EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

You are reading a single comment by @boristrump and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

branwen

Ah, the Supreme court ruling has assumed that it is not reversible:

In these proceedings, it is common ground that notice under article 50(2) (which we shall call “Notice”) cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn. Especially as it is the Secretary of State’s case that, even if this common ground is mistaken, it would make no difference to the outcome of these proceedings, we are content to proceed on the basis that that is correct, without expressing any view of our own on either point. It follows from this that once the United Kingdom gives Notice, it will inevitably cease at a later date to be a member of the European Union and a party to the EU Treaties.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

•

boristrump in reply to @branwen

Well, the Miller case was effectively based on the assumption that Article 50 could not be revoked, and so the judges followed along with that assumption. But, as they suggest it's not particularly important, as the Supreme Court was only being asked to make a judgment on the technicalities of whether or not the Executive could use its Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50.

•

branwen in reply to @boristrump

Ha. Okay. So basically what andyp said then

About

Avatar for boristrump @boristrump started