Source: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/article-50-opinion-unwarranted-interference-in-parliament/5068557.article
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:39:14+00:00

Document:
Today's legal opinion that the UK has the unilateral right to withdraw its notice of withdrawal from the EU is 'unwarranted interference with parliamentary proceedings', according to an expert in parliamentary privilege. Giving an opinion in Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, a case referred by the Court of Session in Scotland, European Court of Justice advocate general Campos Sánchez-Bordona rejects the UK government's claim that the case is inadmissible as it is purely hypothetical.
Opinions by the advocate general are not binding on the court but are a very strong indication of which way the decision, expected in the next few days, will fall.
The advocate general proposes that the Court of Justice should, in its judgment, declare that Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice.
Thanks, Anon 11:40. It isn’t so much that they can’t read between the lines of life as that they can’t read between the lines of cliché. It’s bad enough to delude oneself that a catchphrase like “no one voted to be poorer” means anything. But to parrot the phrase as complacently as if it clinched an argument is (at least in a member of the Learned Profession) really inexcusable.
As for Mr Ball: well, I was trying to think of a broad range of instances from all levels. I didn’t suppose that everybody would find them all equally persuasive. Have you never given up a well-paid job for a worse-paid one offering greater job satisfaction? And wasn’t that a “vote to be poorer”? My point is simply that the Remainer assumption that the electorate at the referendum were chiefly influenced by economic self-interest cuts both ways: if EU-loyalists think that Leave supporters wouldn’t make a material sacrifice to leave the Union, it must follow that Loyalists, for all their fervour and flag-waving, wouldn’t make one in order to stay in it. Which is a sad reflection on the depth of their loyalty.
In Mr Ball's and Mr Lewis’s persistent failure to address the argument I recognize an all-too-familiar Loyalist trait, best characterized by Matthew Arnold’s term “stiff-necked Philistinism”: that is, a rigid imperviousness to reasoned argument, a self-righteous retreat into unproved assumption or loud declamation; and an incapacity for entering into any point of view other than one’s own.
Mr Maloney, I would be happy to agree with you if it had been made clear during the campaign that there was a substantial economic downside (or at least the risk of one). But no, it was anything but - we would hold all the cards, there would be no downside, it would be the easiest deal in history, a better-funded NHS, no German chancellor would allow tariffs on BMW cars and so on and so forth. People were sold a dream based on the promise of a more prosperous future. If that does not materialise, the next generation will overturn the vote.
There is no valid comparison to be made with wars or independence struggles or even the election of Labour governments. No government has been elected on a ticket of decline and no referendum has been won knowing that the country would be poorer as a result. Quite the contrary as the AV vote and Scottish referendum showed.
Climbing on glass, a smooth and slippery surface with nowhere to hold on to.
Martin Maloney - a truly brilliant statement for people who are unable to read between the lines in life. Hats off sir.
"Very few leave supporters voted to be poorer".
Yes, Mr Ball, this phrase has become a new mantra for EU loyalists. In its more demotic form ("No one voted to be poorer") it was the front page headline of last week's New European. As Dr Johnson once pointed out, "poor" and "poorer" are words with a multitude of meanings, depending on the speaker. Yet I'm sure you'll agree that in this world people do very often vote to be "poorer". When one gets married and has children it is, as often as not, a vote to be poorer. When a middle-class liberal votes Labour at a general election he is, for all he knows, voting to be poorer. When a nation undertakes the burdens and sacrifices of a just war it is voting to be poorer - and maybe something worse. When in the 1950s and 60s some of the former member states of the British Empire opted for independence they willingly accepted the possibility of being poorer. So what does this slogan amount to? In one sense it's a truism: of course we Brexiteers didn't "vote to be poorer" because that wasn't the question we were asked. But I don't know anyone who didn't vote in the full knowledge that the economy (i.e. the country's and his/her own personal one) might well take a turn for the worse in the event of a Leave victory. Fortunately that didn't happen. And certainly such considerations wouldn't affect my vote in any future referendum on the same question. Are you suggesting that Remainers would switch sides if they could be assured they'd suffer no personal material detriment by leaving the EU?
Mr Maloney, by no stretch of the imagination can a very closely fought referendum, involving substantial impropriety as stated by the High Court (Good Law Project v Electoral Commission) and the subject of another pending case, can be a valid mandate for the withdrawal from the EU on terms (or no terms) that will leave us considerably worse off. Brexiteers would do well to understand that very few leave supporters voted to be poorer.
Mr Lewis simply re-enacts my criticism of his position and the extreme Loyalist position generally. He begs questions ("one answer … was known"); asserts without evidence ("the other … meant completely different things to different voters"); and displays a striking imperviousness to logic ("a referendum question of such constitutional importance isn't about determining tactics" - which is precisely what we Leavers argue, and what Remainers, in their clamour for a "People's Vote" on the various, impossibly complex economic scenarios, deny). But at least he doesn't resort to abuse and wilful misrepresentation, which is commendable.
Re Martin Maloney at 1831.
I admitted I haven’t heard of AJP Taylor. So what? I doubt many others of the referendum electorate have heard of him either. You obviously have a soft spot for him. But a referendum question of such constitutional importance isn’t about “determining tactics”. Tactics is about how the government implements the result, not the result itself. What does this AJP chap have to say about a referendum that sets out to frame a question bilaterally when one answer (remain) was known and simply implemented whereas the other (leave) meant completely different things to different voters and one interpretation will not even satisfy the majority let alone the miinority? Do educate me further.
The ECJ can declare what it likes but A50(3) as quoted below (thank you) applies. The UK’s obligations under the EU Treaties cease in a few short months, together with the jurisdiction and authority of the ECJ. This is legislated for. The Goose is Cooked. The Awful Deal is just a pantomime. So is Grieve’s ‘no Brexit’ amendment. So are 2nd Ref catcalls and A50 extension pretensions.
General Election? Bring it on! Corbyn looks incredibly good next to this ‘national humiliation’, ‘worst of all worlds’, ‘worst deal in history’ sell-out of the referendum vote. This is not about economics, it’s about politics, as Sir Mervyn King reminded us. The reasons to vote for this deal and the reasons not to proceed with no deal (WTO rules) don’t actually exist.
Parliament will only embarrass and further delegitimise itself if it passes this deal (amended or not). May has already lost control just presenting it. (Why did she?!) Labour will want a crack at her even if the Tories don’t. The factional intrigue and mayhem (you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!) should get us over the line.
Meanwhile, anyone exposed (a small percentage of UK businesses) has long been prepared and even now will be finalising preparations for WTO rules. That may not include May, Hammond, Carney and other travelling folk, but they aren’t expecting to be in office beyond the next two weeks time.
The new PM will have much to do, but not in Brussels or Strasbourg.
What, Francesco Zanna, is glass climbing?
Just to complete that quote of AJP Taylor's (whom Jonathan Lewis "has never heard of"): "The people judge rightly on great issues. They cannot be expected to determine tactics". That seems to answer Richard Fearnley's complaint that the people weren't asked in the referendum what kind of exit they wanted. How could they be? And if they had been, how could they possibly have given any intelligible answer? They were asked whether they wanted this country to continue as members of the European Union. No one at that time, on either side of the debate, ever suggested that the question wasn't clear, and the electorate gave a clear reply. Mr Lewis deploys the usual EU-loyalist trick of pretending to assume that the "whopping 48 per cent" represented a solid bloc of informed and dedicated loyalist opinion, whereas the piffling 52 per cent were confused, ignorant and divided amongst themselves. The reverse is the truth. And if anyone asks for the evidence for that statement, let us ask him first of all to prove a single one of the loyalists' own wild and irresponsible assertions.
I read it and found that the mention of article 68 of the Vienna Convention is objectionable.
Art. 67 of the same convention says that any act of withdrawing from a treaty shall be carried out through an instrument communicated to the other parties, signed by a head of state/government.
Such instrument in case of the Lisbon Treaty is the notification under art. 50.2, which arguably takes effect when the negotiations start, not when the withdrawal agreement becomes effective or after the 2 years' period.
The other arguments used by the AG also amount, in my personal opinion, to glass climbing of doubtful quality.
I wonder how many of the contributors to this discussion have read the AG's opinion. He sets out fully how his conclusion has been reached. What he says is that the Member State continues to have control of its action as long as the agreement for withdrawal has not been formally concluded. What can the most rab sorry enthusiastic Brexiteer complain about in that?
"Obviously, the fact of leaving itself was settled by the People's Vote of 2016 (in which the people voted to Leave, knowing that WTO Rules were the fallback position)."
There is no bouncing. The exiting Member States freely and unilaterally decides the withdrawal; it is not forced by anyone. Indeed it forces others to do something, that is, engage in withdrawal negotiations.
The exiting state is out at moment when the withdrawal is accepted. The time of exit is deferred at the end of the 2 years but legally the exit is perfected at that time.
This is why art. 50 says that the Member State can reapply (and enter into a new international agreement) and does not say that the withdrawal notice can be revoked unilaterally as the exiting member pleases.
There is nothing overly legalistic.
Does ECJ know about Nemo iudex in causa sua, is it not one way or the other's its own cause (we all know it has ignored this rule at least once or twice before). Contrast that in english law once notice is given (and if valid) it is generally not revocable.
The action before the Court of Justice of the EU does engage legal as well as political issues, but the motive behind seeking the decision does seem to be political in nature. The reality is that, whatever the decision turns out to be, if (a big if at this stage) the UK Government were to seek to withdraw its Article 50 notice, the initiative for this, and the outcome would be driven by politics rather than by legal issues.
By their public utterances, the majority of our politicians have signed up to giving general effect to the outcome of the 2016 referendum (though they have made a complete mess of the process, no doubt because the majority decision gave no guidance on how the details were to be sorted out, allowing the competing views that were always there to flourish). Our politicians cannot now, in political terms, claim to work for the opposite result without a democratic mandate for this in the form of either a general election (in which the primary issue was - again - whether the UK should leave on the basis of the deal now for consideration before Parliament) or a second referendum in which the majority of the public reversed the outcome of the previous referendum (leaving on a no-deal/WTO basis seems not to be a practicable option as most leaver and remainer politicians appear to want to avoid a no-deal exit).
If our politicians were to get such a mandate (by no means a foregone conclusion, whatever the polls may currently say) then this would be UK democracy in action again and a perfectly proper basis for changing tack. And as far as the EU27 are concerned, it seems clear from the public utterances of their leading politicians, that the UK would be allowed to withdraw its article 50 notice in practice, as a political matter rather than a strictly legal one. From their point of view it would resolve an awful lot of headache-inducing issues without their being seen to compromise on any of the four freedoms on which they have made their stand, politically. However, one wonders whether they would not at the same time seek assurances (again, political rather than legal) that the UK would not put them through the article 50 wringer again, at least for a decade or two.
But this is all just speculation at present. We are currently on a political roller-coaster which we cannot get off, with the speed building up and no assurance that the supports for the track will hold round the next bend.
I very much doubt it. Not only does it fly in the face of the Vienna Convention and other precedents set by international law (e.g. Panama and Parlacen) but it would be against the spirit of the treaties to bounce out a Member State contrary to its will on the sole basis of an overly-legalistic interpretation of article 50.
If the AG is not followed, what might happen could be along the lines of what the president of the ECJ mentioned during the hearing, i.e. a "reverse qualified majority" whereby the withdrawal of the notification would be effective unless a majority of Member States vote not to accept it.
I think the opinion of the AG is obviously flawed and will not be followed by the ECJ.
The art. 50 letter once acknowledged and acted upon by the EU becomes in itself an international agreement to withdraw. Unilateral revocation, if admissible at all, should at the very least be subject to compensation of the wasted expenses for the useless negotiations.
The alternative would be that every Eurosceptic political party in EU countries could build a manifesto on the promise of withdrawal from the EU and voters would be able to support such platform, safe in the knowledge that they can always change their mind and that the other member states will have to pay for the waste of time.
Taking you up on a few of your opinions.
It next to meaningless to say “we spent 45 years striving to reform from within”. Because the EU wasn’t a stagnant concept throughout the time but in fact underwent huge change and continues to develop with many countries each with their own agenda and the process will continue to change without any influence from us now but you can be darn sure we will continue to be affected by the EU one way or another.
And where on earth can your mandate by found of an “unbridgeable gulf between what you proclaim to be a “British Notion” and (your telling Brexiteer use of) a Brussellian vision. Because how can anything be any such notion exist let alone be British when it wasn’t shared by a whopping 48% of the electorate two years ago and arguably isn’t shared by a majority now (the fact of which we are being stifled from ever knowing by whoever is left of the Brexiteer populace - funny thing that because I thought they were champions of democracy. Or at least they were since June 2016 until their dream started splintering with three randomly selected Brexiteers no longer able to come to a consensus on what they actually want).
I confess to not knowing who AJP Taylor I’d but his quote you refer to - “the people judge rightly on great issues” really needs an update by addendum to include “provided they are properly informed and not lied to with silly bus slogans and Turkish immigration lies” (ok the last bit with specific examples is a bit mischievous of me).
Finally, I don’t hear much by way of apology for Gina Miller from the rough edges of the Brexiteer populace - you know, the ones who subjected her to democratic death threats and the like - for involving Parliament in this part of the process. Kind of ironic isn’t it that without her judicial review, May would have enjoyed complete freedom to sign off on her deal without all the embarrassing nonsense we are about to endure from those wonderful selfless democrats Rees-Mogg, Davis and their ilk.
According to Mr Martin "a more up-to-date electorate [i.e. a more sophisticated me than I was two and a half years ago] might prefer less then a full break and, rather than Yes/No, a more nuanced choice of what they will be happy to cast off from and what they don't want to lose."
Unfortunately such a nuanced choice is not, never has been, and never will be on offer. We spent 45 years striving to "reform Europe from within" - and see where it got us. There is, I'm afraid, a simple, unbridgeable gulf between the British notion of a Europe of friends cooperating closely on all issues of common interest and the Brussellian aim of a supranational bureaucracy wielding monolithic world power. The latter ideal may or may not be in the interests of the continental states (I doubt myself whether it is) but it certainly isn't in our interests: hence the referendum verdict. That verdict may yet be reversed by hook or by crook, but the fundamental divergence of interests won't be resolved and will bubble up to the surface a few years down the line, probably in much more disadvantageous circumstances for us than at present. Having done the hard work I think we would be better off now consolidating it, rejecting EU dictation in its latest version of the "May deal", and resuming the same sovereign political and economic status as such countries as Japan, Canada or Australia: surely not a very outrageous or unrealistic ambition. The 2016 referendum was a remarkable demonstration of the merits of democracy, of which we should always be proud (as AJP Taylor once said, "the people judge rightly on great issues"). Any future plebiscite - or People's Vote if you prefer the term - would be a manifest sham. But if that's what the Establishment want, no doubt that's what we will get.
“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,” is qualified only by “unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period”.
The first part creates an obligation. “The Treaties SHALL cease to apply to the state.” The second part provides a single qualification, and that only relates to extending the timetable.
You must understand that a vote to remain could always be overturned at a later date by another referendum, whereas a vote to leave, even if by a majority of one when only three people bothered to vote, would be binding on all for ever.
If you believe otherwise it is because you are a fascist euro apologist.
Oh dear Martin another fascist inability to accept a democratic vote!
Anon 1818 You're obviously not a democrat, and presumably are a Brexiter, if you think a vote taken 2 years ago will surely represent the opinions/wishes of the current electorate, whose wishes should not be sought. But you're not stupid, so there's something a bit slimy about supporting your preference by pretending that most people (even solicitors) knew (or know now) what the WTO rules are before voting.
Not something that would recommend you to me as a solicitor.
"if you believed in democracy, you would want a democratic vote on the question once it is known precisely what you are voting for..."
That's fair enough up to a point.
No objection to a yes/no vote on May's proposed deal, provided it is understood that a 'no' vote simply means we either negotiate a new deal or leave in March 2019 on WTO rules.
Obviously, the fact of leaving itself was settled by the People's Vote of 2016 (in which the people voted to Leave, knowing that WTO Rules were the fallback position).
I don't know if your screaming 'democracy' because you're a Brexiter but, if you believed in democracy, you would want a democratic vote on the question once it is known precisely what you are voting for, and the votes would be cast by the people, the demos, in a referendum, not by MPs, who have shown, quite aggressively in a number of cases, that they want Brexit out of self-interest and do not want any chance that a more up-to-date electorate might prefer less then a full break and, rather than Yes/No, a more nuanced choice of what they will be happy to cast off from and what they don't want to lose.
The reference to the ECJ was by the Court of Sessions in an action brought by various MSPs, MPs and MEPs. While I am not familiar with the process, it doesn't seem at all wrong that a court should agree to consider and opine on a matter referred to it, particularly when it is the only court with the authority to do so (as the Court of Sessions noted). The motives of the MSPs, MPs and MEPs may be politically influenced, but I doubt the Court of Sessions itself is, nor the ECJ. That's not their job.
Assuming the decision to be as flagged and predicted, it has potentially interesting UK political consequences. There has been much talk of a further referendum, or withdrawal of an Art 50 notice, but very little talk as to whether this was actually possible. I have pointed out in other posts that unless withdrawal of an Art.50 notice was possible, an attempt to 'stay' in the EU would likely mean 'staying' on different terms from those currently enjoyed; specifically, future 'continued' membership might well mean adopting the Euro, for example. This decision therefore removes that consideration. This makes the UK political arguments around the stay/leave/withdrawal issue rather more pointed than hitherto. Potentially it enables the UK government to take a deep breath and revoke the Art 50 notice, and serve a further notice, having in the last few months worked out what 'withdraw' actually entails, and thus be better prepared for the eventualities in (another) two years' time, including 'no deal.' Also, if some reports are to be believed, within two years some technical or other solution to the Eire/NI border issue may have been developed; the current lack (and the Government's failure to spot the issue earlier) being one of the main causes of the current fudge.
It's been suggested that some of those who voted to leave the EU are 'thick'. I've no reason to believe that the majority of such people are 'thick'. But thereare some who are 'thick'. Those include more than one person who told me that they voted to leave the EU 'in order to get rid of all the immigrants'. When asked who are 'the immigrants' to whom they were referring, their answers were plain. Those who are: 'not like us'. I fear such people will be sadly disappointed if and when brexit comes to pass. The UK is going to need a lot of people who are 'not like us' if the NHS and care services are not going to grind to a halt and to do those hard, uncomfortable, poorly paid jobs with antisocial hours that many Britons are unwilling to do and which, hitherto, many Eastern European EU citizens did, but no longer will, do. Those 'thick' people may be in for quite a surprise post-brexit!
James Ball, you miss the point completely.
There’s no point trying to argue the case now. We’ve had the vote.
The simple point is that Leave failed to make such arguments at the time. Instead it just smeared the other side as racists who hated foreigners.
So to assert that Leave was some shining paragon of rational and logical virtue is simply not true.
Anon @ 16:36, you will of course however admit that much of the immigration that caused concerns that led to the support for Leave was immigration from outside the EU?
We need to address immigration in the round without the PC squeamishness and fear of being called racist or xenophobic (no idea if there is a parallel in Norse or OE for the 'freemen of the land') and no doubt the inability of the political elite to do so for decades fueled resentment which was then exploited (or at best left to fester).
But to rely on that alone demonstrates the paucity of the argument that you have, let us look at the evidence saying 'Brexit is Bad', erm in statistical terms everyone.
Saying (and I paraphrase) the EU isn't perfect therefore we must leave is a false nirvana paradox and a rhetorical device best left to those who never would have a better argument.
Remember the Brexiter's mantra 'no deal is better than a bad deal': well the fact they've stopped repeating this should tell you rather a lot.
We have three choices, chaotic no deal (no prospect this will get through the house) May's deal (my unicorn has more chance of winning the Grand National on current forecasts) or no Brexit.
While the EU is (like our City and County Councils and Parliament) far from perfect it is better than a chaotic no deal with no transition.
This seems a strange overreaction by Sir Stephen Laws. The ECJ has jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty and the Advocate General has been asked to give his opinion on the interpretation of Article 50 to assist the court. If the ECJ were to agree with him, it would not be compelling the UK parliament to do anything; it would simply be saying that if it wants to withdraw the Article 50 notice, it would not need the consent of the other 27 member states (in contrast with what would be needed to extend the two-year notice period).
I am also puzzled by Ian Newbery's reference to Article 50(3). If the Article 50 notice were withdrawn within the two-year period, the effect of withdrawal would be to make the notice void ab initio, so the two-year period would cease to run.
More generally, the thing which concerns me about the 2016 referendum result is that it is increasingly out of date. Much has happened in the ensuing two and a half years, not least the composition of the electorate. I understand that some 1.6m voters have since died, while some 1.8m people who were too young to vote then have since come of age. By treating the 2016 poll as an immutable tablet of stone, we are effectively giving more weight to the views of the dead than to those of today's 18, 19 and 20 year old citizens, who will have far longer than most of us to live with the consequences of Brexit.
We've had a points-based system for non-EU immigration since 2008. Yet we have 316,000 non-EU arrivals (year ending March 2018) compared with 226,000 EU arrivals. As a matter of fact, over the last fifteen or so years, non-EU immigration has largely outstripped EU immigration, points system or no points system.
The fact that Remain had no real answer to the immigration question was in large part down to the fact that it's a complex issue with a long history. Successive UK govts have, since at least the mid-1990s if not earlier, taken a liberal approach to immigration. This has resulted in a situation where we don't apply the EU rules as other states do and we allow a large number of EU citizens to remain in the country (and claim benefits + NHS treatment) in cases where in fact they have no right to be here.
Add to this our flexible job market plus the failure by Tony Blair to apply the transitional measures for Eastern European states from 2004 (applied by nearly all other EU states) and you have substantial pull factors resulting in large numbers of EU citizens coming here.
anon or Guido if a cap fits Remoaners have a look at the dictionary definition of fascist. All Heil to the EU superstate!
I’m amused by how you simply assert this without any evidence or reasoned argument at all.
Indeed, Remain’s only response to that question was to call the questioner ‘racist’ for asking it.
So no, your rose-tinted version of history will not do. You’re entitled to think differently if you so choose.
But as you said yourself, you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Shaun: Guido is over there.
NB 'fascist' =/= something or something you disagree with, as the parent of any teenager (or should that be 'screenager') will attest.
The usual fascist nonsense from the remoaners. Despite their perceived superiority they lost the referendum even though the BBC & ITV amongst other media showed blatant bias to their cause. It is tme to leave the fascist EU superstate.
I have a vague recollection from my law degree days, long, long ago. Something along the lines of nemo judex in causa sua potest.
"a weird and scarcely democratic system for enacting legislation"
I'm not quite sure what is so weird about legislation being decided between the European Council (ministers from Member States) and the European Parliament (MEPs).
The arguments for remain were logical, rational, supported by the overwhelming weight of evidence and reasoned.
Of course that frustration may have spilled over into a less than dispassionate analysis, but at the end of the day you cannot educate pork (or Gammon).
While you're entitled to your own opinions you're not entitled to your own facts.
Ohh and by the way, Parliament deciding to 'call the whole thing off' is the very epitome of 'taking back control'.
Sir Steven’s analysis of the respective role of judicial and legislative functions is certainly very authoritative. However, I found it a little strained. It is commonplace for parties to seek declaratory judgements on mixed factual and legal matters, as a means of resolving anticipated disputes that turn on ambiguous or conflicting legal sources. The same can be achieved voluntarily by submitting to arbitration.
It seems to me that there may be circumstances where a parallel exists between citizens who invoke a declaratory remedy to resolve a potential dispute and legislators who cast about to find a means by which to achieve a policy end. In each case identifying the true state of the law is a crucial point in the process.
In this light the protest that the opinion (or the ultimate decision) usurps Parliament is to say that it usurps the role of parliamentary counsel in interpreting the law ; and so may give an impression of special pleading. It also appears to me that where much turns on the outcome, the opinion of a highly experienced judiciary may be preferred to retained career lawyers.
"What makes you think that 17.4 million people are thick?"
(I'm not 14.37, by the way, I'm 15.29, still quite relaxed about my/our superiority).
Since when did better education equal higher intelligence, let alone common sense?
What makes you think that 17.4 million people are thick? The reason we are in this mess is not because the decision to leave was stupid. It is because Mrs May’s government has bungled the negotiation from day one. Of course, the Gov hasn't been helped by the Remainers' campaign to reverse a democratic decision taken by, I repeat, 17.4m people. By the way, that is more than the number of people voting for any one of the parties now sitting in the Commons. So much for democracy!
Did Liberal Democrat Tom Brake and Labour's Chris Leslie also state that the Government of the day normally acts upon the result of a referendum particularly when it has pledged to do so ?
But remainers ARE superior, on one measure if not more. Certainly, that's what the statisticians tell us. Generally speaking, we're better educated than our leaver counterparts.
We are also superior in that we knew that this would end badly, rather than believing in unsubstantiated fairy tales and lies. Even the government now concede that our economy is going to take a kicking no matter what the circumstances of our departure, so we can quite rightly claim the superiority that comes of knowing that we were right and the leavers were wrong.
I think you’ve just demonstrated why Remain lost the argument in 2016.
Because people like you, rather than make rational arguments, instead sneered, insulted, bullied and declared yourselves superior to anyone who dared to think differently.
The ECJ may agree with Sir Steven and overrule the AG. It would not be for the first time. Whether the issue is justiciable is a matter for the court, of course.
The hype is overdone, yet again. In the end we all know the ultimate decision of whether to have and if so how to accommodate a referendum on this issue is for the politicians.
However, the AG is clearly right. As a matter of general principle a party giving notice effective from a certain date can withdraw it until such time that it expires. I do not know if the contrary has ever been successfully argued. But, of course, in this case I expect that as in the case of giving the notice domestic law compliance is required as well as the appropriate political decisions. It seems the excitement is overdone.
The EU's no "land of milk and honey" either, and it has a weird and scarcely democratic system for enacting legislation; there are also plenty of stupid people who voted remain, but calling people you don't agree with "thickos" is easier than advancing any arguments I guess.
Policy Exchange - yet another right-wing obscurely-funded 'think tank'.
"The UK Government opposed [the application] but the ECJ was perfectly entitled, if not obliged, to deal with it."
Absolutely. And the way the ECJ should deal with it is to hold the application inadmissible.
Sir Steven Laws is absolutely right. The courts' function is to resolve legal disputes. Not provide legal advice. Here, this matter is not in dispute because it is not government policy to unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notification.
This is a political application brought for the sole purpose of putting political pressure on the Government to change its policy. That is a fundamental abuse of court process, and it should not be tolerated.
Even though I am a remainer I don't agree it can be withdrawn but usually the CJEU folloows the AG so I expect it will go that way, not that it matters as I don't think we will withdraw it.
Sir Steven Laws, like so many in this country, is hung up on the myth that the EU institutions try to interfere in member states' national affairs.
IF the CJEU judges agree with the Advocate General's opinion, all they will be doing is shrugging and saying "You can withdraw the notice if you want to".
The court would not be forcing the UK, or its Parliament or its government to do anything at all.
Withdrawing the Article 50 notice would require an Act of the UK Parliament to authorise it. No decision of the CJEU could "interfere with" or in any way affect Parliament's decision.
Laws is just knee-jerking and betraying his unmitigated prejudice.
sorry "self contained withdrawn mechanism"
There was I thinking that Article 50 was a self contained withdrawn.
Meanwhile if to express an opinion is an unwarranted interference in parliament, then we cold wave good bye to a free press, who labour under no such constraints.
I trust that MPs will be able to consider or ignore the advice as they choose.
Pathetic response from Sir Steven Law. An application was made to the ECJ for a determination. The UK Government opposed it but the ECJ was perfectly entitled, if not obliged, to deal with it. As is normal, the advocate general gives a preliminary determination before the full court does. The opinion was not unsolicited. How on earth is that interference in the UK parliamentary process? Are MPs so stupid that they are going to be improperly influenced?

References: Art. 67
 art. 50
 art. 50
 art. 50
 Art 50
 Art.50
 Art 50
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU