There have been some questions about the legality of Brexit. The article below explains. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/is-brexit-legal-has-article-50-been.html
I believe that the legality of BREXIT depends on the legal and political dispositions of each nation. A single article could not support such a complex issue.
It's more than an article there is another article and a Brexit page on my blog. There is a debate about the legality of Article 50, which has come under contention. Many articles have been written on the subject, which are linked to in the above article. I summarise the issues with Article 50 then put another legal ground forward for constitutional requirement to leave the EU.
If you want to leave just leave...that's how easy it should be to leave a union. People and their darn rules.
They seem to want a divorce settlement, which is something I don't agree with as the EC failed to meet its legal obligations on economic governance which racked up the debt that caused the Euro Crisis.
> the Prime Minister is unable to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. The bill was approved by the parliament. > Apparently the letter put forward by the British Government's legal team did not provide an appropriate constitutional requirement and was only a notification of the decision to leave the EU. Addendum would address this. More importantly, if Lisbon Treaty explicitly stated that leaving the EU was illegal, would it be a strong argument to stay in the EU? I don't think so. Referendum was held with implicit understanding that it was a decision to stay or leave. Cancelling it certainly would not be democratic and down the road would again fuel "EU makes you vote until you you vote for it" talk. Reversing Brexit at this point is definitely not the same as voting to remain in the first place or never holding the referendum. with UK on its way out first steps for common defence were made and talk of common budget is in the air again. This leaves Ireland, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Malta and to lesser extent Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic among countries somewhat unhappy with the EU direction. I'd argue that informally UK would have less political capital to shape EU policy and avoid further centralization had it decided to stay. Formally one needs 4 countries that represent 35% of EU population to block a decision by the qualified majority. You cannot have that unless you get the largest members on your side.
Considering that the entirety of the EU failed as a whole during the crisis. I can understand Brexit. For me, EU is completely irrelevant to the development of the European markets. The day that EU stops trying to control every damn country, ill be happy. EU should be an organization that only consults countries in the right direction. Nothing else.
Just stick it in a text, then block there number, bosh job done, next!! So much damage from the threat of Brexit has already been done, doing it or not, is going to make a lot of difference IMHO!!
Apparently there was an agreement to make an offer to pay 40 billion Euros. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...st-theresa-may-trade-talks-news-a8066356.html