Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[cibaman]

But what debate might that be? There'll be no cross-party approach, the hard line Brexiters would see it as a route to betrayal. If May were clever she might bring tit bits to parliament and gradually and painstakingly get every step approved, but come to think of it, with a slim majority and each concession seen as not enough, or a betrayal, the whips would probably top themselves.

I can't see the route for this one. May was right on only one thing when she called the election, she needed a stonking majority to steam roller this through. She doesn't have it. Today the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England effectively opened up another front, the corporate front, in this on going war, it's a shambles. Davis is doing god knows what over in Brussels, apart from being shafted, it's a complete mystery. Let's be truthful, no one outside a small circle in the Tory government knows what Davis is up to. Is there an agreed line? do we have a strategy? Is it the same as the Chancellor's? The PM? Boris? And what's our destination?

You couldn't make this up.

The Hammond intervention is all about the trade deal. Now that the divorce bill is running ahead of the trade deal I don't think its guaranteed that we'll get to the trade deal without another election.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Last sighting was Cyprus British Legion (lounge and bar) reading a copy of the Art of the Deal by Donald Trump.

Bum's rush by the Bilderberg Group, arse kicked by the Illuminati, spotted with David Icke hiring lizard people.

Thank God our Brussels negotiators have his sunglasses.

 

[East Level 2]

So they hold a referendum and then say "fcuk the result; it was only advisory and we know best"?
Think about it for just a second.

In May 2016 Farage said that a narrow 52-48% win for Remain side would be “unfinished business” and would prompt him to fight for a second referendum. So why can't we have a second vote once details of the deal are announced?

 

[BlueHammer85]

In May 2016 Farage said that a narrow 52-48% win for Remain side would be “unfinished business” and would prompt him to fight for a second referendum. So why can't we have a second vote once details of the deal are announced?

And what if the second vote is 52-48% remain ?

 

[The perfect fumble]

In May 2016 Farage said that a narrow 52-48% win for Remain side would be “unfinished business” and would prompt him to fight for a second referendum. So why can't we have a second vote once details of the deal are announced?

Because we won't get the chance.

 

[East Level 2]

And what if the second vote is 52-48% remain ?

Then we'd remain as at least we'd know the deal we were voting for; that's not something any leaver can claim after the referendum.
And if it was a narrow vote to leave then we'd leave, as once again we'd have a deal to vote on.
But can the triggering of Article 50 be revoked?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

So I see Labour are already abandoning their failed manifesto.

50 Labour MPs oppose hard Brexit
A group of 50 Labour MPs have formed parliamentary group to oppose a hard Brexit.

They want Britain to remain in the single market and argue that leaving it would cost public services £31bn.

You can remove the word hard as we all know remaining in the Single Market means remaining in the EU.

 

[Chris in London]

Then we'd remain as at least we'd know the deal we were voting for; that's not something any leaver can claim after the referendum.
And if it was a narrow vote to leave then we'd leave, as once again we'd have a deal to vote on.
But can the triggering of Article 50 be revoked?

The short answer is that nobody knows definitively, BUT:

- The Supreme Court proceeded on the basis Art 50 could not be revoked once triggered
- There is nothing in international law (especially the law of treaties) that suggests that position was wrong
- Neither side in the Supreme Court argued that it could be revoked
- There is no suggestion elsewhere in the treaty that once triggered Art 50 can be revoked, and some suggestion that once Art 50 is triggered you can only rejoin the EU by joining in the ordinary way
- There are scant parallels that would enable anyone to say 'well situation X is comparable and in that case the equivalent of Art 50 can certainly be revoked'.

The irony is that the ultimate arbiter of what the treaty means is of course the ECJ. So whilst the pointers suggest Art 50 can't be revoked, until the ECJ rules definitively (if it ever has to) nobody knows for sure.

 

[The perfect fumble]

So I see Labour are already abandoning their failed manifesto.
You can remove the word hard as we all know remaining in the Single Market means remaining in the EU.

Strictly speaking it doesn't, but I'm splitting hairs. This won't bother Corbyn, in fact it's good dog whistle stuff, it keeps remainers on board while not alienating leavers who are back in the labour fold, as Corbyn will not directly associate himself with it.

 

[Vic]

So I see Labour are already abandoning their failed manifesto.
"50 Labour MPs oppose hard Brexit
A group of 50 Labour MPs have formed parliamentary group to oppose a hard Brexit.

They want Britain to remain in the single market and argue that leaving it would cost public services £31bn."

You can remove the word hard as we all know remaining in the Single Market means remaining in the EU.

Wow. Add in the Tories who oppose a hard Brexit - and those on both sides who wouldn't say it, and that only leaves a rump of MPs who do.