nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Agree completely on both counts. Its farcical.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Agree completely on both counts. Its farcical.
And this morning's big story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.
The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.
The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
That would be a 2nd referendum...
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
The problem is the politicians. Some are afraid people would vote for a hard exit, others afraid of even backing another vote, and there is impasse in parliament.
Worst case scenario: May resigns and Boris or another gets in who wants to leave on WTO terms. It could, in one act, relegate the UK to a second rate nation.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
From what I can gather, Parliament won't allow that. Even assuming Johnson could win the Tory Party leadership, or some other hard-Brexiter, there is too much opposition in Parliament for the WTO Brexit.
The Record is up there with Fox News in its balance and accuracy. Everyone else seems to be chattering about that story.
Now I know the levels of literacy are low up in that part of the world, and I know that bias is bias, but I don't believe for a second that the journalist reporting on this has failed to read a number of retweet from that account that are equally critical of the government. See HERE for details.
There's a good summary HERE too.
Now I don't think that large chunks of the Labour party have the nous to set up a campaign of propaganda and flood the internet with half-reported stories to make it appear as if the government has paid to make Corbyn look like a Russian stooge (something he does plenty well enough himself). But this is straight out of the communist propaganda playbook and it's no surprise to me that they've managed to take a handful of dim but well meaning MPs with them.
Parliament would have to get a vote of no confidence through to stop it - it's the default state if we don't agree a deal. I suspect there are enough Conservative MPs that would take a no deal over a Corbyn government - even the worst case projections would be far less damaging to the economy than that.
You got it wrong, it wasn't occupy twitter or whatever. Thankfully, the Foreign Office minister has ordered an investigation.
It was the Daily Record - it's a gnat's rooster from that end of the journalism scale. Certainly closer to the nutjob conspiracy end than proper journalism.
Why do you think May has recently started to say "it's my deal, no deal or no Brexit"? She has never said this until recently, now she has started repeating it. Now we have the ECJ saying we can unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Grieve's amendment was voted through last week, allowing MPs to vote on amendments to May's deal if/when it is defeated. Someone will table an amendment to then take no-deal off the table, because now we have the option to revoke Article 50 and stay on current terms. No deal is dead imo.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Brexit ruling: UK can cancel decision, EU court says
The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.
A group of anti-Brexit politicians argued the UK should be able to unilaterally halt Brexit, but they were opposed by the government and EU.
The decision comes a day before MPs are due to vote on Theresa May's deal for leaving the EU.
MPs are already widely expected to reject the proposals during a vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday night.
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said the ruling made staying in the EU "a real, viable option" and that may "sway a few MPs" in the way they vote.
But he said "a lot would have to change in British politics" to see the UK remain in the EU, with Mrs May and the government having to change its mind to make it a "political reality".
A senior ECJ official - the advocate general - said last week he agreed the UK should be able to change its mind about leaving.
His opinion was not legally binding, but the court tends to follow his advice in the majority of cases and it has broadly done so in this ruling.
The statement from the ECJ said the ability for a member state to change its mind after telling the EU it wanted to leave would last as long as a withdrawal agreement had not been entered into, or for the two-year period after it had notified the bloc it was leaving.
If that two-year period gets extended, then a member state could change its mind during that extra time too.
The court said the UK would be able to stay on the same terms it has now - so it would not be forced to join the euro or the Schengen area - where there are no passport controls between countries.
But the decision to stay must "follow a democratic process", so in the UK's case, it would have to be approved by Parliament.
The member state would then have to write to the EU to notify them of the "unequivocal and unconditional" decision.
The ECJ said it made the ruling to "clarify the options open to MPs" ahead of voting on Mrs May's deal.
The campaigners hope the victory in their legal case will increase the chances of Brexit being called off completely, potentially through another referendum.
Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer - one of the politicians involved in the case - said: "This is a massive moment at the start of a vital week, pointing to a clear way out of the Brexit mess."
And the SNP's Alyn Smith, who was also involved in the case, said: "A bright light has switched on above an exit sign."
Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project which took the case to the court, said that the ruling was "arguably the most important case in modern domestic legal history".
"It is up to MPs to remember what they came into politics for and find the moral courage to put the country's interests before private ambition," he added.
The first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon - who backed Remain - said the ruling meant it was "now open to the House of Commons" to extend Article 50 to allow time for another vote.
And Lib Dem Brexit spokesman Tom Brake tweeted that it was the "best news possible" and said it was now "full steam ahead for a People's Vote".
But Environment Secretary Michael Gove, a prominent Brexiteer, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme those calling for a second vote were "people who never accepted that first vote, who didn't accept that democratic mandate and who want to overturn it".
"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly, 17.4 million people sent a clear message that we want to leave the European Union, and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he added.
"So, this case is all very well, but it doesn't alter the referendum vote or the clear intention of the government to make sure that we leave on 29 March."
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the BBC people would be "shocked and very angry" if any government delayed leaving the EU and it was "certainly not the intention of the government".
Legal row
Brexiteer Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg hailed the decision as the right one, but said it would not affect Tuesday's vote without a U-turn from government.
"I think this government would find it very difficult to remain the government if it went away from what it said in its manifesto and the referendum result," he told LBC.
The ECJ ruling comes despite the EU warning that it would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging other countries to announce they were leaving in an attempt to secure better membership terms, before cancelling their withdrawal.
The UK government's lawyers also argued that the case was purely hypothetical as "the UK does not intend to revoke its notification" and those politicians behind it wanted to use the case as "political ammunition to be used in, and to pressure, the UK Parliament".
The case was initially taken to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, which ultimately agreed to pass it to the ECJ.
First domino falls, Mays deal getting voted down will be the next, how long before we have another vote?
- 25 minutes ago
The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.
A group of anti-Brexit politicians argued the UK should be able to unilaterally halt Brexit, but they were opposed by the government and EU.
The decision comes a day before MPs are due to vote on Theresa May's deal for leaving the EU.
MPs are already widely expected to reject the proposals during a vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday night.
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said the ruling made staying in the EU "a real, viable option" and that may "sway a few MPs" in the way they vote.
But he said "a lot would have to change in British politics" to see the UK remain in the EU, with Mrs May and the government having to change its mind to make it a "political reality".
A senior ECJ official - the advocate general - said last week he agreed the UK should be able to change its mind about leaving.
His opinion was not legally binding, but the court tends to follow his advice in the majority of cases and it has broadly done so in this ruling.
The statement from the ECJ said the ability for a member state to change its mind after telling the EU it wanted to leave would last as long as a withdrawal agreement had not been entered into, or for the two-year period after it had notified the bloc it was leaving.
If that two-year period gets extended, then a member state could change its mind during that extra time too.
The court said the UK would be able to stay on the same terms it has now - so it would not be forced to join the euro or the Schengen area - where there are no passport controls between countries.
But the decision to stay must "follow a democratic process", so in the UK's case, it would have to be approved by Parliament.
The member state would then have to write to the EU to notify them of the "unequivocal and unconditional" decision.
The ECJ said it made the ruling to "clarify the options open to MPs" ahead of voting on Mrs May's deal.
The campaigners hope the victory in their legal case will increase the chances of Brexit being called off completely, potentially through another referendum.
Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer - one of the politicians involved in the case - said: "This is a massive moment at the start of a vital week, pointing to a clear way out of the Brexit mess."
And the SNP's Alyn Smith, who was also involved in the case, said: "A bright light has switched on above an exit sign."
Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project which took the case to the court, said that the ruling was "arguably the most important case in modern domestic legal history".
"It is up to MPs to remember what they came into politics for and find the moral courage to put the country's interests before private ambition," he added.
The first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon - who backed Remain - said the ruling meant it was "now open to the House of Commons" to extend Article 50 to allow time for another vote.
And Lib Dem Brexit spokesman Tom Brake tweeted that it was the "best news possible" and said it was now "full steam ahead for a People's Vote".
But Environment Secretary Michael Gove, a prominent Brexiteer, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme those calling for a second vote were "people who never accepted that first vote, who didn't accept that democratic mandate and who want to overturn it".
"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly, 17.4 million people sent a clear message that we want to leave the European Union, and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he added.
"So, this case is all very well, but it doesn't alter the referendum vote or the clear intention of the government to make sure that we leave on 29 March."
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the BBC people would be "shocked and very angry" if any government delayed leaving the EU and it was "certainly not the intention of the government".
Legal row
Brexiteer Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg hailed the decision as the right one, but said it would not affect Tuesday's vote without a U-turn from government.
"I think this government would find it very difficult to remain the government if it went away from what it said in its manifesto and the referendum result," he told LBC.
The ECJ ruling comes despite the EU warning that it would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging other countries to announce they were leaving in an attempt to secure better membership terms, before cancelling their withdrawal.
The UK government's lawyers also argued that the case was purely hypothetical as "the UK does not intend to revoke its notification" and those politicians behind it wanted to use the case as "political ammunition to be used in, and to pressure, the UK Parliament".
The case was initially taken to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, which ultimately agreed to pass it to the ECJ.
First domino falls, Mays deal getting voted down will be the next, how long before we have another vote?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Brexit deal: Theresa May seeks last-minute vote changer
Laura Kuenssberg
"Nothing is off the table." To be diplomatic that is rather a shift in tone from No 10 who, this time last week, were telling all who would listen that the divorce deal reached with the rest of the EU was the best available and there was no chance of significant changes.
MPs had three choices - Theresa May's deal, no deal, or no Brexit. That's why some Tory MPs were, with gritted teeth, actually on board with the deal. One minister told me "the prime minister and the attorney general have convinced me" there is no chance of significant change on the backstop, so they were going to support the agreement.
With the prime minister, however, heading for a likely thumping defeat if there is no change, guess what - No 10's tone has rather changed too.
The PM is back in touch with some EU leaders, and sources say that they are looking at different options, including potentially reopening the withdrawal agreement, even though they are well aware of the risks that runs. One cabinet minister told me, "she simply has to get something else".
But is this last-minute hope of a shift from the EU real? As my colleague Katya Adler's explained there is nothing straightforward about this. On the face of it, it's pretty extraordinary to imagine that the UK government could be genuinely asking to reopen an agreement that took 18 months to put together, has already been through the grinder on multiple occasions and was only concluded a fortnight ago.
But since the ink dried, it has become clear that the chance of getting the deal through Parliament is very small. One minister said, "it's only a deal if it's ratified". Perhaps for wavering MPs, even the sign of the PM continuing to push for more will make a difference.
It is certainly the case that opposition to the backstop is the main impediment to getting the agreement through Parliament. And both sides acknowledge privately there is a possibility of some kind of clarification, some kind of side letter, to give reassurance.
A cynical historian might suggest that if you stand back for a moment, this kind of very, very last-minute haggling was entirely predictable.
But trust is low. If there were to be any last-minute concessions, or perhaps more likely the promise that they might emerge, MPs currently in the mood for rebelling would want genuine promises, not a last-minute flimsy buy-off.
And whether a solution can be constructed before Tuesday's planned vote is just one question. The bigger one is whether a real way forward can be found at all.
Laura Kuenssberg
"Nothing is off the table." To be diplomatic that is rather a shift in tone from No 10 who, this time last week, were telling all who would listen that the divorce deal reached with the rest of the EU was the best available and there was no chance of significant changes.
MPs had three choices - Theresa May's deal, no deal, or no Brexit. That's why some Tory MPs were, with gritted teeth, actually on board with the deal. One minister told me "the prime minister and the attorney general have convinced me" there is no chance of significant change on the backstop, so they were going to support the agreement.
With the prime minister, however, heading for a likely thumping defeat if there is no change, guess what - No 10's tone has rather changed too.
The PM is back in touch with some EU leaders, and sources say that they are looking at different options, including potentially reopening the withdrawal agreement, even though they are well aware of the risks that runs. One cabinet minister told me, "she simply has to get something else".
But is this last-minute hope of a shift from the EU real? As my colleague Katya Adler's explained there is nothing straightforward about this. On the face of it, it's pretty extraordinary to imagine that the UK government could be genuinely asking to reopen an agreement that took 18 months to put together, has already been through the grinder on multiple occasions and was only concluded a fortnight ago.
But since the ink dried, it has become clear that the chance of getting the deal through Parliament is very small. One minister said, "it's only a deal if it's ratified". Perhaps for wavering MPs, even the sign of the PM continuing to push for more will make a difference.
It is certainly the case that opposition to the backstop is the main impediment to getting the agreement through Parliament. And both sides acknowledge privately there is a possibility of some kind of clarification, some kind of side letter, to give reassurance.
A cynical historian might suggest that if you stand back for a moment, this kind of very, very last-minute haggling was entirely predictable.
But trust is low. If there were to be any last-minute concessions, or perhaps more likely the promise that they might emerge, MPs currently in the mood for rebelling would want genuine promises, not a last-minute flimsy buy-off.
And whether a solution can be constructed before Tuesday's planned vote is just one question. The bigger one is whether a real way forward can be found at all.
Then that's what the investigation will show. But it's being taken seriously enough for the Foreign Office Minister to order an investigation.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Brexit is dead. We are just waiting for the pantomime to play out now.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
It will come back, but not in a nice way. Civil disobedience and the rise of the poplulist right picking up on the feelings of mass betrayal. But a successful Canadian Brexit is dead.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
We'll have to see. Will take time either way. Personally I think the EU will make it even worse to leave after all this.
They've shown their hand in how they will treat anyone, and will also close the loophole of being able to back out once A50 is envoked.
Essentially, dont get out now, and you wont get out later.
You can only get a Canada style Brexit with the Irish border issue solved. Currently, the only way for that to be solved is if the Republic and N. Ireland decide to hold a border poll and the result ends up on the side of a United Ireland.
The problem is, the Brexiters are like the dog who caught the car. They won the vote, but they haven't had a clue what to do with it. That's why they let May stay on after her General Election disaster. Someone could have stepped forward and took her out then, but not one of them had the b0ll0cks to step forward and try to implement their plan, because they don't really have one. Much better for them to let her crash and burn and then say "well, we could have had Canada if it wasn't for those pesky Remoaners."
