Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The influence of the EU on Britain.

1599600602604605607

Comments

  • bobmunro said:

    Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:

    Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.

    The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.

    It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.

    Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.

    They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.


    I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?

    It is still the most likely scenario - Parliament can suspend article 50 and make time. Not sure how they get the year from - May called a general election and we didn't have to wait a year for it. Where there's a will and all that.
    Subject to the 27 unanimously agreeing.
    Well, parliament can then revoke article 50 without anyone's agreement.
  • edited December 2018
    Which they will if there is going to be another vote which could mean us staying in. Revoking it would be the last resort.
  • bobmunro said:

    Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:

    Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.

    The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.

    It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.

    Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.

    They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.


    I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?

    It is still the most likely scenario - Parliament can suspend article 50 and make time. Not sure how they get the year from - May called a general election and we didn't have to wait a year for it. Where there's a will and all that.
    Subject to the 27 unanimously agreeing.
    Well, parliament can then revoke article 50 without anyone's agreement.
    Yes - but it has to be in good faith i.e. we've changed our minds.

    Not revoke - play silly buggers in parliament for a few more months, then invoke again. The EU would then quite rightly say f*ck off.
  • @MuttleyCAFC

    OK, stop and ask yourself: starting from today, what is the earliest date you could see parliament voting through a bill for a second ref? Bearing in mind that as I also predicted, they all want to go off on their Christmas skiiing hollibubs, leaving the country to stew. Bear in mind too that before submitting the referendum Bill, she needs to have a majority not just for the referendum, but the questions to be asked.

    So it's already impossible in the real world to have a referendum before 29.3.19.

    The previous arguments from the People's Vote side is that the EU would readily agree to extend Article 50 to accommodate a referendum. In principle I agree with that, but as I understand that, the problem is the new term of the European Parliament, to which we will have elected and sent representatives by July 2nd.

  • edited December 2018
    It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
  • Which they will if there is going to be another vote which could mean us staying in. Revoking it would be the last resort.

    There you go again using language of certainty for things that aren’t certain.

    How are your accurate predictions coming along?
  • Rothko said:
    Country is sleep walking to utter disaster because racist Brexit morons fell for the lies and deceptions of right wing lunatics in the Tory party and Corbyn and the Labour Party completely failed to do their job.
  • Only going two ways now. Mays deal or no deal. I think the referendum has gone and no politician will revoke A50
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited December 2018
    This BBC 'Reality Check' piece sets out the processes and timescales that would be involved in preparing for another referendum - even if it began now and some 'corners' could be 'cut':

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46426380
  • edited December 2018

    Only going two ways now. Mays deal or no deal. I think the referendum has gone and no politician will revoke A50

    I’m not so sure, but that being said I’m not sure on any particular outcome.

    The first thing that needs to happen is that May’s WA needs to be defeated, if that has to be W/C 14/01 then so be it, but the sooner the better.

    Once that happens then you would hope that there would be parliamentary consensus for something other than hard Brexit, absolutely insane that we’ve gotten ourselves into this position however.
  • It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.


    Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.

    You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
  • It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.


    Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.

    You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
    Yes - May has run the clock down sufficiently to avoid a referendum.

    Our best hope is EEA.
  • It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.


    Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.

    You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
    I’m not sure that the government has to want a referendum in order for there to be one? Parliament has, essentially, positioned itself as the main arbiter of what happens. It is entirely possible (though not necessarily likely) that the day after May’s WA is defeated that someone tables a motion to withdraw A50 and/or call a second referendum. If that motion can command a majority (and by this point it would be that or leaving with no deal in two months) then that’s what will happen regardless of what May thinks.
  • bobmunro said:

    It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.


    Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.

    You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
    Yes - May has run the clock down sufficiently to avoid a referendum.

    Our best hope is EEA.

    As I understand - we can’t just join the EEA, we’d need to be part of EFTA (or do some sort of Switzerland type deal, which is impossible in 2 months). Joining EFTA means convincing the four member countries that they should let us in, which will be a pretty hard sell.
  • Rothko said:
    Country is sleep walking to utter disaster because racist Brexit morons fell for the lies and deceptions of right wing lunatics in the Tory party and Corbyn and the Labour Party completely failed to do their job.
    Festive moderation on a one horse open sleigh

    Red, please refrain from this sort of generalisation as you know it doesn’t apply to all Brexit voters and is unnecessarily atagonistic
  • Troops on standby.
    That's a comfort.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Grapevine49 - do you have an executive summary? ;-)
  • se9addick said:

    It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.


    Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.

    You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
    I’m not sure that the government has to want a referendum in order for there to be one? Parliament has, essentially, positioned itself as the main arbiter of what happens. It is entirely possible (though not necessarily likely) that the day after May’s WA is defeated that someone tables a motion to withdraw A50 and/or call a second referendum. If that motion can command a majority (and by this point it would be that or leaving with no deal in two months) then that’s what will happen regardless of what May thinks.
    Referendum will probably be the subject of a legal challenge should one actually be voted for. As @PragueAddick has said. Its too late. EEA looks iffy to me so Im sticking with it being Mays deal. She will go down in history as one of our villians. I can see effergies of the woman on a bonfire every 29th March.
  • Maybe Brexiters with a WW2 obsession will be happy if rationing has to return.
  • I don’t believe any action is too late.

    If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
  • stonemuse said:

    I don’t believe any action is too late.

    If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.

    We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
  • stonemuse said:

    I don’t believe any action is too late.

    If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.

    We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
  • edited December 2018

    Maybe Brexiters with a WW2 obsession will be happy if rationing has to return.

    A bit of scurvy and rickets as well. Ah the good old days.
  • Just a thought.

    Suppose there is a referendum and the mandate is a firm "remain".

    What happens then if the EU only allow us to revoke Article 50 provided we significantly increase our annual contribution?

    Would we be obliged to accept any EU demands because it is the "will of the people"?
  • Just a thought.

    Suppose there is a referendum and the mandate is a firm "remain".

    What happens then if the EU only allow us to revoke Article 50 provided we significantly increase our annual contribution?

    Would we be obliged to accept any EU demands because it is the "will of the people"?

    Until we leave we’re in on existing terms
  • Just a thought.

    Suppose there is a referendum and the mandate is a firm "remain".

    What happens then if the EU only allow us to revoke Article 50 provided we significantly increase our annual contribution?

    Would we be obliged to accept any EU demands because it is the "will of the people"?

    Nope - the ECJ ruled that we could revoke Article 50 unilaterally and retain all the existing conditions and benefits of our current membership.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!