This is doing the rounds at the moment and may have some substance...
Interesting.... re Eu Member Exit
"The purpose of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon was to introduce and provide such a right (of member state to exit the EU). However, as we have seen, the Treaty of Lisbon was not ratified by all Member States of the European Union in accordance with their domestic constitutional procedures as required by law. Consequently neither the Treaty of Lisbon nor, a fortiori, Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon ever entered into force. The irony is that, unfortunately for Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the other Brexiters, despite the results of the EU referendum on 23rd June 2016, there does not exist at present any legal means or avenue under European or Public International Law which would allow the United Kingdom lawfully to secede from and exit the European Union".
Maurice Biggar
Bachelor of Civil Law (NUI), Barrister at law (King’s Inns)
Diplomatic consultant, 25 June 2016
Taken from:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brexit-article-50-maurice-biggar
If that's true, it would imply that some of these politicians don't know what they're doing, which is absurd....
Desperately clitching at straws I'd say. Maybe some of these social media gurus should got out and done some campaigning
That is the true legal state of Artical 50, like it or not.
Would that not imply that the Treaty itself isn't valid and thus we could just walk away from it anyway? If they are arguing that a section of a treaty is valid because the treaty isn't valid then doesn't that just negate the whole thing?
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm ]Q+A: The Lisbon Treaty[/url]
Under EU rules, the treaty had to be ratified by all 27 member states before coming into force. The last country to ratify the treaty was the Czech Republic, which completed the process on 3 November 2009.
So, the entire Lisbon treaty, ratified in November 2009, is invalid, has been throughout all this time ,and this has *only now* been noticed by a London based barrister in the aftermath of him not liking the outcome of the UK referendum on EU membership 🙄
Hang on, has it or hasn't it?
The French and Dutch had a Referendum on the Treaty and they rejected it, thats why its not formally ratified in all countries. In a classic EU anti-democratic mkve they simply went on with implementing it.
All the Lisbon Treat did is create an exit process. Before then there wasn't one so if we don't use Article 50 we could just leave immediately and stop paying or we could string it out as suits us or the EU could eject us. A right mess
er, neither the French nor the Dutch held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
I have already told him this on another thread when he said the same thing.
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon ]Wikipedia [/url] breaks down when and how each country ratified the treaty...
I have already told him this on another thread when he said the same thing.
You mean another #jambafact?
I have already told him this on another thread when he said the same thing.
I don't see how that is possible, he always listens to other viewpoints, and not forgetting he is always right. I think you must be mistaken on both counts.
[img] 
[/img]
Thanks Danny, it seems to kick that theory into touch
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/
Different point same topic.
The argument there also appears to sink the suggestion of a Holyrood veto.
A facebook post from a friend who lectures in constitutiinal law:-"Following a twitter convo between some of UK's senior constitutional law professors trying to work out what precisely Article 50 requires. Synopsis "no ****ing idea". Which is reassuring in at least one way - at least it's not just me being a bit thick...."