Dear Ms Milton,
Thank you for your response to my email of 6 December 2017.
I am very well aware of the provisions of Article 50, including the
contents of paragraph 3.
I am troubled that there appears to be no definition of the word
"meaningful" in so far as it pertains to "a meaningful vote on the final deal".
If it simply means that both Houses will debate whether to accept the
proposed final deal, or to leave the EU with no deal, then it can hardly be
termed meaningful. If it entails the possibility of sending the Government back
to the negotiating table then the problems arising from paragraph 3 come into
play. Could it, however, also include the option to withdraw the Article 50
notice? I would be very grateful for your clarification of this matter.
EC President Donald Tusk has stated that he believes the UK may withdraw
its Article 50 notice prior to the 2 year deadline. Expert legal opinion
supports this position. I refer you to the opinions of, among others, Lord
Kerr, Prof Stefan Enchelmaier, Prof Sir David Edward, Prof Kenneth Armstrong,
and Dr Jan Komarek; all experts in matters of European Law.
When 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU in 2016 the consequences
were unclear, and there was, obviously, no understanding of the likely contents
of any EU-UK deal. It is clearly possible that the UK public could consider
remaining in the EU as preferable to both accepting the final deal and to
exiting with no deal. This is why, assuming that withdrawal of the article 50
notification is, indeed, possible within the 2 year time limit, I believe that
the people of the UK should be given a timely opportunity to voice their
collective opinion.
I still look forward to your responses to all the issues I raised in my
email of 8 October.
Yours sincerely
Richard Bawden
(See parts 1-24 earlier in my blog)
No comments:
Post a Comment