kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Spook_ie wrote: » Wouldn't matter if whoever got in as pm wanted a hard brexit, 2 years ( or until they decide to pull the actual exit trigger ) to reorganise their borders, WTA status etc.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » That would be a treacherous move by Britain. I can't imagine the EU not reacting. You can't stab your biggest customer in the back and expect business as usual.
The UK could in theory have an automatic 2 year extension just by revoking A.50 and then resubmitting it immediately afterwards, they wouldn't be very popular afterwards but it is an option, they could then spend the 2 years gearing up for a hard brexit.
Podge_irl wrote: » They don't need to retaliate surely. They just say that the revocation was not in good faith and therefore not valid. The UK is out immediately.
seamus wrote: » The only way the actions of the ERG make any sense is if they are actively fighting for a crash-out Brexit and thus are willing to throw anything and everything at it, no matter how ill-planned or uncertain. They have no interest in any deal, their only interest is making sure there is no deal.
seamus wrote: » ancapailldorcha made a comment a couple of days ago about how the Brexiters in parliament were already leveraged in favour of Brexit. They've placed their bets, moved around their money, and their financial future now rides on ensuring that Brexit happens, ideally as hard as possible. Realistically this is the only thing that now makes any sense. Barring an outcome where May receives 60% of the votes and thus can claim a "decisive" victory, all other outcomes lead to further uncertainty, further chaos in the Tories, general elections, and ultimately delays and stalling, preventing anything except a crash-out Brexit from happening. The only way the actions of the ERG make any sense is if they are actively fighting for a crash-out Brexit and thus are willing to throw anything and everything at it, no matter how ill-planned or uncertain. They have no interest in any deal, their only interest is making sure there is no deal.
Blowfish wrote: » The UK could in theory have an automatic 2 year extension just by revoking A.50 and then resubmitting it immediately afterwards, they wouldn't be very popular afterwards but it is an option, they could then spend the 2 years gearing up for a hard brexit. Actually, right now they legally can't, not due to the Article 50 text, but due to their own Withdrawal Bill text which states the EU treaties will no longer be in effect from 'Exit day'. It then defines exit day to be 29th March 2019. They'd have to go through the absolute political shitstorm of revoking the withdrawal bill before they can cancel Article 50.
joe40 wrote: » It beggars belief that the vast majority of the British Parliament do not want a no deal brexit, but they are heading that direction. Surely they must realise at this stage that it is the WA or no deal. Nothing else is on the table. I don't see how a tory government will give another referendum, it would be a humiliating u turn after all their rhetoric over the past 2 years.
snailsong wrote: » This raises an already entertainingly funny situation to new levels of hilarity. There seems to be no hope that the HoC could pass any legislation related to Brexit at all right now. Thus their fate is sealed, Britain will crash out with no deal on March 29. It makes little difference who's in charge.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It's funny, but it's gallows humour. Ireland will suffer badly if they crash out.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » snailsong wrote: » This raises an already entertainingly funny situation to new levels of hilarity. There seems to be no hope that the HoC could pass any legislation related to Brexit at all right now. Thus their fate is sealed, Britain will crash out with no deal on March 29. It makes little difference who's in charge. It's funny, but it's gallows humour. Ireland will suffer badly if they crash out.
Enzokk wrote: » Vote tonight on her leadership.https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1072757148235558912 Vote between 6-8pm and she needs 158 votes to win.
McGiver wrote: » And if she doesn't get them? Then there is a contest and she can't stand in it?
Christy42 wrote: » Wonder if they think if they send someone new to Brussels then the EU would be willing to go again (and delay the upcoming crash out).
75 In view of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. 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.
Leroy42 wrote: » We hope that it has passed it MOT, has working brakes and the driver isn't drunk, but there isn't really much we can do other than hope.
Leroy42 wrote: » Very true, but we have no ability to make any difference. All we can do is try to get them to see some sense but unfortunately we are mere other road users whilst the Brexit bus makes its journey. We hope that it has passed it MOT, has working brakes and the driver isn't drunk, but there isn't really much we can do other than hope.
robinph wrote: » But what is more humiliating? Making the uturn and throwing the decision back to the population so that they can take the blame for it. Or sticking with the WA plan that absolutely nobody wants or the no deal that only a few extremists want. Which option is history going to give you the best write up for carrying out? There is no positive outcome from this situation, there are ones that are less negative though.
joe40 wrote: » I agree fully another vote would be the sensible thing and also the most democratic option at this stage. However I just get the feeling that the Tory government are so entrenched and bloody minded they are willing to risk a no deal brexit, especially since the privileged Tories will be insulated from the worst affects and may even prosper. Analogous to 100 years ago ordering thousands of their young men over the top to certain death, as a military tactic. I just worry that sense and morality will be casualties to arrogance and entitlement.
Tropheus wrote: » Jonathan Lis had an interesting theory on Twitter. May loyalists submitted false letters to trigger the vote and get it out of the way quickly thus preventing another push for 12 months.
Spook_ie wrote: » Unconditional would seem to be the key word in that ruling.
