So now we know what the government was really negotiating with the EU. How to ignore the referendum vote and stay in. If they want to see what happens next they should look at Scotland 2015 when remain was split three ways and leave had only one party to vote for.
I can buy kinabalu's argument. If our Lords and Mistresses feel that the economic harm is too, too awful to contemplate, one or both parties can throw themselves on the Brexit hand grenade, and bear the wrath in the electorate at the next GE.
It's more honest. It would be saying it was a mistake to hold the 2016 referendum in the first place and after much soul searching we (parliament) cannot implement it because we are convinced that in practice it will diminish and impoverish our nation. For me that is preferable to trying to gerrymander that same outcome via another referendum.
Sometimes parliament is at odds with 'the people' and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Capital punishment springs to mind.
My view is that the EU referendum was a folly but given that it took place, and given the high level of participation, it MUST be respected.
And it will be. We are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. The even money on BF for that is the bet of the century. I'm lumping a fiver on.
Yes and no. Committees start in the morning, but generally the main chamber only revs up at lunchtime (and then goes on till 7 or 10, depending on the day). The idea is to allow MPs with other interests to pursue them - e.g. Letwin used to spend a few hours at his bank many mornings. In practice the workload is so overwhelming that you just crack on from the early hours through till 10ish.
Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.
Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...
Is everyone forgeting this morning that Leave won the Referendum, therefore we must leave.
Will anyone forget the shambles that Leave has caused? If May's Deal fails and No-Deal looms ever closer, Revocation will be the only practical course left.
It is not like we did not try to leave. We tried and, so far, failed to agree on how to do it. It has cost us billions already.
Oh please people call any defeat a humiliation, calm the heck down.
That's just a recital of the test, i.e. the AG does not agree with the UK's submission. It doesn't say anything further like that (and AGs, and indeed judgments themselves, rarely stray into disdain).
Generally, wrecking amendments are ruled out of order (vote against the Bill if you hate it that much), and they're generally put down to make a point rather than in the expectation of being called.There is sometime room for debate on whether an amendment really contradicts the motion, and that's where the Speaker's judgment becomes crucial.
Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.
What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.
Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....
These things happen under our electoral system. After all, 63% of votes in the 2015 GE were for parties that didn't pledge to hold a Brexit referendum and we still had one.
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.
What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.
Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....
These things happen under our electoral system. After all, 63% of votes in the 2015 GE were for parties that didn't pledge to hold a Brexit referendum and we still had one.
I think that rather strengthens my point!
How? A majority of votes were for parties that didn't pledge to hold the referendum and a referendum was held, anyway. Now, a minority of votes were for parties that didn't pledge to go through with Brexit...
Whatever else you think of Brexit it really is a continuing education. I have just discovered that the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) business is slightly bigger than fishing. One is just over and the other just under a billion a year.
I wonder why there wasn't a march of EFL teachers waving bilingual dictionaries during the referendum campaign?
So now we know what the government was really negotiating with the EU. How to ignore the referendum vote and stay in. If they want to see what happens next they should look at Scotland 2015 when remain was split three ways and leave had only one party to vote for.
If we are to Leave I would rather it happened that way, with a government made up of MPs who genuinely believed in it.
"However, that possibility of unilateral revocation is subject to certain conditions and limits. First, like the notification of the intention to withdraw, the unilateral revocation must be notified by a formal act to the European Council. Secondly, it must respect national constitutional requirements. If, as is the case in the UK, prior parliamentary authorisation is required for the notification of the intention to withdraw, it is logical that the revocation of that notification also requires parliamentary approval. There is also a temporal limit on the possibility of revocation, since revocation is possible only within the two-year period that begins when the intention to withdraw is notified. The principles of good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed, in order to prevent abuse of the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU."
A defeat for the EU mindset:
"The advocate general rejects the contention that article 50 TEU only allows the possibility, put forward by the commission and the council, of a revocation following a unanimous decision of the European council. In his opinion, a revocation by mutual consent of the departing member state which changes its position and the EU institutions with which it is negotiating its withdrawal is possible. However, this would not prejudice unilateral revocation, which the departing Member State always maintains under article 50 TEU. On the other hand, the advocate general considers that to make the possibility of revocation conditional upon the adoption of a unanimous decision of the European council would be incompatible with article 50 TEU. To accept that the European council, acting by unanimity, should have the last word on the revocation increases the risk of the member state leaving the EU against its will, since the right to withdraw from (and, conversely, to remain in) the EU would no longer be subject to the control of the member state, its sovereignty and its constitutional requirements. In those circumstances, it would suffice for one of the remaining 27 member states to oppose the revocation in order for the will of the member state that has expressed its desire to remain in the EU to be frustrated."
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
Indeed. The emphasis on the f****** around clause appears to be on the triggering of A50 in the first place. Was TM f****** around when she triggered it? Probably not.
The question now is, is the UK serious if it revokes A50?
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
How do you think a revocation is going to be carried out without some indication being given as to why?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
Which is why I made my comment earlier. All the things being released today are there to show everyone what the reality is:-
No deal isn't an option the Government is in a position to support. So the options are May's Deal or revoke article 50 and the meaningful vote is now meaningful as if it goes the other way May has only a single option...
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
I am.
And me
+1
As a remainer who sees the "people have spoken" thing - it looks markedly better than No Deal, and I believe it's more or less the best we'll get given the reddish lines. Which I think is the view of a rather greater proportion of the Great British Public than the impression given by their representatives in the HoC.
But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
They will never get their shit together. This was their only hope. A one shot where they didn't have to have their shit together.
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
I am.
And me
+1
As a remainer who sees the "people have spoken" thing - it looks markedly better than No Deal, and I believe it's more or less the best we'll get given the reddish lines. Which I think is the view of a rather greater proportion of the Great British Public than the impression given by their representatives in the HoC.
But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
I suspect it will be the opposite - the people won't riot but if you vote against the deal in a leave constituency I wouldn't recommend standing for re-election...
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
How do you think a revocation is going to be carried out without some indication being given as to why?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
From what little information that is available, it appears that Parliament or at least the Govt must agree something or pass a bill "... in line with its constitutional arrangements ..." for the Revocation so no need for the Judiciary.
As for the pensioners, a few flights of steps in front of Parliament should frustrate their revolutionary ambitions
Positive? It stops the prospect of complete crash Brexit. Negative? That might encourage brinksmanship on both sides, since the consequences now aren't so severe.
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
'they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene' = wildly blame everyone else, ignore their own part in why it's gone pear shaped and hope they can get the tabloids to stoke up fears of immigruntz again for round 2.
Though tbf that'll be mostly them there 'Brexiteers' which the saner Leavers now say have nothing to do with them.
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
Indeed. The emphasis on the f****** around clause appears to be on the triggering of A50 in the first place. Was TM f****** around when she triggered it? Probably not.
The question now is, is the UK serious if it revokes A50?
Wouldn’t Article 7 kick in if the UK dicks around.
Mr. Observer, disagree. The political class is pro-EU and it would take a hell of a lot for them to flirt with the possibility of the proletariat having wrong opinions again.
With respect, the 'political class' is not pro-EU; like the population it is decidedly divided on the subject, as Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg, Hague, Jenkins, Cash, Bone, Stringer, Hoey and many others attest.
Positive? It stops the prospect of complete crash Brexit. Negative? That might encourage brinksmanship on both sides, since the consequences now aren't so severe.
I don't see brinksmanship - I think it's the opposite. The meaningful vote no longer is No Deal vs May's Deal it's now May's Deal or Remain take your pick...
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
I am.
And me
+1
As a remainer who sees the "people have spoken" thing - it looks markedly better than No Deal, and I believe it's more or less the best we'll get given the reddish lines. Which I think is the view of a rather greater proportion of the Great British Public than the impression given by their representatives in the HoC.
But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
I suspect it will be the opposite - the people won't riot but if you vote against the deal in a leave constituency I wouldn't recommend standing for re-election...
Both are probably true.. just a more divided country, rather than half of it coalescing round a "fair enough" acceptance of the Deal.
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
I think there is truth in this. Although not so much that it would allow them "to get their shit together" (as if) more that The Great Betrayal would provide more than enough grievance narrative fuel on which to motor all the way to retirement and beyond.
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
Indeed. The emphasis on the f****** around clause appears to be on the triggering of A50 in the first place. Was TM f****** around when she triggered it? Probably not.
The question now is, is the UK serious if it revokes A50?
Wouldn’t Article 7 kick in if the UK dicks around.
And who would make that call? Let's say there's a vote in parliament to revoke it (or even a referendum), there's always going to be a possibility that this issue might come up again in the future. What would the EU want? A ban on eurosceptics standing to become MPs?
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
How do you think a revocation is going to be carried out without some indication being given as to why?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
From what little information that is available, it appears that Parliament or at least the Govt must agree something or pass a bill "... in line with its constitutional arrangements ..." for the Revocation so no need for the Judiciary.
True - if it was OK under British law for the Government to invoke A50 but it required a decision in Parliament then the same surely applies to revocation and I don't think there would be scope for judicial overturn. But Theresa May won't be able to do it off her own bat and if she tried she would get double-VONCed within the hour. The caretaker PM would send a helicopter to intercept the Eurostar so that the messenger could be relieved of his briefcase and the revocation letter. Highly dramatic but not happening.
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
They will never get their shit together. This was their only hope. A one shot where they didn't have to have their shit together.
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
They will never get their shit together. This was their only hope. A one shot where they didn't have to have their shit together.
Because it would probably take something like 15 years to rebuild Dover into something suitable - thanks to the cliffs there isn't any space to expand unlike say Calais.
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
I am.
And me
+1
As a remainer who sees the "people have spoken" thing - it looks markedly better than No Deal, and I believe it's more or less the best we'll get given the reddish lines. Which I think is the view of a rather greater proportion of the Great British Public than the impression given by their representatives in the HoC.
But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
I suspect it will be the opposite - the people won't riot but if you vote against the deal in a leave constituency I wouldn't recommend standing for re-election...
I'm not sure what scenario you have in mind but UKIP couldn't say about a Tory candidate "This guy is a traitor - he voted against BINO".
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
How do you think a revocation is going to be carried out without some indication being given as to why?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
From what little information that is available, it appears that Parliament or at least the Govt must agree something or pass a bill "... in line with its constitutional arrangements ..." for the Revocation so no need for the Judiciary.
True - if it was OK under British law for the Government to invoke A50 but it required a decision in Parliament then the same surely applies to revocation and I don't think there would be scope for judicial overturn. But Theresa May won't be able to do it off her own bat and if she tried she would get double-VONCed within the hour. The caretaker PM would send a helicopter to intercept the Eurostar so that the messenger could be relieved of his briefcase and the revocation letter. Highly dramatic but not happening.
I'm liking the verb "to be double-VONCed".
Is there a ruling as to whether it rhymes with "honked" or "ponced"? These things will be important when Huw Edwards has to say it.
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
Given that we are not leaving anyway until 2022, there is plenty of time "to do it right", without affecting that agreed leave date...
But it would give the ports time to get their sh*t together in case we should No Deal Brexit at the end of the process.....
What a shower our Government is. Refusing to make contingency plans to stop chaos.
Those contingency plans would be chaos, which is why they didn't do them
Also we don't have the workers to develop the systems. Heck the Elizabeth line and the Tottenham stadiums are running over budget and delayed because both projects are trying to use the same workers at the same time...
I wonder how many Leavers would, secretly, like A50 to be revoked so they can draw breath, take stock and reconvene in a few years when they've got their sh*t together.
Given that we are not leaving anyway until 2022, there is plenty of time "to do it right", without affecting that agreed leave date...
But it would give the ports time to get their sh*t together in case we should No Deal Brexit at the end of the process.....
Err, if there's no subsequent deal we'd just automatically fall into the backstop.
Mr. Pointer, there's a large pro-EU majority. I didn't say it was universal. The political class as a whole is pro-EU.
I don't dispute there's a majority of, say, current MPs who are pro-EU. Is the same true for councillors, or MEPs? - I'm not so sure. But my real objection is to your sloppiness in treating a goup as one homogenous lump.
I similarly baulk at lazy comments often heard (not necessarily from you) about Brexit being the 'will of the people' (no, it was the will of 52% of the people), or about voters deciding to elect a hung parliament (we each made our own individual choice with no idea what the overall result would be).
Given the split in the Cons/DUP no deal can get ratified without significant Lab support or abstentions. This to me is the heart of the matter. So is there a combination of deal and political calculus which makes that happen? If there is (and what is it?) then that is what WILL happen. If there isn't then it's one (or more) of crash out, GE, or 2nd ref. But which and when? All we have to do is answer those questions and a veritable fortune in betting profits awaits.
This argument is so crazy that it wouldn't surprise me if that's what May was actually thinking.
Read the above.
"No deal" plans include "which foods will we ration"
Can you think of a single reason the Government have not adopted that as their default position and tried to sell it to the public as the right way forward?
This argument is so crazy that it wouldn't surprise me if that's what May was actually thinking.
Read the above.
"No deal" plans include "which foods will we ration"
Can you think of a single reason the Government have not adopted that as their default position and tried to sell it to the public as the right way forward?
I similarly baulk at lazy comments often heard (not necessarily from you) about Brexit being the 'will of the people' (no, it was the will of 52% of the people), ...
Actually, it was the will of 37% of "The People". Brexit was 52% of those who bothered to vote. A large fraction of "The People" could not be bothered getting off their backsides to vote.
This argument is so crazy that it wouldn't surprise me if that's what May was actually thinking.
Read the above.
"No deal" plans include "which foods will we ration"
Can you think of a single reason the Government have not adopted that as their default position and tried to sell it to the public as the right way forward?
Whether it should be their default position or not doesn't mean they can't prepare for it. And currently it is the default position.
They put the price up, restrict me to pennies then reduce it after I bet.
You move markets.
What we should do is get him to bet on the opposite side of what he thinks is value, the price drifts in a favourable direction and the rest of us with unrestricted accounts pile in.
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
How do you think a revocation is going to be carried out without some indication being given as to why?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
From what little information that is available, it appears that Parliament or at least the Govt must agree something or pass a bill "... in line with its constitutional arrangements ..." for the Revocation so no need for the Judiciary.
True - if it was OK under British law for the Government to invoke A50 but it required a decision in Parliament then the same surely applies to revocation and I don't think there would be scope for judicial overturn. But Theresa May won't be able to do it off her own bat and if she tried she would get double-VONCed within the hour. The caretaker PM would send a helicopter to intercept the Eurostar so that the messenger could be relieved of his briefcase and the revocation letter. Highly dramatic but not happening.
I'm liking the verb "to be double-VONCed".
Is there a ruling as to whether it rhymes with "honked" or "ponced"? These things will be important when Huw Edwards has to say it.
Surely the verb is "to double-VoNC" - rhymes with 'trouble we can foresee'.
Actually, it was the will of 37% of "The People". Brexit was 52% of those who bothered to vote. A large fraction of "The People" could not be bothered getting off their backsides to vote.
Or were excluded from voting for reasons that are supported or not depending on how they might have voted is viewed.
They put the price up, restrict me to pennies then reduce it after I bet.
You move markets.
What we should do is get him to bet on the opposite side of what he thinks is value, the price drifts in a favourable direction and the rest of us with unrestricted accounts pile in.
Mmmm... I wonder why no one has ever thought of market manipulation before?
Mark Stone of Sky has confirmed A50 can only be used in a 'non abusive practice' confirming it cannot be revoked and then invoked
And how legally can the EU prevent us from doing that?
Nothing to do with the EU. It is a ruling of the ECJ and ends any hope of playing ducks and drakes with A50
Unless it explicitly states Article 50 cannot be re-invoked for a certain amount of time then it's meaningless.
How do you think a revocation is going to be carried out without some indication being given as to why?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
From what little information that is available, it appears that Parliament or at least the Govt must agree something or pass a bill "... in line with its constitutional arrangements ..." for the Revocation so no need for the Judiciary.
True - if it was OK under British law for the Government to invoke A50 but it required a decision in Parliament then the same surely applies to revocation and I don't think there would be scope for judicial overturn. But Theresa May won't be able to do it off her own bat and if she tried she would get double-VONCed within the hour. The caretaker PM would send a helicopter to intercept the Eurostar so that the messenger could be relieved of his briefcase and the revocation letter. Highly dramatic but not happening.
I'm liking the verb "to be double-VONCed".
Is there a ruling as to whether it rhymes with "honked" or "ponced"? These things will be important when Huw Edwards has to say it.
A referendum on that is surely the only way to settle it. I vote honked. Ponced is treachery.
Comments
This is the greatest moment for the UK since Herr Hitler declared war on America.
Sometimes parliament is at odds with 'the people' and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Capital punishment springs to mind.
My view is that the EU referendum was a folly but given that it took place, and given the high level of participation, it MUST be respected.
And it will be. We are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. The even money on BF for that is the bet of the century. I'm lumping a fiver on.
ps sent you a mail
It is not like we did not try to leave. We tried and, so far, failed to agree on how to do it. It has cost us billions already.
A majority of votes were for parties that didn't pledge to hold the referendum and a referendum was held, anyway.
Now, a minority of votes were for parties that didn't pledge to go through with Brexit...
I wonder why there wasn't a march of EFL teachers waving bilingual dictionaries during the referendum campaign?
"However, that possibility of unilateral revocation is subject to certain conditions and limits. First, like the notification of the intention to withdraw, the unilateral revocation must be notified by a formal act to the European Council. Secondly, it must respect national constitutional requirements. If, as is the case in the UK, prior parliamentary authorisation is required for the notification of the intention to withdraw, it is logical that the revocation of that notification also requires parliamentary approval. There is also a temporal limit on the possibility of revocation, since revocation is possible only within the two-year period that begins when the intention to withdraw is notified. The principles of good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed, in order to prevent abuse of the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU."
A defeat for the EU mindset:
"The advocate general rejects the contention that article 50 TEU only allows the possibility, put forward by the commission and the council, of a revocation following a unanimous decision of the European council. In his opinion, a revocation by mutual consent of the departing member state which changes its position and the EU institutions with which it is negotiating its withdrawal is possible. However, this would not prejudice unilateral revocation, which the departing Member State always maintains under article 50 TEU. On the other hand, the advocate general considers that to make the possibility of revocation conditional upon the adoption of a unanimous decision of the European council would be incompatible with article 50 TEU. To accept that the European council, acting by unanimity, should have the last word on the revocation increases the risk of the member state leaving the EU against its will, since the right to withdraw from (and, conversely, to remain in) the EU would no longer be subject to the control of the member state, its sovereignty and its constitutional requirements. In those circumstances, it would suffice for one of the remaining 27 member states to oppose the revocation in order for the will of the member state that has expressed its desire to remain in the EU to be frustrated."
The question now is, is the UK serious if it revokes A50?
If Theresa May were to revoke Article 50 tomorrow without giving reasons, a battalion of pensioners would be walking down Whitehall brandishing their walking sticks launching an insurrection.
Any reasons given would be considered carefully by the judiciary in determining whether any revocation was for a proper purpose.
No deal isn't an option the Government is in a position to support.
So the options are May's Deal or revoke article 50 and the meaningful vote is now meaningful as if it goes the other way May has only a single option...
As a remainer who sees the "people have spoken" thing - it looks markedly better than No Deal, and I believe it's more or less the best we'll get given the reddish lines. Which I think is the view of a rather greater proportion of the Great British Public than the impression given by their representatives in the HoC.
But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1069578052684967936
As for the pensioners, a few flights of steps in front of Parliament should frustrate their revolutionary ambitions
Positive? It stops the prospect of complete crash Brexit. Negative? That might encourage brinksmanship on both sides, since the consequences now aren't so severe.
Though tbf that'll be mostly them there 'Brexiteers' which the saner Leavers now say have nothing to do with them.
With respect, the 'political class' is not pro-EU; like the population it is decidedly divided on the subject, as Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg, Hague, Jenkins, Cash, Bone, Stringer, Hoey and many others attest.
does the New European shift many copies?
Is there a ruling as to whether it rhymes with "honked" or "ponced"? These things will be important when Huw Edwards has to say it.
But it would give the ports time to get their sh*t together in case we should No Deal Brexit at the end of the process.....
I similarly baulk at lazy comments often heard (not necessarily from you) about Brexit being the 'will of the people' (no, it was the will of 52% of the people), or about voters deciding to elect a hung parliament (we each made our own individual choice with no idea what the overall result would be).
Govt: This will strengthen our negotiating position.
Brexiters: £20bn just to be able to negotiate? What about all those free trade deals you said would be easy?
Govt: Just a precaution.
Brexiters' Mum: Bobby, it's tea time put the iPad down and come here this minute.
"No deal" plans include "which foods will we ration"
Can you think of a single reason the Government have not adopted that as their default position and tried to sell it to the public as the right way forward?
Hilarious. How depressing that it is true....
"We're concreting over Kent"
"Why"
"Because we can't sign the easiest deal in history"
Can you think of a single reason why the Government are not shouting this from the rooftops to a grateful nation?
I'd trust Tesco's to get lettuce from outside the EU in via Southampton more that I would Chris Grayling.
But then again so do all the other options.