Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again the money’s going on TMay not making it to the end

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again the money’s going on TMay not making it to the end of the year

Her best bet now pic.twitter.com/s0QZJFCJaP

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Two weeks to save May!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 19,434
    As the LDs would claim - It's a two horse race - December or January..
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 43,382
    BoZo wants to debate May.

    Last chance to salvage the wreckage of his career...
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    The government is committed to publishing a precis of the Attorney General's legal advice on the catastrophic nature of the backstop.

    But they have not done that. What they have released is a personal political opinion from Cox, when the government is committed to delivering a professional, legal one.

    The government is absolutely trying to pull a fast one here.

    The most stupid thing about it is we already know (via cabinet leaks and context from minutes) that the advice was catastrophic.

    Hiding it achieves nothing except making things worse for May by making her looks shifty, undemocratic and terrified of Parliament knowing the full truth.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996
    Scott_P said:

    BoZo wants to debate May.

    Last chance to salvage the wreckage of his career...

    Too late. He’ll be headlining many DUP conferences in his twilight years.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    I've got it.

    Let's make the debate be between Boris and the Shouty Parliament Square Remainer Man.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 43,382
    Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

    Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy
  • FPT:
    tlg86 said:

    Talking of Boris, have we noticed this little bomblet?

    It can now be revealed that UAE claims Hedges’ release could have been secured in the summer but was prolonged partly due to insufficient high-level assurances by the Foreign Office that he was not a spy.

    It has been suggested that Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary until 9 July, was not seen as a reliable pair of hands after he bungled aspects of the Foreign Office efforts to release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

    Tejada has said she was “very cautious” about Johnson and concerned his “flippant comments would hurt Matt’s case”.

    One Emirati source said: “This is a very peculiar case that has left scars on both sides. People feel genuinely hurt and do not understand why it was not resolved back in July.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/27/matthew-hedges-jailed-academic-returns-to-uk-after-uae-pardon

    So he was MI6 then.
    If he was MI6 I'm sure he'd have been put on the next plane to London & told never to come back.

    It looks like his private consultancy work may have strayed into areas the Emiratis took exception to - then because the FCO (yes, Boris, you) had recently mucked up the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case officials may have been reluctant to involve Boris in this case ("What's a little spying between friends?").....so instead of it being quickly sorted out at high level it ended up in the hands of the Dubai Court system and had to grind on....
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,330
    End of SNP's more Scottish pandas than Tory MPs joke.

  • 30% for this year can only be on the assumption that she would resign after losing one of:
    1. the Brexit vote;
    2. a parliamentary VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    3. a Tory party VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    4. a Tory party VoNC after winning the Brexit vote.

    1. She will lose the vote but her sense of duty will surely mean she won't walk away now and leave the country with a political vacuum for 6-8 weeks.

    2. If she did lose a parliamentary VoNC, she might well resign and give the Tories the chance to unite around a new leader, either to get the DUP back on side or else to fight a general election. However, I don't think the chances of the Tories losing a parliamentary vote of confidence are at all high. All Con MPs will come back on side and the DUP have a huge amount to lose from throwing away the current Commons maths.

    3. Seems unlikely. She would surely only go once a new PM had been elected and unlike after a parliamentary VoNC, when time pressures would be acute, a Tory leadership election triggered now, never mind in mid-Dec, would have to go into January if contested - which it would be.

    4. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May could be No Confidenced by her party if she won the vote off the back of Labour abstentions but that seems far more likely on a second vote rather than a first, when Corbyn is clearly gunning for a GE.

    All in all, I think it's less than a 10% chance that she'll go this year.
  • The government is committed to publishing a precis of the Attorney General's legal advice on the catastrophic nature of the backstop.

    But they have not done that. What they have released is a personal political opinion from Cox, when the government is committed to delivering a professional, legal one.

    [snip]

    I don't think that is right. Labour are asking for Geoffrey Cox's written advice to Cabinet, not something produced externally or by in-house legal professionals, if that's what you mean by 'a professional, legal one'.
  • Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,970

    30% for this year can only be on the assumption that she would resign after losing one of:
    1. the Brexit vote;
    2. a parliamentary VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    3. a Tory party VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    4. a Tory party VoNC after winning the Brexit vote.

    1. She will lose the vote but her sense of duty will surely mean she won't walk away now and leave the country with a political vacuum for 6-8 weeks.

    2. If she did lose a parliamentary VoNC, she might well resign and give the Tories the chance to unite around a new leader, either to get the DUP back on side or else to fight a general election. However, I don't think the chances of the Tories losing a parliamentary vote of confidence are at all high. All Con MPs will come back on side and the DUP have a huge amount to lose from throwing away the current Commons maths.

    3. Seems unlikely. She would surely only go once a new PM had been elected and unlike after a parliamentary VoNC, when time pressures would be acute, a Tory leadership election triggered now, never mind in mid-Dec, would have to go into January if contested - which it would be.

    4. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May could be No Confidenced by her party if she won the vote off the back of Labour abstentions but that seems far more likely on a second vote rather than a first, when Corbyn is clearly gunning for a GE.

    All in all, I think it's less than a 10% chance that she'll go this year.

    Hope you're right.
    Under 2), wouldn't she still remain leader of the Conservative party until a successor was chosen (and therefore likely next year)? Would/could she stand down for a caretaker leader?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,581
    AFAIK, that has always been the EU Council's view (correctly, IMHO).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,993
    Ho ho ho. Oh dear. Wasn't this case bought by anti-Brexiters :p ?!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    "Facebook was censured during a hearing in the UK on Tuesday by lawmakers from nine countries who threatened tougher regulation and accused the social network of having lost public trust.

    Members of parliament from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Latvia, Singapore, France, Belgium and the UK criticised chief executive Mark Zuckerberg for refusing to be questioned by the committee about fake news and disinformation."

    https://www.ft.com/content/67968ece-f240-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996
    Pulpstar said:

    Ho ho ho. Oh dear. Wasn't this case bought by anti-Brexiters :p ?!
    Including one rather prominent remainer QC.....

    Titter
  • Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    edited November 2018
    The end of this year or next? I would have thought she'll still be in office at the end of this year no matter what happens.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705
    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
  • Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,081
    edited November 2018

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    Seems fair enough. After all, in this case the British have spent three years (counting Cameron's chest-thumping) dicking about, and one couldn't blame the 27 if they took the view that a bit of genuine good faith had to be demonstrated.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,581
    Pulpstar said:

    Ho ho ho. Oh dear. Wasn't this case bought by anti-Brexiters :p ?!
    Maybe we'll get some trolling from Guy Verhofstadt along the lines "The EU Council would expect any application to revoke A50 to include a commitment to adopt the Single Currency."
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,317
    edited November 2018

    The government is committed to publishing a precis of the Attorney General's legal advice on the catastrophic nature of the backstop.

    But they have not done that. What they have released is a personal political opinion from Cox, when the government is committed to delivering a professional, legal one.

    [snip]

    I don't think that is right. Labour are asking for Geoffrey Cox's written advice to Cabinet, not something produced externally or by in-house legal professionals, if that's what you mean by 'a professional, legal one'.
    Look at the politics. Even if the government has complied with the letter (which is doubtful) but not the spirit, it is aggravating MPs whose support it needs. Where's the sense in it? Where's the political tradecraft?
  • That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    We would need assurance's about what 'remain' actually entailed..

    this is why a second referendum isn't nailed on for Remain, and why arguements which didn't work for Leave last time (Euro/Army etc etc) are now available to them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    We would need assurance's about what 'remain' actually entailed..

    this is why a second referendum isn't nailed on for Remain, and why arguements which didn't work for Leave last time (Euro/Army etc etc) are now available to them.
    I can see the giant billboards already “No means No”.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,167

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Well, given what May is trying to sign us up to, I'd say yes!
  • Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    Pulpstar said:

    Ho ho ho. Oh dear. Wasn't this case bought by anti-Brexiters :p ?!

    Indeed, but this isn't about the case outcome unless I have seriously misunderstood.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,081

    FPT:

    tlg86 said:

    Talking of Boris, have we noticed this little bomblet?

    It can now be revealed that UAE claims Hedges’ release could have been secured in the summer but was prolonged partly due to insufficient high-level assurances by the Foreign Office that he was not a spy.

    It has been suggested that Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary until 9 July, was not seen as a reliable pair of hands after he bungled aspects of the Foreign Office efforts to release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

    Tejada has said she was “very cautious” about Johnson and concerned his “flippant comments would hurt Matt’s case”.

    One Emirati source said: “This is a very peculiar case that has left scars on both sides. People feel genuinely hurt and do not understand why it was not resolved back in July.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/27/matthew-hedges-jailed-academic-returns-to-uk-after-uae-pardon

    So he was MI6 then.
    If he was MI6 I'm sure he'd have been put on the next plane to London & told never to come back.

    It looks like his private consultancy work may have strayed into areas the Emiratis took exception to - then because the FCO (yes, Boris, you) had recently mucked up the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case officials may have been reluctant to involve Boris in this case ("What's a little spying between friends?").....so instead of it being quickly sorted out at high level it ended up in the hands of the Dubai Court system and had to grind on....
    Does look a bit odd, doesn't it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    Me neither. But the Irish have (largely) left and the Scots may well do in the next 10-20 years.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996
    tlg86 said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Well, given what May is trying to sign us up to, I'd say yes!
    May’s deal does a pretty good job of extricating the UK from the EU institutions... it’s just the backstop. If only the EU would allow parallel negotiation on withdrawal and the future trading relationship.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705

    30% for this year can only be on the assumption that she would resign after losing one of:
    1. the Brexit vote;
    2. a parliamentary VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    3. a Tory party VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    4. a Tory party VoNC after winning the Brexit vote.

    1. She will lose the vote but her sense of duty will surely mean she won't walk away now and leave the country with a political vacuum for 6-8 weeks.

    2. If she did lose a parliamentary VoNC, she might well resign and give the Tories the chance to unite around a new leader, either to get the DUP back on side or else to fight a general election. However, I don't think the chances of the Tories losing a parliamentary vote of confidence are at all high. All Con MPs will come back on side and the DUP have a huge amount to lose from throwing away the current Commons maths.

    3. Seems unlikely. She would surely only go once a new PM had been elected and unlike after a parliamentary VoNC, when time pressures would be acute, a Tory leadership election triggered now, never mind in mid-Dec, would have to go into January if contested - which it would be.

    4. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May could be No Confidenced by her party if she won the vote off the back of Labour abstentions but that seems far more likely on a second vote rather than a first, when Corbyn is clearly gunning for a GE.

    All in all, I think it's less than a 10% chance that she'll go this year.

    Her sense of duty to country and party should tell her to resign forthwith. So far her resume as PM is a) one general election (majority lost) b) one Brexit negotiation (ballsed up) leading to c) massive HoC defeat.

    If there is to be any hope of avoiding Hard Brexit, a nw PM has to go to Brussels and say "Your guys and our guys tried. They failed. Their efforts will lead us to Hard Brexit. Are you happy for that - or do you want to see if we can come up with another form of wording we can put to the House?" Clearly Theresa May will never go down that route. The longer she hangs around, the more likely we are to just eat up the time where Something Else gets discussed.

    And surely, if we do somehow get a deal, NOBODY would want her within a million miles of further negotiation of our future trade relationship with the EU?
  • RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    We would need assurance's about what 'remain' actually entailed..

    this is why a second referendum isn't nailed on for Remain, and why arguements which didn't work for Leave last time (Euro/Army etc etc) are now available to them.
    I can see the giant billboards already “No means No”.
    Dust off the 'Save the Pound' slogans.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    Me neither. But the Irish have (largely) left and the Scots may well do in the next 10-20 years.
    If leaving now is traumatic, what would it be like if we were members of the Euro?
  • Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Given that all the EU institutions are on one side, and a couple of MPs and MSPs are on the other, I know who I’d bet on being right.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,723
    Pulpstar said:

    Ho ho ho. Oh dear. Wasn't this case bought by anti-Brexiters :p ?!
    I thought the case was never about whether the UK could unilaterally revoke an A50 notification but whether such was legally revocable at all, the treaty being silent on the matter.

    In any case, it's hard to see who in the EU27 would veto a revocation. The French and Germans would love to have a chastened and humbled UK back, for ever after if we complained about something they could just say "what are you going to do about it, leave?". The more Eurosceptic countries like Denmark, Poland and Sweden would be glad not to lose a kindred voice, the net receivers would be glad to keep a net contributor.

    Maybe Italy would just to throw another maverick spanner in the works, or threaten to as leverage in their budget dispute. Maybe Spain would use it to try and get Gibraltar back. But if either did, I think the rest of the EU27 would put so much pressure on them they'd back down.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705

    The government is committed to publishing a precis of the Attorney General's legal advice on the catastrophic nature of the backstop.

    But they have not done that. What they have released is a personal political opinion from Cox, when the government is committed to delivering a professional, legal one.

    [snip]

    I don't think that is right. Labour are asking for Geoffrey Cox's written advice to Cabinet, not something produced externally or by in-house legal professionals, if that's what you mean by 'a professional, legal one'.
    Look at the politics. Even if the government has complied with the letter (which is doubtful) but not the spirit, it is aggravating MPs whose support it needs. Where's the sense in it? Where's the political tradecraft?
    The tradecraft must be not giving it to them MIGHT piss them off; giving it to them CERTAINLY pisses them off....

    Make Cox the PM. Then he can tell us what his advice was - and what the options are.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,993
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    Me neither. But the Irish have (largely) left and the Scots may well do in the next 10-20 years.
    If leaving now is traumatic, what would it be like if we were members of the Euro?
    Pretty much impossible.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    We would need assurance's about what 'remain' actually entailed..

    this is why a second referendum isn't nailed on for Remain, and why arguements which didn't work for Leave last time (Euro/Army etc etc) are now available to them.
    I can see the giant billboards already “No means No”.
    Dust off the 'Save the Pound' slogans.
    All right, who still has their save the pound baseball cap?? (I assume these existed!)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    RobD said:

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Given that all the EU institutions are on one side, and a couple of MPs and MSPs are on the other, I know who I’d bet on being right.
    Sorry??
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996
    rpjs said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Ho ho ho. Oh dear. Wasn't this case bought by anti-Brexiters :p ?!
    I thought the case was never about whether the UK could unilaterally revoke an A50 notification but whether such was legally revocable at all, the treaty being silent on the matter.

    In any case, it's hard to see who in the EU27 would veto a revocation. The French and Germans would love to have a chastened and humbled UK back, for ever after if we complained about something they could just say "what are you going to do about it, leave?". The more Eurosceptic countries like Denmark, Poland and Sweden would be glad not to lose a kindred voice, the net receivers would be glad to keep a net contributor.

    Maybe Italy would just to throw another maverick spanner in the works, or threaten to as leverage in their budget dispute. Maybe Spain would use it to try and get Gibraltar back. But if either did, I think the rest of the EU27 would put so much pressure on them they'd back down.
    I believe the case was to ascertain whether or not the U.K. could revoke unilaterally.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    We would need assurance's about what 'remain' actually entailed..

    this is why a second referendum isn't nailed on for Remain, and why arguements which didn't work for Leave last time (Euro/Army etc etc) are now available to them.
    I can see the giant billboards already “No means No”.
    Dust off the 'Save the Pound' slogans.
    All right, who still has their save the pound baseball cap?? (I assume these existed!)
    They've shrunk a lot. But not as much as they're about to!
  • dr_spyn said:

    End of SNP's more Scottish pandas than Tory MPs joke.

    Read the specials menu option in the zoo canteen carefully today
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
    Just ahead of the 2nd MV?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    Me neither. But the Irish have (largely) left and the Scots may well do in the next 10-20 years.
    If leaving now is traumatic, what would it be like if we were members of the Euro?
    Pretty much impossible.
    The remainers end game?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    My god - the history books that are going to be written about this period!

    "Brexit - The Slide Into Chaos"
  • A lay at this price, for all the reasons OGH gave a few days ago. If she is ousted on a vote of no confidence or the deal is shot down in flames, it's possible that Theresa May might throw the car keys at someone (David Lidington?) but she is more likely to stay in harness until a replacement is found and that doesn't look likely to be a 24 hour job.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
    When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    edited November 2018

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
    When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
    11th December

    Then again on the 12th, 13th, 14th, etc. until passed. :wink:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Given that all the EU institutions are on one side, and a couple of MPs and MSPs are on the other, I know who I’d bet on being riguht.
    Sorry??
    The case before the ECJ that was the subject of the previous replies to this thread. The EU Council and Commission are stating it’s not revocable unilaterally, while a couple of MPs/MSPs are.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Given that all the EU institutions are on one side, and a couple of MPs and MSPs are on the other, I know who I’d bet on being riguht.
    Sorry??
    The case before the ECJ that was the subject of the previous replies to this thread. The EU Council and Commission are stating it’s not revocable unilaterally, while a couple of MPs/MSPs are.
    Ah right, I see. Sorry
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
    When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
    11th December
    With the parliamentary debate starting on the 4th and going right through...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
    When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
    11th December
    With the parliamentary debate starting on the 4th and going right through...
    FFS hope Tezza's got a fresh pack of strepsils!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,993
    edited November 2018

    A lay at this price, for all the reasons OGH gave a few days ago. If she is ousted on a vote of no confidence or the deal is shot down in flames, it's possible that Theresa May might throw the car keys at someone (David Lidington?) but she is more likely to stay in harness until a replacement is found and that doesn't look likely to be a 24 hour job.

    Yesterday I red out at 4.0 (Backing), but have relaid to a similiar original liability at 3.55 today. Overall underwater in this market but thinking about it sensibly she's still likely to be technically in place over christmas even if she's announced her resignation before then.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885
    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
    It was mostly political fudge. For example the opt out from ever closer union just reflects the existing legal position in the treaties.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    Go to go now - Macbeth tonight at Theatre Royal Bath. Should be a pleasantly uplifting diversion from Brexit!
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
    The changes were legally binding insofar as the intentions and statements made by the EU leaders were enshrined in an international treaty, but they were not part of the treaties.

    The agreement made a provision that they would be enshrined in the next round of treaty negotiations under the ordinary revision procedure. It would also have required primary union regulations to make legally binding on the institutions.

    So basically they were a legally binding annex that would have been added in to the next treaty revision.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
    It was mostly political fudge. For example the opt out from ever closer union just reflects the existing legal position in the treaties.
    Ah, so they were worthless guarantees after all?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,518

    Go to go now - Macbeth tonight at Theatre Royal Bath. Should be a pleasantly uplifting diversion from Brexit!

    'I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er...'
    Very Brexit.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
    It was mostly political fudge. For example the opt out from ever closer union just reflects the existing legal position in the treaties.
    Ah, so they were worthless guarantees after all?
    See grabcocque's answer. :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,518

    Isn't that the current viewpoint. That all the EU27 need to agree to it.
    The importance of this if true is we cannot unilaterally revoke A50 so deal or no deal are the choices. Dramatic if so
    It was always dependent on the EU27 saying ok. Now wether or no they do or would is another matter.
    Makes it a lot more complicated for remainers

    They would need all 27 to agree and the terms of agreement

    You have overlooked the important "unless ECJ says otherwise" part.
    Indeed
    Having said that, I think the noise music seems to be that the ECJ will fudge it an leave it to the Council to decide (or say revocation needs the approval of both parties the UK govt and the EU Council).

    In which case, it probably does make Remain more tricky. Which in turn might just possibly sway a lot of Remainer MPs to May's Deal?
    Coincidentally there's a Council meeting a few days after the meaningful vote. May could get a clear statement from them then... ;)
    When is the PM's Meaningless Vote? They mentioned yestereday on the radio that a date had been set, but then I could find no further reference to it.
    11th December
    With the parliamentary debate starting on the 4th and going right through...
    FFS hope Tezza's got a fresh pack of strepsils!
    Vocalzones are the preferred option.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
    The changes were legally binding insofar as the intentions and statements made by the EU leaders were enshrined in an international treaty, but they were not part of the treaties.

    The agreement made a provision that they would be enshrined in the next round of treaty negotiations under the ordinary revision procedure. It would also have required primary union regulations to make legally binding on the institutions.

    So basically they were a legally binding annex that would have been added in to the next treaty revision.
    Ah, thank you. So they could do the same with any conditions applied on revocation?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    They could only be political conditions. Amending the treaties isn't in the Council's power.
    How did Cameron’s guarantees get enacted then? It wasn’t through treaty change.
    It was mostly political fudge. For example the opt out from ever closer union just reflects the existing legal position in the treaties.
    Ah, so they were worthless guarantees after all?
    See grabcocque's answer. :)
    Just did, thanks! Sounds a lot more solid than fudge :p
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.

    TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.

    However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,518

    My god - the history books that are going to be written about this period!

    "Brexit - The Slide Into Chaos"

    The stumble from one pile of poo to the next.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    We would need assurance's about what 'remain' actually entailed..

    this is why a second referendum isn't nailed on for Remain, and why arguements which didn't work for Leave last time (Euro/Army etc etc) are now available to them.
    I can see the giant billboards already “No means No”.
    Dust off the 'Save the Pound' slogans.
    All right, who still has their save the pound baseball cap?? (I assume these existed!)
    Two weeks to save the UK!
  • If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.

    TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.

    However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.

    I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.

    TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.

    However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.

    I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
    Just wondering..... is that red bus still in storage?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.

    TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.

    However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.

    I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
    I mean we're at the very tail end of the EU's current budgetary period. I don't think there's much rebate left to lose by this point.
  • rkrkrk said:

    30% for this year can only be on the assumption that she would resign after losing one of:
    1. the Brexit vote;
    2. a parliamentary VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    3. a Tory party VoNC after losing the Brexit vote;
    4. a Tory party VoNC after winning the Brexit vote.

    1. She will lose the vote but her sense of duty will surely mean she won't walk away now and leave the country with a political vacuum for 6-8 weeks.

    2. If she did lose a parliamentary VoNC, she might well resign and give the Tories the chance to unite around a new leader, either to get the DUP back on side or else to fight a general election. However, I don't think the chances of the Tories losing a parliamentary vote of confidence are at all high. All Con MPs will come back on side and the DUP have a huge amount to lose from throwing away the current Commons maths.

    3. Seems unlikely. She would surely only go once a new PM had been elected and unlike after a parliamentary VoNC, when time pressures would be acute, a Tory leadership election triggered now, never mind in mid-Dec, would have to go into January if contested - which it would be.

    4. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that May could be No Confidenced by her party if she won the vote off the back of Labour abstentions but that seems far more likely on a second vote rather than a first, when Corbyn is clearly gunning for a GE.

    All in all, I think it's less than a 10% chance that she'll go this year.

    Hope you're right.
    Under 2), wouldn't she still remain leader of the Conservative party until a successor was chosen (and therefore likely next year)? Would/could she stand down for a caretaker leader?
    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus. The time pressures would be huge because the 14-day clock to dissolution would be ticking and Corbyn would be chomping at the bit to form a government. If she didn't go, she'd be inviting a general election which she'd almost certainly lose given the chaos the Tory Party would then be in and the difficulty of establishing a line which could survive an election campaign.

    Obviously, there's no guarantee that a successor could be chosen without opposition but the rules are flexible on this point. The 1922 Exec could propose an amendment to require nominees to need, say, the support of 20% of the Party's MPs, rather than just 2 MPs as at present - and ram the rule change through within 24 hours.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.

    TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.

    However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.

    I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
    I mean we're at the very tail end of the EU's current budgetary period. I don't think there's much rebate left to lose by this point.
    We wouldn’t have had one anyway?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885
    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?
  • RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    And yet Scotland got a referendum on independence four years ago, and most of Ireland gained actual independence almost 100 years ago.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234


    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.

    I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.

    A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.

    The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    And yet Scotland got a referendum on independence four years ago, and most of Ireland gained actual independence almost 100 years ago.
    I don’t doubt we would have negotiated an amicable relationship with them in the event of independence. It’s the EU and their indivisible four freedoms (that came from on high) which is the complicating factor in all this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,993


    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.

    I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.

    A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.

    The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
    David Lidington, your time has come.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?

    In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996


    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.

    I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.

    A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.

    The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
    Might I suggest a peer of the realm? :D
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,895

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    We wish
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?

    In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.

    It’s down the back of the sofa?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    That consent to revoking Article 50 would surely come at a price: a Treaty amendment that Article 50 is a one-shot weapon. And we've fired our one shot into the ceiling.

    So we would be locked in the EU. Forever. Whatever they decide. Currency. Army. Tax. Imagine that....could any PM agree to that?
    Nothing's ever forever. Was there an A50 equivalent for the Irish or Scottish Acts of Union?
    I don’t believe so.
    And yet Scotland got a referendum on independence four years ago, and most of Ireland gained actual independence almost 100 years ago.
    I don’t doubt we would have negotiated an amicable relationship with them in the event of independence. It’s the EU and their indivisible four freedoms (that came from on high) which is the complicating factor in all this.
    It's only a complicating factor if you don't really want to divorce.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:


    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.

    I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.

    A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.

    The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
    Might I suggest a peer of the realm? :D
    Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,993
    edited November 2018

    RobD said:


    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.

    I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.

    A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.

    The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
    Might I suggest a peer of the realm? :D
    Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
    Prime Minister Questions would be entertaining whilst he holds the post.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    If the UK wants to revoke A50 sounds like it will first of all have to negotiate a bilateral revocation agreement with the commission and then submit it to the Council for unanimous approval.

    TBH, that's not as onerous as it sounds, because I think the Union will be delighted if we decide to stay and won't try to scare us off by loading up the agreement with unreasonable demands.

    However, I do think it would almost certainly contain a requirement that the UK be disbarred from invoking A50 again for a reasonably long time.

    I don't see how that is possible but it will certainly include the UK losing its rebate. Which means it will cost us £350mn a week to remain.
    It is already costing us £500m a week to leave. Some figures put it at as much as £2bn a week....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46338585

    Staying in is a lot cheaper.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    RobD said:


    I think under (2) there'd be massive pressure for her to step down immediately and to try to elect a successor by consensus.

    I see that too. May resigns as PM, but does not immediately resign as Tory leader.

    A caretaker emerges from the Men In Gray Suits to be Prime Minister for the next few months whilst the Tories figure out how to stop Boris Johnson from winning a leadership election.

    The caretaker PM would need to be somebody who has no intention of taking part in the forthcoming leadership contest.
    Might I suggest a peer of the realm? :D
    Many have suggested that Baron Hague of Richmond fits the bill rather nicely.
    I’m sure Her Majesty can bestow an emergency life peerage on Corbs in short order.
  • Is the European council’s top lawyer really someone called Hubert Legal?
  • Mr. D, no sofa in the chamber in which it vanished. And I've checked by the side of the furniture. And on the floor.

    Currently, I'm working on three theories:
    1) global warming caused it to evaporate
    2) Brexit meant it was confiscated pre-emptively by an EU elastic commissar
    3) Cthulhu ate it
This discussion has been closed.