Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
Ruth Carlson is a current student at Surrey University, where she is a Student Ambassador for civil engineering. She has experience as a course representative, as a former president of the Surrey University Women’s Football Team and has also worked in other institutional and regional representative forums
Looks like a reasonable student representative, albeit not from the heavily politicised union
Hmmm Carlson. Do you have any Scandinavian relatives?
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
The EU is adept at stopping the clock when it needs to.
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
Ruth Carlson is a current student at Surrey University, where she is a Student Ambassador for civil engineering. She has experience as a course representative, as a former president of the Surrey University Women’s Football Team and has also worked in other institutional and regional representative forums
Looks like a reasonable student representative, albeit not from the heavily politicised union
Does she have a friend who can replace Toby?
What is your objection to someone with decent experience of school governance?
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
Ruth Carlson is a current student at Surrey University, where she is a Student Ambassador for civil engineering. She has experience as a course representative, as a former president of the Surrey University Women’s Football Team and has also worked in other institutional and regional representative forums
Looks like a reasonable student representative, albeit not from the heavily politicised union
Does she have a friend who can replace Toby?
What is your objection to someone with decent experience of school governance?
The question to ask is probably: Is she Toby's friend?
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
The EU is adept at stopping the clock when it needs to.
There is no precedent with A50. The clock can be stopped (or so it seems) but that would require political will on both sides as well as domestic legislation. Extending A50 would perhaps be more realistic, but that too would require political will and mutual consent. What Clegg is saying risks the ultimate crash out scenario where we leave with no trade deal and no functioning legal system.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
The answer is "who knows".
But remember this: the EU, and its constituent members, lose from "no deal" as much as we do. They run a large trade surplus with us, and we will be their biggest external trade destination post-Brexit. (And extending our exit date by a month is worth about €1.5bn to them._
Would they be willing to re-open negotiations in the case of the British government saying "no deal"? Probably not. Would they extend the deadline by a couple of months if they thought that would be what was necessary? Probably.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
Toby Young should be kicked off OfStud and replaced with an NUS representative.
When Labour are finally in a position to form a strong and stable government in the national interest we can have a fun little bonfire of the tory quangos.
Bring yer marshmallows.
Ruth Carlson is a current student at Surrey University, where she is a Student Ambassador for civil engineering. She has experience as a course representative, as a former president of the Surrey University Women’s Football Team and has also worked in other institutional and regional representative forums
Looks like a reasonable student representative, albeit not from the heavily politicised union
Does she have a friend who can replace Toby?
What is your objection to someone with decent experience of school governance?
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
The answer is "who knows".
But remember this: the EU, and its constituent members, lose from "no deal" as much as we do. They run a large trade surplus with us, and we will be their biggest external trade destination post-Brexit. (And extending our exit date by a month is worth about €1.5bn to them._
Would they be willing to re-open negotiations in the case of the British government saying "no deal"? Probably not. Would they extend the deadline by a couple of months if they thought that would be what was necessary? Probably.
The EU is 27 countries so while in aggregate they would lose, it wouldn't be "just as much as we do" per country.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
The EU is adept at stopping the clock when it needs to.
No the EU is adept at only acting when the clock forces it to.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
The EU is adept at stopping the clock when it needs to.
No the EU is adept at only acting when the clock forces it to.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
For those reasons, the deal will be approved.
Why do you think the Conservatives won’t enact a second referendum? Once May has a deal on the table, there will be no further need to keep up the pretence that we’re definitely leaving.
Mr. Blue, sounds very reminiscent of prosperity and peace enervating the Western Roman Empire.
Don’t forget Christianity. One could argue that the same thing is happening again, except this time, Western secularists have deluded themselves that their value system is freestanding and independent of the religion that spawned it.
Patronising nonsense. Do you think that educated Westerners up to about 25 AD were absolutely fine with raping grannies and eating babies until - kapow - a Levantine hippy stuns everybody with the revelation that, hang on chaps, there may be a better way? And don't say "secularist" as if it were a full time political or philosophical position. It takes nano seconds to decide that it is not the case that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, one doesn't need to be anything-ist about it.
The Romans certainly used rape as an instrument of state terrorism
The Catholic Church (and other churches) hardly has a clean record in its authorisation of, and use of, violence.
Nor does Islam or Hinduism and indeed many Protestant Churches and arguably the Jewish leadership in Israel and nor did atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Mao
Hitler was a Jeffersonian style deist, not an atheist. You may be confusing him with Mussolini, who was an avowed atheist (although both men were nominally Catholics).
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
For those reasons, the deal will be approved.
Even if there is no deal, or a bad deal?
We have reached agreement on citizens’ rights and money. A standstill transition as desired by business neutralises the Irish issue on Brexit day, and postpones the final moment of decision. Tories will be able to unite around a Canada Plus aspiration in terms of the final FTA.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
For those reasons, the deal will be approved.
Even if there is no deal, or a bad deal?
There really is nowhere else to go. Crashing out would be disastrous, a GE or referendum would tear the country apart and no one could possibly know where it would all end up. Diehard Remainers need to accept we are leaving and if they want to they can, in due course, make their case for rejoining.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
For those reasons, the deal will be approved.
Even if there is no deal, or a bad deal?
We have reached agreement on citizens’ rights and money. A standstill transition as desired by business neutralises the Irish issue on Brexit day, and postpones the final moment of decision. Tories will be able to unite around a Canada Plus aspiration in terms of the final FTA.
But will the DUP? A Canada style deal implies a customs border in the Irish Sea.
Sir Nick Clegg thinks MPs can reject the deal, and that it will be fine to have a new conservative leader and/or general election to sort things out. Do we think this is likely?
Would enough Conservative MPs really vote for the utter chaos that ensue?
That's '£'. Of course it is a simple fact that MPs CAN reject the deal. No, not very likely. Would the resulting chaos be worse than what we have now?
Chaos there certainly would be. But if parliament rejects any deal, that would not stop the A50 clock, which is controlled by international treaty law. Surely Clegg knows this and he is just peddling snake oil.
I don’t think they will reject it.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
For those reasons, the deal will be approved.
Even if there is no deal, or a bad deal?
We have reached agreement on citizens’ rights and money. A standstill transition as desired by business neutralises the Irish issue on Brexit day, and postpones the final moment of decision. Tories will be able to unite around a Canada Plus aspiration in terms of the final FTA.
But will the DUP? A Canada style deal implies a customs border in the Irish Sea.
Then Irish border is the intractable issue as both sides appear committed to mutually exclusive principles. Someone is going to get thrown under a bus. But who?
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
We discussed that a bit just before Christmas. IANAL, but it looks very weak to me, essentially because there is no decision to be challenged. The government's position is that they don't intend to attempt to revoke Article 50, so the question of whether they could do so is a hypothetical one, not within the scope of judicial review.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
We discussed that a bit just before Christmas. IANAL, but it looks very weak to me, essentially because there is no decision to be challenged. The government's position is that they don't intend to attempt to revoke Article 50, so the question of whether they could do so is a hypothetical one, not within the scope of judicial review.
Labour leading on being able to suspend (not revoke) it might be a big draw to those who want or are resigned to Brexit but realise our timetable is unfeasibly tight. Plenty on both sides of the political spectrum who think that. Would play well for Lab, IMO.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
Thanks for sharing @DavidL . Does that mean that the AG has to come to a conclusion within 21 days? Who appointed the incumbent? Can the Court of Session refer to CJEU or could that be appealed?
Apologies for my near total ignorance of Scots law.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
Interesting. Could you tell us the names you mention?
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
We discussed that a bit just before Christmas. IANAL, but it looks very weak to me, essentially because there is no decision to be challenged. The government's position is that they don't intend to attempt to revoke Article 50, so the question of whether they could do so is a hypothetical one, not within the scope of judicial review.
That is apparently Richard Keen QC's response. Its an academic question because there is no intention not to implement Article 50. Scottish Courts are particularly careful about not seeking to answer "academic" or hypothetical questions and I suspect that will be a substantial hurdle for the petitioners to get over.
Not particularly sure that the CJEU would be minded to give an answer that just might be helpful to the UK in the negotiations either.
Labour leading on being able to suspend (not revoke) it might be a big draw to those who want or are resigned to Brexit but realise our timetable is unfeasibly tight. Plenty on both sides of the political spectrum who think that. Would play well for Lab, IMO.
Politically you might be right, but surely in legal terms the procedure for extending the deadline is unambiguously set out in Article 50 and requires unanimity of the 27 + 1.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
I'm surprised at this because the relevant clauses seem pretty clear, and give the straightforward answer 'no'.
However, in the real world I am fairly sure that if we changed our minds and shamefacedly asked to recant A50 a means would be found for us to do so by a delighted EU. Most countries would be happy to have us back and any that wished to be awkward (e.g. Luxembourg, Spain) would probably find their 'no' vote mysteriously changed to 'yes' on the way to the count. This is for two simple reasons. Not only would that kill any thought of anyone else trying to leave, but it would also bring us back in with all that lovely trade and money and intelligence data but also severely weakened and having lost much of our prestige and a number of European agencies, leaving the Francophile vision of big state federalism truly triumphant.
Which is why, no matter how badly Barnier and Davis bugger up talks between them, Theresa May is about as likely to do it as John Macdonnell is to endorse the sale of Network Rail to a group of hedge funds.
Labour leading on being able to suspend (not revoke) it might be a big draw to those who want or are resigned to Brexit but realise our timetable is unfeasibly tight. Plenty on both sides of the political spectrum who think that. Would play well for Lab, IMO.
Politically you might be right, but surely in legal terms the procedure for extending the deadline is unambiguously set out in Article 50 and requires unanimity of the 27 + 1.
Legal schmegal. If it benefits Lab it could be a goer.
The optics of going on holiday with a sister one month and getting a job for which he is wholly unqualified from her brother the next month aren't brilliant.
The optics of going on holiday with a sister one month and getting a job for which he is wholly unqualified from her brother the next month aren't brilliant.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
Interesting. Could you tell us the names you mention?
According to Scottish Legal News (which is my source for this) the petitioners include: SNP MEP Alyn Smith; Scottish Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer; Scottish Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler; Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine; as well as SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC.
No info on who the counsel is although Joanna Cherry could of course do it herself.
@ydoethur FWIW, I agree. It looks as clear as these things ever do.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
Not particularly sure that the CJEU would be minded to give an answer that just might be helpful to the UK in the negotiations either.
They certainly would not. Otherwise, any EU member State could use A50 as a means of extracting concessions, in return for an offer to revoke it.
I didn't really want to bring Brexit up but the Court of Session has allowed what I presume is a judicial review past the sift which seeks a determination as to whether or not the UK can unilaterally suspend the Article 50 notice. The petition is brought in the name of MPs, MEPs, and MSPs of 4 parties (no tories). The Advocate General has been ordered to lodge answers in 21 days.
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
Thanks for sharing @DavidL . Does that mean that the AG has to come to a conclusion within 21 days? Who appointed the incumbent? Can the Court of Session refer to CJEU or could that be appealed?
Apologies for my near total ignorance of Scots law.
No he has to lodge answers, that is a written response to the Court. There will then be a procedural hearing at which the scope of the substantive hearing will be sorted out along with any questions of further pleadings, evidence, documents etc.
The Advocate General is appointed by the UK government to represent their legal interests in Scotland. Richard Keen QC is a former Dean of Faculty and one of the outstanding Court lawyers of his generation.
For a referral there has to be shown to be a legal controversy based on EU law of some substance. In my limited experience of such a thing it is quite tricky and takes a long time even when the Court is minded to make the reference in principle. A decision by a Judge at first instance to make the referral can be appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session and, with leave, to the Supreme Court.
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
Perhaps you should consider becoming famous given the performance of many of those who have the job at the moment.
I have so many skeletons in my cupboard (life is for living) that the Daily Mail would have to have special editions every week.
Not that I care two hoots about them. People who have made no mistakes have made no decisions either and have not lived.
Interesting philosophy; doesn't square with the condemnation of Mr Young's appointment.
Only if you assume that his appointment was a mistake. To read some on here, he’s a cross between Mother Theresa and John Maynard Keynes. I am a touch sceptical......
There are lots of people with Firsts in the City.
A surprising number lack common-sense or judgment; some have no ethical standards whatsoever and a few give the impression that they need help getting out of the house in the morning.
The leader is the best thing I've read on here for a long long time. I don't agree with all of it but made me wonder if I am wrong. Curious to know the (real) identity of the author..
That is very kind.
I am not Michael Daubney, whoever he is. And I suspect my real identity would disappoint you. I am not famous. I did not even go to Oxford. And I only bet on racing.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be on this board......
Perhaps you should consider becoming famous given the performance of many of those who have the job at the moment.
I have so many skeletons in my cupboard (life is for living) that the Daily Mail would have to have special editions every week.
Not that I care two hoots about them. People who have made no mistakes have made no decisions either and have not lived.
Interesting philosophy; doesn't square with the condemnation of Mr Young's appointment.
Only if you assume that his appointment was a mistake. To read some on here, he’s a cross between Mother Theresa and John Maynard Keynes. I am a touch sceptical......
There are lots of people with Firsts in the City.
A surprising number lack common-sense or judgment; some have no ethical standards whatsoever and a few give the impression that they need help getting out of the house in the morning.
We're all over on the other thread. Are you seeking to make money advising City institutions?
A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.
There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long time for the Russian revolution to pay dividends.
What it comes back to is global governance. Transnational corporations and geographically mobile billionaires with no innate loyalty to a given country or type of country, make it hard to regulate wealth, which easily flies to safe havens. To some extent, the West - with its rule of law and safety from arbitrary government - still has an advantage as a safe haven there but it's one that can't be guaranteed indefinitely not least because those with vast wealth risk of starving the tiger they're riding. Getting to grips with low-tax microstates that free ride off the security provided by larger countries would be a start.
But internally, there needs to be a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is created and distributed, something reflected in the changes in party support. As the party of government, the Conservatives have the best opportunity to do something about that - though the experience of the Dementia Tax shows the political danger of doing so (though it has to be said, the political stupidity there was the timing rather than the policy itself). Even so, it must try a great deal harder or else the rather brittle economic and political system that Cyclefree identifies could crack a lot faster than many think possible.
Though two recent reports show Millenials will have the biggest inheritances of any post war generation and over half of first time buyers receive parents support
Comments
You know how these things work Charles.
But remember this: the EU, and its constituent members, lose from "no deal" as much as we do. They run a large trade surplus with us, and we will be their biggest external trade destination post-Brexit. (And extending our exit date by a month is worth about €1.5bn to them._
Would they be willing to re-open negotiations in the case of the British government saying "no deal"? Probably not. Would they extend the deadline by a couple of months if they thought that would be what was necessary? Probably.
QTWTAIN.
The EU will make very clear that the deal on offer cannot be amended, and that the only alternative is to stay in the Union. I don’t know whether they would offer continued membership on the same terms or with some/all of our opt-outs.
There is widespread (but not total) agreement at Westminster that only a second referendum could countermand the first. There is no way a Conservative government would enact one, so I expect Theresa May will state that if the deal is rejected, there must be a general election to resolve the issue. The payroll vote, Brexiteer backbencher and the opposition parties will ensure that there are enough votes for a dissolution.
I don’t think there are many if any Tory rebels who want a general election on the topic of Brexit at Christmas 2018. They would face deselection efforts, huge vitriol, and even if allowed to stand, some may lose their seats. Labour would have no choice but to support a dissolution, and then their studied ambiguity would come crashing down.
For those reasons, the deal will be approved.
How come 29% of Remainers think Vince Cable is doing well?
I would have thought it would have been lower even among committed Liberal Democrats.
I think the probability of no deal is minuscule.
Be glad when this wind dies down a bit more. Where's that nice Mediterranean climate I was promised?
I think the intention is to seek a reference to the CJEU on the question. Whether that would be capable of (a) being achieved and (b) being answered before the UK has left must be uncertain.
[Elizabeth Day]"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/behind-rise-childless-women-40s-experience-men/
Mr. L, significant news, right of you to post it.
Apologies for my near total ignorance of Scots law.
Not particularly sure that the CJEU would be minded to give an answer that just might be helpful to the UK in the negotiations either.
However, in the real world I am fairly sure that if we changed our minds and shamefacedly asked to recant A50 a means would be found for us to do so by a delighted EU. Most countries would be happy to have us back and any that wished to be awkward (e.g. Luxembourg, Spain) would probably find their 'no' vote mysteriously changed to 'yes' on the way to the count. This is for two simple reasons. Not only would that kill any thought of anyone else trying to leave, but it would also bring us back in with all that lovely trade and money and intelligence data but also severely weakened and having lost much of our prestige and a number of European agencies, leaving the Francophile vision of big state federalism truly triumphant.
Which is why, no matter how badly Barnier and Davis bugger up talks between them, Theresa May is about as likely to do it as John Macdonnell is to endorse the sale of Network Rail to a group of hedge funds.
https://twitter.com/borisjohnson/status/948469085557411841
No info on who the counsel is although Joanna Cherry could of course do it herself.
@ydoethur FWIW, I agree. It looks as clear as these things ever do.
The Advocate General is appointed by the UK government to represent their legal interests in Scotland. Richard Keen QC is a former Dean of Faculty and one of the outstanding Court lawyers of his generation.
For a referral there has to be shown to be a legal controversy based on EU law of some substance. In my limited experience of such a thing it is quite tricky and takes a long time even when the Court is minded to make the reference in principle. A decision by a Judge at first instance to make the referral can be appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session and, with leave, to the Supreme Court.
There are lots of people with Firsts in the City.
A surprising number lack common-sense or judgment; some have no ethical standards whatsoever and a few give the impression that they need help getting out of the house in the morning.