Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[littlebabyjesus]

We're all just treading water really until tomorrow's vote happens. Things might be clearer after that. Who knows, May might even finally resign.

 

[8ball]

It's kind of funny the way we talk about this stuff as if it's physics rather than group arrangements.

 

[Kaka Tim]

oh dear. One of the Tory whips has just resigned as he cant support the deal.
Will the vote get delayed again - or pulled all together?
Def looks like they will look to extend the a50 deadline though.

 

[Ranbay]

 

[Winot]

There *might* be a vote on revoking A50, maybe. But it won't be an explicit "no Brexit" vote imo. It could be painted by some as buying time get "proper Brexit" organised if need be,...

The ECJ judgement is clear that revocation of Art. 50 cannot be used as a delaying tactic. It needs to be to stop Brexit, following a democratic mandate. I think this could be a vote in Parliament or a 2nd Ref (which would then need a vote in Parliament anyway).

 

[gosub]

oh dear. One of the Tory whips has just resigned as he cant support the deal..

LOL. Strong and Stable.

 

[Badgers]

oh dear. One of the Tory whips has just resigned as he can't support the deal.

Another going down the death spiral

 

[Pickman's model]

View attachment 158704

They can't even get the brexit advice line number right

 

[cupid_stunt]

We're all just treading water really until tomorrow's vote happens. Things might be clearer after that.

You think so?

I think it'll be as clear as mud.

 

[andysays]

I don't think that it will get voted on, so the numbers won't be an issue.

I think a number of things will be going on.

First, that "no Brexit" becomes the "only sensible option" in the immediate term.

Second that A50 gets revoked "temporarily, but indefinitely.

Third that those in power "wargame" the fallout of no Brexit and figure that they can ride it out.

Fourth (and this is what I read into May's speech) that the various camps are able to all blame "someone else" for the collapse of Brexit and thus diffuse the backlash.

Utter speculation in my part of course. But that's all anyone can offer right now, no?

There's an explicit and very significant difference between revoking, ie cancelling completely, and postponing to allow negotiations to resume.

The EU/ECJ has previously set out quite specific conditions and limits for how and when each of those can happen (which can always themselves be revoked or amended, I guess)

 

[8ball]

The ECJ judgement is clear that revocation of Art. 50 cannot be used as a delaying tactic. It needs to be to stop Brexit, following a democratic mandate. I think this could be a vote in Parliament or a 2nd Ref (which would then need a vote in Parliament anyway).

Can you stop and start, though?
We've done it before...

 

[gosub]

They can't even get the brexit advice line number right

Phone a friend only really works as a lifeline if you have friend's to phone

 

[Winot]

Can you stop and start, though?
We've done it before...

Yes you can revoke and then later on re-trigger Art. 50. However you can't cynically use it to delay negotiations. Ultimately the ECJ (yes, them) would decide whether the UK had breached EU law.

In practice it's a pretty unlikely scenario.

 

[teuchter]

The ECJ judgement is clear that revocation of Art. 50 cannot be used as a delaying tactic. It needs to be to stop Brexit, following a democratic mandate. I think this could be a vote in Parliament or a 2nd Ref (which would then need a vote in Parliament anyway).

How is that defined though? Is it like parking restrictions where you can't return within the hour? Otherwise the effect would appear to be to commit us to staying in the EU forever.

 

[pesh]

who's idea was it to have her give the speech while surrounded by mugs

 

[Winot]

How is that defined though? Is it like parking restrictions where you can't return within the hour? Otherwise the effect would appear to be to commit us to staying in the EU forever.

I asked that question on Twitter the day the ECJ judgement was published. It isn't entirely clear. However:

The judgement sets the following rules for revocation (quote from para 74 of judgement):

"the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."

Furthermore the revocation decision must be taken by the member state "through its democratic process in accordance with its constitutional requirements" (paras 67 & 75).

However Art. 50 is still part of the Lisbon Treaty and the ECJ judgement cannot mean that a member state is committed to staying in the EU forever​

But the bar is fairly high - it can't be done on a whim. Furthermore I reckon that if Parliament did it without a GE or 2nd ref there would be a legal challenge as to whether this fulfilled the second test. In practice I think the bar is high enough that there isn't really an issue - if the UK could demonstrate that it had jumped through the hoops then it would be allowed to revoke. If later on it decided to leave then it could do so.

Interestingly the Advocate General's Opinion said that the revocation of Art. 50 had to be in good faith, but that wording didn't appear in the ECJ judgement.

 

[T & P]

This is what the Treasury minister was seen carrying out of a cabinet meeting a few minutes ago...

 

[8ball]

I want to see the rest of the numbers.

...
7) March 21st - bunkers ready
8) March 25th - launch missiles

 

[Wilf]

This is what the Treasury minister was seen carrying out of a cabinet meeting a few minutes ago...

They were obviously having a 21st Century John Lee Hooker singalong:

No food on my table.
And no shoes to go on my feet.
No food on my table.
And no shoes to go on my feet.
My children cry for mercy.
They got no place to call your own.

Hard times, hard times.
Hard times seem like a jealous thing.
Hard times, hard times.
Hard times seem like a jealous thing.
If someone don't help me.
And I just can't be around three months long.

No shoes on my feet.
And no food to go on my table.
Oh no, too sad.
Children crying for bread.

 

[pesh]

3. Above us only sky.

 

[Ranbay]

4. No Woman

 

[pesh]

5. No Diggity

 

[Badgers]

This is what the Treasury minister was seen carrying out of a cabinet meeting a few minutes ago...

Is that REAL?

What does the bottom line say?

 

[mauvais]

'No channel tunnel'

 

[cupid_stunt]

May is on her feet in the house, yet the house is half empty.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

May is on her feet in the house, yet the house is half empty.

A boycott?

 

[Wilf]

This is what the Treasury minister was seen carrying out of a cabinet meeting a few minutes ago...

I try to avoid ramping up the clichéometer up to 11, with phrases like 'why oh why, in the 4th largest economy in the world...', but you do wonder how we got to a point where the government are having to discuss frighten us by contemplating a lack of food.

 

[skyscraper101]

I'd like to say that's so obviously planted for the media, but the sheer ineptitude of this government makes me wonder.

 

[gentlegreen]

More here :-

 

[Baronage-Phase]

I'd like to say that's so obviously planted for the media, but the sheer ineptitude of this government makes me wonder.

I thought it was a Photoshop job...