From what I’ve been reading, the EU would consider tomorrow’s motion. If it were passed, to satisfy the requirements of the European Council conclusions from last week and they would duly move Brexit Day to May 22.
If the WA isn’t approved tomorrow, as it looks like it won’t be, then April 12 remains the default Brexit Day, UNLESS Parliament specifically requests a long extension from the EU in the two weeks left to it. And the EU will be willing to grant one so long as it’s for a resolution to the whole thing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, Parliament’s consent was necessary, as held by the Supreme Court of the UK.
The next day the Government introduced a bill in the Commons to authorise the PM to give notice under article 50. Without that bill being passed into law, the PM did it have the legal authority to invoke Article 50.
The schadenfreude enthusiast in me kinda wants Nigel Farage to get the gig. You know, the disingenuous human-shaped turd that started the whole Brexit thing as a scam on the EU, then realized it could be a scam on the UK too, then immediately slinked away from public life and *left the country *when Leave won ? That asshole who promised everyone cocaine-covered unicorn blowjobs ?
Yeah, him. Let him try to wrangle the chaos he’s created like a tentacle-porn Sysiphus.
May probably doesn’t have the power to revoke the Article 50 declaration without the approval of Parliament, but that’s not certain. Parliament passed an Act in 2017 to withdraw from the EU. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0170009_en.pdf (PDF) The text in the act is quite basic: “The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.” The Prime Minister can’t go against an act of Parliament, but as you can see the act doesn’t say anything about revoking the withdrawal notice.
Further complicating matters is that a motion has been passed by Parliament ruling out “No Deal”. If “No Deal” is off the table, and “May’s Bill” remains defeated, then arguably all that is left is “No Exit”. So there’s a potential valid argument that revocation is already authorised.
The other complication is that if May did decide to act unilaterally, some constitutional body would have to overturn her action. The first body available is Parliament, but I can’t imagine that happening. The second body is the UK Supreme Court, who could very well declare the Prime Minister’s unilateral revocation unconstitutional. However, the court does not move fast, and any such action by May would leave very little time for the court to act.
Regarding if she should revoke Article 50, no she shouldn’t. Parliament had a vote on a form of revoking Article 50 on Wednesday. It was defeated by over 100 votes.
I guess you’re in favour of Trump unilaterally building that Mexico border wall? At least he campaigned for it.
Whether or not either is good policy, being against the wall and for the revocation of Brexit are not inconsistent if one is generally cautious in initiating major changes without a good reason and so therefore is more okay with unilateral action by the head of government in one instance but not the other, considering one would be the prevention of major change.
That depends on how you define the status quo. The status quo for the past three years for Britain is that it’s leaving the EU. To suddenly switch from leaving to remaining would definitely constitute a major change.
May does appear to be operating under the delusion that if only she can get her WA passed, she can leave in triumph, take her seat in the Lords and be considered a hero to the nation, despite the fact that the WA isn’t palatable to the vast majority of Leavers or Remainers and the seat she’ll take is the one next to Tony Blair on the “Former Prime Ministers Whom The Nation Loathes in Perpetuity” bench.
Don’t underestimate the ability of Jeremy Corbyn to alienate a majority of voters. Labour are also on the shattering point, the Lib Dems have already made themselves an irrelevance and the rest of the lot are all fringe parties. This is why the country is such a mess.
On the one hand, you make a valid point about Parliament failing to pass a resolution to revoke Article 50. On the other hand - and I want to make this very clear - *people are going to die because of Brexit. *
Not hyperbole. Not fearmongering. Literally **die **as a direct result of crashing out of the EU.
We know the government has been stockpiling medical supplies - and body bags - in preparation for shortages. Medicines, vaccines, blood products, medical radioisotopes, other medical devices and consumables - better hope you don’t need any of them urgently post-Brexit. Need insulin? Hope your supply is topped up; otherwise it sucks to be you! And that’s not even getting into the issue of food supplies and prices in a country that already has half a million people who rely on food banks to survive.
The people voted for a vague, undefined Brexit. They didn’t vote for the stupidest, most destructive version of Brexit. And while it’s a politically unpopular move, May does apparently have the power to revoke Article 50, declare that there is no current consensus on the form of Brexit and that further work is needed, and then fuck off to her retirement and leave the fallout to her successor (which will be the case no matter what she does). It’s not like any of her other options will make her more popular or keep her in power one minute longer - she might as well grow a spine and put a stop to this nonsense.
But I guess you’re in favour of a no-deal Brexit? In your opinion, how many deaths is it worth?
Is Britain simultaneously in the process of leaving the EU? Sure. And I could be persuaded to accept that this state of affairs remain perpetually so, just so long as the process is NEVER completed.
Note that I haven’t listed any renegotiated option. I think it’s a pipe dream that there’s a better deal waiting if the UK just asks more politely.
I’m guessing the resolution will be a customs union. But last week, I was guessing that May was going to force a Tory/DUP choice on taking her deal or the government would offer Labour a second referendum. So anything I predict, you can probably safely bet against.
That was the feeling I got after reading this piece on the Brexit negotiations. It sounds like the EU from Day 1 has had a very specific picture of what they were and weren’t going to do and the UK never did.
Didn’t you just say you’re “against bad things happening”? I now need to add a #7 to my list. Britain in many ways is stalled right now, and is only moving based on momentum. Being in a perpetual state of Parliamentary gridlock without coming to a decision on leaving or staying means that when that momentum runs out, the UK will be stuck going nowhere and with no ability to go anywhere. I’m actually glad the EU gave Parliament a deadline, because at least that will force some resolution, even if it’s not my preferred one.
Comment of the day (so far), via Nicholas Watt of the BBC:
“I said to one Cabinet Minister, ‘Why is the Prime Minister holding a vote when she is pretty sure she will lose?’ And using very strong language, this Cabinet Minister said, ‘Fuck knows. I am past caring. It is like the living dead in here.’”
…which will result in bad things happening. Immediately.
The other week on Question Time, Jacob Rees-Mogg put forth the argument that because the UK was growing at a faster rate than the rest of the EU, it was an indicator that the EU was holding the UK back. He seemed oblivious to the point that this was instead an indicator that the UK is thriving as part of the EU.
Can a Brexit-supporting member here please explain why a national referendum to elucidate exactly what the voters meant by “Brexit” is anathema?
Or, perhaps put another way, if 45% of the nation wants to remain in the EU, 35% want a “soft Brexit” with a customs union and 20% want a “hard Brexit” (numbers entirely made up), what should happen?