Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The chances of the UK leaving the EU on March 29th are surely

2456

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    I am currently in Shanghai. It's the last day of a two-day event my company has organised here. We got 450 delegates, 70% of them from Asia-Pacific countries. The EU has not prevented us from holding it and generating large sponsorship and delegate fees in any way, shape or form.

    Get yourself a copy of this, head to the Bund and start from there. Magic.

    https://amazon.co.uk/Search-Old-Shanghai-Pan-Ling/dp/9620401956

    (I'm sure you have done this, ofc.)
  • There are now no fewer than five candidates who have been last matched at a price between 8.8 and 10 for next Conservative leader: Javid, Johnson, Gove, Raab and Hunt. No one else is under 20.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Scott_P said:
    Would be “funny” if Chope was Mr 48.

    I hope someone is filming all of this for the mother of all Ken Burns style documentaries.

    Brexit: When Britain Went Mad.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited December 2018
    Mortimer said:

    kle4 said:

    Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).

    Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.

    Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.

    I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.
    There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?
    Not quite - No 10 needs to send a letter to the EU (revoking A50). Once that is done there is all the time in the world to deal with the other issues...
  • matt said:

    Charles said:

    Presumably if we were to 'cancel' Brexit, that would mean exactly the same rights as currently, ie, we keep the rebate?

    I would have thought so.

    Back to to status quo ante Article 50.
    So just ignoring the largest vote in British history?
    We've tested the limits of direct democracy. It doesn't work terribly well when so many seem to be insulated from the consequences.
    We haven't tested it at all. We have just had those who oppose the result use every possible means to frustrate it and stop it being enacted.
  • Scott_P said:
    The government's entire approach to Brexit from both a legal and a constitutional basis has been nothing short of a joke. They've behaved like the villain in an episode of Scooby Doo "And I would've got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky lawyers".
  • I enjoyed Simon Hoare MP's visual imagery at the end of that piece:

    “I’m not convinced that there’s an 11th hour white rabbit to be pulled out of the hat. I’m not sure what that rabbit would be.”
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.

    +1
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    I am currently in Shanghai.

    Go to Judy's on Nanking Road with plenty of cash then come on here and tell us all about your subsequent adventure.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
    ______________________________________________

    That isn't true.

    He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.

    It was clumsy language to use.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TOPPING said:

    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).

    I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited December 2018
    "Will the UK leave the EU on 29th March" is now approaching crossover on Betfair.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130766060

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.

    Where's does the leverage come from? Using Article 50 (either invoking or revoking) needs to be done in accordance with our constitutional requirements.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    The decision re Article 50 will actually help May withTory rebels . Because if the opinion is upheld the UK can stay in with the same opt outs including the rebate .

    Of course the right wing press will say the ECJ are interfering but the opinion is actually a boost to the sovereignty of each EU member .
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    There are now no fewer than five candidates who have been last matched at a price between 8.8 and 10 for next Conservative leader: Javid, Johnson, Gove, Raab and Hunt. No one else is under 20.

    Anyone backing Boris doesn't understand the rules of the contest. MPs have first dibs.

  • Mr. 67, the rebate, unlike the eurozone/Schengen, is not a treaty opt-out. It's likely to go, if we remain.
  • This would be an amazing get out of jail card - to revoke A50, take stock and properly work out what type of Brexit we want. Either crashing out or approving a perceived "bad deal" makes zero logical sense. The thing that worries me is that Brexit (the entire backdrop and process) has never been logical...
  • I hope Hague is right and HoC will use every single arcane procedure and twist to halt a No Deal Brexit, if May's plan falls.

    Time to for MPs to step up to the plate and stop this madness in its tracks.

    I was under the impression that the arcane practices and procedures you refer to are usually designed to delay things so they don't eventually happen. Surely in this case delay simply makes it more likely that No Deal will happen.
  • Mr. WC, if Article 50 is revoked we'll be staying for the foreseeable future.

    This may push Leaver MPs towards May's deal. But it'll strengthen the resolve of Remainer MPs who are thinking of voting against it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    This would be an amazing get out of jail card - to revoke A50, take stock and properly work out what type of Brexit we want. Either crashing out or approving a perceived "bad deal" makes zero logical sense. The thing that worries me is that Brexit (the entire backdrop and process) has never been logical...

    If art 50 is revoked there is no way on God's green earth it is being reinvoked.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    nico67 said:

    The decision re Article 50 will actually help May withTory rebels . Because if the opinion is upheld the UK can stay in with the same opt outs including the rebate .

    Of course the right wing press will say the ECJ are interfering but the opinion is actually a boost to the sovereignty of each EU member .

    How does that help May? It means MPs can vote down her deal with less fear of ‘no deal’.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    TOPPING said:

    I am currently in Shanghai. It's the last day of a two-day event my company has organised here. We got 450 delegates, 70% of them from Asia-Pacific countries. The EU has not prevented us from holding it and generating large sponsorship and delegate fees in any way, shape or form.

    Get yourself a copy of this, head to the Bund and start from there. Magic.

    https://amazon.co.uk/Search-Old-Shanghai-Pan-Ling/dp/9620401956

    (I'm sure you have done this, ofc.)
    Bar Rouge.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).

    I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.
    Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...
  • Pulpstar said:

    This would be an amazing get out of jail card - to revoke A50, take stock and properly work out what type of Brexit we want. Either crashing out or approving a perceived "bad deal" makes zero logical sense. The thing that worries me is that Brexit (the entire backdrop and process) has never been logical...

    If art 50 is revoked there is no way on God's green earth it is being reinvoked.
    Unless it pushes the Tories to a full euro-spectic party, which then gets into power (somehow).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2018

    I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
    ______________________________________________

    That isn't true.

    He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.

    It was clumsy language to use.

    Does it depend on what the meaning of is is?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    TOPPING said:

    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).

    I think both were the correct compromises of their time, given the lack of realistic alternative option in either circumstance. For zealots who see compromise as anathema no solution other that fog in channel, "Europe isolated" is acceptable. The keyboard warriors are strong here.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.

    What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.
  • Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    kinabalu said:

    Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.

    What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.

    Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....
  • Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?

    And then to be re-invoked, or is that a related contingency?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2018
    Mortimer said:

    kle4 said:

    Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).

    Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.

    Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.

    I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.
    There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?
  • Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?

    8.45 calls for it to be revoked.
    8.50 calls anyone who wants it revoked a traitor.
    8 55 calls for it to be revoked.
    9.00 calls anyone who wants to it revoked a traitor.

    Repeat ad nauseam.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    nico67 said:

    The decision re Article 50 will actually help May withTory rebels . Because if the opinion is upheld the UK can stay in with the same opt outs including the rebate .

    Of course the right wing press will say the ECJ are interfering but the opinion is actually a boost to the sovereignty of each EU member .

    How does that help May? It means MPs can vote down her deal with less fear of ‘no deal’.
    No it means they vote down the deal and there is probably little choice but to remain.

    Also from my previous post

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1069883704888254464
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    I hope Hague is right and HoC will use every single arcane procedure and twist to halt a No Deal Brexit, if May's plan falls.

    Time to for MPs to step up to the plate and stop this madness in its tracks.

    I was under the impression that the arcane practices and procedures you refer to are usually designed to delay things so they don't eventually happen. Surely in this case delay simply makes it more likely that No Deal will happen.
    You may want to read the article - the arcane practices can be used to push things through in hours if required...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).

    I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.
    Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...
    Not if you’re in the antiques trade it doesn’t...
  • Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.

    Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.

    I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.

  • Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?

    And then to be re-invoked, or is that a related contingency?
    Related contingency.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1069641594582827009

    Wondrous. Sponsored potholes on motorways. May's Government has finally gone full Cones Hotline.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    I enjoyed Simon Hoare MP's visual imagery at the end of that piece:

    “I’m not convinced that there’s an 11th hour white rabbit to be pulled out of the hat. I’m not sure what that rabbit would be.”

    Simon is v. Eloquent in person and on the page. Cox without the booming voice.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.

    I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.

    Unlikely given the size of the EU now. That’s why letting Lisbon through with QMV in it was such a poor Foriegn policy move.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited December 2018
    Mr. P, why aren't the chains, seemingly painted onto the walls, using the same perspective that applies to the walls? They're just flat, not angled.

    Edited extra bit: ahem, the tone there was a shade accusatory. Obviously, I know you didn't draw it. But the flaw irks me.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Wondrous. Sponsored potholes on motorways. May's Government has finally gone full Cones Hotline.

    If only John Major had thought of monetising the cones with advertising...
  • Mortimer said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).

    I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.
    Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...
    Not if you’re in the antiques trade it doesn’t...
    But I thought Leavers were all about taking an economic hit for the greater good?

    How much does the antiques trade generate for the UK economy, is it more than the automotive or financial services sector ?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Scott_P said:
    Think Labour might stop talking about police numbers now?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852

    Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....

    Yes really. It would be a scandal of the highest order if the 2016 referendum result is not implemented. But if it is to be disregarded I would rather it be done openly by parliament rather than via the grubby sophistry of a 2nd referendum.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.

    Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2018
    Mortimer said:

    kle4 said:

    Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).

    Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.

    Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.

    I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.
    There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?
    Complicatingly.

    Government loses deal and vote of no confidence. GE or referendum is agreed to break deadlock, remain wins referendum and legislation created/ repealed or we have a GE, The delay doesn't matter if a50 can be withdrawn, Tories back no deal and labour remain, labour win due to Tory divisions. Legislation created/repealed.

    It's still not simple but it got a whole lot simpler. And if parliament won't agree on how to leave, and they wont, they will see us remain. We're all probably going to have to get used to that. ERG will be happy. They can say how perfect things would have been if we'd left.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.

    I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.

    Which we can veto....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    kle4 said:

    Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).

    Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.

    Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.

    I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.
    There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?
    Scott_P said:
    Oh look a squirrel.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    TOPPING said:

    I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
    ______________________________________________

    That isn't true.

    He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.

    It was clumsy language to use.

    Does it depend on what the meaning of is is?
    I'll just provide one example because there is a hell of a lot of examples of people using the word now when they clearly don't mean immediately.

    _______________________________
    England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018.
    ___________________________

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-world-cup-2018-semi-final-date-who-play-next-when-russia-croatia-vs-sweden-a8436431.html

    Article was wrote on 7th July. So the writer must have thought it was the 11th of July instead as he clearly meant immediately.

    The writer also seems to think the Russia Croatia game can be played and completed immediately with the team who wins immediately playing England.

    Or people don't always mean immediately when they say the word now.

    Of course Corbyn might have meant right now or immediately or he might not have.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited December 2018
    Mortimer said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.

    Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.

    TMay's deal it is.

    (I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).

    I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.
    Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...
    Not if you’re in the antiques trade it doesn’t...
    Fair enough.

    We'll put it in the price worth paying category.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723

    Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.

    Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.

    Quite agree. I can see the Leave means Leave camp being sufficiently furious, in one or two cases anyway, to follow Nigel Farage's lead. (If he actually does it!). 'Don khaki and take up a rifle!'
    And the Tories would have to hold on until 2022, otherwise the electoral bloodletting would be disastrous. It would be worse then than 1997, but not much worse.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    A50 judgement is interesting

    now we can go back and really fk Europe up

    TMay for commission president.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.

    Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there. Sort out stuff like residency individually with each country if the EU won't negotiate, which we have good leverage for because most of the other 27 countries have more of their citizens here than we have there. Sort out pet passports so people won't have to leave their pets behind and work out how to keep the planes in the air.

    This stuff really isn't beyond the wit of man to organise. It's a total disgrace that this government didn't even begin to do any of this. Useless.
  • Mr. Mark, the government of the day didn't even hold a referendum when it was promised in their manifesto. The political class is pro-EU to the extent it'd take a hell of a lot for them to even consider vetoing a treaty.
  • Good morning

    The news this morning from the ECJ, if confirmed, will change the narrative quite considerably as no deal becomes unlikely

    The ERG are running the risk of losing Brexit for the foreseable future due to over reaching. I have no idea how this will effect the vote but brexiteers need to decide if they want brexit or not

    However, the only way for A50 to be withdrawn is by referendum and how we arrive there is not clear, unless of course an amendment to the meaningful vote for a referendum passes.

    Ultimately I think this morning, brexit is hanging by a thread
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.

    I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.

    They have a slew of balkan countries coming up for accession. That'll need a treaty, though it's hard to tell *precisely* when; I would imagine within a couple of years.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    A50 judgement is interesting

    now we can go back and really fk Europe up

    TMay for commission president.

    This is a good point.

    We can use our veto to block everything until the EU starts negotiating our withdrawal in a reasonable way.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    kle4 said:
    Ha. Is this how William thinks May wins the vote, when the Govt vote down the WA because it has a wrecking amendment attached?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950



    TOPPING said:

    I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
    ______________________________________________

    That isn't true.

    He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.

    It was clumsy language to use.

    Does it depend on what the meaning of is is?
    I'll just provide one example because there is a hell of a lot of examples of people using the word now when they clearly don't mean immediately.

    _______________________________
    England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018.
    ___________________________

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-world-cup-2018-semi-final-date-who-play-next-when-russia-croatia-vs-sweden-a8436431.html

    Article was wrote on 7th July. So the writer must have thought it was the 11th of July instead as he clearly meant immediately.

    The writer also seems to think the Russia Croatia game can be played and completed immediately with the team who wins immediately playing England.

    Or people don't always mean immediately when they say the word now.

    Of course Corbyn might have meant right now or immediately or he might not have.
    Act III Scene II
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Do MPs not work before lunchtime?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    Think Labour might stop talking about police numbers now?
    It is a cleverly presented tweet but as was made clear when this story originally broke the Labour party are not under investigation.

    Although from a personal point of view rather than more police I think you could balance them away from minor drug crimes to a certain extent.
  • One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.

    Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...

    To revoke A50 a referendum is needed to cancel the process. A further referendum would be needed to leave in the future
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Good morning

    The news this morning from the ECJ, if confirmed, will change the narrative quite considerably as no deal becomes unlikely

    The ERG are running the risk of losing Brexit for the foreseable future due to over reaching. I have no idea how this will effect the vote but brexiteers need to decide if they want brexit or not

    However, the only way for A50 to be withdrawn is by referendum and how we arrive there is not clear, unless of course an amendment to the meaningful vote for a referendum passes.

    Ultimately I think this morning, brexit is hanging by a thread

    The cry that the threat of no brexit was not real because no deal is default just got weaker. It is still default but now it looks much easier to avoid. May wasn't kidding when she talked of no brexit. We now probably won't and people can blame may for getting a crap deal all they want but at the end if the day under her we will leave and mps or the public have to choose not to leave by rejecting her deal.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Xenon said:

    The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.

    Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there.

    The revocation opinion includes a "no fucking around" clause, so the first part of your cunning plan is problematic.

    The second part is as dumb as ever. As soon as the Government announces No Deal as the preferred option, Airbus and JLR announce they are leaving.

    No Government could survive that.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited December 2018

    Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.

    Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.

    Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.

    Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    kinabalu said:

    Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.

    What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.

    Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....
    I can buy kinabalu's argument. If our Lords and Mistresses feel that the economic harm is too, too awful to contemplate, one or both parties can throw themselves on the Brexit hand grenade, and bear the wrath in the electorate at the next GE.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Scott_P said:

    Xenon said:

    The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.

    Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there.

    The revocation opinion includes a "no fucking around" clause, so the first part of your cunning plan is problematic.

    The second part is as dumb as ever. As soon as the Government announces No Deal as the preferred option, Airbus and JLR announce they are leaving.

    No Government could survive that.
    But you think it could survive ignoring the referendum? Bizarre.
  • Mr. eek, that's possible.

    Mr. Xenon, 'we'? Who, as a credible PM, would be doing that?
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    Scott_P said:

    Xenon said:

    The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.

    Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there.

    The revocation opinion includes a "no fucking around" clause, so the first part of your cunning plan is problematic.

    The second part is as dumb as ever. As soon as the Government announces No Deal as the preferred option, Airbus and JLR announce they are leaving.

    No Government could survive that.
    What is the legal clause if we revoked Article 50?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:
    Could that pass? I think I'm theory opposition parties support that position.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    kinabalu said:

    Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.

    What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.

    Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....
    These things happen under our electoral system.
    After all, 63% of votes in the 2015 GE were for parties that didn't pledge to hold a Brexit referendum and we still had one.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Mortimer said:

    But you think it could survive ignoring the referendum? Bizarre.

    Nobody is ignoring the referendum. We already spent 2 years of blood and treasure on the referendum. Where have you been?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.

    Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...

    To revoke A50 a referendum is needed to cancel the process.
    Why? It could be argued we are just restarting the clock on the original decision....
  • OneArmedBadgerOneArmedBadger Posts: 41
    edited December 2018

    Good morning

    The news this morning from the ECJ, if confirmed, will change the narrative quite considerably as no deal becomes unlikely

    The ERG are running the risk of losing Brexit for the foreseable future due to over reaching. I have no idea how this will effect the vote but brexiteers need to decide if they want brexit or not

    However, the only way for A50 to be withdrawn is by referendum and how we arrive there is not clear, unless of course an amendment to the meaningful vote for a referendum passes.

    Ultimately I think this morning, brexit is hanging by a thread

    Withdrawal without a referendum should be possible. It could be done on the basis that a Royal Commission be established to investigate the various Brexit options and report before the 2022 election, which would then become the mechanism to establish the whim of the people. All that revocation requires is for the government to back down - and it will need to back down on something. Long-grassing might even keep May in power, preserve the coalition with the grasping creationists, and prevent a Tory split, all of which would find support across the parliamentary party.

    Revocation obviously appeals to remainers, but it's also the only way to preserve the purity of Brexit. This ruling is going to swing the debate in that direction, and a second crap-shoot will look less attractive.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    eek said:

    Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.

    Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.

    Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.

    Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...
    Is everyone forgeting this morning that Leave won the Referendum, therefore we must leave.
  • Xenon said:

    A50 judgement is interesting

    now we can go back and really fk Europe up

    TMay for commission president.

    This is a good point.

    We can use our veto to block everything until the EU starts negotiating our withdrawal in a reasonable way.
    Aside from the part about "abusive" revocations, the EU machinery has been largely DoS-proofed, what with QMV for most of the essential day-to-day stuff, and Enhanced Cooperation for new things that the rest of the EU want to do but one country is opposed to.
  • Scott_P said:
    does Remain have to be on the ballot paper?
  • eek said:

    Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.

    Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.

    Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.

    Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...
    No PM can revoke A50 without parliamentary approval or as a result of a referendum
  • Scott_P said:

    We already spent 2 years of blood and treasure on the referendum

    Those paper cuts can be pretty savage
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    does Remain have to be on the ballot paper?

    Have to check the terms, but if we have a vote to revoke article 50 then we would remain so it shouldn't be a necessary constraint
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    A country using the Article 50 revocation to mess around will find itself with zero friends . I expect with time the Treaties will change to stop that ever happening .

    However in the shorter term May can use this as a stick to frighten the ERG nutjobs . Equally this helps entrench Remainers.

    Vote down the deal and as the pound crashes and businesses start heading for the exit door there’s a way to stop that .

    Would a government sit there and do nothing . I know there’s a section of Leavers who don’t care what damage is done but MPs can simply say we were left with no choice , we can’t allow people to lose their jobs . Some of the ERG nutjobs will scream betrayal but will most of the public care what they think .
  • So now we know what the government was really negotiating with the EU. How to ignore the referendum vote and stay in. If they want to see what happens next they should look at Scotland 2015 when remain was split three ways and leave had only one party to vote for.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Those paper cuts can be pretty savage

    Tell that to the EMA
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    currystar said:

    eek said:

    Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.

    Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.

    Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.

    Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...
    Is everyone forgeting this morning that Leave won the Referendum, therefore we must leave.
    The political class want to stay in the EU.

    It doesn't really matter what the proles want or voted for.
  • One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.

    Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...

    To revoke A50 a referendum is needed to cancel the process.
    Why? It could be argued we are just restarting the clock on the original decision....
    Good luck with that
This discussion has been closed.