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.
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?
I think Richard is saying that the deal put before Parliament does sort out those issues.
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.
Sour pill though . We would mess up their plans, as they continually moaned about previously
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
The betrayal narrative over a second vote is ridiculous . If Leavers still want to leave then no ones stopping them from voting . It’s clear they’re not confident of winning and that’s why they’re moaning about a second vote .
For both sides the arguments will have to change if there was another vote .
Leave can’t use Turkey , easiest deal in history etc
Remain can’t use just economic arguments .
I still think it’s very difficult to get to another vote unless there’s a huge swing in polls for that and May can’t deliver it . A new PM is likely to be a hard Brexiter, but if that new leader proposes no deal as the way forward the Tory party will completely implode . A no deal proposal will fall apart as businesses head for the exit door and the pound will crash into the toilet . Do we seriously think a leader can stick to no deal in the face of all that .
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.
I think remain would win a referendum but it would be a divisive nasty campaign and when leave lose the bitterness will not go away. Also a conservative government would be a thorn in the side of the EU. I expect next May's EU elections to see a host of hard right and left meps elected .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
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.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
The betrayal narrative over a second vote is ridiculous . If Leavers still want to leave then no ones stopping them from voting . It’s clear they’re not confident of winning and that’s why they’re moaning about a second vote .
For both sides the arguments will have to change if there was another vote .
Leave can’t use Turkey , easiest deal in history etc
Remain can’t use just economic arguments .
I still think it’s very difficult to get to another vote unless there’s a huge swing in polls for that and May can’t deliver it . A new PM is likely to be a hard Brexiter, but if that new leader proposes no deal as the way forward the Tory party will completely implode . A no deal proposal will fall apart as businesses head for the exit door and the pound will crash into the toilet . Do we seriously think a leader can stick to no deal in the face of all that .
What they need - following your logic which I think is correct - is a Nixon. A Leaver elected as leader of the Tory party who can then make the compromises necessary to get a sensible deal through Parliament. That deal may not be that much different to what May is proposing now but who delivers it might be crucial to its passing.
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.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
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?"
I would, if no deal was now probable and they claimed to hate that. But some like that and the rest thought they were playing for a time when remain was viable, as it is now. Remaining was always the pkan for a large chunk.
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.
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
The deal is unacceptable and to many leavers worse than remaining.
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.
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.
I think remain would win a referendum but it would be a divisive nasty campaign and when leave lose the bitterness will not go away. Also a conservative government would be a thorn in the side of the EU. I expect next May's EU elections to see a host of hard right and left meps elected .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
"I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issue."
It's taken 40 odd years to enmesh ourselves in the EU, and our politicians went long with most things with no pause to reflect. Hence Maastricht and Lisbon were just assumed.
Cameron only broke ranks because he had other fish to fry. I quite enjoyed the meetings in Europe from my scientific and lowly position. We always had a good hearing because the Scandinavians usually joined our gang, and the Germans were unbiased enough to listen. The French varied, and the Italians only wanted to know where the nearest vineyards were.
A too fast exit would lose some good things but it all comes down to trust. The EU wants us to stay for political reasons and that's where the trust will break down. I keep quoting the Godfather but it is apposite. "Tell the UK it's not personal, it's business."
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
The deal is unacceptable and to many leavers worse than remaining.
And yet clearly acceptable (however grudgingly) to a number of both leavers and remainers. Quite possibly a majority of the electorate.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
The betrayal narrative over a second vote is ridiculous . If Leavers still want to leave then no ones stopping them from voting . It’s clear they’re not confident of winning and that’s why they’re moaning about a second vote .
For both sides the arguments will have to change if there was another vote .
Leave can’t use Turkey , easiest deal in history etc
Remain can’t use just economic arguments .
I still think it’s very difficult to get to another vote unless there’s a huge swing in polls for that and May can’t deliver it . A new PM is likely to be a hard Brexiter, but if that new leader proposes no deal as the way forward the Tory party will completely implode . A no deal proposal will fall apart as businesses head for the exit door and the pound will crash into the toilet . Do we seriously think a leader can stick to no deal in the face of all that .
I think remain would have the easier pitch - we've all made poor decisions in the past, taken a job/bought a house/got with a partner etc etc that turned out to be a bad move, leaving the EU is not the easy ride we thought it was so now we have a chance to change our minds.
Whereas Leave would have to admit that the promises made in 2016 are unrealistic and a "have our cake and eat it" approach cannot be delivered so they would have to argue that despite the obvious downsides it would all be worth it in the end. I don't think a campaign based on the kind of anger leavers show on here "we said leave and we meant it" is likely to resonate.
The betrayal narrative over a second vote is ridiculous . If Leavers still want to leave then no ones stopping them from voting . It’s clear they’re not confident of winning and that’s why they’re moaning about a second vote .
For both sides the arguments will have to change if there was another vote .
Leave can’t use Turkey , easiest deal in history etc
Remain can’t use just economic arguments .
I still think it’s very difficult to get to another vote unless there’s a huge swing in polls for that and May can’t deliver it . A new PM is likely to be a hard Brexiter, but if that new leader proposes no deal as the way forward the Tory party will completely implode . A no deal proposal will fall apart as businesses head for the exit door and the pound will crash into the toilet . Do we seriously think a leader can stick to no deal in the face of all that .
What they need - following your logic which I think is correct - is a Nixon. A Leaver elected as leader of the Tory party who can then make the compromises necessary to get a sensible deal through Parliament. That deal may not be that much different to what May is proposing now but who delivers it might be crucial to its passing.
I think the only candidate that Remain Tories and more moderate leavers might get behind is Michael Gove . It has to be a Leaver . Gove is a snake but doesn’t seem to live in a delusional no deal fantasy .
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
From the Alliance party :
"It does not interfere or undermine Northern Ireland's constitutional position and the Principle of Consent. Indeed, it may create some comparative economic advantages for this region. This reality should have been clear to all MPs before and should be readily understood now."
An entertaining read from Jeremy Cliffe on the future federalisation of Europe. What odds would we put on this being achieved by, say, 2040?
Europe today may not look like Hamilton’s early United States, but like the latter the former comprises both debtor (for Italy, read New York) and creditor (for Germany, read Virginia) states. Like Hamilton’s America, the eurozone is also in an uneasy limbo: a single currency union is made up of several states with different industrial and banking systems, and debt levels, that are integrated enough to be mutually interdependent but not enough to resolve crises as one.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls. If the backstop is acceptable to NI then devolve it to Stormont, call a fresh election and let the people of NI vote for parties that back it. If the backstop becomes unacceptable let the people of NI unilaterally reverse it.
The betrayal narrative over a second vote is ridiculous . If Leavers still want to leave then no ones stopping them from voting . It’s clear they’re not confident of winning and that’s why they’re moaning about a second vote .
Leavers already voted, and Parliament agreed to carry out their instructions. So why do Leavers need to vote again?
If there was a second referendum where Hard Brexit was an option and people voted for it do you think Parliament would carry that out? I don't. Parliament won't even support May's softish Brexit.
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.
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.
I think remain would win a referendum but it would be a divisive nasty campaign and when leave lose the bitterness will not go away. Also a conservative government would be a thorn in the side of the EU. I expect next May's EU elections to see a host of hard right and left meps elected .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
We shall never surrender. Never. Never. Never.
I can sense the anger already and it will not go away if brexit is lost
However, Brexiteers have greatly contributed to their downfall
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
Philip - I think we probably come at Brexit from opposite ends of the debate, but on this point I think you are 100% spot on. The integrity of the United Kingdom from a constitutional basis is not a bargaining chip to be used. The only way that could or should be the case is a border poll for the citizens of Northern Ireland.
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 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.
They surely cannot be that stupid , if they beggar the country just because they were absolute idiots last time, it will be carnage.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
The deal is unacceptable and to many leavers worse than remaining.
And yet clearly acceptable (however grudgingly) to a number of both leavers and remainers. Quite possibly a majority of the electorate.
Let those who find it acceptable to disenfranchise their fellow man vote in favour and hold it on their consciences.
Doesn't mean those who vote against are in the wrong.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
There's a thought that the Court tends to end up with the judgment that's politically convenient rather than legally correct - which in this case would be offering the UK a golden bridge to retreat across.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
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.
I think remain would win a referendum but it would be a divisive nasty campaign and when leave lose the bitterness will not go away. Also a conservative government would be a thorn in the side of the EU. I expect next May's EU elections to see a host of hard right and left meps elected .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
We shall never surrender. Never. Never. Never.
I can sense the anger already and it will not go away if brexit is lost
However, Brexiteers have greatly contributed to their downfall
Does that mean that there will be a post-Brexit themed "Adolf in the bunker" video, starring JRM as Adolf, Gove as Himmler and Andrea Leadsome as the crying woman in the corridor?
"Corbyn is largely right about May's deal, but his alternative plan is just total fantasy. A solid bar cast of purest Unobtainium....What Labour is doing here is precisely what the Tory Govt has done throughout this process with the present disastrous results. They are ignoring the realities of what is possible, and what EU27's views and red lines are to sell Unicorns made of unobtainium....don't be like your political opponents in Govt and try to sell something to the people that cannot and is not going to happen. The Govt is reaping the deserved backlash for that now, and if you do the same, the same backlash will be at you eventually...There's no Jobs First, Single Market without FoM, Customs Union with control over the agreements of others, so good we don't need a Backstop Brexit. There are only ones that cost jobs and prosperity, remove rights, dampen opportunities and harm the worst off most.
P.S. Before it starts, and it will, please see the last 2 years of my timeline for endless criticism of the Tories on Brexit. This is not an anti-Labour or anti-Corbyn thread. It's an anti-impossible-to-achieve plans thread.
P.P.S. It's just so disappointing. Just be honest. The country is crying out for a leader to come clean. People can take it. They're not children who have to be protected from the truth in case it makes them cry. Many love JC for his integrity, and more would then understand why."
What they need - following your logic which I think is correct - is a Nixon. A Leaver elected as leader of the Tory party who can then make the compromises necessary to get a sensible deal through Parliament. That deal may not be that much different to what May is proposing now but who delivers it might be crucial to its passing.
Cometh the hour cometh the Gove.
Or as his friends will no doubt tell him ... like in 2016 ... "Michael, it has to be you."
But this time they will be right.
And I like him. Opposite politics to me but I like him. Dead clever, very organized and able, diligent and ... and this is the biggie ... saved us from PM Boris by pronouncing that he just wasn't up to it. That's judgement for you right there.
Or is it just money talking here with me? He's my biggest long for next PM.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
It's a very safe bet to vote for no deal if it is on the ballot as parliament will be unwilling to implement it and it'll show up their hypocrisy once more.
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
Well it's been agreed by one side. The other side will be voting on whether to accept it next week.
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.
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
The deal is unacceptable and to many leavers worse than remaining.
Only to idiots.
It satisfies just about everything. Those against it presumably are also livid that the voters of Richmond aren't getting a direct say in the building of the third runway.
I think he will spring into action and try to build a grand coalition around Norway+, but he'll be on a sticky wicket with the Council, who will not countenance an extension to Article 50 for it -- because they will (rightly) view it as a gambit to save the government's neck, not a genuine commitment. For similar reasons they will not agree to re-opening the WA.
So Norway+ will be dead in the water, pretty quickly.
I reckon by the following weekend, all of Parliament will be discussing what the referendum questions will be.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I have said this before. I don't think the court is at all political in the way people claim. The ECJ has a very clear remit which is to interpret cases on the basis of the treaties which underpin the EU institutions. They do this very successfully. They regularly rule against the Commission and other parts of the EU and I have not seen any serious legal opinion to the effect that they are any less impartial than a British court.
The problem is that we in the UK have a different legal system but many assume that everyone else's system must work the same way as ours.
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).
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
Then it wins.
At the end of the day, if the majority of the electorate are determined to screw themselves, then it can only be avoided for so long. I don't believe they are.
A second referendum with the three available options - May's deal, no deal, and remain - would at least give the vast majority of voters the chance to opt for their preferred option (and I can't see a ballot excluding any of those options getting the approval of both major parties, which is what is needed if it is to happen).
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
That would set the cat among the pigeons
The are lawyers interpreting EU Law. It would be strange if they, and the Advocate General, were at total odds since they start from the same premises and texts.
Also, that rather "dodgy" 80% figure is complicated by decisions which largely follow the AG's opinion, but maybe differ in some respects. Does that count as a match or a miss?
Monday will be interesting, but probably for all the wrong reasons
"Corbyn is largely right about May's deal, but his alternative plan is just total fantasy. A solid bar cast of purest Unobtainium....What Labour is doing here is precisely what the Tory Govt has done throughout this process with the present disastrous results. They are ignoring the realities of what is possible, and what EU27's views and red lines are to sell Unicorns made of unobtainium....don't be like your political opponents in Govt and try to sell something to the people that cannot and is not going to happen. The Govt is reaping the deserved backlash for that now, and if you do the same, the same backlash will be at you eventually...There's no Jobs First, Single Market without FoM, Customs Union with control over the agreements of others, so good we don't need a Backstop Brexit. There are only ones that cost jobs and prosperity, remove rights, dampen opportunities and harm the worst off most.
P.S. Before it starts, and it will, please see the last 2 years of my timeline for endless criticism of the Tories on Brexit. This is not an anti-Labour or anti-Corbyn thread. It's an anti-impossible-to-achieve plans thread.
P.P.S. It's just so disappointing. Just be honest. The country is crying out for a leader to come clean. People can take it. They're not children who have to be protected from the truth in case it makes them cry. Many love JC for his integrity, and more would then understand why."
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.
I think remain would win a referendum but it would be a divisive nasty campaign and when leave lose the bitterness will not go away. Also a conservative government would be a thorn in the side of the EU. I expect next May's EU elections to see a host of hard right and left meps elected .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
We shall never surrender. Never. Never. Never.
I can sense the anger already and it will not go away if brexit is lost
However, Brexiteers have greatly contributed to their downfall
Does that mean that there will be a post-Brexit themed "Adolf in the bunker" video, starring JRM as Adolf, Gove as Himmler and Andrea Leadsome as the crying woman in the corridor?
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
There's a thought that the Court tends to end up with the judgment that's politically convenient rather than legally correct - which in this case would be offering the UK a golden bridge to retreat across.
The counter-argument is that it could hurt the EU if member States could serve and revoke A50 notices at will (which is the argument that Hubert Legal made before the Court).
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
No deal won’t get on the ballot . The EC won’t sanction that question as it’s too vague .
I think he will spring into action and try to build a grand coalition around Norway+, but he'll be on a sticky wicket with the Council, who will not countenance an extension to Article 50 for it -- because they will (rightly) view it as a gambit to save the government's neck, not a genuine commitment. For similar reasons they will not agree to re-opening the WA.
So Norway+ will be dead in the water, pretty quickly.
I reckon by the following weekend, all of Parliament will be discussing what the referendum questions will be.
How about this: we draw up a flowchart of all possible ways the Brexit process could progress, with decision nodes for both decisions that we control and ones that we don't. Then we have a multiple-question referendum where every decision node which we control is voted on
Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...
Let them eat pheasant.
Loads of them round where I live. And muntjack deer too
Pheasant season ends on 1 February, so you better get stocking up...
The "pheasant season" ie the shooting season ending doesn't instantly obliterate the millions of unshot pheasants!!
Indeed I have often remarked about how you can hardly see a pheasant before February 1st and then suddenly the day after the season ends they are all over the place. I think they know...
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
There's a thought that the Court tends to end up with the judgment that's politically convenient rather than legally correct - which in this case would be offering the UK a golden bridge to retreat across.
The counter-argument is that it could hurt the EU if member States could serve and revoke A50 notices at will (which is the argument that Hubert Legal made before the Court).
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
No deal won’t get on the ballot . The EC won’t sanction that question as it’s too vague .
It’s not in the least bit vague. It’s what happens next March by default.
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.
y.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
No deal won’t get on the ballot . The EC won’t sanction that question as it’s too vague .
You could get it on the ballot (in effect) if the question was "Do you wish to revoke A.50? Yes/No.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I have said this before. I don't think the court is at all political in the way people claim. The ECJ has a very clear remit which is to interpret cases on the basis of the treaties which underpin the EU institutions.
The ECJ is very willing to create new jurisprudence, rather than simply interpret what the treaties actually say.
In the case of Article 50, it *has* to, since the TEU says nothing at all about revocability.
I can see how some might object to "judicial activism" here, but this is what the ECJ has been asked to do- create new jurisprudence where the treaties are vague.
I think it's fair to criticise the basis for the ECJ's ruling, but not the whole idea of it creating new jurisprudence when asked.
That said, I think the advocate's opinion is quite clever. By making one appeal to the head (what the Vienna conventions say) and one to the heart (the foundational principle of ever closer union meaning the EU cannot force a member out against its will) will make it very hard for the court to significantly deviate from its Advocate's opinion (which it is rarely minded to do anyway, since the opinion is written in accordance with the intructions of the court).
Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...
Let them eat pheasant.
Loads of them round where I live. And muntjack deer too
Pheasant season ends on 1 February, so you better get stocking up...
The "pheasant season" ie the shooting season ending doesn't instantly obliterate the millions of unshot pheasants!!
Indeed I have often remarked about how you can hardly see a pheasant before February 1st and then suddenly the day after the season ends they are all over the place. I think they know...
A friend of mine who shoots ducks says it doesn't take them long to work out that they're safe if they fly below head height, so the shooters can't fire on them.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
That would set the cat among the pigeons
The are lawyers interpreting EU Law. It would be strange if they, and the Advocate General, were at total odds since they start from the same premises and texts.
Also, that rather "dodgy" 80% figure is complicated by decisions which largely follow the AG's opinion, but maybe differ in some respects. Does that count as a match or a miss?
Monday will be interesting, but probably for all the wrong reasons
I suppose in the end the point is that the AG is just one lawyer and there are 28 more who would have to think the same way. That is of course if it is the full court sitting rather than the 3,5 or 15 options.
Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...
Let them eat pheasant.
Loads of them round where I live. And muntjack deer too
Pheasant season ends on 1 February, so you better get stocking up...
The "pheasant season" ie the shooting season ending doesn't instantly obliterate the millions of unshot pheasants!!
Indeed I have often remarked about how you can hardly see a pheasant before February 1st and then suddenly the day after the season ends they are all over the place. I think they know...
There was some crazy stat I saw the other day about the number of such freedom pheasants left alive, although of course as they have been fed and nurtured in and around their pens they usually stay where they are plus the shoots do manage the numbers down.
We’ll be an international laughing stock if we revoke Article 50, and rightly so having handled Brexit so incompetently. This Gov, which has no real conservative policies, has demonstrated only how inept they are and have succeeded in nothing but make Corbyn look credible. You have to be really pathetic to do that.
Revoking article 50 and letting Brussels tell our MPs what to do probably suits our MPs but doesn’t suit those of us who voted Leave who will rightly feel a sense of betrayal by a Parliament that is clearly unfit for purpose.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
Didn’t the AG’s opinion include some sort of good faith test ?
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
No deal won’t get on the ballot . The EC won’t sanction that question as it’s too vague .
We keep being told that 'Leave' was too vague but it still got on the ballot.
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.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
Didn’t the AG’s opinion include some sort of good faith test ?
Yes. Future invocations can be denied by the ECJ if the invocation is held to be abusive. Basically every member state gets one free A50 mulligan.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
There's a thought that the Court tends to end up with the judgment that's politically convenient rather than legally correct - which in this case would be offering the UK a golden bridge to retreat across.
The counter-argument is that it could hurt the EU if member States could serve and revoke A50 notices at will (which is the argument that Hubert Legal made before the Court).
I think they'll expand on the "non abusive" bit.
CJEU judgments can often be shorter on the substance than Advocate-General opinions. Rumour has it that a first draft of the judgment is written then each sentence is voted on by the judges line by line. Any sentence that does not get majority support ends up on the cutting room floor. So a controversial decision that can be analysed in several ways may have relatively little rationale set out in it.
We have been told by HoC officials that you can't put down binding amendments to a non binding vote. So were they wrong? Or are all these amendments simply wasting time?
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.
I think remain would win a referendum but it would be a divisive nasty campaign and when leave lose the bitterness will not go away. Also a conservative government would be a thorn in the side of the EU. I expect next May's EU elections to see a host of hard right and left meps elected .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
We shall never surrender. Never. Never. Never.
I can sense the anger already and it will not go away if brexit is lost
However, Brexiteers have greatly contributed to their downfall
Does that mean that there will be a post-Brexit themed "Adolf in the bunker" video, starring JRM as Adolf, Gove as Himmler and Andrea Leadsome as the crying woman in the corridor?
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
Didn’t the AG’s opinion include some sort of good faith test ?
It did. But as we saw with the Greek crisis how things escalate.
We could be in the situation where country X says we’re Leaving and the EU says we think you’re taking the piss.
We’ll be an international laughing stock if we revoke Article 50, and rightly so having handled Brexit so incompetently. This Gov, which has no real conservative policies, has demonstrated only how inept they are and have succeeded in nothing but make Corbyn look credible. You have to be really pathetic to do that.
Imagine if one of the beneficial effects of the Brexit humiliation is that the Conservative and Unionist Party starts to become conservative and unionist again.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
Didn’t the AG’s opinion include some sort of good faith test ?
Yes. Future invocations can be denied by the ECJ if the invocation is held to be abusive. Basically every member state gets one free A50 mulligan.
I think it's the second revocation that can be denied, not the second invocation.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
And yet over 60% of NI voters apparently back May's deal according to recent polling.
This may come as a shock but I believe in setting laws and fundamental rights via democracy not opinion polls...
Which is precisely why I back a second referendum.
Let's say no deal wins a second referendum. Then what?
I will be the Turnip Queen of Somerset. As foretold by prophecy.
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
Didn’t the AG’s opinion include some sort of good faith test ?
It did. But as we saw with the Greek crisis how things escalate.
We could be in the situation where country X says we’re Leaving and the EU says we think you’re taking the piss.
Well we have provided what might be useful precedent in just how far you can take the piss...
Ahhhhh! I'm only stockpiling food for 2 month's of chaos...
Let them eat pheasant.
Loads of them round where I live. And muntjack deer too
Pheasant season ends on 1 February, so you better get stocking up...
The "pheasant season" ie the shooting season ending doesn't instantly obliterate the millions of unshot pheasants!!
Indeed I have often remarked about how you can hardly see a pheasant before February 1st and then suddenly the day after the season ends they are all over the place. I think they know...
A friend of mine who shoots ducks says it doesn't take them long to work out that they're safe if they fly below head height, so the shooters can't fire on them.
Er how does that work? If they fly above head height and get shot they're dead so how do the learn to fly lower next time.
I guess over generations natural selection will cause those with a genetic tendency for very low flying to survive and breed more than the high flyers but individual ducks learning? Seems unlikely to me.
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?
I will reply nicely as I think you have genuinely misunderstood.
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
The deal is unacceptable and to many leavers worse than remaining.
Only to idiots.
It satisfies just about everything. Those against it presumably are also livid that the voters of Richmond aren't getting a direct say in the building of the third runway.
Only an idiot would think the decision on building the third runway should be made by a foreign country and not this one.
Even if the ECJ ruling affirms the Advocate General's ruling it does not mean there will suddenly be a Remain landslide even if Parliament did vote for EUref2 including a Remain ok.
Yougov yesterday giving Remain 50% Deal 50% and Remain 52% Leave 48% confirmed having Remain on the ballot paper still sees us deeply divided
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion.
In 80% of cases.
I can see this being one of the 20%.
Given most people say the court is more political than many others why would you think that? The EU is laying open the door for remain and our mps are working hard, aided by the ERG, to make it happen. Would the court throw a spanner into the works?
I think unilateral revocation leads to potential mischief.
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
Didn’t the AG’s opinion include some sort of good faith test ?
Yes. Future invocations can be denied by the ECJ if the invocation is held to be abusive. Basically every member state gets one free A50 mulligan.
I think it's the second revocation that can be denied, not the second invocation.
Nope the AG was clear. It was the second invocation.
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.
Do you mean the solution of disenfranchisement for NI? Where NI voters will lose their votes that set the laws and regulations that affect them? Which the voters of NI havent approved but the MPs of NI bitterly oppose?
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
Philip - I think we probably come at Brexit from opposite ends of the debate, but on this point I think you are 100% spot on. The integrity of the United Kingdom from a constitutional basis is not a bargaining chip to be used. The only way that could or should be the case is a border poll for the citizens of Northern Ireland.
100% agreed. If the citizens of Northern Ireland want to change country let them vote for it. Otherwise as long as they are citizens of this country the laws should be set by this country.
We’ll be an international laughing stock if we revoke Article 50, and rightly so having handled Brexit so incompetently. This Gov, which has no real conservative policies, has demonstrated only how inept they are and have succeeded in nothing but make Corbyn look credible. You have to be really pathetic to do that.
Revoking article 50 and letting Brussels tell our MPs what to do probably suits our MPs but doesn’t suit those of us who voted Leave who will rightly feel a sense of betrayal by a Parliament that is clearly unfit for purpose.
The Government won't revoke Article 50 though Parliament may try and force EUref2.
Corbyn has no clue what he wants on Brexit other thsn to exploit it for political ends, it was May who did the hard work to get a Deal
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?
It is, apparently, because the Court usually follows the Advocate General's opinion - about 80% of the time. But.....
There's a thought that the Court tends to end up with the judgment that's politically convenient rather than legally correct - which in this case would be offering the UK a golden bridge to retreat across.
The counter-argument is that it could hurt the EU if member States could serve and revoke A50 notices at will (which is the argument that Hubert Legal made before the Court).
I think they'll expand on the "non abusive" bit.
CJEU judgments can often be shorter on the substance than Advocate-General opinions. Rumour has it that a first draft of the judgment is written then each sentence is voted on by the judges line by line. Any sentence that does not get majority support ends up on the cutting room floor. So a controversial decision that can be analysed in several ways may have relatively little rationale set out in it.
Yes - this is also a product of legal background, whereby British and German judgments often work from the ground up, whereas French (and I think Italian) judgments tend to assert the truth of the answer as flowing directly and inexorably statute.
Comments
I was referring to the Deal. The Deal respects the border solution and has been agreed by both sides of the negotiation. But Parliament look like voting down that deal and then claiming that we must remain because there is no solution to the border question. It utter hypocrisy
For both sides the arguments will have to change if there was another vote .
Leave can’t use Turkey , easiest deal in history etc
Remain can’t use just economic arguments .
I still think it’s very difficult to get to another vote unless there’s a huge swing in polls for that and May can’t deliver it . A new PM is likely to be a hard Brexiter, but if that new leader proposes no deal as the way forward the Tory party will completely implode . A no deal proposal will fall apart as businesses head for the exit door and the pound will crash into the toilet . Do we seriously think a leader can stick to no deal in the face of all that .
See Merkel has made her last speech to her party and it is thought an anti EU leader could be elected
Those who have sought the overturn of the vote need to understand the anti eu sentiment will not go away, brexiteers are hardly going to say that 'it is all right then'
Indeed the campaign to leave will re-commence
On a personal note remain would be a relief and in the best interests of the Country now, despite the divisions
https://www.out-law.com/page-11458https://www.out-law.com/page-11458
I can see this being one of the 20%.
The contempt for NI is palpable. The DUP should sit down and shut up and forget the fact they will no longer ever get a say in their own laws unless their betters reach a deal to let them get involved again. It's a disgrace and if the backstop applied to England not Northern Ireland it would never have seen the light of day.
We shall never surrender. Never. Never. Never.
"I am more than happy to listen to advocates of "just leave" and "respect the vote" to solve the intractable issue."
It's taken 40 odd years to enmesh ourselves in the EU, and our politicians went long with most things with no pause to reflect. Hence Maastricht and Lisbon were just assumed.
Cameron only broke ranks because he had other fish to fry. I quite enjoyed the meetings in Europe from my scientific and lowly position. We always had a good hearing because the Scandinavians usually joined our gang, and the Germans were unbiased enough to listen. The French varied, and the Italians only wanted to know where the nearest vineyards were.
A too fast exit would lose some good things but it all comes down to trust. The EU wants us to stay for political reasons and that's where the trust will break down. I keep quoting the Godfather but it is apposite. "Tell the UK it's not personal, it's business."
Whereas Leave would have to admit that the promises made in 2016 are unrealistic and a "have our cake and eat it" approach cannot be delivered so they would have to argue that despite the obvious downsides it would all be worth it in the end. I don't think a campaign based on the kind of anger leavers show on here "we said leave and we meant it" is likely to resonate.
"It does not interfere or undermine Northern Ireland's constitutional position and the Principle of Consent. Indeed, it may create some comparative economic advantages for this region. This reality should have been clear to all MPs before and should be readily understood now."
Europe today may not look like Hamilton’s early United States, but like the latter the former comprises both debtor (for Italy, read New York) and creditor (for Germany, read Virginia) states. Like Hamilton’s America, the eurozone is also in an uneasy limbo: a single currency union is made up of several states with different industrial and banking systems, and debt levels, that are integrated enough to be mutually interdependent but not enough to resolve crises as one.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/music-theatre/2018/12/what-europe-can-learn-alexander-hamilton
If there was a second referendum where Hard Brexit was an option and people voted for it do you think Parliament would carry that out? I don't. Parliament won't even support May's softish Brexit.
However, Brexiteers have greatly contributed to their downfall
Let them have cake and eat it.
Doesn't mean those who vote against are in the wrong.
https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1070859040660443136
"Corbyn is largely right about May's deal, but his alternative plan is just total fantasy. A solid bar cast of purest Unobtainium....What Labour is doing here is precisely what the Tory Govt has done throughout this process with the present disastrous results. They are ignoring the realities of what is possible, and what EU27's views and red lines are to sell Unicorns made of unobtainium....don't be like your political opponents in Govt and try to sell something to the people that cannot and is not going to happen. The Govt is
reaping the deserved backlash for that now, and if you do the same, the
same backlash will be at you eventually...There's no Jobs First, Single Market without FoM, Customs Union with control over the agreements of others, so good we don't need a Backstop Brexit. There are only ones that cost jobs and prosperity, remove rights, dampen opportunities and harm the worst off most.
P.S. Before it starts, and it will, please see the last 2 years of my timeline for endless criticism of the Tories on Brexit. This is not an anti-Labour or anti-Corbyn thread. It's an anti-impossible-to-achieve plans thread.
P.P.S. It's just so disappointing. Just be honest. The country is crying out for a leader to come clean. People can take it. They're not children who have to be protected from the truth in case it makes them cry. Many love JC for his integrity, and more would then understand why."
Or as his friends will no doubt tell him ... like in 2016 ... "Michael, it has to be you."
But this time they will be right.
And I like him. Opposite politics to me but I like him. Dead clever, very organized and able, diligent and ... and this is the biggie ... saved us from PM Boris by pronouncing that he just wasn't up to it. That's judgement for you right there.
Or is it just money talking here with me? He's my biggest long for next PM.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=on+the+waterfront+final+scene#id=2&vid=c01eaf538cdd32c19045814f3331694b&action=click
But we would not be in this mess if she and her cronies hadn't put Corbyn on the bloody ballot paper in the leadership election.
It satisfies just about everything. Those against it presumably are also livid that the voters of Richmond aren't getting a direct say in the building of the third runway.
I think he will spring into action and try to build a grand coalition around Norway+, but he'll be on a sticky wicket with the Council, who will not countenance an extension to Article 50 for it -- because they will (rightly) view it as a gambit to save the government's neck, not a genuine commitment. For similar reasons they will not agree to re-opening the WA.
So Norway+ will be dead in the water, pretty quickly.
I reckon by the following weekend, all of Parliament will be discussing what the referendum questions will be.
The problem is that we in the UK have a different legal system but many assume that everyone else's system must work the same way as ours.
At the end of the day, if the majority of the electorate are determined to screw themselves, then it can only be avoided for so long.
I don't believe they are.
A second referendum with the three available options - May's deal, no deal, and remain - would at least give the vast majority of voters the chance to opt for their preferred option (and I can't see a ballot excluding any of those options getting the approval of both major parties, which is what is needed if it is to happen).
Also, that rather "dodgy" 80% figure is complicated by decisions which largely follow the AG's opinion, but maybe differ in some respects. Does that count as a match or a miss?
Monday will be interesting, but probably for all the wrong reasons
We've already had a referendum on the EU. Don't you remember, it was all over the newspapers at the time.
Public votes to leave EU.
Govt negotiates best orderly exit deal that they can plus a soft brexit direction of travel for the future relationship.
MPs ratify.
That is 'beggaring the country and unleashing carnage'?
How so?
Whilst I think we’ve acted in good faith you can see how countries like Italy, Greece, or Hungary manipulate A50.
Whilst our divorce has been messy just imagine what it would have been like if we were members of the Euro.
In the case of Article 50, it *has* to, since the TEU says nothing at all about revocability.
I can see how some might object to "judicial activism" here, but this is what the ECJ has been asked to do- create new jurisprudence where the treaties are vague.
I think it's fair to criticise the basis for the ECJ's ruling, but not the whole idea of it creating new jurisprudence when asked.
That said, I think the advocate's opinion is quite clever. By making one appeal to the head (what the Vienna conventions say) and one to the heart (the foundational principle of ever closer union meaning the EU cannot force a member out against its will) will make it very hard for the court to significantly deviate from its Advocate's opinion (which it is rarely minded to do anyway, since the opinion is written in accordance with the intructions of the court).
Revoking article 50 and letting Brussels tell our MPs what to do probably suits our MPs but doesn’t suit those of us who voted Leave who will rightly feel a sense of betrayal by a Parliament that is clearly unfit for purpose.
https://youtu.be/prFjbFDA1WY
We could be in the situation where country X says we’re Leaving and the EU says we think you’re taking the piss.
I guess over generations natural selection will cause those with a genetic tendency for very low flying to survive and breed more than the high flyers but individual ducks learning? Seems unlikely to me.
Yougov yesterday giving Remain 50% Deal 50% and Remain 52% Leave 48% confirmed having Remain on the ballot paper still sees us deeply divided
Corbyn has no clue what he wants on Brexit other thsn to exploit it for political ends, it was May who did the hard work to get a Deal