its the same shit

as per article 17(4) of the treaty of the EU

@wacka explain more

oy vey you found the one week point that kills the dragon

get serious pls

Basically 2K there are many many things to be done

yeah, they'll just ignore it i think

and speaking conclusively is basically a huge gamble

but it's interesting for theory

every member of the EU MUST have at least their PM(or president) as a EC memeber and AT LEAST one member of each nation

if that is not met .. then the treaty of the EU has not been upheld

Speaking conclusively right now is like throwing a dildo at a spinning plate while blindfolded and hoping to land on the right quadrant

it doesnt matter if they ignore it

the point is, that we can legally ignore the EU as well 😛

i.e set up trade deals, stop FoM etc etc

tbh if you get out without a deal, you ignore your own law system
i wouldnt expect you to treat the EU one any better

Depends 2K

it really depends

If there is a way to follow the law

and do it

Then there was no law broken

Thats also the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion

One is legal one isnt

same result

may's deal tbh

this way would mean, we would be following the law... and every legislation passed from oct31st in the EU would be legally not valid

because the treaty of the EU would not have been valid

as per article 17 section 4

they couldnt even add something to it.. to make it valid 😛

You know if he gets a GE and does get a majority for example

He wouldnt even have to wait for an extension period to end

it would need ratification from every member

hmmmm

He could just table a motion to repeal the ECA

Which would have the effect of a no deal

Because a no deal has the effect of repealing the ECA

I dont think hed do that... if he had a majority he would get some deal and push that through

Maybe

but it would be techincally still an option

Expecially if he needed to be propped up by BP

which would be likely if he was forced to extend