It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
I do accept your clarification William
Yes. I agree with William. The judgement wording says that, during the two year A50 notification period, it is possible for the Member State:
"...to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
(But of course, nothing to stop a new withdrawal process starting.)
'the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.'
'It could have been 2010.
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by our landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years - cos we complained about the boiler being broken. At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 15 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
Life is even worse under Labour - vote Tory!'
Sorry to hear, Ed Miliband and Baroness Warsi have come up with some good ideas about building more social homes so those who cannot afford to buy are not so reliant on private tenancies and landlords. Hope you find some new accommodation soon
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
No, as far as I know, it was only "ruled out" by one of their advisors in his own opinion a few days before. The final ruling by the ECJ made no mention of the revocation needing a commitment not to re-invoke in future.
If we choose to revoke, regardless of what we say we'll do in future, the EU has no choice but to accept.
If we revoke I agree but we cannot reinvoke without it being different circumstances
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
The majority of seats Labour need to gain for a majority though voted Leave
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Presumably, although unless that party had a ready made idea of how they were intending to leave, which would be acceptable to the EU for a deal, what a bloody waste of time that would be.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
If the initial revocation were genuine then yes. I suppose the most plausible way something like what you describe could happen would be if a government of national unity decided to revoke without a second referendum and then we had a GE won by a party promising to overturn their 'betrayal'.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
Thanks for that but I do not expect Corbyn to pivot to a referendum
So what will he pivot to? He cannot keep up the present intention.
He will continue to evade the issue. Last count I saw was that 18 of his leave area mps will vote against a referendum
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
The majority of seats Labour need to gain for a majority though voted Leave
It all depends on what happens to the Tories. But I still don't see how Corbyn can avoid backing a referendum, whatever his personal inclinations or fears about the impact on Labour seats in leavey areas. He will never back or abstain on the deal. He cannot get a new deal. He's got to at least say he is against no deal. He (probably) won't get a GE. So what is left for him?
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
My prediction is based on focusing on what options are untenable for him to back and how untenable they are. It is Labour policy to keep all options open at the moment, but certain ones will be ruled out as time goes by, indeed the current option already has been they just won't admit it yet because the MV has not happened yet.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
Thanks for that but I do not expect Corbyn to pivot to a referendum
So what will he pivot to? He cannot keep up the present intention.
He will continue to evade the issue. Last count I saw was that 18 of his leave area mps will vote against a referendum
A referendum only passes if enough Tories also back it, which enough probably do to counter Labour MPs opposed.
And 'evade the issue' simply cannot be done forever. Not for May, and not for Corbyn.
'the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.'
'It could have been 2010.
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by our landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years - cos we complained about the boiler being broken. At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 15 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
Life is even worse under Labour - vote Tory!'
Sorry - this isn't a situation happening to me but its a real life situation many face now. It was a retort to that Labour poster from 1997 - when the average London house price was about £60,000. Its now ten times that - but wages haven't risen ten fold.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Presumably, although unless that party had a ready made idea of how they were intending to leave, which would be acceptable to the EU for a deal, what a bloody waste of time that would be.
If it were in good faith then we would have two years to negotiate!
Yes it's all hypothetical, but I think that for the first time in at least 40 years no-one really has a clue what's going to happen in the next few weeks.
Meanwhile the clock keeps ticking down to no deal, the opposition are opposing for the sake of it, hardcore Remainers still think the whole thing can be stopped and they appear to have the ear of the Speaker, hardcore Leavers want no-deal to get away from the EU as quickly as possible, the DUP have the numbers to pull off a VoNC if the deal passes, the media have lost the plot and are talking up chaos because it sell newspapers and generates clicks, everyone seems to know what they don't want but there appears to be no majority for any actual plan. Happy New Year!
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Seems so.
Of course, it would start another two year timer, and 18-20 months later we'd be back in exactly the same situation - ie remain MPs ruling out all options and trying for another suspension/revocation....
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but I think it would lead to remain, which is not what I would prefer.
So the deal is defeated, Labour do a vote of no confidence and lose, and the various other non referendum options are defeated. Then what do Labour do? Corbyn cannot back the deal. Abstaining would be enabling Brexit which would be poison to his voters and members. So if he cannot get a GE, will not support he deal, and cannot get a new deal, what can he back?
A referendum enables him to posture as wanting to listen to the people, let his MPs and members back remain to their hearts content, while he makes clear he did everything he could to get us a good leave. The Tories will still be far more divided in a referendum that his voters, and so the idea Labour would suffer more in a snap GE I do not believe is credible.
Thanks for that but I do not expect Corbyn to pivot to a referendum
So what will he pivot to? He cannot keep up the present intention.
He will continue to evade the issue. Last count I saw was that 18 of his leave area mps will vote against a referendum
A referendum only passes if enough Tories also back it, which enough probably do to counter Labour MPs opposed.
And 'evade the issue' simply cannot be done forever. Not for May, and not for Corbyn.
Corbyn is a world champion at avoiding the question
1.5 billion light years away... they’ve probably given up waiting for a response. if we send one back straight away they’ll get it in 1.5 billion years, and we’ll get a confirmation about the time the sun goes supernova.
If we’re doing pedantry, then the sun won’t go supernova.
The majority of seats Labour need to gain for a majority though voted Leave
It all depends on what happens to the Tories. But I still don't see how Corbyn can avoid backing a referendum, whatever his personal inclinations or fears about the impact on Labour seats in leavey areas. He will never back or abstain on the deal. He cannot get a new deal. He's got to at least say he is against no deal. He (probably) won't get a GE. So what is left for him?
1/ Await next GE, whenever it comes (possibly very quickly if Brexit goes badly enough that he can persuade the DUP to pull the plug on the Tories.)
2/ "No Deal was all Theresa May's fault. If I had been in power then there would have been flowers and unicorns and butterflies. Vote Labour."
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
"The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act."
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
Indeed, from their perspective Brexit is a hostile act. But it is in the best interests of our country and therefore is the right thing to do. Again I would expect no less from any other country. The alternative is that one expects the Government to act in a way that is not in the best interests of the citizens.
It really isn’t hard. The UK wants a close trading relationship and strong bilateral cooperation in a number of other areas with its European neighbours, but doesn’t want to be part of a single European state.
It’s remarkable that politicians on both sides of the channel aren’t able to square that circle.
Corbyn will demand an extension of Article 50 in a speech tomorrow.
Doesn't that make it less likely for the Government to seek one?
What's he playing at?
To have it ruled out. At some point new dealers, Tory and Labour, have to accept they will not get a new deal before exit day. Then they will have to back something else. For him, that will be a referendum, eventually. Stated with reluctance perhaps, but he cannot pretend forever that he can get a new leave deal.
You do seem to be confidently predicting Corbyn will pivot to a referendum when the evidence it would damage labour outside the cities and indeed many of his mps in leave constituencies would not agree
And neither does Len McCluskey of Unite
If I may ask, what makes you so certain or is it your desired outcome
Not in the least. I want the deal to pass. I think a second referendum is probably necessary to get any outcome agreed, but
Thanks for that but I do not expect Corbyn to pivot to a referendum
So what will he pivot to? He cannot keep up the present intention.
He will continue to evade the issue. Last count I saw was that 18 of his leave area mps will vote against a referendum
A referendum only passes if enough Tories also back it, which enough probably do to counter Labour MPs opposed.
And 'evade the issue' simply cannot be done forever. Not for May, and not for Corbyn.
Corbyn is a world champion at avoiding the question
He's done very well at it, yes. The quote from his spokesperson about Labour possibly changing stance in a snap GE scenario underlines how well the party has played the issue. But no one is immune to gravity. The MV is lost on Tuesday and May has to come up with something else to propose, even if it is just 'I'll just try again' (though I think we know the Speaker would do all he could to frustrate her). Corbyn can probably hold out demanding an extension for a bit longer.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Presumably, although unless that party had a ready made idea of how they were intending to leave, which would be acceptable to the EU for a deal, what a bloody waste of time that would be.
If it were in good faith then we would have two years to negotiate!
Yes it's all hypothetical, but I think that for the first time in at least 40 years no-one really has a clue what's going to happen in the next few weeks.
Meanwhile the clock keeps ticking down to no deal, the opposition are opposing for the sake of it, hardcore Remainers still think the whole thing can be stopped and they appear to have the ear of the Speaker, hardcore Leavers want no-deal to get away from the EU as quickly as possible, the media have lost the plot and are talking up chaos because it sell newspapers and generates clicks, everyone seems to know what they don't want but there appears to be no majority for any actual plan. Happy New Year!
Pity the idiots who were dumb enough to make predictions at the start of the year.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
No, as far as I know, it was only "ruled out" by one of their advisors in his own opinion a few days before. The final ruling by the ECJ made no mention of the revocation needing a commitment not to re-invoke in future.
If we choose to revoke, regardless of what we say we'll do in future, the EU has no choice but to accept.
If we revoke I agree but we cannot reinvoke without it being different circumstances
Again, the final ECJ judgement (as opposed to the advocate general's "opinion") does not say that at all.
"The BBC Asian Network has been asking its listeners this morning whether they support Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun leaving her family, or presumably whether they think she should be killed. Seriously."
Say MPs have a vote say the week after next and passed a vote by say 10 votes to hold a second referendum. Would that need to specify the options on the ballot paper?
Is May obliged then to bring forward a referendum bill - and what happens if those who backed the original vote don't like her bill? And then the Lords need to approve it too.
Exactly how would you deliver the referendum if the Government and PM wasn't really behind it.
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
"The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act."
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
Indeed, from their perspective Brexit is a hostile act. But it is in the best interests of our country and therefore is the right thing to do. Again I would expect no less from any other country. The alternative is that one expects the Government to act in a way that is not in the best interests of the citizens.
It really isn’t hard. The UK wants a close trading relationship and strong bilateral cooperation in a number of other areas with its European neighbours, but doesn’t want to be part of a single European state.
It’s remarkable that politicians on both sides of the channel aren’t able to square that circle.
The EU isn't a single European state so can best achieve its objectives by remaining in the EU.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
It's not quite as dramatic as that. If we genuinely revoke with the intention of remaining a member, and then genuinely reinvoke at a later date under different circumstances that's fine. It just can't be abused to unilaterally extend the exit negotiations.
So if we revoked A50 then immediately called an election, following which the party winning power did so on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU, that would be okay?
Presumably, although unless that party had a ready made idea of how they were intending to leave, which would be acceptable to the EU for a deal, what a bloody waste of time that would be.
If it were in good faith then we would have two years to negotiate!
Yes it's all hypothetical, but I think that for the first time in at least 40 years no-one really has a clue what's going to happen in the next few weeks.
Meanwhile the clock keeps ticking down to no deal, the opposition are opposing for the sake of it, hardcore Remainers still think the whole thing can be stopped and they appear to have the ear of the Speaker, hardcore Leavers want no-deal to get away from the EU as quickly as possible, the media have lost the plot and are talking up chaos because it sell newspapers and generates clicks, everyone seems to know what they don't want but there appears to be no majority for any actual plan. Happy New Year!
Pity the idiots who were dumb enough to make predictions at the start of the year.
Ha ha. Yes the job was somewhat more difficult than usual for 2019! Fair play to yourself, David and others who had the guts to write down their predictions. My sole offering was that Bercow would make an utter arse of himself, I think we're close to calling that one after today's antics.
It can request it, but the decision lies with the 27.
But we are able to revoke A50 while reserving the right to re-invoke at any point in the future (which seems like an "extension" to all intents and purposes to me, but whatever) regardless of what the EU wants.
You cannot revoke A50 and reserve the right to re-invoke at any point in the future
That was expressly ruled out by the ECJ
No, as far as I know, it was only "ruled out" by one of their advisors in his own opinion a few days before. The final ruling by the ECJ made no mention of the revocation needing a commitment not to re-invoke in future.
If we choose to revoke, regardless of what we say we'll do in future, the EU has no choice but to accept.
If we revoke I agree but we cannot reinvoke without it being different circumstances
Again, the final ECJ judgement (as opposed to the advocate general's "opinion") does not say that at all.
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
"The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act."
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
Indeed, from their perspective Brexit is a hostile act. But it is in the best interests of our country and therefore is the right thing to do. Again I would expect no less from any other country. The alternative is that one expects the Government to act in a way that is not in the best interests of the citizens.
It really isn’t hard. The UK wants a close trading relationship and strong bilateral cooperation in a number of other areas with its European neighbours, but doesn’t want to be part of a single European state.
It’s remarkable that politicians on both sides of the channel aren’t able to square that circle.
The problem being that the arch Brexiters who for years argued that what we wanted in 1975 was a common market and not a political union, now won't countenance our adopting such a position because somehow it doesn't represent a genuine Brexit.
"The BBC Asian Network has been asking its listeners this morning whether they support Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun leaving her family, or presumably whether they think she should be killed. Seriously."
Typical of a certain flavour of cultural liberalism that is four-square behind the rights of any minority group - just so long as that support doesn't risk upsetting members of a different minority that it cares about more.
'the house price crash in the south-east in the 1990s had been a huge political issue that helped the rise of New Labour.'
'It could have been 2010.
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by our landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years - cos we complained about the boiler being broken. At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 15 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
Life is even worse under Labour - vote Tory!'
Sorry - this isn't a situation happening to me but its a real life situation many face now. It was a retort to that Labour poster from 1997 - when the average London house price was about £60,000. Its now ten times that - but wages haven't risen ten fold.
Glad to hear you are not personally affected and yes agree with your main points
Currently their (Russia's) actions are more hostile. That does not mean the EU 27 are not hostile. They are basically the same as much of the rest of the world currently. On a par with the US. The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act. I certainly don't condemn it as I would hope and assume we would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Again, the guiding principle is that a government should always act in what it considers to be the best interests of its citizens.
"The way in which certain EU countries are taking advantage of Brexit to try and improve their own economies and damage ours is a hostile act."
Using that sort of thinking, from their perspective Brexit could be seen as a hostile act designed to damage their economies.
And thanks to many Brexiteers saying they wanted not only to leave the EU, but to see it destroyed, who could blame them?
I'd much rather be friendly than see hostility everywhere.
Indeed, from their perspective Brexit is a hostile act. But it is in the best interests of our country and therefore is the right thing to do. Again I would expect no less from any other country. The alternative is that one expects the Government to act in a way that is not in the best interests of the citizens.
But things do not have to be a zero-sum game. Deals can be done that advantage all parties - and frequently are.
Your hatred of the EU would see us often doing what is wrong for us as a country, just because it is also good for them.
Comments
"...to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
(But of course, nothing to stop a new withdrawal process starting.)
Thanks to New Labour increasing house prices by 400% and presiding over a 10 fold rise in buy to let me and my mum are being chucked out of our private rental today by our landlord after only one months notice despite mum paying the rent on time every month for the last 5 years - cos we complained about the boiler being broken. At least when my gran and mum got repossesed under the Tories 15 years ago it was because gran hadn't paid their mortgage for months and the banks gave us 3 months notice to leave!
Life is even worse under Labour - vote Tory!'
Sorry to hear, Ed Miliband and Baroness Warsi have come up with some good ideas about building more social homes so those who cannot afford to buy are not so reliant on private tenancies and landlords. Hope you find some new accommodation soon
And 'evade the issue' simply cannot be done forever. Not for May, and not for Corbyn.
Sorry - this isn't a situation happening to me but its a real life situation many face now. It was a retort to that Labour poster from 1997 - when the average London house price was about £60,000. Its now ten times that - but wages haven't risen ten fold.
Yes it's all hypothetical, but I think that for the first time in at least 40 years no-one really has a clue what's going to happen in the next few weeks.
Meanwhile the clock keeps ticking down to no deal, the opposition are opposing for the sake of it, hardcore Remainers still think the whole thing can be stopped and they appear to have the ear of the Speaker, hardcore Leavers want no-deal to get away from the EU as quickly as possible, the DUP have the numbers to pull off a VoNC if the deal passes, the media have lost the plot and are talking up chaos because it sell newspapers and generates clicks, everyone seems to know what they don't want but there appears to be no majority for any actual plan. Happy New Year!
Of course, it would start another two year timer, and 18-20 months later we'd be back in exactly the same situation - ie remain MPs ruling out all options and trying for another suspension/revocation....
2/ "No Deal was all Theresa May's fault. If I had been in power then there would have been flowers and unicorns and butterflies. Vote Labour."
It’s remarkable that politicians on both sides of the channel aren’t able to square that circle.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/09/bbc-asian-network-asks-teen-killed-apostasy/
Is May obliged then to bring forward a referendum bill - and what happens if those who backed the original vote don't like her bill? And then the Lords need to approve it too.
Exactly how would you deliver the referendum if the Government and PM wasn't really behind it.
NEW THREAD
Although that might mean we need to be very, very scared ...
Your hatred of the EU would see us often doing what is wrong for us as a country, just because it is also good for them.
"Here's to not buggering it up!"
The Lib Dem answer to Eton eductated Conservative leaders.