INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1061 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 12:19 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Theresa May still refuses to define Brexit
The Prime Minister's 2017 scene setter was an attempt not to be defined by Brexit.

But she again refused to define Brexit.

In the second week of January, the PM will still not detail what Brexit really means to her.

She seemed to hint a bit more strongly that Britain will leave the Single Market, under strong questioning from Sky News' Sophy Ridge.

But again, in her own special way, she did not absolutely rule anything out, refusing to call immigration a "red line".

Her plan for Brexit is still being developed as crunch time approaches at the end of March.

Perhaps that is no surprise.

The Prime Minister being interviewed by Sophy Ridge

She admitted the Brexit plan was "taking some time" and confirmed "there hadn't been any plans made for Brexit" when she came into office.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1062 Post by animist » January 9th, 2017, 10:31 am

Alan H wrote:Theresa May still refuses to define Brexit
The Prime Minister's 2017 scene setter was an attempt not to be defined by Brexit.

But she again refused to define Brexit.

In the second week of January, the PM will still not detail what Brexit really means to her.

She seemed to hint a bit more strongly that Britain will leave the Single Market, under strong questioning from Sky News' Sophy Ridge.

But again, in her own special way, she did not absolutely rule anything out, refusing to call immigration a "red line".

Her plan for Brexit is still being developed as crunch time approaches at the end of March.

Perhaps that is no surprise.

The Prime Minister being interviewed by Sophy Ridge

She admitted the Brexit plan was "taking some time" and confirmed "there hadn't been any plans made for Brexit" when she came into office.
please stay strong, EU, and macerate these Brits

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1063 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 11:15 am

animist wrote:please stay strong, EU, and macerate these Brits
It doesn't look like that will be difficult for the EU: they have the people, the negotiators and the upper hand; we have Boris, May, Davis and Fox - and vague notions of the Empire, British values, green rolling fields, warm English beer with Jerusalem playing in the distance...

Although May confirmed "there hadn't been any plans made for Brexit" when she came into office, the more important question is whether anyone had a clue what Brexit actually meant. Was it leaving the single market, customs union, controlling borders, etc, etc? The Tories were never clear - and neither was anyone else - and all gave contradictory claims (and lies) about what they wanted it to mean. In that light, what the hell did people vote for?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1064 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 11:22 am

...and this has just been published on The Daily Mash!

Brexiters still expecting clarity from gang of absolute shysters
BREXIT voters are still expecting clarity from a gang of absolute shysters you couldn’t trust to do fucking anything, it has emerged.

Many Brexiters say that although they are still happy they voted to Leave, they now want the untrustworthy gang of lying bastards behind the referendum to ‘give them some clarity on it’.

Donna Sheridan said: “I just want to know exactly what it is I’ve voted for. Is that too much to ask for from a gang of totally self-serving careerist politicians?

“I mean, there’s no way Neil Hamilton would get behind something he didn’t fully understand.”

Martin Bishop said: “Just because these people would have told us measles was caused by ghosts if it served their personal agenda, doesn’t mean they don’t have a detailed plan for the most complex economic shift in recent political history.

“Look at Boris. That’s the face of a man who knows.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1065 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 1:04 pm

Why will Theresa May not admit the UK will leave the single market?
The Sky interview by Sophy Ridge of Theresa May on Sunday is worth close attention. The headlines were about the prime minister’s answers to the questions about Donald Trump. But it was her responses to the probing at the start of the interview about the single market that were perhaps more interesting.

The interest is not in what Mrs May said about the single market. What was remarkable was what she did not say. The questions skillfully came from a number of angles. She deflected each one as best she could. But she could not bring herself to state the obvious implication of what she did say. Mrs May will not say explicitly that the UK will be leaving (or seeking to leave) the single market.

That the UK will (seek to) leave the single market is the necessary implication of her other propositions. Take two of her express and precise Brexit objectives. If either of these are achieved then, all other things being equal, the UK cannot be a member of the single market.
Looks like May still doesn't know what Brexit means...so what did we vote for?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1066 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 1:16 pm

Pound dips to lowest level since October on May’s Brexit comment
The pound was the biggest faller on foreign exchange markets on Monday, sliding to its lowest level against the dollar since late October, after Theresa May warned there was no prospect of Britain keeping “bits” of EU membership.
With Mrs May having pledged to trigger the start of official exit negotiations by the end of March, currency traders and investors are hungry for any indications of the government’s strategy.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1067 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 3:47 pm

More Brexit woes for May and her merry band of Brexiteers: Deputy First Minister McGuinness to resign
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1068 Post by Nick » January 9th, 2017, 4:29 pm

Alan H wrote:More Brexit woes for May and her merry band of Brexiteers: Deputy First Minister McGuinness to resign
Nothing to do with Brexit, of course, but botched government spending.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1069 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 4:45 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:More Brexit woes for May and her merry band of Brexiteers: Deputy First Minister McGuinness to resign
Nothing to do with Brexit, of course, but botched government spending.
From that article:
Analysis: Gareth Gordon, BBC News NI political correspondent

It's always easier to tear things down than put them back up.

Already people are asking what an election will achieve if the DUP and Sinn Féin are returned as the biggest parties - good question.

But Sinn Féin sources are making it clear they will not come back to the status quo.

So, that being the case, could we be heading for yet another of those tortuous negotiations? Not so much another fresh start but a whole new agreement.

And does anyone - not least the Westminster government already faced with an even bigger negotiation over Brexit - have the appetite to make it happen?
Martin McGuinness to resign as Northern Ireland deputy first minister
McGuinness’s resignation means a new Northern Ireland assembly election, which will be expected to be rancorous and divisive, is inevitable.

Under the complex rules of power sharing in the region, if either the first minister or the deputy resigns the coalition government between unionists and nationalists falls.
Whither Article 50, the current court cases over it and May's threat to invoke it by the end of March when all this is happening? Or will May simply push on regardless?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: In or out?

#1070 Post by Fia » January 9th, 2017, 10:51 pm

http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com wrote well on this on 7/8 Jan. Will the quantum squirrels will catch on :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1071 Post by Alan H » January 9th, 2017, 11:04 pm

Fia wrote:http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com wrote well on this on 7/8 Jan. Will the quantum squirrels will catch on :)
Very good!!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1072 Post by Alan H » January 10th, 2017, 7:02 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1073 Post by Alan H » January 11th, 2017, 5:54 pm

Northern Ireland political crisis will not delay Article 50, says Theresa May
Belfast’s political crisis will not delay the triggering of Article 50 and Britain’s exit from the European Union, Theresa May has said.

It comes after the Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness resigned on Monday, effectively ending power sharing at Stormont. The Sinn Fein politician cited concerns over the DUP’s “arrogance” in how it has handled allegations of a major financial scandal, known as the “cash for ash” affair.

Unless a replacement for Mr McGuinness is found within seven days a snap election will be triggered for the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly. The next election had been scheduled to be held in 2021.

But the SNP’s Westminster leader Angus Robertson called on the Prime Minister to postpone triggering Article 50 – the untested protocol for leaving the EU – if voters go to the polls because it would leave Northern Ireland voiceless in the Brexit process.

“In these circumstances will she postpone Article 50 or will she just plough on regardless?” he asked.
Theresa May 'risking Northern Irish peace process to secure DUP's Brexit votes'
Theresa May could risk the peace process in Northern Ireland over concerns she is pandering to the Democratic Unionist Party so they will back her Brexit plans, a leading Northern Irish politician has warned.

Naomi Long, who is leader of the anti-sectarian Alliance Party, told The Independent there were growing concerns in Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister’s impartiality on the peace process is being compromised by a need to keep the DUP onside.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1074 Post by Alan H » January 12th, 2017, 2:04 pm

A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma
Britain has six different areas it must negotiate in coming years, including the complicated split from the EU, a British-European free trade agreement, an interim agreement and the United Kingdom's own seat on the World Trade Organization. It will also have to conduct talks with the 53 countries with whom the EU has reached trade agreements as well as consultations over future cooperation with the EU in areas of policing, intelligence and security issues. They will be the most complicated negotiations in British history, with thousands of pages of documents.

Astonishingly, those people who were particularly loud in the run-up to the referendum have now gone silent. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson did give a speech about foreign policy and a "Global Britain" at the beginning of December, but he too is lacking a precise idea on how negotiations with the EU should be handled.
So where do things go from here? It cannot be ruled out that talks between the EU and Britain will fail. It might be that Britain's withdrawal will end in disaster -- for both sides. It could also be that we wind up with a "train-crash Brexit," as one Financial Times columnist worries. All of this is possible. Nobody knows for sure.

The confusion helps opponents of Brexit. A few recently started a further legal offensive against the British government before the High Court with the aim of preventing a hard break with the EU. The fighting is becoming more intense. The losers in the referendum don't intend to give up easily, whereas some of the winners are already sitting in cozy positions or founding consulting firms.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1075 Post by Alan H » January 12th, 2017, 7:05 pm

ON THERESA MAY’S CALL FOR UNITY
Here is what her spokesman said in October:

Downing Street has said it is “very likely” MPs will be able to vote on the final Brexit agreement reached between the UK and the European Union.

Number 10 confirmed the comment by a government lawyer in the High Court represented the “government’s view”.

But, when the Supreme Court hearing was over, she played a different tune.
norman smith ✔ @BBCNormanS
Pressed for a second time PM refuses to promise Parliament a vote on final Brexit deal
3:12 PM - 20 Dec 2016
24 24 Retweets 15 15 likes
So, no voice for Parliament before we trigger Article 50. And no voice for Parliament when we return. And misleading the Courts along the way.

This attempt to reserve to herself – and deny to our democratically elected Parliament – its proper role is difficult to swallow given that she has never been offered to the country as Prime Minister.

It is bizarre given that Parliament chose to enact an advisory rather than a binding referendum

And it is staggering in circumstances where the decision she seeks to reserve to herself – the shape of the deal – is a momentous one for which she has no mandate at all: not in the referendum result or in her Party’s Manifesto or in anything else.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1076 Post by Alan H » January 12th, 2017, 7:49 pm

An argument as to why a “hard Brexit” will be the natural and direct consequence of an Article 50 notification
This post sets out in summary form an argument I have set out at the FT (here and here) and on Twitter.

My argument is that, regardless of the express statements of the prime minister and her government, the UK is bound to have a “hard Brexit”.

By “bound” I mean that it will be the natural and direct consequence of an Article 50 notification.

By “hard Brexit” I mean that, once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union (either at the end of the Article 50 period of two years (or as extended) or at the end of any transitional/adjustment period) the United Kingdom will not be part of the “single market”.

For the reasons set out below, I contend that once the Article 50 notification is given, a “hard Brexit” will ultimately follow. I would say that, if the reasons remain sound, that the “hard Brexit” is as good as inevitable, in that (a) it is the the natural and direct consequence of an Article 50 notification and (b) there seems nothing to prevent that consequence.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1077 Post by Alan H » January 12th, 2017, 11:10 pm

BREXIT LITIGATION TO COMMENCE IN THE IRISH COURTS
A letter before action, the precursor step to proceedings in the Irish High Court, will tomorrow (13 January 2017) be issued to clarify EU citizenship rights in the event of the UK’s departure from the European Union.

The proceedings seek a referral to the Court of Justice of the EU of the question whether Article 50, once triggered, can unilaterally be revoked by the British government without requiring consent from all other 27 EU member states.

If the CJEU were to rule that Article 50 is revocable, it would give the UK power to reject the outcome of Article 50 negotiations and remain in the EU should the Brexit negotiations being led by Brexit Secretary David Davis MP yield a deal that was not acceptable to the UK Parliament or British voters.

Without this ruling, Britain will be forced to take whatever deal Mr Davis emerges with, or leave with no deal on a range of crucial economic and social issues, including access for British firms to the single market, and the rights of British citizens living, travelling or wishing to retire in Europe.

The Letter Before Action will be made available to recipients of this press release at 5.30pm. The proceedings consequential on that letter before action will be issued on or before 27 January. The claim will target a hearing date of the application for a reference as soon as possible after March.

The Letter Before Action will name Jolyon Maugham QC as the Claimant, however, Mr Maugham holds unconditional written confirmations from several elected United Kingdom politicians that they will act as Plaintiffs. Their names will be made available no later than 27 January.

There are continuing discussions with other elected representatives of whether they will issue parallel proceedings.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs will seek clarification of what rights as EU citizens will be lost (by triggering Article 50 will the UK automatically also leave the single market); whether it is certain that their rights as European citizens will be lost (can Article 50 unilaterally be revoked by the UK); and when they will lose their rights as European citizens (might Article 50 already have been triggered).

The £70,000 costs of the litigation were crowd-funded by Jolyon Maugham QC largely from small donations. There were almost 1,300 donations of £25 or less and over 1,700 donations of £50 or less.

Andrew Marr has said of the litigation: “This is the single biggest problem for May. Potentially… gives Commons its moment.”

Jolyon Maugham QC said: “The United Kingdom must retain sovereignty over the shape of its future relationship with the EU. If we change our minds we must be able to withdraw the notice without needing the consent of the other 27 Member States. I want to establish clarity for British voters and deliver sovereignty to the British Parliament over the question of its future relationship with its biggest trading partner.”

[The Letter Before Action can be read here ireland-letter-before-action].
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1078 Post by animist » January 13th, 2017, 9:25 am

Alan H wrote:An argument as to why a “hard Brexit” will be the natural and direct consequence of an Article 50 notification
This post sets out in summary form an argument I have set out at the FT (here and here) and on Twitter.

My argument is that, regardless of the express statements of the prime minister and her government, the UK is bound to have a “hard Brexit”.

By “bound” I mean that it will be the natural and direct consequence of an Article 50 notification.

By “hard Brexit” I mean that, once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union (either at the end of the Article 50 period of two years (or as extended) or at the end of any transitional/adjustment period) the United Kingdom will not be part of the “single market”.

For the reasons set out below, I contend that once the Article 50 notification is given, a “hard Brexit” will ultimately follow. I would say that, if the reasons remain sound, that the “hard Brexit” is as good as inevitable, in that (a) it is the the natural and direct consequence of an Article 50 notification and (b) there seems nothing to prevent that consequence.
I don't think that it is inevitable, for a couple of reasons. First, MPs have the chance to tie the government's hands before Article 50 is triggered, and second, the public appetite for Brexit may decline if things go "wrong"; what the Government says at present is pretty well meaningless. What I find depressing is the lack of apparent will among pro-EU MPs to take a stand in preventing Hard Brexit; the notion seems to have grown up that an MP for a constituency which is thought to have voted Leave must automatically support Brexit, but why should this be so? They were elected as politicians who supported EU membership, so why should they lie to themselves?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1079 Post by Alan H » January 13th, 2017, 10:23 am

animist wrote:I don't think that it is inevitable, for a couple of reasons. First, MPs have the chance to tie the government's hands before Article 50 is triggered
Theresa May will not give them that opportunity: she has said the Bill about Article 50 before Parliament will be three lines long. Parliament may well debate it but I think she can prevent any amendments to it: it may meet the letter of the Supreme Court's judgement, but certainly not the spirit of it. It will be railroaded through with barely a passing nod to the sovereignty of Parliament as the democratic heart of our country.
and second, the public appetite for Brexit may decline if things go "wrong";
It seems like that has already happened, but can you see the Tories taking any notice of that?
what the Government says at present is pretty well meaningless. What I find depressing is the lack of apparent will among pro-EU MPs to take a stand in preventing Hard Brexit; the notion seems to have grown up that an MP for a constituency which is thought to have voted Leave must automatically support Brexit, but why should this be so? They were elected as politicians who supported EU membership, so why should they lie to themselves?
The Tories have just published their response to a petition about not repealing the EC Act:
The Government will bring forward legislation in the next session that, when enacted, will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on the day we leave the EU. This ‘Great Repeal Bill’ will end the authority of EU law and return power to the UK.

The Prime Minister has been clear that there can be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum.

Parliament will have every opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Great Repeal Bill during its passage through Parliament. Parliament has already started to engage with the wider process of leaving the EU through a series of debates in government time, in addition to e-petitions debates and Opposition Day debates. The Department for Exiting the European Union (DEXEU) has also answered over 400 parliamentary questions and DEXEU Ministers and officials have attended 13 select committees and made 3 oral statements.

We are preparing for a smooth and orderly exit from the EU and we will trigger the legal process that starts this by the end of March 2017 – an approach backed by an overwhelming majority of MPs in a vote on 7 December 2016. By working with our European neighbours, we are confident we will be able to deliver a deal that works in the mutual interests of both the UK and the rest of the European Union.

Department for Exiting the European Union
I think that says it all and leaves you in no doubt about the Tories' attitude to democracy, the will of the people and for the best interests of the UK.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1080 Post by animist » January 13th, 2017, 12:19 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:I don't think that it is inevitable, for a couple of reasons. First, MPs have the chance to tie the government's hands before Article 50 is triggered
Theresa May will not give them that opportunity: she has said the Bill about Article 50 before Parliament will be three lines long. Parliament may well debate it but I think she can prevent any amendments to it: it may meet the letter of the Supreme Court's judgement, but certainly not the spirit of it. It will be railroaded through with barely a passing nod to the sovereignty of Parliament as the democratic heart of our country.
they can of course fail to pass it, can't they?
Alan H wrote:
and second, the public appetite for Brexit may decline if things go "wrong";
It seems like that has already happened, but can you see the Tories taking any notice of that?
yes I can, because things have not gone that wrong yet, but may well do. You know as well as I do that some companies are delaying decisions on future locations in order to see how Brexit pans out. I think that a few thousand lost jobs, plus rising prices, will quell the Leavers' enthusiasm and even possibly induce the so-called elite (in fact almost half the electorate) to mount vociferous anti-Brexit campaigns. The government could even fall from a no-confidence vote in Parliament!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24055
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1081 Post by Alan H » January 13th, 2017, 12:43 pm

animist wrote:they can of course fail to pass it, can't they?
They may not, though:
An alliance of Liberal Democrats, nationalist MPs and up to 20 Labour backbenchers are demanding that ministers agree to a second referendum on the eventual deal, as the price for triggering Article 50.
There will so much pressure on both Tories and Labour MPs that it seems unlikely it will be blocked, instead, placing their trust that they will get a meaningful say in the deal - such as it may be - the Three Stooges Brexiteers manage to negotiate.

And then there's the issue of whether we can cancel Article 50: hopefully the action in the Irish courts will clarify that.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply