Hacker News Reader

Comment by blibble | Hacker News Reader

not really sure why this is that interesting, the UK will still drop out of the EU in March 2019 even if Parliament rejects the deal

so it's not a case of "Parliament rejects, UK stays in"

View on HN

It's interesting because it will allow debate, something that has been in very short supply during this whole process.

The British people deserve to know what is going to happen to them in 2019, even if it's irreversible. The current government has made it quite clear they don't agree with that, so they'll have to be forced into it.

> It's interesting because it will allow debate, something that has been in very short supply during this whole process.

Are you referring to Parliamentary debate about whether some deal can be cut with the EU? I recall a lot of public debate before the vote itself, and a lot since, if that's what you're referring to.

The debates before the referendum were imprecise and overloaded (politically) with other items (i.e. whether David Cameron can convince the people and lead the party) a debate on a Brexit law is on a precise working law.

Well, sure, the b.s. was flying on both sides during the referendum, and of course it was political. That sort of debate is the very definition of politics. I don't see how the current debate is going to be any different in that regard. It's really just an extension of the referendum debate.

It’s news because this is part of May’s attempt to convince people that Brexit is set in stone, and irreversible.

Edit: http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-re...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date...

More nuance: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en

This news doesn't mean it's reversible. If the parliament rejects the deal PM negotiates, UK will still leave the EU - just without said deal.

That isn’t what I said... rather that this is already a reversible process, and this is meant to make it look as though it is not, or make it irreversible.

But it's not reversible. Triggering article 50 means leaving in 2 years or less, it has no provisions to pause or revert the process. The only way to rejoin is with the agreement of all other member states, on new and very likely less favorable terms.

http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-re...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date...

More nuance: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en

In short, the author of Article 50 disagrees.

Except that the author didn't actually write that it's reversible in any way. That may have been the intent, but that's not what the actual text says, and that's not what all of the Treaty of Lisbon's signers agreed to.

Indeed, the text is so clear, it's hard to argue that there is any actual room for disagreement:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

The treaty will cease to apply upon a withdrawal agreement, or after 2 years, or after unanimous agreement to extend the period.

The only action that ends up with anything reasonably resembling a "reversible" Article 50 is for the UK to somehow convince all of the EU member states to unanimously agree to an unending extension. Meaning that the UK would be in a permanent state of leaving the EU.

I guess that, if the member state really wanted to reverse the process, the latter case could be turned into a sort of "state of leaving the EU until re-accession". So it could be agreed that technically, the Treaties would cease to apply at some well-defined point in time, but at the same moment they would start applying again.

A fun question would be whether a re-acceding country would lose its current privileges and its opt-outs of the Euro and Schengen.

Shame that said author and all the MEP's since the article was made into law have overlooked displaced nationals and not one of them have thought to address that oversight in article 50 and avoid chaos. That for me highlights how fickle many MEP's are when it comes to politics as they would rather retort to rabble rabble over fixing a long-standing and glaring issue.

Shame on them I say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com