Well, that happened.
Why do I get the feeling this is going to be like Davis and the sector analysis motion and what the government produces is just going to be the summary again.
Maybe someone will be sent to the tower, then!
The House was very specific and clear. All legal advice.
It wasnt a suggestion, it was an order.
Dont get me wrong I believe Geoffrey Cox when he says in his opinion its not in the national interest. But he knew it was required to be given to the House and so did May. So if there are things in there that are embarrassing then he shouldn’t have bloody well written them.
Also May is not on trial here. This legal advice is for the country to make better decisions, not her defence. Parliament which represents the people needs to see it.
The proposer of the motion explicitly said he did not want all the legal advice. So, the house clearly was not specific and clear, as you and Keir Starmer disagree as to what the house wanted.
With regard to the “shouldn’t have bloody well written them” comment, are you seriously suggesting he should have prepared some last minute advice on the 14th(the day that cabinet met and the day after the HA was passed) that didn’t include advice previously given to ministers, said “This is the full and final advice which we will release to parliament wink wink”, and released that? That does sound worthy of contempt.
Almost all the advice would have already been written before the HA was passed, how was he supposed to know that it would be requested using a procedure used once since the 1800s?
Anytime you find yourself defending a sitting government withholding information from the elected representatives of the people, you’ve fucked up.
Some other good news.
Inching closer and closer to stopping Brexit and remaining in the EU. A long ways to go but this is a good day.
How does Brexit get stopped again? Are you assuming that if May’s deal goes down, Parlaiment (or May?) will stop Brexit rather than go with no deal?
That is my hope, not my analysis.
I am a single issue voter. I want my EU citizenship. I will take it anyway I can get it :)
Basically any doubt over Brexit is a good thing in my eyes.
Well, if any sane politician were presented with this choice in isolation: Choose between being ejected from the EU in three months with no valid trade deals with anyone in the world, or staying in the EU, I’m pretty confident they would choose the latter. Of course, this isn’t all happening in isolation, but it would surely be better if it were.
The only way for Brexit to get stopped is:
- House of commons asks for a second referendum
- The Government decides to comply (the government is perfectly entitled to ignore HoC on this, HoC’s only recourse would be a motion of no confidence), and asks the EU for an A50 extension.
- The EU27 unanimously grant an A50 extension.
- Parliament passes legislation amending the A50 notification act changing the exit date and legislates for a referendum
- The referendum says remain.
- The EU27 either unanimously agree to accept the withdrawal of A50 (in which case noone has the standing to challenge it) or the ECJ rules that it can be withdrawn.
Each of these steps on its own is very plausible, but there’s a lot of places that it can go wrong. In particular it’s not clear that there are even the votes in the commons for a second referendum, since Corbyn will amost certainly prefer to avoid it and very few tories can vote for it without being deselected by their local associations.
Obviously remaining is much better for the UK in general - The only problem would be what happens afterwards in UK politics - it would be the second time in 15 years that the governments concludes an agreement with the EU after a supermajority of the population voted for parties who promised to do something else at the previous election.
Is there actually a legal requirement for a second referendum? Couldn’t the HoC on their own vote to withdraw the Article 50 declaration? I’m not saying they will, just that the referendum itself was never legally binding on the government.
EU can’t stop the withdrawal.
Their own top judge ruled the UK can withdraw, I.e. stop the process, unilaterally.
Extending the negotiation period requires EU consent.
As I suggested earlier, we should stop the process, clarify what we want and what we are pissed off with (and preferably find our own solutions) and without the crazy pressures have now, return and negotiate our leaving, if we still want it.
You are correct in essence although not in detail.
Yes, parliament (not just the HoC) could pass legislation to cancel the A50 notification without a referendum(*). As with the referendum legislation this would (as I understand it) effectively require the consent of the government.
(*: It actually makes no difference if the referendum was legally binding or not - parliament’s sovereignty includes the right to change its mind).
The obstacle here is the act that initially enabled the A50 notification - it sets an exit date that cannot be changed without the cooperation of the government. That’s legislation, so it can’t be overridden except by further legislation.
If there’s a majority to revoke, there’s a majority to repeal.
Not a judge, and opined.
Did Hammond actually argue that, thought it’s true Brexit will harm the UK, it would be worse not to Brexit because the people who voted for it expect it?
That’s the argument we’ve heard over and over, the people have voted, it’s what they want, we can’t not give the people what they want.
It’s as if the other 48% didn’t exist, and that 100% won’t have to live with a ruined economy. It’s an abdication of responsibility, jus’ following orders…
I wonder how difficult it would be to convince the EU to let the UK back in, after say a year. Leave with the not-very-great deal currently on the table, but include a referendum requirement after a year…stay separate or go back to the EU. The people get to have their say again. But I suppose the EU would probably refuse to let the UK back in if that vote goes for the EU.
Oh, they’d allow it. But no rebates and no carveouts, and “by the way we’ve introduced all the financial regulations that you blocked” in the interim.