On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up to
the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good indication
of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04/12/2018 17:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up to
the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good indication
of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

And it wouldnt happen.

The WHOLE POINT of that 'opinion' is to frigten brexiteers into
accepting May's Slavery deal.

Nice bluff Advocate general, but no cigar.



--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On 04/12/2018 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/12/2018 17:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up to
the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good
indication of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

And it wouldnt happen.

The WHOLE POINT of that 'opinion' is to frighten brexiteers into
accepting May's Slavery deal.

The opinion is only about whether we could withdraw the Article 50
notification without the approval of the 27 other member states. That we
could withdraw it with their agreement has never been in doubt.

Nice bluff Advocate General, but no cigar.

It does confirm what we already knew: that the ECJ is the puppet of the
Commission.


If that were the case, the opinion would have been the opposite - that
the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification. That
is what the EU lawyers argued for. They are concerned that allowing a
unilateral of an Article 50 notification could allow other states to
abuse the process in future.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04/12/2018 18:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/12/2018 17:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message ,
Nightjar writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up
to the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good
indication of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

And it wouldnt happen.

The WHOLE POINT of that 'opinion' is to frighten brexiteers into
accepting May's Slavery deal.

The opinion is only about whether we could withdraw the Article 50
notification without the approval of the 27 other member states. That we
could withdraw it with their agreement has never been in doubt.


Only in your mind.

It has been extremely doubtful as to whether article 50 is not in fact a
an irrecovcable article that mens te applying state will leve come hwat May.

And that we have already left the EU by triggering it. Ceryainly te fact
that we are no longer allowed to fully participate suggeests such.


Nice bluff Advocate General, but no cigar.

It does confirm what we already knew: that the ECJ is the puppet of the
Commission.


If that were the case, the opinion would have been the opposite - that
the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification. That
is what the EU lawyers argued for. They are concerned that allowing a
unilateral of an Article 50 notification could allow other states to
abuse the process in future.


Oh dear. You are naive.

The whole idea is to get an *OPINION* to frighten leavers into accepting
the deal.

By making staying in an option.

And trying to rule out no deal as an option.

If push comes to shove the ECJ would simply rule teh exact opposiote.

Your naive belief that all this theatre is in fact genuine honest
opinion or that any of te parties have an ounce of integrity between
them is touching in the extreme.

This is a £39bn gloves off no holds barred bitch fight pretending to be
legal and democratic. It isn't.


--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 05/12/2018 07:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/12/2018 18:28, Nightjar wrote:
....
The opinion is only about whether we could withdraw the Article 50
notification without the approval of the 27 other member states. That
we could withdraw it with their agreement has never been in doubt.


Only in your mind.

I am quoting a radio interview with Lord Kerr, who was the author of
Article 50.

It has been extremely doubtful as to whether article 50 is not in fact a
an irrecovcable article that mens te applying state will leve come hwat
May.

The only question has been whether or not the leaving state needed the
agreement of the other member states to withdraw the notification. that
is what the ECJ has been asked to rule on.

And that we have already left the EU by triggering it. ...

We are still members of the EU and will remain so at least until 11:00
pm on 29th March 2019.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 18:29:02 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/12/2018 17:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up to
the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good
indication of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

And it wouldnt happen.

The WHOLE POINT of that 'opinion' is to frighten brexiteers into
accepting May's Slavery deal.

The opinion is only about whether we could withdraw the Article 50
notification without the approval of the 27 other member states. That we
could withdraw it with their agreement has never been in doubt.

Nice bluff Advocate General, but no cigar.

It does confirm what we already knew: that the ECJ is the puppet of the
Commission.


If that were the case, the opinion would have been the opposite - that
the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification. That
is what the EU lawyers argued for. They are concerned that allowing a
unilateral of an Article 50 notification could allow other states to
abuse the process in future.


They are even more concerned about keeping us in.(For our money and the example to other countries thinking of leaving))
It's clear from the timing of this comment that Treason May is in fact working in cahoots with the EUSSR to keep us in.

Confirmation she is a traitor.

On 05/12/2018 09:11, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 18:29:02 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/12/2018 17:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up to
the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good
indication of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

And it wouldnt happen.

The WHOLE POINT of that 'opinion' is to frighten brexiteers into
accepting May's Slavery deal.

The opinion is only about whether we could withdraw the Article 50
notification without the approval of the 27 other member states. That we
could withdraw it with their agreement has never been in doubt.

Nice bluff Advocate General, but no cigar.

It does confirm what we already knew: that the ECJ is the puppet of the
Commission.


If that were the case, the opinion would have been the opposite - that
the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification. That
is what the EU lawyers argued for. They are concerned that allowing a
unilateral of an Article 50 notification could allow other states to
abuse the process in future.


They are even more concerned about keeping us in.(For our money and the example to other countries thinking of leaving))

They would, however, prefer us to have to negotiate a withdrawal of the
notification, rather than allowing us simply to withdraw it without the
need for the agreement of the other 27 states.

It's clear from the timing of this comment that Treason May is in fact working in cahoots with the EUSSR to keep us in.

The case was raised by the Scottish judiciary last August. They
requested a fast track hearing, so that the Court would hear the case
before Brexit. The timing derives from that. Lawyers acting both for the
British government and for the EU opposed the motion.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 05/12/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:

The case was raised by the Scottish judiciary last August. They
requested a fast track hearing, so that the Court would hear the case
before Brexit. The timing derives from that. Lawyers acting both for the
British government and for the EU opposed the motion.



Its no good using facts, facts are just a part of project fear to
brexiteers.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

If that were the case, the opinion would have been the opposite - that
the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification. That
is what the EU lawyers argued for. They are concerned that allowing a
unilateral of an Article 50 notification could allow other states to
abuse the process in future.

This presupposes transparency in the whole process. That, f'rinstance,
what the EU argues for in public is what it actually wants.

I would be the last person to deny the possibility of largely venal
corruption, but the scale of conspiracy which you suggest is well up
there with shape shifting lizards/fake moon landings/alien abduction or
chemtrails.

Life is generally more complicated than that.

--

Roger Hayter

On 04/12/2018 20:21, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Nightjar
wrote:

If that were the case, the opinion would have been the opposite - that
the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification. That
is what the EU lawyers argued for. They are concerned that allowing a
unilateral of an Article 50 notification could allow other states to
abuse the process in future.

This presupposes transparency in the whole process. That, f'rinstance,
what the EU argues for in public is what it actually wants.

I would be the last person to deny the possibility of largely venal
corruption, but the scale of conspiracy which you suggest is well up
there with shape shifting lizards/fake moon landings/alien abduction or
chemtrails.


Er no. There is no evidence for any of those.
#
Some of us knew, for example, how things were done at Arthur Andersen.
And in other large city organisatios., Ive got mates who worked for
these people, and I have employee AA as finacial advisers.,

They advised me to break the law.

Life is generally more complicated than that.

Indeed, but trhis is NOt a straightforwrad conspiracy. This is a mass of
epole all of whom are part of an eleite that has a puropose other than
teh good of te people.
#
They simply all know what to do when it comes to it. What to saya to
protect that elite.

Its not organised top down.

Who will rid me of that troublous Brexit?

Is te cry.

And they act on their own initiative.

Thionk: What is a good outcome for the EU.

Britain stays, or gets such a bad deal that its better tha staying - it
essentially stays, pays but takes no further part in the EU.

What is the worst outcome for the EU?

Britain leaves with no £39bn and no deal., and they HAVE to sort out te
mess THEY have made.

So the pressure is on for May's deal - because its the EU punishing a
naughty member state.

How can they avoid a no deal exit? Their worst fear?
By making it *seem* like there is an option to stay in.

Then the latest amendment means that we can argue indefinitely about
May's deal.

No deal is the EUs worst nightmare.

Ergo we should definitely go for it.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 04/12/2018 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:

It does confirm what we already knew: that the ECJ is the puppet of the
Commission.


Everything is a puppet of the Commission.

--
Email does not work

On 04/12/2018 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/12/2018 17:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/12/2018 12:49, Bill wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes

The ECJ's Advocate General has given the opinion that the UK could
unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification at any time up to
the deadline for leaving. Not legally binding, but a good
indication of the probable final decision by the Court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-46428579

Yes, Mandy Rice-Davies was very perceptive.

The EU and the UK both opposed the idea.

And it wouldnt happen.

The WHOLE POINT of that 'opinion' is to frighten brexiteers into
accepting May's Slavery deal.

Nice bluff Advocate General, but no cigar.

It does confirm what we already knew: that the ECJ is the puppet of the
Commission.

Its a very clever thing. the ECJ hasnt actually said it would allow it.
So if it goes to te ECJ they can, as one would expecte them to, refuse it.

But and OPINION has beeing given of the reverse. So it becomes just one
more project fear bit of bull****.


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)