I don't know how the EU would respond, but IMO, EEA-minus-free-movement would be very much a goer with the British public, including a crucial segment of Leave voters. As much as some of the Leave elites like Dan Hannan might not like it, the referendum really was all about immigration for a lot of people.
Evan Davis forgets that being in the customs union means we can not independently negotiate trade agreements with non EU countries - a red line.
From the CBI factsheet on (the, a, any) customs union:
"Securing access to existing third-party FTAs - covering 61% of the UK’s trade with the rest of the world - through negotiation is more important than delivering new FTAs"
I am not sure how the Lib Dems -or Labour -can "oppose Brexit" after it has happened. The next election is in 2022 and we are leaving in 2019.
then it's not impossible to envisage a Labour government to keep us in permanent transition as long as the EU accepts that.
You can check out but you can never leave?
That would be like checking out of a hotel room but having to continue to pay for it after you leave while being forbidden to check into another hotel.
A Labour party which signed up to that and perpetual freedom of movement would be crushed. And in any case Corbyn himself guarantees defeat in 2022.
Doherty, a civil judge sitting in the court of session in Edinburgh, also awarded full costs of the hearing and the case to the UK government, which had opposed the application.
The seven pro-EU politicians, backed with funding from the Good Law Project set up by Jolyon Maugham QC, will decide whether to appeal.
I could have told them they would take a dim view of spoilt Southerners court shopping ..
The 7 politicians were all Scottish - hence the approach to a Scottish court in the first instance
What is clear is that all the extra hurdles that those opposed to Brexit have forced the government to jump are now coming back to bite them. Parliament legislated for the issuing of the Article 50 notice and approved its service. That is the government's policy so there is no basis for dealing with the hypothetical question of what happens if the government changes its mind.
Must say that I expected this to go to a fuller hearing but it appears from the Judgment that there has been a fairly substantial hearing already.
You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
This of course the obvious political move.
How many times has Corbyn failed to do that so far?
Doesn't need to, he has just has to wait until the Conservatives implode...
Comments
"Securing access to existing third-party FTAs - covering 61% of the UK’s trade with the rest of the world - through negotiation is more important than delivering new FTAs"
A Labour party which signed up to that and perpetual freedom of movement would be crushed. And in any case Corbyn himself guarantees defeat in 2022.
What is clear is that all the extra hurdles that those opposed to Brexit have forced the government to jump are now coming back to bite them. Parliament legislated for the issuing of the Article 50 notice and approved its service. That is the government's policy so there is no basis for dealing with the hypothetical question of what happens if the government changes its mind.
Must say that I expected this to go to a fuller hearing but it appears from the Judgment that there has been a fairly substantial hearing already.