where it counts.

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
Nowhere did Cameron et
al say that the Referendum was entirely intended to protect their
arses from UKIP in order to get the Tories re-elected.

Now you're talking about a supposed reason for making the promise.

It's not "supposed" at all. The whole world has known about Tory
euroscepticism for years. Indeed, one German M(E)P, remarking on the
Brexit talks last week, said: "Our job is not to unite the Tory
party."

Post by James Hammerton
You sure know how to talk complete rot.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you think Cameron called the
referendum because he was desperate to let the public choose as a
matter of principle whether to stay or leave, you're absolutely wrong.
Nothing to do with principles. It was all a ploy to keep voters from
deserting the Tories at the general election. And it worked after a
fashion, because the Tories, unexpectedly for them, actually did win.

And in any case, the referendum came right down to the wire. The
opinion polls were too close to call. Nigel Farage didn't think Leave
would win, and Cameron and his pro-Remainers certainly didn't. It was
a ploy that backfired AND saw Cameron out of Downing Street in very
short order. So while he was PM for a brief period, it all ended in
tears, and the Tory party is still as split as ever. Probably even
more so now. Tory party still split, country facing ruin, families
divided. What a result!

Not.

MM

[James Hammerton]

Post by MM
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:06:40 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:57:34 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!
MM

So you're saying that promises made to get elected don't deserve
anything but repudiation should the party making them get elected?

But this particular promise was never stated.

FFS, the promise to honour the result of the referendum was repeatedly
stated, in the manifesto, in statements to Parliament as the referenduym
legislation went through, during the referendum campaign itself and in a
leaflet sent to every household during that campaign.

But not in the Act itself. That's where it counts.

You clearly think the promises made to voters do not matter.

Regards,

James

[Ophelia]

Post by MM
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:06:40 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:57:34 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:23:25 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.
MM

It was a promise made by the Tory party in its manifesto in order to get
elected (in 2015 and then again in 2017, though by the latter election
they were joined by Labour promising to respect the result too), a
promise they are so far looking like keeping.

"in order to get elected" - exactly!
MM

So you're saying that promises made to get elected don't deserve
anything but repudiation should the party making them get elected?

But this particular promise was never stated.

FFS, the promise to honour the result of the referendum was repeatedly
stated, in the manifesto, in statements to Parliament as the referenduym
legislation went through, during the referendum campaign itself and in a
leaflet sent to every household during that campaign.

But not in the Act itself. That's where it counts.

You clearly think the promises made to voters do not matter.

Regards,

James

==

Indeed, but only when it suits him.

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.

When David Cameron made that promise, he was the Prime minister of this country and the referendum bill had been endorsed by Parliament.

He resigned with honour and there was little else he could do rather than remain in office as a dead duck or linger on the back benches becoming increasingly embittered as Heath did.

The continuation of UK membership of the EU was the centre plank of his vision for the UK. It was not to be and so he sought a life outside Westminster. I was never one of his most ardent admirers but for that "Good on him!"

His one mistake, was that he tried to fool the people of the UK into believing that a UK political leader, had real influence in Europe. I don't know but perhaps he believed it. In any case, having failed, intead of coming clean he continued on the same course.

Since then we have had the theatrical farce of negotiations and confirmation, it confirmation were needed, of the influence the UK has and always has had in the EU.

We are nothing but a milk cow and as such w are better off out of it.

During the referendum some big wig from the EU described it as a union of sovereign nations. We now know just what he meant by sovereignty.

It is a fine word to use until you try to exercise it.

[James Harris]

Post by m***@btopenworld.com

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:11:12 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
The promise to be broken here is the one made to
the British people...

Which, since it was made by David Cameron, who scarpered before the
tears had dried, doesn't deserve anything but repudiation.

When David Cameron made that promise, he was the Prime minister of this country and the referendum bill had been endorsed by Parliament.
He resigned with honour and there was little else he could do rather than remain in office as a dead duck or linger on the back benches becoming increasingly embittered as Heath did.
The continuation of UK membership of the EU was the centre plank of his vision for the UK. It was not to be and so he sought a life outside Westminster. I was never one of his most ardent admirers but for that "Good on him!"
His one mistake, was that he tried to fool the people of the UK into believing that a UK political leader, had real influence in Europe. I don't know but perhaps he believed it. In any case, having failed, intead of coming clean he continued on the same course.

In fact, I remember some of Cameron's suggestions being summarily
dismissed by the office of Mrs Merkel.

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Since then we have had the theatrical farce of negotiations and confirmation, it confirmation were needed, of the influence the UK has and always has had in the EU.
We are nothing but a milk cow and as such w are better off out of it.

Agreed in spades!

Post by m***@btopenworld.com
During the referendum some big wig from the EU described it as a union of sovereign nations. We now know just what he meant by sovereignty.
It is a fine word to use until you try to exercise it.

Similarly, Merkel has apparently said she wants others to share the lead
but then when they want something different to her they get put down.

[James Harris]

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

I don't see that interpretation of the term changes anything. Article
50(3) says that under certain circumstances(*) the treaties cease to
apply to the State in question two years after the "notification". That
notification could be called one of intent or of desire or of Swiss
cheese but the two-year period begins from that notification.

The UK served such notification to Council President Tusk on 29 March
2017. That all seems in order. Hence, the clock really is ticking.

(*) I've long said that the circumstances specified in clause 3 are
ambiguous. But their ambiguity is unaffected by the meaning of "intention".

So I'm not sure I see the lawyer's point.

[MM]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:09:17 +0100, James Hammerton

Post by James Hammerton
Whilst explaining her FOI request for the legal advice the government
has received about Article 50, Jessica Simor QC of Matrix chambers
writes
"The reason given for this is said to be the government’s “firm policy”
that “there must be no attempts to [reverse the referendum and] remain
inside the European Union”; the government does not deny that reversal
is legally possible. Its position accords with advice, which I am told
from two good sources the prime minister has received, namely that the
article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29
March 2019, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current
favourable terms. Such advice would also accord with the view of Lord
Kerr, who was involved in drafting article 50, of Jean-Claude Piris,
former director general of the Council of the EU’s legal service and of
Martin Selmayr, a lawyer and head of cabinet to the president of the
European commission.
As a lawyer, I agree with them. Article 50 provides for the notification
– not of withdrawal but of an “intention” to withdraw. In law, an
“intention” is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.
Article 50(5) is, moreover, clear that it is only after a member state
has left that it has to reapply to join. Had the drafters intended that
once a notification had taken place, a member state would have to
request readmission (or seek the consent of the other member states to
stay), then article 50(5) would have referred not just to the position
following withdrawal, but also following notification. Such an
interpretation is in line with the object and purpose of article 50."
Comments? (I assume MM agrees with this argument as it suits his views
on Brexit).

I absolutely, totally and indubitably agree with this argument, which
is hardly an argument, since it is fact. I was talking in these
newsgroups about the legal possibility of revoking Article 50 yonks
ago. I'd use Google Groups, but I need to have some lunch!

MM

[m***@btopenworld.com]

Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:09:17 +0100, James Hammerton
I absolutely, totally and indubitably agree with this argument, which
is hardly an argument, since it is fact. I was talking in these
newsgroups about the legal possibility of revoking Article 50 yonks
ago. I'd use Google Groups, but I need to have some lunch!

Oh! That's all right then Mr Justice Smartie!