Bye bye Theresa

[Jobbo]

The CJEU rarely depart from the Advocate General's advance opinion. Based on the AG's opinion, the UK could only revoke the Art.50 notification if acting in good faith, of course; which I would surmise means if there is an intention to remain, not just based on an intention to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement.

Would require an Act of Parliament to revoke the withdrawal bill as well, to comply with the constitutional requirements condition of Art.50.

[GG.]

Yes - they follow it in 80 per cent. of cases apparently. Looks like I was wrong again. Given this is so highly politicised, however, I can't help but wonder if they will follow the AG's opinion in this case.

There would need to be two new bills (passing both houses), one to revoke the Withdrawal Bill as you say and another to authorise the executive to deliver the notice revoking the original article 50 notification. Then it would still need to be rubber stamped by the EU as being in good faith (if the AG's interpretation holds sway).

The bigger question of course if whether Parliamentarians would vote in favour of revoking without a second referendum. It seems difficult politically to argue that if you needed (politically, not legally) the mandate of a referendum to leave you don't need another to see if the country has changed its mind. If the country voted again and voted to remain then you would have less chance of insurrection than parliament just doing it off their own bat I would guess. Equally, I would imagine it would be almost impossible to get the Withdrawal of Withdrawal Bill (or the Capitulation Bill or whatever they will call it) through parliament in the time remaining if it is not totally clear that the country backs it.

I presume some will make a case of revoking to avoid a hard brexit, "buying more time" before deciding later, with more preparation, if we wan't to try again. That seems impossible to argue though given the likelihood that would not be deemed to be in good faith.

To put the whole thing in context, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 had its first reading on 13 July 2017 and received the Royal Assent on 26 June 2018. Pretty much a year - so I expect people will get very hot under the collar about this judgment but given the timing and even without deciding we need a referendum, wouldn't you agree it likely changes nothing?

[Simon]

It seems odd that Lord Kerr didn't just write this into Article 50 in the first place, especially seeing that he is on record saying that it is unilaterally revocable anyway. It would have saved this confusion!

[Jobbo]

I think due to the politically sensitive nature of the case, and the fact that the CJEU judges met yesterday with the AG, it's a fair bet the judgment will follow the opinion.

The hurdles to be crossed look pretty insurmountable in the time though, as you say. And while it would easily be possible to get two bills through both houses, they would need to follow a fairly evident body of opinion not just against the Withdrawal Agreement but actively in favour of remaining. Much as I support remaining, I can't see that being present; the country is still split fairly evenly between Leave and Remain and only a second referendum could give a mandate. And there isn't practically time, notwithstanding that some of the commentators seem to think there is time in theory.

So is the next option a deferral of the leaving date to allow time for a further referendum? The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has provision for amendment of the definition of "exit day" so there is no need for further legislation to repeal or amend that Act; see s20: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... ction-20-2

[Jobbo]

It seems odd that Lord Kerr didn't just write this into Article 50 in the first place, especially seeing that he is on record saying that it is unilaterally revocable anyway. It would have saved this confusion!

So he was negligent. There's nothing to be gained by sueing him. The interpretation of a document or instrument is not that of the person who wrote it or you end up in a Humpty Dumpty situation.

[Simon]

It seems odd that Lord Kerr didn't just write this into Article 50 in the first place, especially seeing that he is on record saying that it is unilaterally revocable anyway. It would have saved this confusion!

So he was negligent. There's nothing to be gained by sueing him. The interpretation of a document or instrument is not that of the person who wrote it or you end up in a Humpty Dumpty situation.

I don't _think_ I suggested we sue him Simon, merely that his text wasn't thorough enough

[GG.]

So is the next option a deferral of the leaving date to allow time for a further referendum? The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has provision for amendment of the definition of "exit day" so there is no need for further legislation to repeal or amend that Act; see s20: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... ction-20-2

Though 4(a) states that a minister of the crown may amend the definition of exit day "to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom".

To me that looks to be a technical provision allowing them to amend if the two year period were changed (so passive to follow the factual timing of treaty termination, rather than an active change). You're obviously right in that their wouldn't need to be another act to passed by Parliament to change the date given there is that provision, however, to change the end of the Article 50 period we presumably would then have to get the consent of the EU27 as we're asking to vary the time period stated in Article 50, i.e. it varies a treaty provision and is separate from the question in issue in this case.

[Jobbo]

It seems odd that Lord Kerr didn't just write this into Article 50 in the first place, especially seeing that he is on record saying that it is unilaterally revocable anyway. It would have saved this confusion!

So he was negligent. There's nothing to be gained by sueing him. The interpretation of a document or instrument is not that of the person who wrote it or you end up in a Humpty Dumpty situation.

I don't _think_ I suggested we sue him Simon, merely that his text wasn't thorough enough

And what is the remedy for someone doing their job badly?

[Jimmy Choo]

So he was negligent. There's nothing to be gained by sueing him. The interpretation of a document or instrument is not that of the person who wrote it or you end up in a Humpty Dumpty situation.

I don't _think_ I suggested we sue him Simon, merely that his text wasn't thorough enough

And what is the remedy for someone doing their job badly?

Promotion and a big fat raise?

*crosses fingers and hopes*

[Simon]

So he was negligent. There's nothing to be gained by sueing him. The interpretation of a document or instrument is not that of the person who wrote it or you end up in a Humpty Dumpty situation.

I don't _think_ I suggested we sue him Simon, merely that his text wasn't thorough enough

And what is the remedy for someone doing their job badly?

Well as he's technically a public servant, they're usually promoted to the level of their incompetence.

[PreacherCain]

So he was negligent. There's nothing to be gained by sueing him. The interpretation of a document or instrument is not that of the person who wrote it or you end up in a Humpty Dumpty situation.

I don't _think_ I suggested we sue him Simon, merely that his text wasn't thorough enough

And what is the remedy for someone doing their job badly?

Ideally: firing squad.

In practice: what Jimmy said.

God, I am bored of Brexit and all its works - all the more so since there's now a TV debate being suggested. The only way I'd watch that bag of shite is if they gave each participant a table-leg with a nail banged through it and worked on Battle Royale rules.

[ZedLeg]

I don’t get the TV debate at all, what is it going to do at this point beyond give Corbyn a moment to grandstand before going back to doing nothing.

[NotoriousREV]

I don’t get the TV debate at all, what is it going to do at this point beyond give Corbyn a moment to grandstand before going back to doing nothing.

All we’ll get is a debate about a version of Brexit no-one wants vs a Brexit that’s unachievable, that the public currently can’t vote for. So what’s it supposed to achieve? A pointless waste of time for all involved.

[Simon]

I think she thinks that public support that she might gain from the debate will put pressure on respective MPs to vote to pass it through parliament. However, I don't see she'll have the numbers by any measure. The only way out of the impass is a second referendum.

[NotoriousREV]

I think she thinks that public support that she might gain from the debate will put pressure on respective MPs to vote to pass it through parliament. However, I don't see she'll have the numbers by any measure. The only way out of the impass is a second referendum.

But how do you even measure the outcome of the “debate”? The only meaningful way to do that would be some sort of public poll of some description or other.

[PreacherCain]

I think she thinks that public support that she might gain from the debate will put pressure on respective MPs to vote to pass it through parliament. However, I don't see she'll have the numbers by any measure. The only way out of the impass is a second referendum.

But how do you even measure the outcome of the “debate”? The only meaningful way to do that would be some sort of public poll of some description or other.

What, some sort of plebiscite offering two options and requiring voters to chose one?

Ridiculous, anti-democratic idea.

[NotoriousREV]

I think she thinks that public support that she might gain from the debate will put pressure on respective MPs to vote to pass it through parliament. However, I don't see she'll have the numbers by any measure. The only way out of the impass is a second referendum.

But how do you even measure the outcome of the “debate”? The only meaningful way to do that would be some sort of public poll of some description or other.

What, some sort of plebiscite offering two options and requiring voters to chose one?

Ridiculous, anti-democratic idea.

We mustn’t allow the will of the people to override the will of roughly the same people.

[Swervin_Mervin]

God, I am bored of Brexit and all its works - all the more so since there's now a TV debate being suggested. The only way I'd watch that bag of shite is if they gave each participant a table-leg with a nail banged through it and worked on Battle Royale rules.

[Gavin]

I did notice that Sajid Javid said "what the public wanted" rather than "want" when given some unchallenged BBC airtime. Most of the polls I have seen suggest 60 percent remain so not sure where anyone is getting even from but it is really bloody scary that it is at 40 percent given the evidence out there easily available saying there is no Brexit scenario where the country s better off.

[dinny_g]

better off in the short to medium term...