The legal likelihood is that it is not revocable, but even if it were, who would do it, and what on earth would happen next? Both sides would be well along the route of dismantling things, companies would be well advanced in moving their operations around, etc etc.
The UK and the EU would not be the first couple that announced they were planning to get divorced, then decided stay married.
I know. But it would basically make it much, much harder for the government to change EU laws - it would all have to be done by individual act of Parliament, wouldn't it? It would also surely mean UK courts continuing to refer cases to the ECJ for clarification (though I suspect that might happen anyway). A total clusterfuck, in other words.
It would require a parliamentary majority to vote in an emergency act to fix the mess and remove the Scottish veto, and the Lords to consent to that. I think that in practice that would happen - it would be such a chaotic mess otherwise that any party playing silly games would be committing political suicide.
Edit: Does anyone have a link to what was actually said?
Edit 2: Also, can't the government simply get round it by putting in a clause in the Repeal Bill saying the Scots have to get stuffed? (They might use slightly different language, of course)
Can you imagine the fun Nicola Sturgeon would have with emergency Westminster legislation designed specifically to remove a Scottish veto? It would be all her Christmases come at once.
I can't believe that this is anything other than a question of law. It may be quite tricky to frame emergency legislation to get round it without demonstrating clearly and unequivocally that Westminster can, at any time, take the Scottish parliament's powers away - having previously said it would never do so.
I know. But it would basically make it much, much harder for the government to change EU laws - it would all have to be done by individual act of Parliament, wouldn't it? It would also surely mean UK courts continuing to refer cases to the ECJ for clarification (though I suspect that might happen anyway). A total clusterfuck, in other words.
...
Edit: Does anyone have a link to what was actually said?
No it's much easier for everyone to assume that this event will (choose as you like):-
* Bad for the Tories.
* Humiliating for TMay.
* Hands power to the EU/Scotland/NI/Wales/Poland (delete as appropriate).
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.
The problem is the article says we leave automatically two years after the formal notification of the intention to leave. That notification has been given. There's no indication in the treaty that a revocation would make any difference.
Nicola is not mad. She won't let the U.K (and by extension Scotland) fall on to WTO rules.
Her whole reason for IndyRef2 is to ensure full access to the single market.
Isn't part of the intention of The Great Repeal Bill is so we can have transitional agreemennts with the E.U.? In which case why would MSP's block it?
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Yes, of course. Not having the referendum wouldn't have made the problem go away.
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.
The legal likelihood is that it is not revocable, but even if it were, who would do it, and what on earth would happen next? Both sides would be well along the route of dismantling things, companies would be well advanced in moving their operations around, etc etc.
The UK and the EU would not be the first couple that announced they were planning to get divorced, then decided stay married.
Peter Sallis's wife reportedly left him 16 times before they divorced, and even after that they got back togethern temporarily.
Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Yes, of course. Not having the referendum wouldn't have made the problem go away.
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.
The Tories should have known both of these things. But when Dave made the promise to buy off his right flank he did not think he would win in 2015.
Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
The introductory web page includes this comment: While the Government initially [in 2010] asserted that the Convention still held, in 2011 the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform acknowledged that “with the advent of a coalition government […] the Salisbury-Addison Convention does not operate in the same way, if at all”. During the period of the Coalition Government, there were attempts on three occasions to block a government bill at second reading in the House of Lords, all of which failed.
The Tories should have known both of these things. But when Dave made the promise to buy off his right flank he did not think he would win in 2015.
How on earth could the Tories have predicted that Labour would select Corbyn as leader? There's not a single person who predicted that, before GE2015, as far as I know. Under any other leader anyone could imagine, Labour would have campaigned vigorously for Remain.
And Merkel's madness in reponse to a photo in the newspapers was equally improbable.
Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful
Yes, I do. Are you one of those left-wing rentiers?
Are you looking forward to forging new trading partnerships with President Roderigo Duterte of the Phillipines and King Salman of Saudi Arabia? Does that give you the control you're looking for?
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Yes, of course. Not having the referendum wouldn't have made the problem go away.
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.
I applaud your ambition to pin an unnecessary referendum called by a Tory PM, to solve Tory party problems with its right wing on someone else.
The Tories should have known both of these things. But when Dave made the promise to buy off his right flank he did not think he would win in 2015.
How on earth could the Tories have predicted that Labour would select Corbyn as leader? There's not a single person who predicted that, before GE2015, as far as I know. Under any other leader anyone could imagine, Labour would have campaigned vigorously for Remain.
And Merkel's madness in reponse to a photo in the newspapers was equally improbable.
When Cameron called the referendum, Corbyn was in place and the long hot summer of refugees flooding the south of Europe had taken place. He could have waited a year to see how things might pan out and to build a cross-party case for staying. He chose not to. He then led a campaign that was almost entirely negative and, in parts, hugely mendacious. The blame for where we are now lies solely with the Conservative party - and, more specifically, with Cameron and May.
@ProfChalmers: If "Scots have power to block Brexit" were true, Brexit would be dead. Brexit is not (sadly) dead.
They would have the power to get huge concessions from Westminster or to ensure that the UK remain bound by EU laws until individual acts of Parliament changed them.
Nope. When we leave the EU we leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ whether we have passed the relevant acts of Parliament or not. Basically the law will no longer be coherent and it will fall to the UK Supreme Court to sort it out. If you have left a treaty then the provisions of that treaty fall whether you have anything to replace it or not.
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
Is there ANYONE who still thinks having a Referendum on the EU was a good idea?
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful
We should have left without one.
I agree, if leaving the EU had been in the 2015 Tory manifesto they would have got most of the UKIP votes and a large majority. We'd be out by the of this month and Corbyn would still be a little known backbencher.
I applaud your ambition to pin an unnecessary referendum called by a Tory PM, to solve Tory party problems with its right wing on someone else.
This mess is a Tory mess.
Whether you like it or - I don't - the referendum was won by the Leave side, with a clear albeit small majority. Those 52% of voters were not trying to solve Tory party problems, they were excercising a democratic right for which many people, from all parties, had been campaigning for years. If the referendum hadn't happened, that campaign wouldn't have gone away. And if Labour hadn't been so foolish on accession-country immigration, or had not been so dishonest on Lisbon, or had campaigned properly for Remain, it's likely that the result would have been different.
I applaud your ambition to pin an unnecessary referendum called by a Tory PM, to solve Tory party problems with its right wing on someone else.
This mess is a Tory mess.
Whether you like it or - I don't - the referendum was won by the Leave side, with a clear albeit small majority. Those 52% of voters were not trying to solve Tory party problems, they were excercising a democratic right for which many people, from all parties, had been campaigning for years. If the referendum hadn't happened, that campaign wouldn't have gone away. And if Labour hadn't been so foolish on accession-country immigration, or had not been so dishonest on Lisbon, or had campaigned properly for Remain, it's likely that the result would have been different.
Downing Street claims that the Salisbury convention - which says the Lords will not vote against measures in the manifesto of the governing party - will apply to the Queen’s speech. The prime minister’s official spokesman told journalists:
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
The physics of multiverses is reasonably understood. It's science, not faith.
So in that case there must either be evidence available that other universes exist, or an acceptance that this is impossible to provide, in which case the "understanding" that they do is based on reasoning and not evidence.
How is that different from religious faith?
Not at all. You can't see mathematics but it's a truth. There is mathematical evidence of the possibility of multiverses, there is no mathematical evidence of the possibility of God. Nor could there be.
Newton thought differently...
Because they are essentially random ?
Theists have sought for centuries to seek refuge in bits of the universe for which science doesn't have an adequate explanation. As the explicatory power of science expands, they shift their position, after denying it for a time.
And yet something must trigger them at the given precise moment that it happens. And while an individual decay might be 'essentially random', the atoms of a given isotope nonetheless conform collectively to a predictable pattern.
But the original point was that there was "no mathematical evidence of the possibility of God. Nor could there be", and I simply contend that such an assertion is not true. While there might not be any evidence of God, there is evidence of the possibility of God (or gods), which simply requires an unexplained phenomenon that exhibits mathematical characteristics and which might be explicable by the intervention of powers unknown and unknowable.
For what it's worth, I think it's nonsense but all the same, unless disproved then the possibility must be admitted.
If you know your quantum mechanics, you'll realise that a 'given precise moment' isn't actually a thing.
Comments
I can't believe that this is anything other than a question of law. It may be quite tricky to frame emergency legislation to get round it without demonstrating clearly and unequivocally that Westminster can, at any time, take the Scottish parliament's powers away - having previously said it would never do so.
No it's much easier for everyone to assume that this event will (choose as you like):-
* Bad for the Tories.
* Humiliating for TMay.
* Hands power to the EU/Scotland/NI/Wales/Poland (delete as appropriate).
* Shows why A50 will be revoked.
* Will lead to the break up of the UK.
* Categorically proves Brexit is Bad
Her whole reason for IndyRef2 is to ensure full access to the single market.
Isn't part of the intention of The Great Repeal Bill is so we can have transitional agreemennts with the E.U.? In which case why would MSP's block it?
Of course, we weren't to know that Labour would be so ambivalent in the campaign, or that Angela Merkel would be such a wonderful asset to the Leave side.
"The convention reflects the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected chamber. The view of government lawyers is, as it stands, the Salisbury convention would apply in relation to the manifesto and the House of Lords"
From the Guardian live blog.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2017-0030
The introductory web page includes this comment:
While the Government initially [in 2010] asserted that the Convention still held, in 2011 the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform acknowledged that “with the advent of a coalition government […] the Salisbury-Addison Convention does not operate in the same way, if at all”. During the period of the Coalition Government, there were attempts on three occasions to block a government bill at second reading in the House of Lords, all of which failed.
And Merkel's madness in reponse to a photo in the newspapers was equally improbable.
This mess is a Tory mess.
We'd be out by the of this month and Corbyn would still be a little known backbencher.
NEW THREAD
I'm cheaper than the government lawyers