thehowler

Is that right, you are in a position of authority to guarantee that are you? There is no certainty in any of the Brexit proceedings, Article 50 being revoked included. Why do you think the Scottish court are reviewing the appeal to take the question to the ECJ at this moment? I guess all they need to do is call you up or send you a post and you can set them right... The promises of the MPs and Lords making amendments to the Brexit bills need to be scrutinized with the same light and vigour as their own scrutiny.

And how will they know what they will get? Is this a referendum that would take place after all the EU votes, the MEPs, Heads of State etc? What would the question on the vote paper be? I fear any second referendum would run all the same parlous risks for ambiguity and uncertainty of the first.

That's how I see it too. And no, there is no certainty over whether Article 50 can be revoked, just comments from some of the players. The Scottish case is the most recent development - unless anyone knows otherwise?

What Kerr and the EU say doesn't mean diddly. It will be the ECJ that has to decide. And will we need a majority EU state vote on it? Will the EU ask for conditions before granting it? These are questions you can't possibly answer. Which illustrates how crass and fanciful the whole going-back-to-the-negotiation-table amendment is. Going back for how long? To achieve how much? Of course MPs should have a yes/no vote for the deal. Anything beyond that is pantomime.

I'm afraid it's out of his hands. Whether it can be revoked or not is important due to the sudden passion for establishing the finer details of UK constitutional law through crowd-funded litigation that has gripped some remainers since the vote. I reckon these side-spats around Brexit are one of the vote's clearly positive consequences and would include the current Windrush/immigration debate. And it's doubly important if the EU acts as you suggest and possibly overrules Article 50 without recourse to the courts - as I imagine we'll see a sudden and similar interest in litigation from the Brexiteers...

I will call you out on posts where you make statements that underpin your argument which are factually incorrect. No court has ruled that Article 50 can be revoked. I know of the QC you mention, I think he brought the NI case, for anyone who might be interested here's a link from the Gruniad, purely for reference to this discussion: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/30/crowdfunded-legal-challenge-over-article-50-abandoned As things stand today you don't know whether Article 50 can be revoked. May's tenure as PM.

This is false. I've challenged you to produce evidence of this before and you never responded. A judge at the Scottish court of sessions has allowed an appeal to be made to ask whether the question can be put to the ECJ. Nothing has been proven other than the determination of remainers to pursue every speculative legal avenue to stop Brexit. They have already tried this in Northern Ireland and their case was thrown out as hypothetical - courts rule on things that are happening, rather than what might happen. From news reports it seems the Scottish judge granting the appeal commented that the case was possibly hypothetical but he has still allowed it, citing that parliament must have all the available facts to be truly sovereign. Fascinating that the cry of the brexiteers for sovereignty, as ZeroSumGame points out above, is now so routinely employed in Brexit discussion and counterarguments. Hard to see how judges can rule on something that might happen without knowing the detailed context at the time, so I think it has little chance of success. If I've missed another court ruling, please provide the info. You have predicted a GE for 2022, I believe, and said that it would be a Brexit decider/showdown? I think the crisis and collapse will happen long before then but, if you're correct, winning in England will be the overriding priority for both major parties. If, as seems likely in this projected scenario, the Tories run on pro-Brexit and Labour go with Customs Union/no-Brexit, I think the greater leave vote percentage for England will be significant. Labour could well lose the North and we'd see the shift, under Corbyn, from the great Labour manufacturing base to a London-centric party.

No. I was saying that turnout was high and people seemed keen to vote - I didn't understand what you meant by a forced choice and still don't.

And we really think we know what's going on behind the scenes...what a farce. The deal's no doubt already been made. We just get to pick up the crumbs from the table.

What do you mean by just making a forced choice? Turnout was greater than any vote since 97, wasn't it? I'd say that suggests a degree of enthusiasm.

Not that Article 50 can or will be revoked - and no court has ruled on this yet so please don't say it's legally possible - even if you get your GE, do you remember my Brexit stats for England, mocked as irrelevant earlier today? (Your move, jonb2.) Labour and the Tories have to win in England - SNP and NI are out of bounds regards seats really. Do you think they will risk electoral oblivion in England for their principles? Then you have a higher regard for the political class than I.

Nope, I said that I thought they had reasons of their own for voting leave, and then I listed a few. To demonise the bus effectively you have to portray it as widely believed by the electorate, even though the truth is it was just part of the semiotic theatre of events and was cartoonish from the off, widely mocked as soon as it appeared. Much like May and her catchphrase strong and stable in the last GE, it was pilloried immediately. Sadly much of the base remain argument insists that most Brits are dullards, in itself a stupid and self-defeating rhetorical position. As for your all you need is... you could say the same about any political event, Brexit is no different. Politics is a really bad magic show, when you can see the cards poking out from the conjuror's cuff. When's the last time we had a GE and the winning party delivered on their manifesto? And what percentage of the populace read a manifesto? It's ludicrous to describe the public as informed in any of the democratic process, hence me saying it's all a leap of faith many hundreds of posts ago. Brexit is that much rarer thing - the people really getting to choose to make things different - and that's what makes it so terrifying.

From a quick scan, every one of those links proves my point that the bus generated more negative, pro-remain comment than it did for leave...

The bus and the stats painted on the side were ripped apart within moments of it first appearing. I remember watching tv debates during the campaign where Boris-bus-bashing got more airtime than any other topic - I imagine the bus persuaded more people to vote remain than it did leave.

After two years of ranting, has a single poster on this thread changed their mind? The only people I've met who have changed their minds are remainers who are disappointed by the attitude of the EU.

On the whole I get the impression they voted for reasons of their own, sentiments around national identity, future direction of nation, possible economic benefits, that kind of stuff. I don't think it was Boris and the bus, I think that's always been a remainer whine.

I don't think anyone on the thread has ever said this, far too world-weary a bunch. But I do recognize the validity of the vote and think it will be better for the country if we enact it rather than attempt to smoke and mirror our way out of it.

You believed what the politicians were telling you?

Other than air miles, nope. But given he's forbidden to conduct any formal trade negotiations or announce anything of substance prior to transition, it's hardly surprising. US/UK trade deal might well be the big reveal of transition - that and Boris getting ready to announce the first £350 mill weekly payment to NHS from January 1st 2021!

Nothing changes except two years of some of the most febrile politics in living memory...that genie will not go back into the bottle.

No, I accept they could bring the government down. Where we differ, I think, is that I believe the consequence of this would be a new government or demagogue with a more damaging end result. We are negotiating our departure. We leave in March 19. Even the EU will not be able to fudge this one, it would destroy any pretence of democractic principle within the bloc. Indeed. The people were essentially asked do you want to be more or less European and they chose the latter. What I think we all need to accept is that Cameron should never have allowed the referendum to take place. The same applies to your idea for a 2nd ref. Would we be taking the Euro after your ref? Would we enjoy the exact same benefits as our former membership? All the technical difficulties, obstacles and contradictions that the remainers have cited to skewer leavers over the last two years would be reversed and used against them. It would be mayhem.

Agree. Parliament will vote to save its own skin - and that means propping up the idea of democracy.

And even the Lords don't want a 2nd referendum - the Lib Dem amendment proposing one was voted down last night.

Je pose mon valise.

By what accounts? You are the only voice I hear claiming this. And if you're right and we can challenge the result of the vote, how will your proposed 2nd referendum be any more binding? By your logic we could then argue for a 3rd ref etc which is why even the Labour party have no interest in a 2nd ref - witness the recent sacking of Owen Smith for daring to suggest it. Not in England. The stats are different for England and I think this is significant. The referendum transcended the normal role of our MPs. They voted to promise they would simply rubber stamp it. Sovereignty from the EU, not from their own people. The MPs are merely the servants of the public's will in the referendum, no more. And here is the great Brexit dichotomy, in a nutshell. Whether Brexit is detrimental or not, the people chose it. By arguing that MPs need to overrule the public, you are letting the great moggie out of the bag and saying the public are too stupid to make such a choice. When remainers say they respect the result of the referendum, do they mean it?