Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 author

[webfact]

Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 author

By Guy Faulconbridge

 

A tourist bus passes an anti Brexit protester in London, Britain October 19, 2017. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/Files

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May should stop misleading voters and admit that Brexit can be avoided if Britain decides to unilaterally scrap divorce talks, the man who drafted Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will say on Friday.

 

May formally notified the European Union of Britain’s intention to leave the EU by triggering Article 50 of the treaty on March 29, setting the clock ticking on a two-year exit process, which has so far failed to yield a divorce deal.

 

"While the divorce talks proceed, the parties are still married. Reconciliation is still possible," John Kerr, British ambassador to the EU from 1990 to 1995, will say in a speech in London.

 

"We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds," Kerr will say, according to excerpts released by his office. "The British people have the right to know this – they should not be misled."

 

The day May triggered Article 50, she told the British parliament that there was "no turning back" and that the United Kingdom would be leaving the EU.

 

"A political decision has been made, in this country, to maintain that there can be no going back. Actually, the country still has a free choice about whether to proceed," Kerr said.

 

In the shock referendum in June 2016, 17.4 million voters, or 51.9 percent of votes cast, backed leaving the EU while 16.1 million voters, or 48.1 percent of votes cast, backed staying.

 

May, an initial opponent of Brexit who won the top job in the political turmoil that followed the vote, said last month that Britain would not revoke Article 50. Government lawyers asked judges last year to assume that it was irrevocable.

 

But ever since the referendum, opponents of Britain's exit - from French President Emmanuel Macron and former British prime minister Tony Blair to billionaire investor George Soros - have suggested Britain could change its mind.

 

European Council President Donald Tusk even invoked the lyrics of John Lennon to imagine a Brexit rescinded.

 

Thus far, there is no sign of a change of heart on Brexit in opinion polls. Both May's Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party now explicitly support leaving the EU, which Britain joined in 1973.

 

BREXIT NEVER?

 

Supporters of Brexit have repeatedly said that any attempt to have another referendum, or to undermine Brexit, would catapult the world's fifth largest economy into crisis.

 

"A second referendum would lead the United Kingdom into totally uncharted territory with very serious potential consequences for our democracy," said Richard Tice, who helped found one of the two Leave campaign groups in the referendum.

 

But the Brexit process has been challenged in a number of cases in British courts, many focusing on the as-yet unanswered question: Can Article 50 be reversed?

 

The 256-word clause does not say whether it can be revoked once it is invoked. This means that, if lawyers ask for clarification, the question would have to go to the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court.

 

Kerr, who in 2002-2003 acted as secretary-general of the European Constitutional Convention that drafted Article 50, said the debate had been misrepresented inside Britain: it was clear, he said, that May's Article 50 letter could be revoked.

 

Such is the interest in the legalities of Brexit that one prominent lawyer, Jessica Simor, has formally asked for May's unpublished legal advice on the matter.

 

"Britain can basically change its mind at any time right up to the 29th of March 2019," Simor told Reuters last month.

 

"If you can revoke Article 50, then parliament has the power to rescue the country if that becomes necessary – if the government fails to secure a deal, or the deal is terrible, or the people do not want it."

 

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-10

[AGareth2]

sounding like Brexit was a con

[allane]

So, the Brexiteers have three choices:

1.Admit that their campaign was grossly misleading: Britain can't have its cake and eat it too. Accept whatever terms the EU offers, because time is on the EU's side, and that becomes more obvious every day.

2.Admit that the whole idea of Brexit was a big mistake, and that they knew, or should have known that Britain would now be where it finds itself, and support a second referendum.

3.  Brexit means Brexit, and if that means crashing out of the EU with nothing, that is what they had always wanted in any case.

They are going to appear naive, duplicitous or stupid whichever one of these choices they support, but of the three, I think the third leaves them with the least egg on their faces.

Edited November 10, 2017 by allane
x

[adammike]

Is this the room for arguments? 

[mfd101]

An obvious question is: Why would the EU want Britain back anyway?

 

Of course there is some loss to the EU with Britain's departure - strategically as against the other great powers, and economically (though nothing compared to the economic damage Britain is already doing to itself) - but there is also considerable gain longterm in losing a fractious member that whines the whole time, always demands special deals on everything and generally makes arriving at agreements for action much more difficult than it should be.

Edited November 10, 2017 by mfd101

[the guest]

45 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

An obvious question is: Why would the EU want Britain back anyway?

 

Of course there is some loss to the EU with Britain's departure - strategically as against the other great powers, and economically (though nothing compared to the economic damage Britain is already doing to itself) - but there is also considerable gain longterm in losing a fractious member that whines the whole time, always demands special deals on everything and generally makes arriving at agreements for action much more difficult than it should be.

For the money is the answer.

[Grouse]

44 minutes ago, the guest said:

For the money is the answer.

It's a moot point

 

on the one hand, the bigger the single market the better; economies of scale and all that

 

On the other hand the UK has been a pain in the arse for many years. Half the population just don't get it (both metaphorically and literally) and probably would prefer to live in the USA.

 

With an incompetent government we should have a new general election

Edited November 10, 2017 by Grouse

[trigpoint]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

An obvious question is: Why would the EU want Britain back anyway?

 

Of course there is some loss to the EU with Britain's departure - strategically as against the other great powers, and economically (though nothing compared to the economic damage Britain is already doing to itself) - but there is also considerable gain longterm in losing a fractious member that whines the whole time, always demands special deals on everything and generally makes arriving at agreements for action much more difficult than it should be.

Because the UK pays the biggest contribution to the EU, and obviously leaves a big hole in the EU coffers, it's has the biggest armed forces in NATO as well, and especially Germany will suffer their exports are subject to tariffs to the UK, that's just for starters,not to mention the fishing rights the EU will lose. Etc etc.

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, trigpoint said:

Because the UK pays the biggest contribution to the EU, and obviously leaves a big hole in the EU coffers, it's has the biggest armed forces in NATO as well, and especially Germany will suffer their exports are subject to tariffs to the UK, that's just for starters,not to mention the fishing rights the EU will lose. Etc etc.

And still the codswallop continues

 

You think we pay in more than Germany? More per head than the Netherlands?

 

Will I not buy another Porsche because of 10% import duty? Will I buy British bubbly rather than Veuve Cliquot?

 

Grimsby is backtracking on Brexit because of their market

 

As for our 76,000 soldiers, with more cuts coming, do you really want Germany spending 2% of its GDP re-arming?

 

think please

 

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Grouse

[allane]

Re: Post #8: At the risk of stating the obvious, NATO and the EU are two different organizations. Or are those stupid Brits going to have a referendum to leave NATO too ?

[trigpoint]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And still the codswallop continues

 

Will I not buy another Porsche because of 10% import duty? Will I buy British bubbly rather than Veuve Cliquot?

 

Grimsby is backtracking on Brexit because of their market

 

As for our 76,000 soldiers, with more cuts coming, do you really want Germany spending 2% of its GDP rearming?

 

think please

 

 

It's gonna happen anyway, and Junker isn't happy about that, who will fill the gap of 273 million a week the UK pays???

[mfd101]

The figures for 'total contributions by nation' to the EU budget in 2014 are, for the 4 biggest economies:

• Germany 29.143b€
• France    20.967b€
• Italy         15.888b€
• UK            14.072b€

 

[Chelseafan]

2 hours ago, mfd101 said:

An obvious question is: Why would the EU want Britain back anyway?

 

Of course there is some loss to the EU with Britain's departure - strategically as against the other great powers, and economically (though nothing compared to the economic damage Britain is already doing to itself) - but there is also considerable gain longterm in losing a fractious member that whines the whole time, always demands special deals on everything and generally makes arriving at agreements for action much more difficult than it should be.

Here is some of the potential loss

 

£8b per annum (net) will have to be made up by other countries.

Potentially £550m per annum of trade could be affected.

Job losses not only in the UK but also in the EU.

Intelligence gathering would be affected.

Despite the UK's ever-decreasing military force we still contribute a larger proportion than most EU countries.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I am a remainer. I believe we need the EU but they also need us.

You believe we are a bunch of whiners. Not true. You are only hearing what the press and politicians tell you. Our biggest problem (like many EU countries) is immigration and I believe the Brexit vote was a two-finger salute to the Establishment for not actively doing anything over the past 20 or so years. It was our only way of making ourselves heard.

 

We are not a right-wing country like some people may say , in fact we are one of the most tolerant countries in the west .

There are losses and potential (long-term) gains for both parties.

 

Like I say, I think it's a mistake but the "people" have voted

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Chelseafan

[Chelseafan]

31 minutes ago, allane said:

Re: Post #8: At the risk of stating the obvious, NATO and the EU are two different organizations. Or are those stupid Brits going to have a referendum to leave NATO too ?

Why are we stupid? With people like you I'm beginning to think it was the right thing to do !!

 

[Grouse]

58 minutes ago, trigpoint said:

It's gonna happen anyway, and Junker isn't happy about that, who will fill the gap of 273 million a week the UK pays???

De minimis

 

peanuts in simple words 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Grouse

[JHolmesJr]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"While the divorce talks proceed, the parties are still married. Reconciliation is still possible," John Kerr, British ambassador to the EU from 1990 to 1995, will say in a speech in London.

 

Makes my blood boil when stooges try to subvert the will of the people.....Booooo!

[Grouse]

27 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

Why are we stupid? With people like you I'm beginning to think it was the right thing to do !!

 

Because you don't REALLY think things through. Does it not give you pause that ALL the bright people are anti Brexit? But we have a majority of low level munchkins who are going to get shafted yet won't see it coming!

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Makes my blood boil when stooges try to subvert the will of the people.....Booooo!

Why is anyone subverting the will of the people?

 

We just intend to ignore you ?

[Chelseafan]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Because you don't REALLY think things through. Does it not give you pause that ALL the bright people are anti Brexit? But we have a majority of low level munchkins who are going to get shafted yet won't see it coming!

I HAVE thought things through or are you talking about the group collective "you". I don't disagree with you, I consider myself fairly bright. I work as a buyer and can see the issues that are going to arise in particular with trade but we can't call people stupid for their views. There have been plenty of bright people who say we will be better off. Personally I don't see it myself. We can't walk away without pain.

 

 

[Thongkorn]

So what he is saying is that a democratic vote can be overturned if you dont like the outcome, 

[Chelseafan]

As indeed happened when the ROI rejected the Lisbon treaty only for Brussels to ask them to vote again.... in the middle of a recession I might add...

 

 

 

 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Chelseafan said:

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

Because you don't REALLY think things through. Does it not give you pause that ALL the bright people are anti Brexit? But we have a majority of low level munchkins who are going to get shafted yet won't see it coming!

I HAVE thought things through or are you talking about the group collective "you". I don't disagree with you, I consider myself fairly bright. I work as a buyer and can see the issues that are going to arise in particular with trade but we can't call people stupid for their views. There have been plenty of bright people who say we will be better off. Personally I don't see it myself. We can't walk away without pain.

 

If you don't fall for remain propaganda, you will understand why so many 'middle wealth' people (including politicians) are anti-brexit. They are the people who have seen their incomes and wealth increase exponentially in recent decades, whilst everybody below them has seen theirs fall, due in main to freedom of movement. I'm old enough to remember how small the wealth gap was thirty years ago: people earned a fair bit more than others and lived in nicer houses because they usually earned the right to do so, not because they were exploiting those below them. The top tier of wealthy will remain so regardless of brexit, but remaining makes it easier for them to consolidate their wealth because they're in a club which requires little effort or imagination by them.

 

Once we are fully back out into the world market, we will steadily move back to being a merit-based economy, with people being rewarded proportionately for hard work and talent, not being undermined and demoralised by a cheap imported workforce, and nobody getting rich quick from exploiting such situations. You have correctly identified that it won't happen overnight. But the alternative is the insidious, creeping destruction of the country's fabric due to the wealth gap, as we have seen over the last twenty years. Which is exactly what the EU and globalists in general want.

[adammike]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

If you don't fall for remain propaganda, you will understand why so many 'middle wealth' people (including politicians) are anti-brexit. They are the people who have seen their incomes and wealth increase exponentially in recent decades, whilst everybody below them has seen theirs fall, due in main to freedom of movement. I'm old enough to remember how small the wealth gap was thirty years ago: people earned a fair bit more than others and lived in nicer houses because they usually earned the right to do so, not because they were exploiting those below them. The top tier of wealthy will remain so regardless of brexit, but remaining makes it easier for them to consolidate their wealth because they're in a club which requires little effort or imagination by them.

 

Once we are fully back out into the world market, we will steadily move back to being a merit-based economy, with people being rewarded proportionately for hard work and talent, not being undermined and demoralised by a cheap imported workforce, and nobody getting rich quick from exploiting such situations. You have correctly identified that it won't happen overnight. But the alternative is the insidious, creeping destruction of the country's fabric due to the wealth gap, as we have seen over the last twenty years. Which is exactly what the EU and globalists in general want.

You will be claiming trickle down worked next.

[nausea]

People seem to forget, or rather ignore the fact, that the referendum was only advisory or consultative in the first place:

 

"Briefing paper 07212 sent to MPs on 3 June 2015 before the debate in the House on the 2015 Referendum Bill made it perfectly clear that the referendum was “advisory” and “consultative” only and that neither the government nor parliament was bound by it (section 5). Which bit of this are MPs now acting as if they either did not read or understand."

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory

 

So there's nothing "set in stone" about the "will of the people" as expressed in June 2016. What If that "will" clearly changes? Are MPs supposed to go against the "will of the people" because of an historical non-binding plebiscite. Mr. Kerr is just pointing out that all options are still open.

 

What makes "my blood boil" is that the majority of MPs are going against their own consciences in proceeding with Brexit and against what, in their own

hearts, they believe to be the good of the country. Out of pure self-interest they are subverting our country's political system, which is based on a representative democracy and not town hall plebiscites for good reasons. They should resign on mass, re-run on a Remain ticket, and be replaced by MPs who truly believe in Brexit. Shouldn't be a problem, I would've thought, what, with the "will of the people" being so clearly in Brexit's favour.

 

 

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

So what he is saying is that a democratic vote can be overturned if you dont like the outcome, 

Yes, of parliament so decides

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

If you don't fall for remain propaganda, you will understand why so many 'middle wealth' people (including politicians) are anti-brexit. They are the people who have seen their incomes and wealth increase exponentially in recent decades, whilst everybody below them has seen theirs fall, due in main to freedom of movement. I'm old enough to remember how small the wealth gap was thirty years ago: people earned a fair bit more than others and lived in nicer houses because they usually earned the right to do so, not because they were exploiting those below them. The top tier of wealthy will remain so regardless of brexit, but remaining makes it easier for them to consolidate their wealth because they're in a club which requires little effort or imagination by them.

 

Once we are fully back out into the world market, we will steadily move back to being a merit-based economy, with people being rewarded proportionately for hard work and talent, not being undermined and demoralised by a cheap imported workforce, and nobody getting rich quick from exploiting such situations. You have correctly identified that it won't happen overnight. But the alternative is the insidious, creeping destruction of the country's fabric due to the wealth gap, as we have seen over the last twenty years. Which is exactly what the EU and globalists in general want.

Well, well! We agree for once.

 

Inequality is the main problem 

 

I don't agree that this will be solved by Brexit though, it will be exacerbated once the Con Party are given free rein.

[terryw]

Another member of the Elite telling the little people they are wrong.

[Kenegg]

13 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The figures for 'total contributions by nation' to the EU budget in 2014 are, for the 4 biggest economies:

• Germany 29.143b€
• France    20.967b€
• Italy         15.888b€
• UK            14.072b€

 

How do you know this when they don't keep accounts?

[phantomfiddler]

Very sad that an evil nation that tried to conquer the world (and lost) is now calling the shots, and the countries that Britain saved are helping them to do it. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished

[nabbie]

14 hours ago, the guest said:

For the money is the answer.

For EU, yes.  For UK, immigrant is the answer.