Brexit, aka, the UK Shoots Itself


Oh I think you are right. I would throw in the reminder that this is not a UK vs EU issue though. The UK is NOT united in anyway shape or form over leaving the EU.

Which frustrates me so much when May & Corbyn pretend it is.


This is almost entirely remainers’ fault. They (mostly) chose to vote for Corbyn’s party rather than a party lead by someone who would actually represent their views.


Lib Dems you mean? Yeah thats a fair point.


If every single remainer who voted for Labour had instead voted for the Lib-Dems, that would have made a difference in the outcome and put remainers in charge?

Narrator: No, it would not.


It would have made Vince Cable leader of the opposition, but of course you didn’t bother to read my post, because you never do.

Hell, if Labour party members (who overwhelmingly support remaining in the EU) had demanded a leader who was actually pro-European, that would have been enough to ensure a major party enthusiastically backing remain.


Of course I read your post. It was two sentences long and I quoted both of them. How would thing be actually different now had Labour remainers done what you suggest? It seems to me that May would still be in charge of a Tory government determined to drive off the cliff, and nothing Vince Cable or any putative pro-Europe Labour leader had to say about it would make any difference. It would still be the case that the government were ignoring the wishes of something close to half the population, and it would still be the case that the opposition could do nothing to stop them.


Not all labour voters are remainers. If every remain voter who voted for labour voted for the lib dems instead, it would certainly have increased the LD MP numbers, but moreover it would have taken the Tories to a fairly large majority thanks to the first-past-the-post system. And then we’d be in an even worse mess than we are now.

Anyway, not all remain voters have the same priorities. Sure, for many people it was the single most important issue at the last election; many others would prefer we remain but it wasn’t their one and only concern when it came to choosing a party to vote for. It’s not fair to define them entirely by their Brexit viewpoint and then use that to accuse them of voting for a party that doesn’t represent their views.

The real problem in labour in my view is the divergence in ideology between the parliamentary party and the core supporters. That is what has resulted in Corbyn gaining power; his opposition to Europe on ideological grounds (very different grounds from most Brexiteers’) is why the opposition to Brexit feels so ineffective.


By that token everyone should be ignoring the Brexiteers.

Yet they’re not.

So you’re wrong.


Oh I was assuming everyone here is pretty much ignoring the brexiteers economic projections, founded as they are on wishful thinking and pixie dust



I oscillate between deep concern and then not giving a f*ck.

Right now the latter! 😅


8 days until the vote.

Today, we have the next part in the ongoing legal row regarding ‘an humble address’, and maybe the government will be held in contempt of parliament (I doubt it will).


One step closer.


7 days until the vote. The government’s charm offensive continues, and isn’t at all overshadowed by a motion to discuss if the Government is in contempt of Parliament.


Another cat amongst the pigeons:

Though the headline is all wrong - opinion, not a ruling.



This is not a good thing - deliberative process privilege is a long standing common law principle after all. While the humble address has not been used in anger for a long time it is unquestionably one of the tools the house house to compel the production of papers, however because it hasn’t been used in so long the exact limitations on it are rather unclear. Legal advice is inherently particularly sensitive. Threatening to suspend an MP over it, though well within the traditional powers of the commons, sets a very worrying precedent in this context; as it politicises a quasi-judicial process.

If the paper that was released has been some 5 page whitewash (which is what I was kind of expecting) I would feel differently, but it’s a solid 41 page document containing several truths that are very uncomfortable to the government.

It’s important to remember that government legal advice is no more perfect and authoritative than any other legal advice - any other party is free to commission its own legal advice and publish it. Only the judiciary can make authoritative statements of legal interpretation.


I’m surprised the AG is so dismissive of the standing point, but there you go. The substance makes sense, but it’s not clear to me whether, as DAG suggests, he’s saying the Council could block revocation by finding a lack of good faith, or whether that would have to be the ECJ.


I suspect such clarity will only arise from an actual ruling. The AG’s comments are likely indicative of the direction of such a ruling, which is all I’d try to take from them.


Of course. The judges certainly seemed to be leaning toward unanimous rejection in the oral arguments. And I suppose DAG’s point is that obviously if the UK government were withdrawing in good faith it would challenge that decision at the ECJ. So ultimately it would be the ECJ, even if in principle the Council could reject on its own.