politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Article 50 can’t be invoked, surely, without the country knowi

The thread is nonsense. You can easily invoke Article 50, if the electorate in the future wants to rejoin the EU then that is still possible (via the accession process, like any other independent country) whether or not the invocation can be reversed or not.

Arguably going to WTO is a better negotiating threat than revocation, which may be what many federalists in the EU secretly want. It could also give an incentive for them to give us a terrible deal so we revoke article 50.

You've not thought this through Mike.

These desperate legal delaying tactics are pretty pathetic, aren't they?

You invoke Article 50 to leave the EU, which is what we voted for. Absent a change of mind on the part of the public, we'll have to go through with it, even though it was a poor decision. Revocability is neither here nor there.

'A50 can’t be invoked without the country knowing whether it’s revocable or not'.

Sorry, but this is utter twaddle imho.

Why not?

Mr. Walloper, welcome to PB.

SimonStClare said:

'A50 can’t be invoked without the country knowing whether it’s revocable or not'.

Sorry, but this is utter twaddle imho.

Why? This is the strategy Boris proposed in 2015.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/28/schrodingers-referendum-as-boris-wants-voters-to-vote-yes-and-no-to-leaving-the-eu/

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

No need to know the answer - we are leaving

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

One of the ironies of Brexit is that we will be more entangled in dealing with the EU as we leave and after we leave than we did as members. It will be frustrating for anyone who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away.

FF43 said:

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

One of the ironies of Brexit is that we will be more entangled in dealing with the EU as we leave and after we leave than we did as members. It will be frustrating for anyone who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away.

I'm sure most leavers will be fine with the EU existing over there.

FF43 said:

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

One of the ironies of Brexit is that we will be more entangled in dealing with the EU as we leave and after we leave than we did as members. It will be frustrating for anyone who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away.

It will also be frustrating for the EU if indeed the EU remains unchanged which seems unlikely with the increasing anger towards it across Europe.

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn confirmed to senior Labour MPs tonight that Sinn Fein staffer Jayne Fisher will be working in his office from next month.

As my wife just said 'traitor'

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

One of the ironies of Brexit is that we will be more entangled in dealing with the EU as we leave and after we leave than we did as members. It will be frustrating for anyone who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away.

I'm sure most leavers will be fine with the EU existing over there.

But are they OK with arguing about every damn little thing? Believe me, that's what's going to happen.

For a few years, yes.

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/809060833502392320

MikeSmithson said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/809060833502392320

Is that the back

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

One of the ironies of Brexit is that we will be more entangled in dealing with the EU as we leave and after we leave than we did as members. It will be frustrating for anyone who voted Leave because they don't like the EU much and wish it would go away.

It will also be frustrating for the EU if indeed the EU remains unchanged which seems unlikely with the increasing anger towards it across Europe.

It will be frustrating for the EU side too. Yes.

Hmm on first blush I have to say why on earth does it matter if it's revocable or not?

Change our mind (horrific as that might be in terms of the deal we would get) and we can rejoin at any time plus, if we did change our minds, and if it was put to the EU27 that we wanted to reverse our position I'm sure there would be unanimity in accepting.

So not an issue IMO.

Even if we changed our minds, the EU27 accepted, and they reinstated Dave's Deal, I would find it challenging to be in favour of rejoining but perhaps that is a pride thing, together with the view of the EU27 that we would be an unreliable partner.

https://twitter.com/aidankerrpol/status/809092984612487168

Meanwhile in Scotland...

@scottishlabour: Tonight, SNP ministers who campaigned against austerity voted with the Tories to block a 50p top rate of tax for the richest few.

Scott_P said:

Meanwhile in Scotland...

@scottishlabour: Tonight, SNP ministers who campaigned against austerity voted with the Tories to block a 50p top rate of tax for the richest few.

Too afraid to use their tax-raising powers? Better to just moan about it and blame Westminster.

One of the more amusing of the legal questions at least, given it would need to go to the ECJ it seems.

But I'm more interested in the report that Davis said the government doesn't know or not. That was one point on which the government lawyers and the claimants in the a50 case seemed to be in agreement on, that it was not revocable, so why introduce that element now?

A conspiracy theorist would suggest they want more time and are in fact happy for this to provide opportunity for that delay. Surely not the case, but since the chances of the public being so overwhelming in changing their minds, and thus changing government minds, are so remote, why look doubtful? Governments always say they are sure even when they are not.

TOPPING said:

Hmm on first blush I have to say why on earth does it matter if it's revocable or not?

Change our mind (horrific as that might be in terms of the deal we would get) and we can rejoin at any time plus, if we did change our minds, and if it was put to the EU27 that we wanted to reverse our position I'm sure there would be unanimity in accepting.

So not an issue IMO.

I think the issue is that if it were revocable and we did indeed revoke our notice to leave, we'd retain our current position, opt outs and all. Leave but then try to rejoin and we'd surely have no basis on which to argue for any special deals as might currently exist.

And of course the point as put below that just like offering a new deal after our vote would encourage others to vote leave to get new deals, allowing revocation would be in a similar vein.

Corbyn.. . The gift that keeps on giving....

SquareRoot said:

Corbyn.. . The gift that keeps on giving....

Is that gift in the German sense?

williamglenn said:

Trigger warning: 2017 is not going to offer many safe spaces for Leavers.

No need for safe space for leavers

surbiton said:

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn confirmed to senior Labour MPs tonight that Sinn Fein staffer Jayne Fisher will be working in his office from next month.

Is this news ? Martin McGuiness is the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein. He had lunch with the Queen. Should she be ashamed ? Should she abdicate ?

Jayne Fisher, whoever she is, probably was not even born when the troubles started in NI. I don't know.

The Queen probably didn't want to start the troubles again by refusing to meet him. I doubt she would employ him or have him in the office though.

surbiton said:

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn confirmed to senior Labour MPs tonight that Sinn Fein staffer Jayne Fisher will be working in his office from next month.

Is this news ? Martin McGuiness is the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein. He had lunch with the Queen. Should she be ashamed ? Should she abdicate ?

Jayne Fisher, whoever she is, probably was not even born when the troubles started in NI. I don't know.

HM isn't actually seeking to govern the country. And her efforts at reconciliation should be commended, especially after their murder of Lord Mountbatten.

TOPPING said:

kle4 said:

One of the more amusing of the legal questions at least, given it would need to go to the ECJ it seems.

But I'm more interested in the report that Davis said the government doesn't know or not. That was one point on which the government lawyers and the claimants in the a50 case seemed to be in agreement on, that it was not revocable, so why introduce that element now?

A conspiracy theorist would suggest they want more time and are in fact happy for this to provide opportunity for that delay. Surely not the case, but since the chances of the public being so overwhelming in changing their minds, and thus changing government minds, are so remote, why look doubtful? Governments always say they are sure even when they are not.

TOPPING said:

Hmm on first blush I have to say why on earth does it matter if it's revocable or not?

Change our mind (horrific as that might be in terms of the deal we would get) and we can rejoin at any time plus, if we did change our minds, and if it was put to the EU27 that we wanted to reverse our position I'm sure there would be unanimity in accepting.

So not an issue IMO.

I think the issue is that if it were revocable and we did indeed revoke our notice to leave, we'd retain our current position, opt outs and all. Leave but then try to rejoin and we'd surely have no basis on which to argue for any special deals as might currently exist.

Yes I suppose so but we are an important economy and I think they might have us back on decent (i.e. current) terms whenever.

But it's all academic; we're not going back within a generation or two.

Indeed. Whatever any merits of us rejoining, should that be desired, I can see politics keeping us out in any case. We were nothing but trouble after all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Trigger warning: 2017 is not going to offer many safe spaces for Leavers.

No need for safe space for leavers

Clearly not the case, regrettably. We all demand some thesedays.

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

There's elections in May. Conservatives will suffer badly in these elections if Article 50 is still up in the air. There may yet be a general election on that date, if the govt find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties with an enabling Bill.

June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.

Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.

Agreed. If A50 isn't done by May, there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.

Depends on who is perceived to be preventing it

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

There's elections in May. Conservatives will suffer badly in these elections if Article 50 is still up in the air. There may yet be a general election on that date, if the govt find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties with an enabling Bill.

June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.

Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.

Agreed. If A50 isn't done by May, there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.

Quite. The march deadline is completely arbitrary it seems, in that while it seems we should be ready to trigger by then, if more time were needed there's no reason it couldn't be held off further, but particularly the yearly anniversary would be en embarrassing one to miss. They've been pretty insistent about march as well, seems like that one is coming no matter what.

Well the government have stated they will publish their plan/outline (or whatever) in Feb. I doubt they would have said that had they been less confident. Why set yourself another deadline you are going to miss?

AnneJGP said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

Many Leavers seem to be opposed to constitutional government full stop.

I've thought all along that the ECJ would probably rule it illegal for the UK to leave the EU.

Good evening, everybody.

There was some talk in the select committee that A50 does not only trigger the leaving process but that the EU have to agree a clear trading position with the leaving party.

Indeed it was suggested that legal opinion should be obtained as it could make the EU have to agree trading terms for the UK during the process

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

There's elections in May. Conservatives will suffer badly in these elections if Article 50 is still up in the air. There may yet be a general election on that date, if the govt find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties with an enabling Bill.

June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.

Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.

Agreed. If A50 isn't done by May, there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.

Quite. The march deadline is completely arbitrary it seems, in that while it seems we should be ready to trigger by then, if more time were needed there's no reason it couldn't be held off further, but particularly the yearly anniversary would be en embarrassing one to miss. They've been pretty insistent about march as well, seems like that one is coming no matter what.

Well the government have stated they will publish their plan/outline (or whatever) in Feb. I doubt they would have said that had they been less confident. Why set yourself another deadline you are going to miss?

Indeed - March is a long time since the referendum, it would be pretty amazing to make that the date without being certain if you're not ready by then, you never will be. I was just noting there's no reason they could not in theory delay further if needed, but politically they ar eset now, so I hope they will indeed have it all up together.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

There's elections in May. Conservatives will suffer badly in these elections if Article 50 is still up in the air. There may yet be a general election on that date, if the govt find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties with an enabling Bill.

June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.

Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.

Agreed. If A50 isn't done by May, there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.

Quite. The march deadline is completely arbitrary it seems, in that while it seems we should be ready to trigger by then, if more time were needed there's no reason it couldn't be held off further, but particularly the yearly anniversary would be en embarrassing one to miss. They've been pretty insistent about march as well, seems like that one is coming no matter what.

Well the government have stated they will publish their plan/outline (or whatever) in Feb. I doubt they would have said that had they been less confident. Why set yourself another deadline you are going to miss?

Indeed - March is a long time since the referendum, it would be pretty amazing to make that the date without being certain if you're not ready by then, you never will be. I was just noting there's no reason they could not in theory delay further if needed, but politically they ar eset now, so I hope they will indeed have it all up together.

May would use up a lot of capital delaying. Even if they were not 100% ready, I suspect they would invoke regardless and accept the slight loss of time on the two-year window. In any case, there are plenty of things we need to negotiate, so we can spend the first couple of months getting all the easy stuff out of the way.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

There's elections in May. Conservatives will suffer badly in these elections if Article 50 is still up in the air. There may yet be a general election on that date, if the govt find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties with an enabling Bill.

June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.

Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.

Agreed. If A50 isn't done by May, there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.

Quite. The march deadline is completely arbitrary it seems, in that while it seems we should be ready to trigger by then, if more time were needed there's no reason it couldn't be held off further, but particularly the yearly anniversary would be en embarrassing one to miss. They've been pretty insistent about march as well, seems like that one is coming no matter what.

Well the government have stated they will publish their plan/outline (or whatever) in Feb. I doubt they would have said that had they been less confident. Why set yourself another deadline you are going to miss?

Indeed - March is a long time since the referendum, it would be pretty amazing to make that the date without being certain if you're not ready by then, you never will be. I was just noting there's no reason they could not in theory delay further if needed, but politically they ar eset now, so I hope they will indeed have it all up together.

Indeed David Davis said to the select committee today it could be triggered earlier than the end of March

isam said:

surbiton said:

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn confirmed to senior Labour MPs tonight that Sinn Fein staffer Jayne Fisher will be working in his office from next month.

Is this news ? Martin McGuiness is the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein. He had lunch with the Queen. Should she be ashamed ? Should she abdicate ?

Jayne Fisher, whoever she is, probably was not even born when the troubles started in NI. I don't know.

The Queen probably didn't want to start the troubles again by refusing to meet him. I doubt she would employ him or have him in the office though.

The Queen had no option but to act on the advice of her Ministers.

Corbyn, on the other hand, has a choice. He was on the side of the terrorists. He wanted them to win and he voted against one of the agreements reached to try and end the Troubles. (This last comment is directed at Surbiton, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between what HMQ has to do and what the LoTo chooses to do.)

Speedy said:

Your reminder on why Hillary lost (remember the report that they didn't campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin because they didn't want to appear weak in front of Trump? ) :

[snip]

"But we lost due to Russian hackers and Comey, blah blah blah"

I thought we agreed to a trigger warning before the words "ground game" appeared in a post these days... titters

Ha! Nice to get a few seconds on unemployment falling and a "small" (i.e. above inflation) rise in average earnings on the Six O'Clock News.

PeterC said:

RobD said:

Have any experts given their view on this, especially on which part of the treaty suggests it is revocable?

The treaty is silent on whether A50 can be revoked. It is a matter requiring clarification by the ECJ as the treaty is obviously deficient as it stands.

The Treaty is not deficient. It makes no provision for unilateral revocation. Therefore it is not available. The ECJ can only rule on what the Treaty does say, not on what it might have said.

RobD said:

Have any experts given their view on this, especially on which part of the treaty suggests it is revocable?

This article is quite persuasive in arguing that it is revocable:

http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/brexit-foundational-constitutional-and-interpretive-principles-ii/

In particular, I found his second paragraph convincing:

Secondly, the principle set out above is reaffirmed by Article 68 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, VCLT, which provides that “a notification or instrument provided for in article 65 or 67 may be revoked at any time before it takes effect”. Article 65 VCLT stipulates that a state that invokes a ground for withdrawing from a treaty must notify the other parties; Article 67 VCLT determines the manner in which such notification is to be given, namely that it should be in writing.

In essence, in the absence of anything specific in the Lisbon Treaty about revocability, he suggests that Article 68 of the Vienna Convention kicks in. IANAL, but that makes sense.

(He also addresses the objection that a state could repeatedly invoke and revoke Article 50. Not so, because that would be an abuse of normal treaty conventions.)

@Morris_Dancer
@RobD

If you read the whole report it's even worse.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

They directly attacked people who tried to help them and tried to cut them off from contacts and money.

AnneJGP said:

williamglenn said:

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

I'm not clear why the legal action re the revocability of Article 50 is being bought in the Irish courts.

The mere fact that Irish courts have even the slightest relevance — if they truly do — is a good enough reason to leave the EU in my book. It's abundantly clear now that nobody has ever given any serious thought to how the EU can be left or its grip loosened. I will take any form of exit now, just get it done ASAP, we will live with the consequences.

Many Leavers seem to be opposed to constitutional government full stop.

I've thought all along that the ECJ would probably rule it illegal for the UK to leave the EU.

Good evening, everybody.

We can always revoke the 1972 Act and stop sending the cheques. Messy, but preferable to being held hostage against the will of the people.

I wonder if at some point we end up with UN mediators getting involved in Brexit, if both sides cannot amicably agree a deal?

Speedy said:

"But we lost due to Russian hackers and Comey, blah blah blah"

I do find it wryly amusing that before the election Democrats were intensely relaxed about top secret information being exfiltrated from the Secretary of State's private email server, and dismissive of the Wikileaks publication of DNC emails as mere tittle-tattle. Now they are flipping out about Russian hackers "stealing" the election for Trump, and calling for all sorts of investigations by every three letter agency going.

Calling them two-faced barely scratches the surface.

On topic:

For God's sake, let's just get this over with.

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Have any experts given their view on this, especially on which part of the treaty suggests it is revocable?

This article is quite persuasive in arguing that it is revocable:

http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/brexit-foundational-constitutional-and-interpretive-principles-ii/

In particular, I found his second paragraph convincing:

Secondly, the principle set out above is reaffirmed by Article 68 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, VCLT, which provides that “a notification or instrument provided for in article 65 or 67 may be revoked at any time before it takes effect”. Article 65 VCLT stipulates that a state that invokes a ground for withdrawing from a treaty must notify the other parties; Article 67 VCLT determines the manner in which such notification is to be given, namely that it should be in writing.

In essence, in the absence of anything specific in the Lisbon Treaty about revocability, he suggests that Article 68 of the Vienna Convention kicks in. IANAL, but that makes sense.

(He also addresses the objections that a state could repeatedly invoke and revoke Article 50. Not so, because that would be an abuse of normal treaty conventions.)

Thanks! But isn't the time of invocation also when it takes effect?

Pulpstar said:

Jo Maugham ought to raise his case in a British Court if he feels he has one. Clearly using Dublin is a tawdry back door delaying tactic - although they're coming from a similiar angle at least Millar's case will be decided by British judges in British courts.
Ultimately it makes no difference as to whether Art 50. is recovable or not in the (initial) serving of it, I expect the ECJ will rule irrecovability (If it gets that far) and the de-facto process of leaving will have begun by then anyway.
There is no need for UK parliament to pay the slightest attention to a Dublin court at this point anyway.

All a bit #NeverTrumpy.

It rather depends. The ECJ exists to protect the direction of the project, to uphold the ratchet. Does it help the project to lose a contributing member with a large trade surplus, or is it better to see a recalcitrant removed from the process of integration.

This is why its difficult to see what might come of any case, but the weight of legal opinion is with revocability at present

kle4 said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

There's elections in May. Conservatives will suffer badly in these elections if Article 50 is still up in the air. There may yet be a general election on that date, if the govt find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties with an enabling Bill.

June 23rd is the anniversary of the vote. Again, there will be lots of scrutiny on the government if nothing has actually happened a year after the vote.

Therefore, from a political point of view, A50 is likely to be declared before June 30th. 1/2 is a bit stingy though, so no bet for me on this one.

Agreed. If A50 isn't done by May, there will be a price to pay at the ballot box.

Quite. The march deadline is completely arbitrary it seems, in that while it seems we should be ready to trigger by then, if more time were needed there's no reason it couldn't be held off further, but particularly the yearly anniversary would be en embarrassing one to miss. They've been pretty insistent about march as well, seems like that one is coming no matter what.

Well the government have stated they will publish their plan/outline (or whatever) in Feb. I doubt they would have said that had they been less confident. Why set yourself another deadline you are going to miss?

Indeed - March is a long time since the referendum, it would be pretty amazing to make that the date without being certain if you're not ready by then, you never will be. I was just noting there's no reason they could not in theory delay further if needed, but politically they ar eset now, so I hope they will indeed have it all up together.

The point of delaying is to allow negotiations to finish by the two year end date. The more prep you can do before starting the clock the more likely you are to get a better deal at the end of it. It doesn't look like they are very prepared at the moment. David Davis is canvassing industry representatives to ask what they want. It seems to be high level rather than nitty gritty stuff.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Speedy, that's bloody horrendous campaigning. Clinton really should've won. Trump was damned lucky to face someone who was not only a turn-off for huge numbers of people, but whose campaign was making such obviously inept decisions.

Paradoxically Clinton might have won with a "worse" campaign.

And just so we are clear, there is nothing legally preventing us invoking Article 50 even if it is not yet known if it is revocable or not?