politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The curtain-raiser to Tuesday’s vote – Monday’s ECJ ruling on

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The curtain-raiser to Tuesday’s vote – Monday’s ECJ ruling on whether Article 50 can be revoked

With exquisite timing the European Court of Justice will give its verdict in the article 50 case at 8am on Monday morning just a day before the big vote in House of Commons on the deal that would seal Britain’s exit from the EU. The court will rule whether or not the UK can revoke its decision in March 2017 to give notice of its plan to leave.

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

First like the bit of the train I don't get to travel in very often.

Pulpstar

Coburn gone from UKIP.

SandyRentool

Presumably if the judgement says we can revoke, then this could be done right up until March 29th. So time to squeeze in a second referendum before we have to decide either way.

SandyRentool

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

SandyRentool

Pulpstar said:

Coburn gone from UKIP.

SDP-bound?

TheScreamingEagles

A good legal ruling gives me the horn.

This is Bush v Gore all over again.

Pulpstar

SandyRentool said:

"Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

This simple line would obviate the need for a backstop (It probably turns into Hotel California Brexit in reality). It might be something the UK and the EU can amend to. But it does need a change to the WA.

BudG

SandyRentool said:

Presumably if the judgement says we can revoke, then this could be done right up until March 29th. So time to squeeze in a second referendum before we have to decide either way.

Time to squeeze in another referendum or give more time for negotiation, particularly if the EU agree to extend A50 until the next EU election at the end of May - it would be sensible for both sides to agree to that anyway, if May loses her vote next Tuesday as expected.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

A good legal ruling gives me the horn.

This is Bush v Gore all over again.

That was a good ruling ??

DavidL

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

kinabalu

Great. Gives the option of cancelling Brexit if it is deemed undeliverable. Creates a clear binary choice for the politicians. Ratify the exit deal or do not exit. Do they wish to honour the 2016 referendum or do they wish to set it aside and remain in the EU because in their view that is what the national interest demands. No need for that debate and decision to take more than a couple of weeks max. Come on you parliament!

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A good legal ruling gives me the horn.

This is Bush v Gore all over again.

That was a good ruling ??

They got to the right result for all the wrong reasons.

Seeing Scalia and Thomas voting for an Equal Protection violation was one of those things I thought I’d never see.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

There is a high probability the act might be amended to simply cancel Brexit if raised by the Gov't.

tottenhamWC

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Richard_Nabavi

Jolyon Maugham omits to mention what I think would probably be the most important consequence of a putative ECJ rulling that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally: it makes it possible to have a referendum with a clearly viable Remain option which is not subject to getting agreement from 27 other countries. That at a stroke would remove one of the big obstacles to holding a second people's vote.

Nigelb

BudG said:

SandyRentool said:

Presumably if the judgement says we can revoke, then this could be done right up until March 29th. So time to squeeze in a second referendum before we have to decide either way.

Time to squeeze in another referendum or give more time for negotiation, particularly if the EU agree to extend A50 until the next EU election at the end of May - it would be sensible for both sides to agree to that anyway, if May loses her vote next Tuesday as expected.

But who can legally revoke Article 50 ?
Parliament, or the executive backed by a Parliamentary vote ?

In either case, leaving it until the very last moment would leave room for things to go awry. Though you are right that the ruling would give some time to sort out a course of action.

Pulpstar

Italy, Piepoli poll:
Approval ratings
Conte (*-*): 57% (+2)
Salvini (LEGA-ENF): 54% (+1)
Di Maio (M5S-EFDD): 46%

Nigelb

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jolyon Maugham omits to mention what I think would probably be the most important consequence of a putative ECJ rulling that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally: it makes it possible to have a referendum with a clearly viable Remain option which is not subject to getting agreement from 27 other countries. That at a stroke would remove one of the big obstacles to holding a second people's vote.

Agreed.
Which would risk more fulminations from Mr Tyndall.

OblitusSumMe

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

Hard though this is to credit given the opprobrium heaped upon the backstop, but I think it was thought preferable to an open-ended transition. Certainly, from the UK side, an open-ended transition is more expensive, and permits more migration, than the backstop.

As a concession to Leavers it's a bit weird. "You don't like the backstop? Here, we'll let you choose between the backstop and something you like even less. Happy now?"

Maybe it's an attempt to show Brexiteers the reality of the situation. Oh dear.

SandyRentool

OblitusSumMe said:

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

Hard though this is to credit given the opprobrium heaped upon the backstop, but I think it was thought preferable to an open-ended transition. Certainly, from the UK side, an open-ended transition is more expensive, and permits more migration, than the backstop.

As a concession to Leavers it's a bit weird. "You don't like the backstop? Here, we'll let you choose between the backstop and something you like even less. Happy now?"

Maybe it's an attempt to show Brexiteers the reality of the situation. Oh dear.

Thanks. So the UK wants a backstop, just not THIS backstop.

FF43

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

I doubt the EU would commit this stage to indefinite transitional arrangements, even if they would in practice allow it when renewal came up. It takes away a lot of their leverage.

SandyRentool

FF43 said:

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

I doubt the EU would commit this stage to indefinite transitional arrangements, even if they would in practice allow it when renewal came up. It takes away a lot of their leverage.

But doesn't the proposed amendment infer that the UK can invoke an indefinite transition as things stand? Is that already in the WA?

Richard_Tyndall

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jolyon Maugham omits to mention what I think would probably be the most important consequence of a putative ECJ rulling that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally: it makes it possible to have a referendum with a clearly viable Remain option which is not subject to getting agreement from 27 other countries. That at a stroke would remove one of the big obstacles to holding a second people's vote.

Agreed.
Which would risk more fulminations from Mr Tyndall.

I would be the least of your problems.

FF43

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Less cynically, UK membership of the EU is the best outcome for them, as it most definitely is for us.

Pulpstar

SandyRentool said:

But doesn't the proposed amendment infer that the UK can invoke an indefinite transition as things stand? Is that already in the WA?

As it stands our ability to invoke a transition is strictly time limited. It is highly likely given a FTA can be vetoed by any member state we'd fall into the backstop due to one of Gibraltar, fish or parliament not signing off the FTA.

Richard_Nabavi

Conversely, a pivot to some kind of Norway-ish variant of Brexit is not an obviously viable way out of the mess. There are a number of political and procedural problems with it:

- Most importantly, as the Guardian piece with Richard T was slamming on the previous thread shows, it's not clear that it would actually be available, and at the very least it would require extensive negotiations with the EFTA countries and the EU. So even on the most optimistic assumptions it's not something which can be sorted out in the few remaining weeks.

- As Jon Cunliffe pointed out in evidence to the Treasury Committee a few days ago, it would leave the City - our most important industry - in the impossible position of being entirely governed by detailed regulation set by the EU, in which we'd have zero say - and with zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

- It would leave us stuck with Freedom of Movement exactly the same as being in the EU, which really would be a betrayal of the referendum result (unless I suppose it was approved in some further referendum)

- It would still leave us stuck with the Irish backstop, because it couldn't all be agreed in advance. Since the backstop is probably the singest biggest obstacle to accepting the current deal, how does a Norway pivot help?

Nigelb

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jolyon Maugham omits to mention what I think would probably be the most important consequence of a putative ECJ rulling that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally: it makes it possible to have a referendum with a clearly viable Remain option which is not subject to getting agreement from 27 other countries. That at a stroke would remove one of the big obstacles to holding a second people's vote.

Agreed.
Which would risk more fulminations from Mr Tyndall.

I would be the least of your problems.

You’re not a problem.

FF43

SandyRentool said:

FF43 said:

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

I doubt the EU would commit this stage to indefinite transitional arrangements, even if they would in practice allow it when renewal came up. It takes away a lot of their leverage.

But doesn't the proposed amendment infer that the UK can invoke an indefinite transition as things stand? Is that already in the WA?

Possibly it does. I doubt the EU will agree to it. That's the problem with debating "solutions" without reference to the party that has the direct say.

Edit. I think the WA is a done deal, possibly even if we remain. If you don't like the backstop you have to permanently commit to an arrangement that makes it moot. But it will always be there. The EU would see it as their insurance policy.

logical_song

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A good legal ruling gives me the horn.

This is Bush v Gore all over again.

That was a good ruling ??

They got to the right result for all the wrong reasons.

Seeing Scalia and Thomas voting for an Equal Protection violation was one of those things I thought I’d never see.

Did they not state the ruling could not stand as a precedent ?
Which is a pretty odd thing for a SC to do.

FrancisUrquhart

Pulpstar said:

Coburn gone from UKIP.

At this rate, UKIP it is just going to be Batten, Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson and Sargon of Akkad. 4 pub bores.

Pro_Rata

Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:

1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.

To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A good legal ruling gives me the horn.

This is Bush v Gore all over again.

That was a good ruling ??

They got to the right result for all the wrong reasons.

Seeing Scalia and Thomas voting for an Equal Protection violation was one of those things I thought I’d never see.

Did they not state the ruling could not stand as a precedent ?
Which is a pretty odd thing for a SC to do.

Limited to the present circumstances only.

Is the only time they’ve ever done that in the history of the court.

FrancisUrquhart

Bloodhound supersonic car project axed

A project to race a car at more than 1,000mph has been axed after it failed to secure a £25m cash injection.

The Bloodhound supersonic vehicle - built with a Rolls-Royce Eurofighter jet engine bolted to a rocket - is all but finished.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-46480342

Sean_F

Pro_Rata said:

Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:

1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.

To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

Pulpstar

Pro_Rata said:

Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:

1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.

To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..

Yep, I think that's the order of responsibility.

logical_song

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

Coburn gone from UKIP.

At this rate, UKIP it is just going to be Batten, Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson and Sargon of Akkad. 4 pub bores.

... and another one bites the dust.
https://news.sky.com/story/ex-ukip-leader-paul-nuttall-quits-party-over-tommy-robinson-role-11573773

OblitusSumMe

SandyRentool said:

OblitusSumMe said:

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

Hard though this is to credit given the opprobrium heaped upon the backstop, but I think it was thought preferable to an open-ended transition. Certainly, from the UK side, an open-ended transition is more expensive, and permits more migration, than the backstop.

As a concession to Leavers it's a bit weird. "You don't like the backstop? Here, we'll let you choose between the backstop and something you like even less. Happy now?"

Maybe it's an attempt to show Brexiteers the reality of the situation. Oh dear.

Thanks. So the UK wants a backstop, just not THIS backstop.

I think most of the opponents of the backstop don't accept the need for a backstop - which makes reaching an agreement with the EU challenging.

Sean_F

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Well, if we do Remain after all, the next slate of MEPs will make Farage look like a statesman.

Pulpstar

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Well, if we do Remain after all, the next slate of MEPs will make Farage look like a statesman.

Can MEPs have a criminal conviction ?

Brom

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

It's fair to say Farage will be the first person elected by the public if we ever have another European parliament election. The guy is a cut above the other MEPs and I suspect The South East will turn out in even bigger numbers than last time.

FrancisUrquhart

logical_song said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

Coburn gone from UKIP.

At this rate, UKIP it is just going to be Batten, Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson and Sargon of Akkad. 4 pub bores.

... and another one bites the dust.
https://news.sky.com/story/ex-ukip-leader-paul-nuttall-quits-party-over-tommy-robinson-role-11573773

I never knew how he managed to find the time to be honest, along with being an academic, a professional footballer etc etc etc ;-)

logical_song

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Well, if we do Remain after all, the next slate of MEPs will make Farage look like a statesman.

God, I hope not.
Have you forgotten the UKIP MEPs behaviour?

Freggles

OblitusSumMe said:

SandyRentool said:

OK, so now I'm here - can anyone explain this to me:

The proposed amendment to the meaningful vote would allow parliament to decide whether to trigger the backstop or extend the transitional period at the end of 2020, yes?

So, if the UK can unilaterally extend the transitional arrangements indefinitely, why do we even need a backstop?

Can't the WA simply state "Transitional arrangements will apply until such time that a final agreement comes into effect"?

I am confused!?!?

Hard though this is to credit given the opprobrium heaped upon the backstop, but I think it was thought preferable to an open-ended transition. Certainly, from the UK side, an open-ended transition is more expensive, and permits more migration, than the backstop.

As a concession to Leavers it's a bit weird. "You don't like the backstop? Here, we'll let you choose between the backstop and something you like even less. Happy now?"

Maybe it's an attempt to show Brexiteers the reality of the situation. Oh dear.

Yeah, the backstop would be terrible: full customs Union and single market access without FoM.

I guess the kicker for the brextremists is they don't get to water down product standards and make A trump trade deal.

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Well, if we do Remain after all, the next slate of MEPs will make Farage look like a statesman.

Can MEPs have a criminal conviction ?

That depends on national laws. In this country, you can't stand for the European Parliament so long as you not serving a prison sentence or guilty of certain electoral offences.

Pulpstar

Brom said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

It's fair to say Farage will be the first person elected by the public if we ever have another European parliament election. The guy is a cut above the other MEPs and I suspect The South East will turn out in even bigger numbers than last time.

Does he run as an independent though ?

If UKIP run against him the vote might be split and I think you only get one X with our system... (D'Hondt)
Under STV he'd be a shoo in.

CD13

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

Cunning plan one … the CS has been stopped from arranging options by Cameron D (a faithful Remainer). He immediately jumps ship.

Years wasted on negotiating with EU, who, encouraged by mood-music from the 'great and the good' in UK, see no need for urgency. Cunning plan two … prevaricate as long as possible. Agree potential deal when time is running out which binds UK to EU as long as possible. Wait for boredom and a renewal of operation Fear to wear down populace. Sit back and wait for UK to grovel. Time is on their side, they believe, and they may be right.

Lesson taught. No more referendums after the next one (as long as it gives right answer).

I've always been cynical about politicians and the media, so no surprises to me so far. But it's the transparency I find insulting.

Sean_F

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Well, if we do Remain after all, the next slate of MEPs will make Farage look like a statesman.

God, I hope not.
Have you forgotten the UKIP MEPs behaviour?

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

FF43

Richard_Nabavi said:

Conversely, a pivot to some kind of Norway-ish variant of Brexit is not an obviously viable way out of the mess. There are a number of political and procedural problems with it:

- Most importantly, as the Guardian piece with Richard T was slamming on the previous thread shows, it's not clear that it would actually be available, and at the very least it would require extensive negotiations with the EFTA countries and the EU. So even on the most optimistic assumptions it's not something which can be sorted out in the few remaining weeks.

- As Jon Cunliffe pointed out in evidence to the Treasury Committee a few days ago, it would leave the City - our most important industry - in the impossible position of being entirely governed by detailed regulation set by the EU, in which we'd have zero say - and with zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

- It would leave us stuck with Freedom of Movement exactly the same as being in the EU, which really would be a betrayal of the referendum result (unless I suppose it was approved in some further referendum)

- It would still leave us stuck with the Irish backstop, because it couldn't all be agreed in advance. Since the backstop is probably the singest biggest obstacle to accepting the current deal, how does a Norway pivot help?

I wouldn't get too hung up about points 1 and 4. A bespoke deal based on participation in the SM + CU is likely. The EU and EEA both think their arrangement works well and don't want to complicate it. Also the EU will want to tighten up the conditions for the UK. If we commit to SM + CU, we only need an opinion that it subsumes the backstop and it's good to go. The point of the backstop is that it is an insurance policy.

Points 2 and 3 remain. I would add another. Governance is really tricky.

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

It's fair to say Farage will be the first person elected by the public if we ever have another European parliament election. The guy is a cut above the other MEPs and I suspect The South East will turn out in even bigger numbers than last time.

Does he run as an independent though ?

If UKIP run against him the vote might be split and I think you only get one X with our system... (D'Hondt)
Under STV he'd be a shoo in.

He'd probably need to get 8% or so to win as an independent, and I think he would.

logical_song

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

Well, if we do Remain after all, the next slate of MEPs will make Farage look like a statesman.

God, I hope not.
Have you forgotten the UKIP MEPs behaviour?

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

'Tommy Robinson' ?

AllyPally_Rob

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

Cunning plan one … the CS has been stopped from arranging options by Cameron D (a faithful Remainer). He immediately jumps ship.

Years wasted on negotiating with EU, who, encouraged by mood-music from the 'great and the good' in UK, see no need for urgency. Cunning plan two … prevaricate as long as possible. Agree potential deal when time is running out which binds UK to EU as long as possible. Wait for boredom and a renewal of operation Fear to wear down populace. Sit back and wait for UK to grovel. Time is on their side, they believe, and they may be right.

Lesson taught. No more referendums after the next one (as long as it gives right answer).

I've always been cynical about politicians and the media, so no surprises to me so far. But it's the transparency I find insulting.

Referendums have always been a nightmare, used primarily by Prime Ministers to settle internal party disputes (see H Wilson 1975 & D Cameron 2016).

Ken Clarke had it right. If a political party proposed leaving the EU they should've stood on a manifesto which proclaimed so at a general election.

Having said all this, given it was a terrible referendum that got us into this mess, it may have to be another referendum that gets us out of it.

Pulpstar

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

Pro_Rata

If a second referendum were simply to ask whether to annul or re-affirm the 2016 referendum, neither of those would be a Remain option as such and no further referenda would be needed. Parties, if released, would be free to proceed and campaign as they saw fit.

Sean_F

AllyPally_Rob said:

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

Cunning plan one … the CS has been stopped from arranging options by Cameron D (a faithful Remainer). He immediately jumps ship.

Years wasted on negotiating with EU, who, encouraged by mood-music from the 'great and the good' in UK, see no need for urgency. Cunning plan two … prevaricate as long as possible. Agree potential deal when time is running out which binds UK to EU as long as possible. Wait for boredom and a renewal of operation Fear to wear down populace. Sit back and wait for UK to grovel. Time is on their side, they believe, and they may be right.

Lesson taught. No more referendums after the next one (as long as it gives right answer).

I've always been cynical about politicians and the media, so no surprises to me so far. But it's the transparency I find insulting.

Referendums have always been a nightmare, used primarily by Prime Ministers to settle internal party disputes (see H Wilson 1975 & D Cameron 2016).

Ken Clarke had it right. If a political party proposed leaving the EU they should've stood on a manifesto which proclaimed so at a general election.

Having said all this, given it was a terrible referendum that got us into this mess, it may have to be another referendum that gets us out of it.

I think it would be seen as illegitimate for a party that won an election to simply pull the UK out of the EU without a public vote (likewise if the SNP declared UDI because it has most seats in Scotland).

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

I know several Conservatives who used to vote for Stan Newens, on the basis that he was a mad Marxist who hated the EU.

logical_song

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

logical_song said:

tottenhamWC said:

DavidL said:

I was very confident that the CJEU would rule that we could not revoke unilaterally but it would be unusual for the Court not to follow the advice of the AG.

Assuming we do have that right then the concerns I have expressed previously about conditions being imposed by the EU27 such as paying for the process or abandoning the rebate fall away but I think that they would be furious and life would get very difficult inside the EU. It may also make an extension easier to get because with a unilateral right we would hold the whip hand in that discussion.

From the UK perspective we would need to pass legislation to overturn the existing statutory approval for both issuing the notice and repealing the European Communities Act. Its difficult to see how that would be possible in the current Parliament. It might be possible after an election.

I think they would mostly be (maybe secretly) delighted, not furious; at least from a geo-political perspective. Given all the other challenges the EU is facing, having the UK "not leave" would be a huge coup for them.

Yes it's a win/win.
The cherry on the cake would be Farage not getting elected to the European Parliament.

It's fair to say Farage will be the first person elected by the public if we ever have another European parliament election. The guy is a cut above the other MEPs and I suspect The South East will turn out in even bigger numbers than last time.

Does he run as an independent though ?

If UKIP run against him the vote might be split and I think you only get one X with our system... (D'Hondt)
Under STV he'd be a shoo in.

He'd probably need to get 8% or so to win as an independent, and I think he would.

Maybe it depends on Robert Mueller?
https://hillreporter.com/mueller-probe-is-now-eyeing-pro-brexit-ukip-member-nigel-farage-3209

Freggles

You have to wonder how UKIP can survive financially without their MEPs.
A second referendum or general election could be the final straw.

Richard_Nabavi

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

Sean_F

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

Richard_Nabavi

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

And maybe the gay donkey man if we're lucky.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071002780763111425

Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...

Pro_Rata

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

If you don't look at the rotational biology too closely, EdM may be able to claim be has helped deliver free owls to the nation.

twistedfirestopper3

Sean_F said:

Pro_Rata said:

Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:

1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.

To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

That, Sean, hits the nail squarely on the head.

Pulpstar

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

I wonder if Mark Meechan might run for UKIP in Scotland now Coburn has quit UKIP.

RochdalePioneers

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before. Increasingly we are seeing MPs saying "I respect the referendum" before detailing why the May deal isn't possible, why crash Brexit would be lunacy etc which leaves remain as the last option.

I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.

glw

Judging by Trump's tweeting this morning there are likely to be some bombshells from the Special Counsel when they file in the Manafort, and Cohen cases later today.

kinabalu

@ Pro Rata

Nice summary. I would have Con remainers as marginally more dishonourable than the brexiteers. Reason being that a soft brexit is indicated and they are effectively saying that is no good because remain is better. Makes a mockery of the ref that does if you think about it. Really should not have triggered art 50 if nothing less than remain was acceptable.

And I would introduce a new category right at the very top for Boris Johnson. Opposing the deal purely in order to maximize chances of tory leadership. That's not good.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, do you mean Dracula or Dankula?

glw

Sean_F said:

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

The country is split about 50/50 leave to remain, whereas Parliament is about 30/70, if that. It's increasingly clear that that is the real problem with resolving the issue. I don't know what will happen, but my expectation is that we are going to end up with Remain or BINO whether we like it or not, as Leave in any meaningful form will not get through Parliament.

Sean_F

kinabalu said:

@ Pro Rata

Nice summary. I would have Con remainers as marginally more dishonourable than the brexiteers. Reason being that a soft brexit is indicated and they are effectively saying that is no good because remain is better. Makes a mockery of the ref that does if you think about it. Really should not have triggered art 50 if nothing less than remain was acceptable.

And I would introduce a new category right at the very top for Boris Johnson. Opposing the deal purely in order to maximize chances of tory leadership. That's not good.

Remember: "Disgraced sack of shit and amoral sociopathic snake Boris Johnson."

Philip_Thompson

Sean_F said:

Pro_Rata said:

Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:

1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.

To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

Not an MP but I thought we were voting to make laws set in Westminster going forwards. Now laws set in Brussels still but we get no MEPs or other say in them but still need to abide by them.

Sean_F

glw said:

Sean_F said:

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

The country is split about 50/50 leave to remain, whereas Parliament is about 30/70, if that. It's increasingly clear that that is the real problem with resolving the issue. I don't know what will happen, but my expectation is that we are going to end up with Remain or BINO whether we like it or not, as Leave in any meaningful form will not get through Parliament.

I think a lot of MPs voted to trigger A50 with their fingers crossed, and the hard Brexiteers have very foolishly given them cover to prevent Brexit.

Big_G_NorthWales

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Sean_F said:

Pro_Rata said:

Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:

1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.

To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

That, Sean, hits the nail squarely on the head.

It does indeed

Richard_Tyndall

RochdalePioneers said:

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before. Increasingly we are seeing MPs saying "I respect the referendum" before detailing why the May deal isn't possible, why crash Brexit would be lunacy etc which leaves remain as the last option.

I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.

But this is simply untrue. There is a solution that does respect the border issue and which both sides of the negotiation are agreed to. It may not be perfect but to claim that no solution exists and use that as an excuse to cancel Brexit is just dishonest.

And anyone advocating Remain now certainly cannot be said to be respecting the referendum.

williamglenn

RochdalePioneers said:

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before.

I think this clip of Margaret Beckett is a good example of how opinion is hardening.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1070642952572166146

dixiedean

kinabalu said:

@ Pro Rata

Nice summary. I would have Con remainers as marginally more dishonourable than the brexiteers. Reason being that a soft brexit is indicated and they are effectively saying that is no good because remain is better. Makes a mockery of the ref that does if you think about it. Really should not have triggered art 50 if nothing less than remain was acceptable.

And I would introduce a new category right at the very top for Boris Johnson. Opposing the deal purely in order to maximize chances of tory leadership. That's not good.

Was taken aback somewhat to see a category in which Boris came top.
Reading further it is Roll of Dishonour.
Fair enough, carry on.

Richard_Nabavi

Sean_F said:

glw said:

Sean_F said:

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

The country is split about 50/50 leave to remain, whereas Parliament is about 30/70, if that. It's increasingly clear that that is the real problem with resolving the issue. I don't know what will happen, but my expectation is that we are going to end up with Remain or BINO whether we like it or not, as Leave in any meaningful form will not get through Parliament.

I think a lot of MPs voted to trigger A50 with their fingers crossed, and the hard Brexiteers have very foolishly given them cover to prevent Brexit.

It's more than just cover, they are giving them little choice but to try to prevent Brexit.

Pulpstar

Listening to Labour contributions from the Lords last night, the contempt for democracy was palpable.

Richard_Tyndall

Pro_Rata said:

If a second referendum were simply to ask whether to annul or re-affirm the 2016 referendum, neither of those would be a Remain option as such and no further referenda would be needed. Parties, if released, would be free to proceed and campaign as they saw fit.

Annulling the 2016 referendum is in effect a Remain option.

daodao

I hope that the ECJ rule that no single country can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. Otherwise, it would set a precedent that a decision isn't a decision.

Floater

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071002780763111425

Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...

Got to ramp up that fear.

So, can the Government please explain what steps they have put in place to mitigate any delays ?

Can they also explain why they appear to have made next to no preparations for anything other than their proposed deal?

The only explanation appears to be they are criminally incompetent or its deliberate to force a bad choice and therefore remain looks like a good option.

Which, I remind you all is not what the peoples vote delivered as a choice.

Interestingly my non political wife just started paying attention to the shenanigans today - her comment after I explained where we are at "they will destroy trust in democracy"

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before. Increasingly we are seeing MPs saying "I respect the referendum" before detailing why the May deal isn't possible, why crash Brexit would be lunacy etc which leaves remain as the last option.

I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.

But this is simply untrue. There is a solution that does respect the border issue and which both sides of the negotiation are agreed to. It may not be perfect but to claim that no solution exists and use that as an excuse to cancel Brexit is just dishonest.

And anyone advocating Remain now certainly cannot be said to be respecting the referendum.

Now, yes, After next Tuesday, when the solution will almost certainly have been taken off the table, no.

Sean_F

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before. Increasingly we are seeing MPs saying "I respect the referendum" before detailing why the May deal isn't possible, why crash Brexit would be lunacy etc which leaves remain as the last option.

I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.

And anyone advocating Remain now certainly cannot be said to be respecting the referendum.

"I respect the referendum but...." is as honest as "I'm not a racist but....."

glw

Sean_F said:

glw said:

Sean_F said:

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

The country is split about 50/50 leave to remain, whereas Parliament is about 30/70, if that. It's increasingly clear that that is the real problem with resolving the issue. I don't know what will happen, but my expectation is that we are going to end up with Remain or BINO whether we like it or not, as Leave in any meaningful form will not get through Parliament.

I think a lot of MPs voted to trigger A50 with their fingers crossed, and the hard Brexiteers have very foolishly given them cover to prevent Brexit.

I think the ERG are nuts, I can not fathom how they think they are going to get Hard Brexit.

kinabalu

Sean_F said:

I would like to put the question to every MP who voted to trigger A50, and will now vote against the deal

"What the f+ck did you think you were doing?"

This is the killer question and I doubt the answers will stand scrutiny. This must have occurred to them too. It's why I still expect them to eventually ratify the WA.

Floater

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

I know several Conservatives who used to vote for Stan Newens, on the basis that he was a mad Marxist who hated the EU.

Isn't that Jezzbollah?

Sunil_Prasannan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, do you mean Dracula or Dankula?

Duckula, Mr Dancer.

Beverley_C

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jolyon Maugham omits to mention what I think would probably be the most important consequence of a putative ECJ rulling that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally: it makes it possible to have a referendum with a clearly viable Remain option which is not subject to getting agreement from 27 other countries. That at a stroke would remove one of the big obstacles to holding a second people's vote.

Agreed.
Which would risk more fulminations from Mr Tyndall.

I would be the least of your problems.

That is true already

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

Listening to Labour contributions from the Lords last night, the contempt for democracy was palpable.

Remember - the Lords are entirely unelected has-beens!

williamglenn

Floater said:

So, can the Government please explain what steps they have put in place to mitigate any delays ?

How much taxpayers' money to do think they should have wasted on Potemkin infrastructure?

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before. Increasingly we are seeing MPs saying "I respect the referendum" before detailing why the May deal isn't possible, why crash Brexit would be lunacy etc which leaves remain as the last option.

I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.

But this is simply untrue. There is a solution that does respect the border issue and which both sides of the negotiation are agreed to. It may not be perfect but to claim that no solution exists and use that as an excuse to cancel Brexit is just dishonest.

And anyone advocating Remain now certainly cannot be said to be respecting the referendum.

Now, yes, After next Tuesday, when the solution will almost certainly have been taken off the table, no.

But the excuse is being used now. And it will be the very people who will have removed it from the table who will continue to make that excuse. Saying there is no solution when you have just voted down that very same solution is not a defensible position.

AlastairMeeks

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

And maybe the gay donkey man if we're lucky.

Gay donkey man has his own party now:

https://dvparty.uk/

There's nothing the least bit troubling about the undertone of that website.

rottenborough

McD tells Red Len to sod off. Or words to that affect.

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

But the excuse is being used now. And it will be the very people who will have removed it from the table who will continue to make that excuse. Saying there is no solution when you have just voted down that very same solution is not a defensible position.

I agree with that.

dixiedean

On topic. IANAL, therefore can anyone enlighten me.
It seems everybody is taking for granted what the result of this case will be. What are the chances of the Court finding differently, or is the decision pretty much nailed on now?

RochdalePioneers

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CD13 said:

This all feels a little desperate. Parliament asks the voters to decide. They decide to leave.

Parliament dislikes it but has to go through the motions (I'm generalising now, some MPs disliked it so much they tell just the voters to stick it up their arses. How dare the great unwashed dictate to superior beings. Liberal "'democrats' among them).

It is absolutely the case that many MPs across the house don't like the idea of Brexit one little bit. The issue being that there are so many substantive problems in "just leave" that do not have solutions that there are now more MPs against Brexit than before. Increasingly we are seeing MPs saying "I respect the referendum" before detailing why the May deal isn't possible, why crash Brexit would be lunacy etc which leaves remain as the last option.

I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issues around the physical operation of no deal borders that so far the politicians negotiators and experts who know what they are talking about have so far failed to manage.

But this is simply untrue. There is a solution that does respect the border issue and which both sides of the negotiation are agreed to. It may not be perfect but to claim that no solution exists and use that as an excuse to cancel Brexit is just dishonest.

And anyone advocating Remain now certainly cannot be said to be respecting the referendum.

Awesome! You'd better get on the phone to Downing Street and tell them your mega plan. And then the MPs. And then to HMRC. The Ports. The Hauliers etc etc.

So go on then. What specific information do you have about the workings of no trade agreement international trade that the people doing international trade don't have?

Sean_F

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

And maybe the gay donkey man if we're lucky.

Gay donkey man has his own party now:

https://dvparty.uk/

There's nothing the least bit troubling about the undertone of that website.

I see the logo is a donkey carrying the union flag.

Nigelb

Floater said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1071002780763111425

Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...

Got to ramp up that fear.

So, can the Government please explain what steps they have put in place to mitigate any delays ?

Can they also explain why they appear to have made next to no preparations for anything other than their proposed deal ?...

As Smithson Jnr pointed out last night, one of the reasons we didn't see a large drop in foreign investment post the referendum was that May assured (for example) the Japanese carmakers that there would be no crash out Brexit.

Hence the almost complete lack of preparation.

williamglenn

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

And they will look good compared to the next bunch. People who are unhappy with our remaining will elect the looniest of the loons, with the most swivelling of eyes.

I do hope we remain, I'm looking forward to electing the biggest frother I can find on the ballot.

You'll be spoilt for choice.

I know. We'll have Tommy Robinson, Milo, Count Dracula, George Galloway, for starters.

And maybe the gay donkey man if we're lucky.

Gay donkey man has his own party now:

https://dvparty.uk/

There's nothing the least bit troubling about the undertone of that website.

They know their audience: