Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
To the contrary: no provision in the law for revoking a duly issued, deliberate action to secede expresses agreement of the authors to reject the premise; in point of fact, the treaty expressly provides recourse for petitioners to the union --correction or remediation of remorse that might attend secession --in Art. 50 and 49. These provisions define exercisable action available of all members.

What is the premise that the authors rejected?

The possibility, or license, afforded any one party to arbitrarily abridge rights of all members who are parties to the contract; and the probability that such license encourages opportunities to coerce agreement to spurious privileges from members in good standing instead of political resolution by all members.

But here you (pl.) contemplating a false defense of anarchy, the necessity inherent in immediately vacating due process of the law as is convenient for the petitioner, which incidentally has expressed no remorse with reprieve from an act that is lawful and was legally constituted by the member state.

And let us be clear: the parties to international treaties are governments--specifically heads of state--not a governments' constituents.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Nov 28th, 2018 at 01:11:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series