I suspect with the EU it would be all three. But say the U.K. did eventually get a sensible government which just said "We're out" as of whatever date and told the EU to "take a hike" as far as all the "leaving arrangements" are concerned.
Sue for breach of contract.
Just because a question has been posed, one is under no obligation to answer.
When they propose things like those more onerous requirements for withdrawal, what is one supposed to believe that they want to achieve?
I guess that gets us into the whole business about successive U.K. governments agreeing to things which they should never have agreed to in the first place since they had no power to try and bind future governments. But if it meant getting the U.K. out of the EU and immediately saving millions to spend on rather more important things, then yes, the U.K. would be perfectly justified in breaking the treaty. It's not as if it would be the first time an international agreement had been broken.
How and where?
True. But if somebody is claiming that membership of the EU is so beneficial, then when asked to explain exactly what he believes those benefits to be he refuses to do so, don't you think it rather suggests to everybody else that he really can't think of any?
None of my posts are untrue and you know it John. The statements that I have made are all verifiable. With a couple of notifiable exceptions we are all adults perfectly capable of using the internet to see what is happening.. Some may look and conclude that I am wrong and some may look and agree but there is no point in my trawling the internet to produce pages of documentation that you will dismiss because you do not like the source and if it was in your eyes a credible source, you would dismiss it anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time looking for you. I feel sure that If I was to say that the sky is blue, you would demand photographic evidence and a colour chart, you would then tell us that the photographic evidence had been photoshopped and the colour chart had been tainted by my prejudicial comments and couldn't be regarded as credible evidence... This is the depth of dislike that you have for people who stand up against you and won't back down.
But that's just a hypothetical scenario that you've invented, and you want me to go along with it and plan for the possible before it happens, even before we know whether it would affect us or not.
Have you read the treaty(ies), and do they state, "any signature will not be binding on successive governments"? I very much doubt it.
I don't know, but I'm sure there's a way, otherwise penalties for non-abidance of the get-out clauses would be hollow threats.
Not at all. Several claims/allegations/myths/untruths have been made in this discussion, very few of them have been substantiated.
Perhaps he's employing exactly the same tactic as you, assuming that you'll look it up for yourself. So why would he waste his time looking for you.
Followed very recently by this:
Feel free to prove them wrong then..
Hypothetical in the sense that it may not have come about (or at least not yet), but that doesn't make these sorts of ideas from the EU any less dangerous.
They don't need to contain any such wording. It is a basic principle of British law that no government may bind a future government. The basic constitutional law of the United Kingdom is above an EU treaty (even if the EU doesn't think so).
I have no doubt there might be some financial penalty built in and that the EU would try to claim it. But what if this hypothetical government having told the EU that the U.K. was withdrawing and that's that, then told the EU that it can whistle for the financial penalty?
Which is undoubtedly what they are, just applied with a lot of intimidation. But give it a couple more decades or so, and I fear that may not be the case.
