politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The chances of the UK leaving the EU on March 29th are surely
Comments
-
Get yourself a copy of this, head to the Bund and start from there. Magic.SouthamObserver said:I am currently in Shanghai. It's the last day of a two-day event my company has organised here. We got 450 delegates, 70% of them from Asia-Pacific countries. The EU has not prevented us from holding it and generating large sponsorship and delegate fees in any way, shape or form.
https://amazon.co.uk/Search-Old-Shanghai-Pan-Ling/dp/9620401956
(I'm sure you have done this, ofc.)0 -
-
There are now no fewer than five candidates who have been last matched at a price between 8.8 and 10 for next Conservative leader: Javid, Johnson, Gove, Raab and Hunt. No one else is under 20.0
-
-
Would be “funny” if Chope was Mr 48.Scott_P said:
I hope someone is filming all of this for the mother of all Ken Burns style documentaries.
Brexit: When Britain Went Mad.0 -
On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).0 -
Not quite - No 10 needs to send a letter to the EU (revoking A50). Once that is done there is all the time in the world to deal with the other issues...Mortimer said:
There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?kle4 said:
I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.Morris_Dancer said:Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).
Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.
Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.0 -
We haven't tested it at all. We have just had those who oppose the result use every possible means to frustrate it and stop it being enacted.matt said:
We've tested the limits of direct democracy. It doesn't work terribly well when so many seem to be insulated from the consequences.Charles said:
So just ignoring the largest vote in British history?TheScreamingEagles said:
I would have thought so.Slackbladder said:Presumably if we were to 'cancel' Brexit, that would mean exactly the same rights as currently, ie, we keep the rebate?
Back to to status quo ante Article 50.0 -
The government's entire approach to Brexit from both a legal and a constitutional basis has been nothing short of a joke. They've behaved like the villain in an episode of Scooby Doo "And I would've got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky lawyers".Scott_P said:0 -
I enjoyed Simon Hoare MP's visual imagery at the end of that piece:
“I’m not convinced that there’s an 11th hour white rabbit to be pulled out of the hat. I’m not sure what that rabbit would be.”0 -
+1SouthamObserver said:f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.
0 -
Go to Judy's on Nanking Road with plenty of cash then come on here and tell us all about your subsequent adventure.SouthamObserver said:
I am currently in Shanghai.0 -
I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
______________________________________________
That isn't true.
He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.
It was clumsy language to use.0 -
I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.TOPPING said:On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).0 -
"Will the UK leave the EU on 29th March" is now approaching crossover on Betfair.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130766060
0 -
Where's does the leverage come from? Using Article 50 (either invoking or revoking) needs to be done in accordance with our constitutional requirements.SouthamObserver said:f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.
0 -
The decision re Article 50 will actually help May withTory rebels . Because if the opinion is upheld the UK can stay in with the same opt outs including the rebate .
Of course the right wing press will say the ECJ are interfering but the opinion is actually a boost to the sovereignty of each EU member .0 -
Anyone backing Boris doesn't understand the rules of the contest. MPs have first dibs.AlastairMeeks said:There are now no fewer than five candidates who have been last matched at a price between 8.8 and 10 for next Conservative leader: Javid, Johnson, Gove, Raab and Hunt. No one else is under 20.
0 -
Mr. 67, the rebate, unlike the eurozone/Schengen, is not a treaty opt-out. It's likely to go, if we remain.0
-
This would be an amazing get out of jail card - to revoke A50, take stock and properly work out what type of Brexit we want. Either crashing out or approving a perceived "bad deal" makes zero logical sense. The thing that worries me is that Brexit (the entire backdrop and process) has never been logical...0
-
I was under the impression that the arcane practices and procedures you refer to are usually designed to delay things so they don't eventually happen. Surely in this case delay simply makes it more likely that No Deal will happen.rottenborough said:I hope Hague is right and HoC will use every single arcane procedure and twist to halt a No Deal Brexit, if May's plan falls.
Time to for MPs to step up to the plate and stop this madness in its tracks.0 -
Mr. WC, if Article 50 is revoked we'll be staying for the foreseeable future.
This may push Leaver MPs towards May's deal. But it'll strengthen the resolve of Remainer MPs who are thinking of voting against it.0 -
If art 50 is revoked there is no way on God's green earth it is being reinvoked.tottenhamWC said:This would be an amazing get out of jail card - to revoke A50, take stock and properly work out what type of Brexit we want. Either crashing out or approving a perceived "bad deal" makes zero logical sense. The thing that worries me is that Brexit (the entire backdrop and process) has never been logical...
0 -
How does that help May? It means MPs can vote down her deal with less fear of ‘no deal’.nico67 said:The decision re Article 50 will actually help May withTory rebels . Because if the opinion is upheld the UK can stay in with the same opt outs including the rebate .
Of course the right wing press will say the ECJ are interfering but the opinion is actually a boost to the sovereignty of each EU member .0 -
Bar Rouge.TOPPING said:
Get yourself a copy of this, head to the Bund and start from there. Magic.SouthamObserver said:I am currently in Shanghai. It's the last day of a two-day event my company has organised here. We got 450 delegates, 70% of them from Asia-Pacific countries. The EU has not prevented us from holding it and generating large sponsorship and delegate fees in any way, shape or form.
https://amazon.co.uk/Search-Old-Shanghai-Pan-Ling/dp/9620401956
(I'm sure you have done this, ofc.)0 -
Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...Pulpstar said:
I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.TOPPING said:On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).0 -
Unless it pushes the Tories to a full euro-spectic party, which then gets into power (somehow).Pulpstar said:
If art 50 is revoked there is no way on God's green earth it is being reinvoked.tottenhamWC said:This would be an amazing get out of jail card - to revoke A50, take stock and properly work out what type of Brexit we want. Either crashing out or approving a perceived "bad deal" makes zero logical sense. The thing that worries me is that Brexit (the entire backdrop and process) has never been logical...
0 -
Does it depend on what the meaning of is is?TheJezziah said:I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
______________________________________________
That isn't true.
He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.
It was clumsy language to use.0 -
I think both were the correct compromises of their time, given the lack of realistic alternative option in either circumstance. For zealots who see compromise as anathema no solution other that fog in channel, "Europe isolated" is acceptable. The keyboard warriors are strong here.TOPPING said:On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).0 -
Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.
What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.0 -
Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?0
-
Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....kinabalu said:Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.
What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.0 -
And then to be re-invoked, or is that a related contingency?TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?
0 -
Mortimer said:
There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?kle4 said:
I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.Morris_Dancer said:Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).
Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.
Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.0 -
8.45 calls for it to be revoked.TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?
8.50 calls anyone who wants it revoked a traitor.
8 55 calls for it to be revoked.
9.00 calls anyone who wants to it revoked a traitor.
Repeat ad nauseam.0 -
No it means they vote down the deal and there is probably little choice but to remain.Gallowgate said:
How does that help May? It means MPs can vote down her deal with less fear of ‘no deal’.nico67 said:The decision re Article 50 will actually help May withTory rebels . Because if the opinion is upheld the UK can stay in with the same opt outs including the rebate .
Of course the right wing press will say the ECJ are interfering but the opinion is actually a boost to the sovereignty of each EU member .
Also from my previous post
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/10698837048882544640 -
You may want to read the article - the arcane practices can be used to push things through in hours if required...Richard_Tyndall said:
I was under the impression that the arcane practices and procedures you refer to are usually designed to delay things so they don't eventually happen. Surely in this case delay simply makes it more likely that No Deal will happen.rottenborough said:I hope Hague is right and HoC will use every single arcane procedure and twist to halt a No Deal Brexit, if May's plan falls.
Time to for MPs to step up to the plate and stop this madness in its tracks.0 -
Not if you’re in the antiques trade it doesn’t...TOPPING said:
Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...Pulpstar said:
I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.TOPPING said:On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).0 -
Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.0 -
I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.SouthamObserver said:f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.
0 -
Related contingency.Theuniondivvie said:
And then to be re-invoked, or is that a related contingency?TheScreamingEagles said:Anyone running a book on when SeanT calls for Article 50 to be revoked?
0 -
https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1069641594582827009
Wondrous. Sponsored potholes on motorways. May's Government has finally gone full Cones Hotline.0 -
Simon is v. Eloquent in person and on the page. Cox without the booming voice.AlastairMeeks said:I enjoyed Simon Hoare MP's visual imagery at the end of that piece:
“I’m not convinced that there’s an 11th hour white rabbit to be pulled out of the hat. I’m not sure what that rabbit would be.”0 -
-
Unlikely given the size of the EU now. That’s why letting Lisbon through with QMV in it was such a poor Foriegn policy move.Beverley_C said:
I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.SouthamObserver said:f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.
0 -
-
Mr. P, why aren't the chains, seemingly painted onto the walls, using the same perspective that applies to the walls? They're just flat, not angled.
Edited extra bit: ahem, the tone there was a shade accusatory. Obviously, I know you didn't draw it. But the flaw irks me.0 -
If only John Major had thought of monetising the cones with advertising...El_Capitano said:Wondrous. Sponsored potholes on motorways. May's Government has finally gone full Cones Hotline.
0 -
But I thought Leavers were all about taking an economic hit for the greater good?Mortimer said:
Not if you’re in the antiques trade it doesn’t...TOPPING said:
Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...Pulpstar said:
I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.TOPPING said:On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
How much does the antiques trade generate for the UK economy, is it more than the automotive or financial services sector ?0 -
Think Labour might stop talking about police numbers now?Scott_P said:0 -
-
Yes really. It would be a scandal of the highest order if the 2016 referendum result is not implemented. But if it is to be disregarded I would rather it be done openly by parliament rather than via the grubby sophistry of a 2nd referendum.MarqueeMark said:Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....
0 -
One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.
Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...0 -
Complicatingly.Mortimer said:
There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?kle4 said:
I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.Morris_Dancer said:Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).
Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.
Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.
Government loses deal and vote of no confidence. GE or referendum is agreed to break deadlock, remain wins referendum and legislation created/ repealed or we have a GE, The delay doesn't matter if a50 can be withdrawn, Tories back no deal and labour remain, labour win due to Tory divisions. Legislation created/repealed.
It's still not simple but it got a whole lot simpler. And if parliament won't agree on how to leave, and they wont, they will see us remain. We're all probably going to have to get used to that. ERG will be happy. They can say how perfect things would have been if we'd left.0 -
Which we can veto....Beverley_C said:
I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.SouthamObserver said:f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.
0 -
kle4 said:Mortimer said:
There needs to be two changes in the law for Remain, how do you see that happening?kle4 said:
I'd put remain at 75% chance now. There's procedural issues to work out but unless 100 people change their minds on the deal the path has gotten much easier.Morris_Dancer said:Ladbrokes: odds down just a smidge on another referendum (2.37 to 2.25, with no second referendum before the end of 2019 lengthening from 1.53 to 1.57).
Be interesting to see if weight of money causes a bigger shift.
Right now, you can get 4 and 4.5 on a second referendum Remain or Leave vote, respectively, but if the referendum's more complicated than that it could throw up potential problems.
Oh look a squirrel.Scott_P said:0 -
I'll just provide one example because there is a hell of a lot of examples of people using the word now when they clearly don't mean immediately.TOPPING said:
Does it depend on what the meaning of is is?TheJezziah said:I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
______________________________________________
That isn't true.
He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.
It was clumsy language to use.
_______________________________
England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018.
___________________________
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-world-cup-2018-semi-final-date-who-play-next-when-russia-croatia-vs-sweden-a8436431.html
Article was wrote on 7th July. So the writer must have thought it was the 11th of July instead as he clearly meant immediately.
The writer also seems to think the Russia Croatia game can be played and completed immediately with the team who wins immediately playing England.
Or people don't always mean immediately when they say the word now.
Of course Corbyn might have meant right now or immediately or he might not have.0 -
Fair enough.Mortimer said:
Not if you’re in the antiques trade it doesn’t...TOPPING said:
Perhaps. But the SM win by Dave trumps that IMO. But anyway...Pulpstar said:
I didn't think Dave's deal got enough. The CFP, CAP and FoM wins by May are all more substantial.TOPPING said:On (breaking news) topic - the only action I can see is an extension not revocation of A50. We can't just in-out-in-out-shake it all about. That's no way for a grown-up country to behave.
Imagine the next QMV on anything. We'd go down and go down badly.
TMay's deal it is.
(I wonder how many of us on PB have been fans of both Dave's and Tezza's deal - not many - perhaps just @Nabavi and me).
We'll put it in the price worth paying category.0 -
Quite agree. I can see the Leave means Leave camp being sufficiently furious, in one or two cases anyway, to follow Nigel Farage's lead. (If he actually does it!). 'Don khaki and take up a rifle!'Morris_Dancer said:Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
And the Tories would have to hold on until 2022, otherwise the electoral bloodletting would be disastrous. It would be worse then than 1997, but not much worse.
0 -
A50 judgement is interesting
now we can go back and really fk Europe up
TMay for commission president.0 -
The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.
Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there. Sort out stuff like residency individually with each country if the EU won't negotiate, which we have good leverage for because most of the other 27 countries have more of their citizens here than we have there. Sort out pet passports so people won't have to leave their pets behind and work out how to keep the planes in the air.
This stuff really isn't beyond the wit of man to organise. It's a total disgrace that this government didn't even begin to do any of this. Useless.0 -
A wrecking amendment.Scott_P said:0 -
Mr. Mark, the government of the day didn't even hold a referendum when it was promised in their manifesto. The political class is pro-EU to the extent it'd take a hell of a lot for them to even consider vetoing a treaty.0
-
Good morning
The news this morning from the ECJ, if confirmed, will change the narrative quite considerably as no deal becomes unlikely
The ERG are running the risk of losing Brexit for the foreseable future due to over reaching. I have no idea how this will effect the vote but brexiteers need to decide if they want brexit or not
However, the only way for A50 to be withdrawn is by referendum and how we arrive there is not clear, unless of course an amendment to the meaningful vote for a referendum passes.
Ultimately I think this morning, brexit is hanging by a thread0 -
They have a slew of balkan countries coming up for accession. That'll need a treaty, though it's hard to tell *precisely* when; I would imagine within a couple of years.Beverley_C said:
I suspect there will be a treaty amendment of some sort the next time the EU has a Maastricht or Lisbon event.SouthamObserver said:f the CJEU agrees with the AG it puts the UK in an immensely powerful position. We can revoke A50 having found out exactly how the EU27 would handle a withdrawal negotiation. That gives us a hell of a lot of leverage for the future if we use this knowledge properly.
0 -
This is a good point.Alanbrooke said:A50 judgement is interesting
now we can go back and really fk Europe up
TMay for commission president.
We can use our veto to block everything until the EU starts negotiating our withdrawal in a reasonable way.0 -
Act III Scene IITheJezziah said:
I'll just provide one example because there is a hell of a lot of examples of people using the word now when they clearly don't mean immediately.TOPPING said:
Does it depend on what the meaning of is is?TheJezziah said:I still think that one of the most remarkable ill-thought out things that Jeremy Corbyn has stated on this was his declaration on the day after the referendum in 2016 that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. If that had been the case we would have been out for nearly 6 months by now.
______________________________________________
That isn't true.
He did say the word now but there are many examples of peoples using the word now and not meaning right now or immediately.
It was clumsy language to use.
_______________________________
England will now play either Russia or Croatia in the World Cup 2018 semi-finals on Wednesday 11 July 2018.
___________________________
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/england-world-cup-2018-semi-final-date-who-play-next-when-russia-croatia-vs-sweden-a8436431.html
Article was wrote on 7th July. So the writer must have thought it was the 11th of July instead as he clearly meant immediately.
The writer also seems to think the Russia Croatia game can be played and completed immediately with the team who wins immediately playing England.
Or people don't always mean immediately when they say the word now.
Of course Corbyn might have meant right now or immediately or he might not have.0 -
Do MPs not work before lunchtime?0
-
It is a cleverly presented tweet but as was made clear when this story originally broke the Labour party are not under investigation.Mortimer said:
Think Labour might stop talking about police numbers now?Scott_P said:
Although from a personal point of view rather than more police I think you could balance them away from minor drug crimes to a certain extent.0 -
To revoke A50 a referendum is needed to cancel the process. A further referendum would be needed to leave in the futureMarqueeMark said:One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.
Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...0 -
The cry that the threat of no brexit was not real because no deal is default just got weaker. It is still default but now it looks much easier to avoid. May wasn't kidding when she talked of no brexit. We now probably won't and people can blame may for getting a crap deal all they want but at the end if the day under her we will leave and mps or the public have to choose not to leave by rejecting her deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The news this morning from the ECJ, if confirmed, will change the narrative quite considerably as no deal becomes unlikely
The ERG are running the risk of losing Brexit for the foreseable future due to over reaching. I have no idea how this will effect the vote but brexiteers need to decide if they want brexit or not
However, the only way for A50 to be withdrawn is by referendum and how we arrive there is not clear, unless of course an amendment to the meaningful vote for a referendum passes.
Ultimately I think this morning, brexit is hanging by a thread0 -
The revocation opinion includes a "no fucking around" clause, so the first part of your cunning plan is problematic.Xenon said:The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.
Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there.
The second part is as dumb as ever. As soon as the Government announces No Deal as the preferred option, Airbus and JLR announce they are leaving.
No Government could survive that.0 -
Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...0 -
-
I can buy kinabalu's argument. If our Lords and Mistresses feel that the economic harm is too, too awful to contemplate, one or both parties can throw themselves on the Brexit hand grenade, and bear the wrath in the electorate at the next GE.MarqueeMark said:
Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....kinabalu said:Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.
What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.0 -
-
But you think it could survive ignoring the referendum? Bizarre.Scott_P said:
The revocation opinion includes a "no fucking around" clause, so the first part of your cunning plan is problematic.Xenon said:The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.
Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there.
The second part is as dumb as ever. As soon as the Government announces No Deal as the preferred option, Airbus and JLR announce they are leaving.
No Government could survive that.0 -
Mr. eek, that's possible.
Mr. Xenon, 'we'? Who, as a credible PM, would be doing that?0 -
What is the legal clause if we revoked Article 50?Scott_P said:
The revocation opinion includes a "no fucking around" clause, so the first part of your cunning plan is problematic.Xenon said:The solution seems to be to revoke and then invoke Article 50 again with someone who actually knows what they're doing.
Be prepared for no trade deal with the EU which was the main sticking point and go from there.
The second part is as dumb as ever. As soon as the Government announces No Deal as the preferred option, Airbus and JLR announce they are leaving.
No Government could survive that.0 -
These things happen under our electoral system.MarqueeMark said:
Really? Forget the 2016 Referendum, 86% of the votes in the General Election 2017 were for parties pledging to implement Brexit in their manifestos....kinabalu said:Now down to 50%, presumably due to this legal opinion. Which changes not a lot as far as I can see. It was always clear that the EU would welcome us changing our mind and that remain on current terms was an option until 29 March 2019. What would have been a game-changer was a unilateral right for us to EXTEND article 50.
What this does do however is open up a way for remainer MPs to behave more honourably than they are at present. If a clear majority of them believe that it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that we remain in the EU they can pass a motion that article 50 be revoked and we stay. I would have far more sympathy for that than I do for the various spurious arguments for 'going back to the people'.
After all, 63% of votes in the 2015 GE were for parties that didn't pledge to hold a Brexit referendum and we still had one.0 -
Why? It could be argued we are just restarting the clock on the original decision....Big_G_NorthWales said:
To revoke A50 a referendum is needed to cancel the process.MarqueeMark said:One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.
Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...0 -
-
Withdrawal without a referendum should be possible. It could be done on the basis that a Royal Commission be established to investigate the various Brexit options and report before the 2022 election, which would then become the mechanism to establish the whim of the people. All that revocation requires is for the government to back down - and it will need to back down on something. Long-grassing might even keep May in power, preserve the coalition with the grasping creationists, and prevent a Tory split, all of which would find support across the parliamentary party.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The news this morning from the ECJ, if confirmed, will change the narrative quite considerably as no deal becomes unlikely
The ERG are running the risk of losing Brexit for the foreseable future due to over reaching. I have no idea how this will effect the vote but brexiteers need to decide if they want brexit or not
However, the only way for A50 to be withdrawn is by referendum and how we arrive there is not clear, unless of course an amendment to the meaningful vote for a referendum passes.
Ultimately I think this morning, brexit is hanging by a thread
Revocation obviously appeals to remainers, but it's also the only way to preserve the purity of Brexit. This ruling is going to swing the debate in that direction, and a second crap-shoot will look less attractive.0 -
Is everyone forgeting this morning that Leave won the Referendum, therefore we must leave.eek said:
Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...0 -
Aside from the part about "abusive" revocations, the EU machinery has been largely DoS-proofed, what with QMV for most of the essential day-to-day stuff, and Enhanced Cooperation for new things that the rest of the EU want to do but one country is opposed to.Xenon said:
This is a good point.Alanbrooke said:A50 judgement is interesting
now we can go back and really fk Europe up
TMay for commission president.
We can use our veto to block everything until the EU starts negotiating our withdrawal in a reasonable way.0 -
does Remain have to be on the ballot paper?Scott_P said:0 -
-
No PM can revoke A50 without parliamentary approval or as a result of a referendumeek said:
Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...0 -
Those paper cuts can be pretty savageScott_P said:We already spent 2 years of blood and treasure on the referendum
0 -
Have to check the terms, but if we have a vote to revoke article 50 then we would remain so it shouldn't be a necessary constraintTheWhiteRabbit said:does Remain have to be on the ballot paper?
0 -
A country using the Article 50 revocation to mess around will find itself with zero friends . I expect with time the Treaties will change to stop that ever happening .
However in the shorter term May can use this as a stick to frighten the ERG nutjobs . Equally this helps entrench Remainers.
Vote down the deal and as the pound crashes and businesses start heading for the exit door there’s a way to stop that .
Would a government sit there and do nothing . I know there’s a section of Leavers who don’t care what damage is done but MPs can simply say we were left with no choice , we can’t allow people to lose their jobs . Some of the ERG nutjobs will scream betrayal but will most of the public care what they think .0 -
So now we know what the government was really negotiating with the EU. How to ignore the referendum vote and stay in. If they want to see what happens next they should look at Scotland 2015 when remain was split three ways and leave had only one party to vote for.0
-
Tell that to the EMAedmundintokyo said:Those paper cuts can be pretty savage
0 -
The political class want to stay in the EU.currystar said:
Is everyone forgeting this morning that Leave won the Referendum, therefore we must leave.eek said:
Once Parliament has voted against the deal - the sensible option for May is probably to say I did my best but it seems the deal isn't good enough so given that we are not in a position to cope with No Deal I will revoke Article 50 and we will remain.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. eek, supposing that's accurate, revocation without referendum would be legal. But it'd be politically courageous, in the Yes, Prime Minister sense of the word.
Of course, remaining with a referendum would be disruptive and contentious. Without it would add several more buckets of bile to the well of national politics.
Granted she may resign rather than revoking Article 50 herself but why do I have a suspicion that the Government knew about this decision...
It doesn't really matter what the proles want or voted for.0 -
Good luck with thatMarqueeMark said:
Why? It could be argued we are just restarting the clock on the original decision....Big_G_NorthWales said:
To revoke A50 a referendum is needed to cancel the process.MarqueeMark said:One thing this ruling does is negate the May/Hammond strategy of not preparing for Brexit. There could be widespread agreement to revoke Article 50 - but the Brexiteers voting for it would then argue we can resubmit the Article 50 notice and have two years to renegotiate.
Whilst properly preparing full-on for No Deal. Just in case...0
