(December 10, 2018 at 6:42 am)pgrimes15 Wrote:(October 21, 2018 at 11:43 am)Wololo Wrote: And your conclusion would be wrong. Because in any negotiating process, there are two sides which have to agree on the final product. And any revocation of Article 50 will either a) be unilateral by the UK but not recognised by the EU (therefore no-deal Brexit) or b) by giving significant concessions to get the EU to agree which will mean, at least, entering Schengen and the Euro, acceptance of tighter bank controls and a Robin Hood International Transactions Tax and the revocation of the rebates and the other opt outs only the UK gets (and likely to include the cessation of Gibraltar, the bringing back in of the tax haven colonies under direct rule {or their full independence outside the EU, where they'll starve}). The simple fact of the matter is that the UK will not be allowed to stay in the EU on anything better than they'd be given if they reapplied to join twenty years after brexit. The UK under current conditions is too destructive of the EUs unity and goals.
Essentially, the EU cannot afford to give the UK a good deal to either leave or remain in the EU (aside from leaving under the Norway model) because that would be the quickest way to ensure that other countries would also buck for the exit, countries more central to the EU project than the UK ever was.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s...s-46481643
"The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.
The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership."
Looks like I was right.
You were, I was wrong on that. I didn't think the ECJ would give such a stupid judgement. Well it'll probably make any future A50 process much harder, as the EU will have no incentive to negotiate until they're certain the leaving country's not bluffing.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home