B0ycey wrote:What are you talking about. Until the UK leave the EU they are subject to their laws. Article 50 is merely a process to leave the EU not an exclusion of their laws until they do.
Although I should add that Johnson has broken UK law not European law when sending the second (third) letter(s).
Nonetheless I suspect Atlantis was being flippant when calling for article 7. But it is clear that Johnson is a law to himself and has broken it twice in as many months so was right to address it. He isn't PM material and personally I think a spell in Wandsworth is the only way to get the message across that deliberately breaking the law should not be tolerated regardless of who the individual is.
Lisbon Treaty 1 Dec 2009
Article 218(3) - Procedure-
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.Failure of negotiations
This system provides for a negotiated withdrawal, rather than an abrupt exit from the Union. This preference for a negotiated withdrawal is based on the expected complexities of leaving the EU (including concerning the euro) when so much European law is codified in member states' laws. However, the process of Article 50 also includes a strong implication of unilateral right to withdraw. This is through the fact the state would decide "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" and that the end of the treaties' application in said state is not dependent on any agreement being reached (it would occur after two years regardless).In other words, the European Union can not block a member state from leaving. If negotiations do not result in a ratified agreement, the seceding country leaves without an agreement, and the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to the seceding country, without any substitute or transitional arrangements being put in place.
As regards trade, the parties would likely follow WTO rules & tariffs on trade.
Also, a withdrawing state cannot be involved in any E.U decisions during it's procedure in withdrawing following an A50 notification.
That is plainly the case for obvious reasons, which is why, under the withdrawal procedure, we are no longer(unless we revoke) involved in the the internal laws of the E.U from the date of parliament passing the deal.
For logical reasons, due to the actions of the remainer tendency in parliament, whom introduced the 'no-deal' Amendment , the logic is that they trapped themselves into the leave paradigm, defaulting on voting against the deal, proves their intention not to deliver the implementation of Brexit.
So, for all of the remainer MP's smoke & mirrors, it will have got them nowhere, but cost the country £Billions, but, with one positive outcome, their personal political careers are going to be terminated in the main.
BoJo did what was required of him by the law, nothing more, nothing less, it did not require him to sign it, indeed, he could have,as he did, not sign it, because the letter is on behalf of the parliament & not the government.
It is for parliament to sign such a letter written on it's behalf, the only pratical way,of which would be for all of the MP's opposed to Brexit, to sign that letter, for which mit would then be read for all & sunder to see as a political 'suicide note'.
It is beyond the realm of reason for any judicial court to convict a person who has been subjected to 'threats' or 'blackmail', 'duress' or whatever.