Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

joe40

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She’s a goner one way or the other. She has some survival instinct to be fair to her, but it’s beyond the bounds of reason that someone could come through this sh!tstorm and then carry on as if all was normal afterwards. Gone after next week, or at least made an announcement to the effect.

Not only gone but legacy in tatters. History will not be kind to Teresa May.
When was the last time Britain had a competent PM.
Like him or loathe him but could you imagine Tony Blair getting sucked into a mess like this.
She has been totally manipulated by the hardline brexiteers throughout this process.

FrancieBrady

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She’s a goner one way or the other. She has some survival instinct to be fair to her,

Survival, if you call clinging onto the boat and dragging the whole lot down -survival.
After all the shennanigans of the last 2 years we are in a worse place now.

Akrasia

Strazdas wrote: »

I can't understand why. She just insulted the Parliament and suggested the MPs are a bunch of troublemakers.

She's going for the 'Looking just crazy enough to do it' strategy.

She has to look completely uncompromising in order to face off against anyone who thinks she will back down or compromise at the last moment.

She's threatening the HOC with allowing a No deal. The only way she can get them to vote for her deal is if they believe she will actually allow the UK to crash out (and actively resist any attempts to prevent it from happening other than delivering on her WA)

igCorcaigh

That's my understanding too. Thanks for the replies. I has hoping she may revoke in the last moment.

Spanish Eyes

UK should have walked away the day they invoked A50.

A bit simplistic perhaps, but that seems to be what will happen a few years down the road and down to the wire anyway.

What were the last few years about anyway on the UK side. Arrogance, hubris, post Colonial crisis or what? I just don't get it anymore.

Oh yes, a Trade Deal. Forgot that one. So off they go and at this stage despite the effect leaving with no WA will mean for us here, I just feel UK needs to feel the reality of what they will be doing to themselves.

But no, that is not the answer. But honestly the UK has not covered itself in any glory or sense up to now. The wire is six inches away.

funkey_monkey

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Could be by voting for her deal they will also be voting to get rid of her, so there could be that attraction I’d guess.

But that just means it's was never about the deal, it was just her.
The deal is the same deal as previously presented. Nothing has changed, so why vote for it now? It just shows they have all been pishing about in parliament for the previous votes.

Donald Trump

Question. I hope it doesn't get too lost in the barrage of other additions.

I still don't believe it will happen, but hypothetically, who can revoke A50? I mean as in the logistics of signing and sending it?

Is it only the PM?

Suppose the government/HoC try to force her to do it on the last day and she just refuses or delays it until it is too late, is that it? Is it within her power to "block" a revocation like that?

Maybe the queen could tell her to f-off and do it at the behest of HoC if such a scenario played out.

I'm not saying it is likely. I'm just curious as to the actual procedure

trashcan

I honestly still think she has a chance of getting her deal through (if she can find a way to get to a vote on it.) Faced with her deal, or a no deal, will the MPs really let their country crash out ? It's clearly what she is banking on, and who's to say she won't pull it off. Having said that, no outcome would be a real surprise at this stage.

Joe_ Public

joe40 wrote: »

Not only gone but legacy in tatters. History will not be kind to Teresa May.
When was the last time Britain had a competent PM.
Like him or loathe him but could you imagine Tony Blair getting sucked into a mess like this.
She has been totally manipulated by the hardline brexiteers throughout this process.

Yeah, up to a while back I’d have had the pigfu**er ahead of her on basis he’d created the whole stinking mess, but she has since streaked ahead and is putting serious distance between them by the day. Incompetence of bewildering proportions.

Akrasia

bob mcbob wrote: »

No I think she will stick with the 3 month A50 extension and let the next PM sort out the mess.

There is no extension unless she passes her WA. Everything she is doing now is entirely focused on blackmailing her own party and wavering remainers to vote for her deal whenever it comes back for vote.

recedite

Donald Trump wrote: »

You should read the link before you post it. The court ruling was that they did not have the authority to overrule a political decision.
There is a thing called confirmation bias.

There sure is, and you just proved it.

He had argued that Brexit would endanger the peace process and undermine the Good Friday agreement.

prawnsambo

Chuka Umunna on how he's more poisonous than Hezbollah or the IRA

Imreoir2

Donald Trump wrote: »

Question. I hope it doesn't get too lost in the barrage of other additions.

I still don't believe it will happen, but hypothetically, who can revoke A50? I mean as in the logistics of signing and sending it?

Is it only the PM?

Suppose the government/HoC try to force her to do it on the last day and she just refuses or delays it until it is too late, is that it? Is it within her power to "block" a revocation like that?

Maybe the queen could tell her to f-off and do it at the behest of HoC if such a scenario played out.

I'm not saying it is likely. I'm just curious as to the actual procedure

I am far from an expert, but I would think that a binding vote in the commons to revoke could be sufficient in and of itself, even if the PM refused to send a letter to the EU to formally notify them of revocation. The EU required that invocation/revocation be carried out according to the constitutional requirements of the member state, a vote of parliament is the constitutional process in the UK. A nice letter after the fact is just formality.

Joe_ Public

funkey_monkey wrote: »

But that just means it's was never about the deal, it was just her.
The deal is the same deal as previously presented. Nothing has changed, so why vote for it now? It just shows they have all been pishing about in parliament for the previous votes.

It’s a fair point, there would obviously need to be some kind of cherry on top, in shape of people’s vote for instance. I do think that might well do it.

Professor Moriarty

The Guardian reporting that the DUP probably won't vote for the WA. Interesting times ahead.

listermint

joe40 wrote: »

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She’s a goner one way or the other. She has some survival instinct to be fair to her, but it’s beyond the bounds of reason that someone could come through this sh!tstorm and then carry on as if all was normal afterwards. Gone after next week, or at least made an announcement to the effect.

Not only gone but legacy in tatters. History will not be kind to Teresa May.
When was the last time Britain had a competent PM.
Like him or loathe him but could you imagine Tony Blair getting sucked into a mess like this.
She has been totally manipulated by the hardline brexiteers throughout this process.

Theresa may is a brexiteer, always has been. She's been around the Tory block enough times and the high profile donors who have made huge bets on brexit happening.

This no longer has anything to do with Britian. This is solely money and big money for select few backers.

igCorcaigh

Donald Trump wrote: »

Question. I hope it doesn't get too lost in the barrage of other additions.

I still don't believe it will happen, but hypothetically, who can revoke A50? I mean as in the logistics of signing and sending it?

Is it only the PM?

Suppose the government/HoC try to force her to do it on the last day and she just refuses or delays it until it is too late, is that it? Is it within her power to "block" a revocation like that?

Maybe the queen could tell her to f-off and do it at the behest of HoC if such a scenario played out.

I'm not saying it is likely. I'm just curious as to the actual procedure

Mu understanding is that the UK itself can revoke. This was revealed by a request to the ECJ, by Parliament.

The government can deny the parliamentary request to invoke, but that would be very unusual, and bring about a greater constitutional crisis.

Other posters may correct me, but that is my understanding.

murphaph

It takes some doing to have not only the worst PM in history but also the worst leader of the opposition in history in office simultaneously.

recedite

listermint wrote: »

Theresa may is a brexiteer, always has been.

.

Donald Trump

recedite wrote: »

There sure is, and you just proved it.

What is your point? You still don't understand the story you linked to



I can try to file a case to the local district court in Dublin that the British government is violating the Irish constitution by building a new road in London and the Dublin district court will say they do not have jurisdiction to decide on this.


Or I can file a case to the local district Court in Dublin that the British government is violating the constitution by building a new road in London and destroying the habitat of hundreds of unicorns and fairies living in an enchanted mound and the district court will still just say they do not have jurisdiction to decide on this.


You see, their jurisdiction has nothing to do with my added details about the unicorns and fairies. Just like in your link, an application argued about the GFA. It didn't change the fact that the court up North did not have jurisdiction. And that was the ruling. They didn't rule on the arguments, just on their own jurisdiction to decide the case.

lightspeed

Headshot wrote: »

If I can get evens for her meaningful vote not passing, ill jump on it

Just looking at betfair now and they have


Commons to pass brexit deal at 3rd meaningfull vote
Yes: 2.28
No: 1.67

So its not quite evens at least not yet and the No vote still the mostly likely option according to above odds.

Some of the other odds are interesting also:

No deal brexit- yes or No

Yes:5.2
No: 1.21

EU Referendum before 2020
Yes: 3.75
No: 1.34

It seems most likely outcome now is another referendum but it might not be 2020. I suspect it wont be an in out referendum but a referendum between the withdrawal deal currently on offer or to stay in the EU.


If the vote does not pass a 3rd time, no extension will be given. Hard to see a no deal happening giving the opposition. Only option remaining in that time will be to hold another referendum and on such a basis the EU will grant a longer extension.

prawnsambo

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Mu understanding is that the UK itself can revoke. This was revealed by a request to the ECJ, by Parliament.

The government can deny the parliamentary request to invoke, but that would be very unusual, and bring about a greater constitutional crisis.

Other posters may correct me, but that is my understanding.

Well it has to follow 'constitutional provisions'. So a motion to the house, passed by the house would do it. Don't think anyone has the balls to do it though. Or if they did, enough MPs would have the balls to vote for it.

Itssoeasy

murphaph wrote: »

It takes some doing to have not only the worst PM in history but also the worst leader of the opposition in history in office simultaneously.

Yeah given how poor Theresa May is to be seen as more competent then her as PM isn't that hard but it seems Jeremy Corbyn has decided two can play the incompetent party leader it seems.

Donald Trump

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Mu understanding is that the UK itself can revoke. This was revealed by a request to the ECJ, by Parliament.

The government can deny the parliamentary request to invoke, but that would be very unusual, and bring about a greater constitutional crisis.

Other posters may correct me, but that is my understanding.

I might not have explained my question clearly enough.
It was on the mechanics of how it is done and who has the authority to do it.


Suppose TM has the legal authority to sign the letter and send it. If she gets up in the middle of the night and secretly does that and it arrives in Brussels then I am sure that legally it is revoked.


Conversely, if it gets to 28th and everyone wants her to sign it, and either she purposely delays signing it, or sends it a slow route so that it does not arrive in time. Can someone else sign it for the UK?



That's all I'm asking. Not whether or not they *can* do it legally. It has been established that they can.

ArmaniJeanss

What purpose would Corbyn attending that meeting have served? As official leader of her majestys opposition he has regular meetings/briefings with May, and gets advance notice when anything major is going down.

Assuming the meeting with the LIBs, SNP, Cyrmu and TIGs went ahead, then it was quite clearly a waste of time for them to be there as there was nothing in that speech to suggest the remotest hint of reaching out to the '48%'.

Donald Trump

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it has to follow 'constitutional provisions'. So a motion to the house, passed by the house would do it. Don't think anyone has the balls to do it though. Or if they did, enough MPs would have the balls to vote for it.

Something would have to land in Brussels. A legal document of some sort. Or else, from the point of view of the EU, it is just an internal vote in the HoC


So who can sign or send that letter?

Water John

It was mainly for the purpose of putting in her speech that she had spoken to the other Party leaders but didn't even bother including it in the end. Just gave a special mention to the DUP. They'll be chuffed at that and will still vote against her Deal.

knipex

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I am far from an expert, but I would think that a binding vote in the commons to revoke could be sufficient in and of itself, even if the PM refused to send a letter to the EU to formally notify them of revocation. The EU required that invocation/revocation be carried out according to the constitutional requirements of the member state, a vote of parliament is the constitutional process in the UK. A nice letter after the fact is just formality.

The Commons is incapable of getting a majority consensus on anything to do with Brexit. If I was a betting man I would have a few quid on them crashing out on the 29th voting with a majority they dont want to but unable to reach a consensus on an alternative.

recedite

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is your point? You still don't understand the story you linked to



I can try to file a case to the local district court in Dublin that the British government is violating the Irish constitution by building a new road in London and the Dublin district court will say they do not have jurisdiction to decide on this.


Or I can file a case to the local district Court in Dublin that the British government is violating the constitution by building a new road in London and destroying the habitat of hundreds of unicorns and fairies living in an enchanted mound and the district court will still just say they do not have jurisdiction to decide on this.


You see, their jurisdiction has nothing to do with my added details about the unicorns and fairies. Just like in your link, an application argued about the GFA. It didn't change the fact that the court up North did not have jurisdiction. And that was the ruling. They didn't rule on the arguments, just on their own jurisdiction to decide the case.

Nope. The case was heard in the correct jurisdiction.

The judge ruled that the provisions of the GFA did not have anything to do with Brexit.
Its not all that hard to understand... if you are willing to understand it.

He had argued that Brexit would endanger the peace process and undermine the Good Friday agreement.

But Mr Justice Paul Maguire dismissed this argument, pointing out that the Good Friday agreement was constitutionally relevant only “in the particular context of whether Northern Ireland should remain as part of the UK or unite with Ireland.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/28/belfast-court-rejects-legal-challenges-brexit

prawnsambo

Donald Trump wrote: »

Something would have to land in Brussels. A legal document of some sort. Or else, from the point of view of the EU, it is just an internal vote in the HoC

So who can sign or send that letter?

I assume the government would have to do it. TM herself probably.