Monday 16th October 2017

Post by **refitman** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 7:09 am

Morning all.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 8:05 am

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 10 Democratic Unionist party MPs, upon whose votes May relies for a Commons majority, have made it clear to government whips that they would not accept a “no deal” outcome because it would mean a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If May were to try to push such an approach, the deal with the DUP that keeps her in power could fall.

If they really mean this, there's no way May can get her Withdrawal Bill through in its present form. No wonder it's been paused.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 8:08 am

Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu

The 10 Democratic Unionist party MPs, upon whose votes May relies for a Commons majority, have made it clear to government whips that they would not accept a “no deal” outcome because it would mean a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If May were to try to push such an approach, the deal with the DUP that keeps her in power could fall.
If they really mean this, there's no way May can get her Withdrawal Bill through in its present form. No wonder it's been paused.

All too late.

I don't think MPs or commentators understand what was done when art 50 was triggered.

You get a deal, or it is no deal. We still leave.

The Withdrawal Bill is a complete red herring. Yes, handing the government such wide powers to incorporate and amend EU law is awful. What is the alternative?

Nobody has suggested one. Add in another scrutiny committee? Tighten the time limits. Big Deal.

We already had the vote. Labour backed it.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 8:10 am

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David Lammy
David Lammy @DavidLammy
"The apparent resilience of foreign investment flows immediately after Brexit was an illusion". And that's according to the Telegraph

So panic stations then. No wonder May has rushed off to Brussels. The business community is serious about needing firm indications of a transition deal before Christmas if we're to stem the outward tide.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 8:33 am

Morning.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We must respect the result.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:06 am

Good morfternoon.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:07 am

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59e26 ... mg00000001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PIP Unfairly Penalising People With Epilepsy, Leading Charity Warns

Once again another article that gives the government the last word with an impressive sounding statistic that the journalist completely fails to challenge or put into context:

“Under PIP 29% of claimants receive the highest rate of support compared to 15% under DLA.”

What we need to know here is the total number of claimants under each system, to assess whether or not the highest rate of support is going to less, the same or more people in total. A percentage of an undefined whole tells us very little.

Whether the Guardian, BBC or, in this case, the HuffPost, the structure of these articles is identical. Although the government may have a right to reply, it doesn't necessarily have the right to the final word and it certainly doesn't have the right to present impressive sounding decontextualised numbers unchallenged. The almost formulaic nature of these type of articles is beginning to grate.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:08 am

May and Davis to travel to Brussels for urgent Brexit talks

I hope they're not travelling to Brussels to talk to one another. After all, Theresa May went all the way to Florence to speak to British journalists.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:12 am

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment ... -transport" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our cities need fewer cars, not cleaner cars

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:30 am

Good morning

I was unaware that the EU and ECJ had made a judgement on whether A50 is revocable or not...obviously they have or they have delegated that responsibility to an anonymous self-proclaimed eminent lawyer

This same 'eminent lawyer' seems also not to be able to grasp how politics works even when explained to him or her in simple language

By yhe way the EU is complicit in this as thry refused contact until A50 was invoked....if it was clearer from preliminary talks then the situation may (or perhaps not) been different

The fault for all this lies with Cameron and his friends in the Tory Party...the role of others is relatively inconsequential

if Hugos advice had been followed we would probably have a large Tory majority with a full run at Brecit with no chance of pulling back from the brink - at least now there is a small glimmer of hope

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:40 am

Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu

The 10 Democratic Unionist party MPs, upon whose votes May relies for a Commons majority, have made it clear to government whips that they would not accept a “no deal” outcome because it would mean a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If May were to try to push such an approach, the deal with the DUP that keeps her in power could fall.
If they really mean this, there's no way May can get her Withdrawal Bill through in its present form. No wonder it's been paused.

I think Hugo, is his reply to this, is right - we leave after two years whether there is a deal on the future and on the terms of leaving or not.

I also think - although I completely acknowledge that prophesying party politics is a dangerous and difficult game these days - that the DUP will not risk Corbyn and McDonnell gaining power, and indeed (following from discussions here last night) I don't believe for a second that there are enough (or indeed possibly any, when push comes to shove) conservative MPs who would put country before party and take a similar risk.

May has 318 MPs. With 7 Sinn Fein MPs not taking their seats in the commons she needs 321 votes to always win (because the speaker will vote with the government in a tie- not because Bercow but just because). If the DUP took the view that they couldn't continue to support the most likely - overwhelmingly likely - next step is not that they would vote against but that they would abstain, and May would have enough votes to win, even if everyone else was against her (and again, if push came to shove, she could probably rely on either the support or absention of Sylvia Hermon (independent Unionist, who became Independent because of her unhappiness with the closeness between the UUP and the conservatives but who would join the DUP in disdaining the possibility of a Corbyn McDonnell government).

Looking at the history of close votes in the past I imagine if it comes to it May will explicitly make key votes a question of Confidence and you are left relying on conservative MPs bringing down their government at a time when it seems entirely possible that Corbyn's labour party could win an election. I don't believe they will vote to bring their government down.

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:41 am

I would add that I think the issue about legality is a different one and only becomes relevant if there is a political will to revoke - and there is no political will in government to do so (and no realistic prospect of that government falling) and I can't see where the will would could come from within the conservative leadership. It would destroy the conservative party to go down that route politically.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 9:58 am

Hugo is not 'right' as he does not allow for any other outcome apart from his own one

As has been said many times before it is a political decision as much as a legal one....the latter is the one that will be supreme but it is not settled yet.

The former is a consequence of us having a Tory Government...A50 would have passed no matter what Labour did.

With the Tories not having a majority now then there may be other political outcomes that are unforeseen....noone predicted Labour doing so well in June do shocks still do hapoen

The unknown is how many Tories put principles above party and would actually vote for the best for the UK

If the dont then we all live with the consequences and the Tories are squarely to blame

Hugo just wants to muddy the waters by continuing going on about the A50 vote which is a irrelevance and always has been

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 10:07 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Hugo is not 'right' as he does not allow for any other outcome

As has been said many times before it is a political decision as much as a legal one....the latter is the one that will be supreme but it is not settled yet.

The former is a consequence of us having a Tory Government...A50 would have passed no matter what Labour did.

With the Tories not having a majority now then there may be other political outcomes that are unforeseen....noone predicted Labour doing so well in June do shocks still do hapoen

The unknown is how many Tories put principles above party and would actually vote for something else

I'm going to pull this out of order to reply in parts...

The former is a consequence of us having a Tory Government...A50 would have passed no matter what Labour did.

Completely agree, there is no question of where responsibility lies. However, I still believe Labour could and should have abstained, on the clear basis that there was no settled policy at all on what the detail of leaving would look like, and they could and should have raised a lot of the detailed issues then that have since come out. I don't know what effect it would have had on the election but leaving the EU is not something that we are going to muddle through and make into something okay, and at some point politicians need to seek to lead public opinion rather than to chase or follow it.

The unknown is how many Tories put principles above party and would actually vote for something else

I agree that this is unknown but I would be completely astonished if there were enough backbench tories voting to bring about an election that Labour would have a very good chance of winning. I've been astonished before and politics has been quite astonishing recently but I'd still be astonished. I think this is a dead end even as a thought experiment.

As has been said many times before it is a political decision as much as a legal one....the latter is the one that will be supreme but it is not settled yet.

I disagree, I don't think the legal question will ever get a chance to be formally put. The most that might happen is that at some point - like with the Miller case - the government could be compelled to put something to Parliament again, but I think they will win if they do.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 10:22 am

As has been explained before, morally "it would have happened anyway" is no excuse. If you voted for triggering art 50 without conditions, you're responsible. That it would have happened anyway doesn't exculpate.

I didn't vote for one of the two main Brexit parties. I voted for a Remain party, the Greens.

People like Starmer, who voted for Article 50 without conditions, now saying they'd like "impossible Brexit X" or would "vote down" a no deal Brexit, revolt me. There are a few Labour MPs who are not grotesque hypocrites, Mary Creagh is one, but they are a small number.

McDonnell and Corbyn love all this. The UK becoming significantly poorer opens the door to their kind of 'radical' solutions, especially once we are out of the EU as they desire.

Grotesque. The world where Ree-Mogg and John McDonnell are taken seriously. Unimaginable a few years ago.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 10:28 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41581060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why I secretly taped my disability assessment

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 10:49 am

Needless to say I believe the active attempt to reduce support in the generality (5 % cut,though 20 % was the stated intention) is an act of gross negiligence,with consequential increased costs,reduced independence,often shortened lives made worse ,before you get to up to £54,000 p.a.for assessors and eye watering amounts for paper based alone thrown to the private providers.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 10:54 am

adam wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu

The 10 Democratic Unionist party MPs, upon whose votes May relies for a Commons majority, have made it clear to government whips that they would not accept a “no deal” outcome because it would mean a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If May were to try to push such an approach, the deal with the DUP that keeps her in power could fall.
If they really mean this, there's no way May can get her Withdrawal Bill through in its present form. No wonder it's been paused.
I think Hugo, is his reply to this, is right - we leave after two years whether there is a deal on the future and on the terms of leaving or not.

I also think - although I completely acknowledge that prophesying party politics is a dangerous and difficult game these days - that the DUP will not risk Corbyn and McDonnell gaining power, and indeed (following from discussions here last night) I don't believe for a second that there are enough (or indeed possibly any, when push comes to shove) conservative MPs who would put country before party and take a similar risk.

May has 318 MPs. With 7 Sinn Fein MPs not taking their seats in the commons she needs 321 votes to always win (because the speaker will vote with the government in a tie- not because Bercow but just because). If the DUP took the view that they couldn't continue to support the most likely - overwhelmingly likely - next step is not that they would vote against but that they would abstain, and May would have enough votes to win, even if everyone else was against her (and again, if push came to shove, she could probably rely on either the support or absention of Sylvia Hermon (independent Unionist, who became Independent because of her unhappiness with the closeness between the UUP and the conservatives but who would join the DUP in disdaining the possibility of a Corbyn McDonnell government).

Looking at the history of close votes in the past I imagine if it comes to it May will explicitly make key votes a question of Confidence and you are left relying on conservative MPs bringing down their government at a time when it seems entirely possible that Corbyn's labour party could win an election. I don't believe they will vote to bring their government down.

The assumption is that May would feel confident enough to make this (or anything else) a question of Confidence. I think the fact that the progress of the Withdrawal Bill has been delayed is a strong indicator that she does not. It's unlikely there will be a Tory rebellion on a vote in the Commons, I agree, but I wouldn't underestimate the rebellion behind the scenes. It is looking like she will have to compromise to get the Withdrawal Bill through and she has to get the Withdrawal Bill through because, as you say, we will be leaving one way or another in March 2019 and to do so without any mechanism to transfer EU law to British law would cause the kind of constitutional crisis even the Tory party would struggle to recover from. The DUP can be relied upon to vote through any Tory budget and there won't be another Queen's speech until after March 2019 I believe, so this is it, this is the danger moment. If the Withdrawal Bill goes through unamended the Commons will have signed away all control of Brexit to government ministers. There will be no more opportunities to influence or force a general election, imo. All the horse trading, power plays and final stands are happening right now behind the scenes. The implications for Northern Ireland if there isn't a customs union of some sorts with the EU is huge, it makes the likelihood of a united Ireland far greater than present. The DUP are unlikely to be bluffing over preventing a hard border and if they want any control or influence over that they have to ensure the Withdrawal Bill doesn't pass in its current form. I'm kind of holding my breath at the moment. The form of the Withdrawal Bill Theresa May gets through will be a big indicator of what kind of Brexit we will ultimately get. If, like me, you believe the possibility of preventing Brexit at this stage is slim to nil, this is an extremely crucial moment that will have long lasting implications for this county's future.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 10:55 am

But I said it for the 238th time anyway

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:05 am

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rest-rates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK inflation set to hit five-year high, raising heat on interest rates
Experts predict figure of 3% for September, adding to pressure on Bank of England to hike rates for first time in decade

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:07 am

SH does have this habit of stating their opinion (even if it is a knowledgeable and well founded opinion) as if it was unchallengable holy writ.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:14 am

The Tories are going to have a torrid time passing the Withdrawal Bill, especially with the Lords as if they dig their heels in there is no time to pass it given the 2 year timetable.

None of it matters unfortunately. This just isn't a Parliamentary issue any longer, but one between the UK and the EU27.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:19 am

Adam

I don't disagree with much that you have written

We discussed the A50 vote at great length and there were a lot of differing opinions - none seemed to be right or wrong, just coming from a different point of view. What I) would contend is that a Labour vote against, or perhaps even abstaining, would have had a severe impact on the GE result and so I am happy to maintain my view on this.

I do not understand why you said you disagreed on the legal point - I accept that the political reality may prevent that ever being explored but I think we cannot discount it ever happening and the legal aspect is not settled - or do you think it is and that revocation is not possible as clearly Hugo does? if so do you have the basis for that in legal judgement not an opinion from an academic?

From where I am the chances of a political change of heart are looking more positive than they have done since the referendum. Labour seems to be shifting towards as soft a Brexit as possible, and no deal seems to be out, and a certain number of Tories are finding it difficult to diagree with the Labour position (eg Morgan on Peston) and some, such as Heseltine, are going further.

There may eventually be a catalyst for these to actually break ranks.....perhaps Hammond being fired or the negotiations breaking down completely. If that happens then all bets are off

As to Hugo, you are entitled to your opinion - I do find though it supports my contention you are being economical with the actualité regarding your background as I gfind it difficult to believe an 'eminent lawyer' would use such crass and stark words to describe the situation which is far more nuanced and complex. You are without doubt one of the least interesting and thoughtful posters on here

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:21 am

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... adteachers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

English school budgets facing 'breaking point', warn headteachers
MPs to be told standards under threat with university tuition fees and student loans crowding out school funding concerns

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:26 am

SpinningHugo wrote:The Tories are going to have a torrid time passing the Withdrawal Bill, especially with the Lords as if they dig their heels in there is no time to pass it given the 2 year timetable.

None of it matters unfortunately. This just isn't a Parliamentary issue any longer, but one between the UK and the EU27.

How so?

Parliament could vote for a revocation of A50 tomorrow, just as they did voting for it......a letter is then sent to the EU

The ball is then in the EU court.....the end would be the legal judgement of the ECJ although the political view of the EU-27 would also be important and may actually negate the need for the ECJ

The first political step is in the hands of the UK Parliament - they would have to vote for the revocation and the Government would have to send it

Personally I think that is the most problematic step as my own view is that the EU-27 would accept it (perhaps some strings attached) and the ECJ would not countermand them unless there was a clear contravention of the EU laws

If you take that view then it is pretty much in the hands of the UK Parliament

Again my own view but one thing I am clear of is it is more complex and nuanced than SH makes out it is

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:32 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
I do not understand why you said you disagreed on the legal point - I accept that the political reality may prevent that ever being explored but I think we cannot discount it ever happening and the legal aspect is not settled - or do you think it is and that revocation is not possible as clearly Hugo does? if so do you have the basis for that in legal judgement not an opinion from an academic?

Being mildly legalistic for a second, I just think it's moot because the legal question won't ever decisively be put. No legal case will compel the government to seek to revoke and I don't believe that there is any prospect of the political will to revoke gaining any ascendency in government, nor (as I have wittered on about before) do I think there is any realistic prospect of the government falling.

I know that recent years teach us that when it comes to electoral politics and internal party politics you never know, but conservatives voting their government down would have to do so knowing that it was perfectly possible that a Corbyn and McDonnell led Labour party would come to power as a result and I can't see any - and I repeat for emphasis, any - of them doing that. Someone like Clarke might do knowing that he was the only one and it wouldn't make a difference but I cannot see any possibility of it happening otherwise. If you ask the conservative back benches to put country before party I think they will chose party every time when the alternative is Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing Street.

From where I am the chances of a political change of heart are looking more positive than they have done since the referendum. Labour seems to be shifting towards as soft a Brexit as possible, and no deal seems to be out, and a certain number of Tories are finding it difficult to diagree with the Labour position (eg Morgan on Peston) and some, such as Heseltine, are going further.

There may eventually be a catalyst for these to actually break ranks.....perhaps Hammond being fired or the negotiations breaking down completely. If that happens then all bets are off

This is not said antagonistically however much it sounds like it, and I know I'm repeating myself again, but do you honestly believe that there are conservative members of parliament who will vote to give Corbyn a very good shot of getting into power? I don't believe this is even a worthwhile thought experiment. They could lose their majority because of something entirely left-field - this is said entirely hypothetically with goodwill to all and no intent but Labour MPs have died at a surprisingly high rate compared to the other parties and it's about time statistically that this started to even out (pedantic note at myself - I do understand that this is not how statistics work but it still makes some kind of sense) -but I cannot imagine them losing it through anything else.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:41 am

adam wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
I do not understand why you said you disagreed on the legal point - I accept that the political reality may prevent that ever being explored but I think we cannot discount it ever happening and the legal aspect is not settled - or do you think it is and that revocation is not possible as clearly Hugo does? if so do you have the basis for that in legal judgement not an opinion from an academic?
Being mildly legalistic for a second, I just think it's moot because the legal question won't ever decisively be put. No legal case will compel the government to seek to revoke and I don't believe that there is any prospect of the political will to revoke gaining any ascendency in government, nor (as I have wittered on about before) do I think there is any realistic prospect of the government falling.

I know that recent years teach us that when it comes to electoral politics and internal party politics you never know, but conservatives voting their government down would have to do so knowing that it was perfectly possible that a Corbyn and McDonnell led Labour party would come to power as a result and I can't see any - and I repeat for emphasis, any - of them doing that. Someone like Clarke might do knowing that he was the only one and it wouldn't make a difference but I cannot see any possibility of it happening otherwise. If you ask the conservative back benches to put country before party I think they will chose party every time when the alternative is Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing Street.

From where I am the chances of a political change of heart are looking more positive than they have done since the referendum. Labour seems to be shifting towards as soft a Brexit as possible, and no deal seems to be out, and a certain number of Tories are finding it difficult to diagree with the Labour position (eg Morgan on Peston) and some, such as Heseltine, are going further.

There may eventually be a catalyst for these to actually break ranks.....perhaps Hammond being fired or the negotiations breaking down completely. If that happens then all bets are off

This is not said antagonistically however much it sounds like it, and I know I'm repeating myself again, but do you honestly believe that there are conservative members of parliament who will vote to give Corbyn a very good shot of getting into power? I don't believe this is even a worthwhile thought experiment. They could lose their majority because of something entirely left-field - this is said entirely hypothetically with goodwill to all and no intent but Labour MPs have died at a surprisingly high rate compared to the other parties and it's about time statistically that this started to even out (pedantic note at myself - I do understand that this is not how statistics work but it still makes some kind of sense) -but I cannot imagine them losing it through anything else.

Adam,

Again I am coming at this from a different place than you

If we accept that there will be no Tory rebellion and no new GE then the Tories will take us out - in essence the decision was made on June 23 2016 and everything since and all the nonsense around the Labour reaction etc has been a complete and untter irrelevance.

I agree with that

We are, though, continually told by the press and some Tories themselves that there are significant numbers who oppose Brexit - if that si the case then there could very well be a majority for revocation somewhere at some point - there is a real possibility of us dropping out with no deal and I would say at that point there is at least a chance of a Tory implosion - perhaps led from the Lords by people like Major and Heseltine.....this could change the game significantly.

What is the likelihood? - still low but not out of the question........it all will depend on what the deal is looking like in 2018

I am personally of the view that there will be a split in the Tories over this now....the likelihhod of a benign Brexit with a good deal from this lot of incompétents seems less and less by the minute and there will be conséquences

Makes a change from 6 months ago

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:43 am

https://makingrightsmakesense.wordpress ... 0/16/3202/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Bon Voyage,Bert(Massie)"

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 11:43 am

And stop telling us that stuff "doesn't matter" - you are not the sole judge and arbiter of that.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 12:08 pm

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -be-damned" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Govt must publish Brexit impact papers – or be damned

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 12:17 pm

I think this succinctly sums up the revocability or not of article 50:

Law and policy @davidallengreen
·
11m
A notification under A50 leads automatically to a member state leaving EU, unless something exceptional happens.

Narrative non-fiction.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, hope for the best - something exceptional - but expect the worst - come March 2019 we could literally crash out of the EU and out of life as we know it.

Personally I think it wise to never underestimate the amount of damage greedy, powerful people are willing to inflict just to make a fast buck.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 12:24 pm

http://www.katebelgrave.com/2017/10/pip ... -are-deaf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 12:33 pm

Willow904 wrote:I think this succinctly sums up the revocability or not of article 50:
Law and policy @davidallengreen
·
11m
A notification under A50 leads automatically to a member state leaving EU, unless something exceptional happens.

Narrative non-fiction.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, hope for the best - something exceptional - but expect the worst - come March 2019 we could literally crash out of the EU and out of life as we know it.

Personally I think it wise to never underestimate the amount of damage greedy, powerful people are willing to inflict just to make a fast buck.

Willow

Another legal opinion fairly challenged below

I think the point made by Adam and others is right....the legal situation is not clear but I am of the view it would be fudged if the will was there

The first and most difficult problem is the Tory political will to change....and then to eat some humble pie in front of the EU followed by any legal judgement (I am sure the ECJ would love to leave it to the politicians though)

It could be Adam is completely right and the legal decision is moot as the important ones are political....I doubt anyone would want it to go to the ECJ without being clear what the judgement would be

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 12:47 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:I think this succinctly sums up the revocability or not of article 50:
Law and policy @davidallengreen
·
11m
A notification under A50 leads automatically to a member state leaving EU, unless something exceptional happens.

Narrative non-fiction.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, hope for the best - something exceptional - but expect the worst - come March 2019 we could literally crash out of the EU and out of life as we know it.

Personally I think it wise to never underestimate the amount of damage greedy, powerful people are willing to inflict just to make a fast buck.
Willow

Another legal opinion fairly challenged below

I think the point made by Adam and others is right....the legal situation is not clear but I am of the view it would be fudged if the will was there

The first and most difficult problem is the Tory political will to change....and then to eat some humble pie in front of the EU followed by any legal judgement (I am sure the ECJ would love to leave it to the politicians though)

It could be Adam is completely right and the legal decision is moot as the important ones are political....I doubt anyone would want it to go to the ECJ without being clear what the judgement would be

I'm not sure why you believe what you are saying is different from what I just posted. The article 50 process is automatic. A positive intervention is necessary to stop that automatic process. That intervention would have to be exceptional. Perhaps legal proceedings to show that article 50 wasn't triggered in line with UK constitutional requirements.

The legal question is a completely different matter to Theresa May changing her mind and negotiating with the EU to remain. That can totally happen at any time and would probably be successful if sincerely undertaken, but every time May, Davis, Johnson et al open their big fat mouths they move us one step further away from such an accommodation, probably by design.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 1:04 pm

I'm not sure why you believe what you are saying is different from what I just posted. The article 50 process is automatic. A positive intervention is necessary to stop that automatic process. That intervention would have to be exceptional. Perhaps legal proceedings to show that article 50 wasn't triggered in line with UK constitutional requirements.

The legal question is a completely different matter to Theresa May changing her mind and negotiating with the EU to remain. That can totally happen at any time and would probably be successful if sincerely undertaken, but every time May, Davis, Johnson et al open their big fat mouths they move us one step further away from such an accommodation, probably by design

I never said it was different and it depends how you read 'exceptional'. I am not sure there is the legal necessity to prove it was unconstitutional (was it? would the Supreme Court find that, I doubt it would as they have already sat on this once). It could just as easily mean we change our minds and say 'sorry guys, bit of a mistake there - here's our new letter'.

The simple answer is we can speculate and others can as well but what revocation means is currently in the eye of the beholder

I agree totally with your last paragraph.......the major obstacle is the Tory Party

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 1:25 pm

Deleted because it was stupid. My excuse is that I'm not feeling too wonderful today.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 1:39 pm

http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/hea ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The forgotten welfare gap in older age

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 2:06 pm

It's more or less dark here (South of England). A strange, sepia-tinged dark.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 2:12 pm

Delays and drips mark Great Western Railway's new train launch

First outing for Hitachi Class 800 Intercity Express gets into London from Bristol 41 minutes late, with seats roped off due to leak

It was perhaps an inevitable first outing for a train service whose development has been plagued by overspending and delay. The first Intercity Express train to carry passengers down the part-modernised Great Western Railway from Bristol arrived in London 41 minutes late, with its air-conditioning switched off, passengers standing in the aisles and rows of its ergonomic seats roped off due to a leak. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ain-launch

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 2:16 pm

PorFavor wrote:
May and Davis to travel to Brussels for urgent Brexit talks
I hope they're not travelling to Brussels to talk to one another. After all, Theresa May went all the way to Florence to speak to British journalists.

They must be expecting to be there for a while - NonOxCol just linked to a picture of their caravan.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 2:21 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
May and Davis to travel to Brussels for urgent Brexit talks
I hope they're not travelling to Brussels to talk to one another. After all, Theresa May went all the way to Florence to speak to British journalists.
They must be expecting to be there for a while - NonOxCol just linked to a picture of their caravan.

Photograph taken in Portsmouth, too!

Post by **adam** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 2:30 pm

PorFavor wrote:It's more or less dark here (South of England). A strange, sepia-tinged dark.

Blood red sun over the black country today.

"Why's the moon red misssir?"
"It's the sun."
"Why's the sun red?"
"Because we're all going to die."
"Really?"

Edit - tidying up mess, then tidying up mess made by tidying up.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 2:34 pm

[youtube]4ZV3kGRY1j0[/youtube]

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 3:49 pm

Willow904 wrote:http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -be-damned

Govt must publish Brexit impact papers – or be damned

I suppose they might prefer to be damned (again) in that case.......

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 4:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -be-damned

Govt must publish Brexit impact papers – or be damned
I suppose they might prefer to be damned (again) in that case.......

Jolyon Maugham's take was "The Government must publish. Or we will be damned". Which sounds more like it.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 4:54 pm

I dont think they will dare publish will they

We can all guess what they will say

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 4:55 pm

PF - sepia = sahara
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 02891.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 4:58 pm

adam wrote:
PorFavor wrote:It's more or less dark here (South of England). A strange, sepia-tinged dark.
Blood red sun over the black country today.
"Why's the moon red misssir?"
"It's the sun."
"Why's the sun red?"
"Because we're all going to die."
"Really?"
Edit - tidying up mess, then tidying up mess made by tidying up.

Adam channelling PF

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 4:59 pm

adam wrote:
PorFavor wrote:It's more or less dark here (South of England). A strange, sepia-tinged dark.
Blood red sun over the black country today.
"Why's the moon red misssir?"
"It's the sun."
"Why's the sun red?"
"Because we're all going to die."
"Really?"
Edit - tidying up mess, then tidying up mess made by tidying up.

uncannily summing up the Clanger life

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 16 Oct, 2017 5:15 pm

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... lications/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -senior-mp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PTO.