BREXIT: Why so personal?

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Teddy, I didn't intend my comment as an attack on you, and sorry if it read that way. I'm just observing that immoderate behaviour abounds all over the place with this debate. I've been left in tears with some of the things complete strangers have said to me about what I supposedly deserve to happen to me.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Alan, I can't see that Parliament will agree to trigger Art.50 without some detail of the general approach at least.

I appreciate what you're saying about negotiations, but given the stakes involved here and the fact that will involve removal of people's rights, we can't treat this like a sale negotiation. Based on hundreds of conversations with Leave-voters, I think there would be almost as much anger if the exit resulted in something virtually identical to the status quo than if it didn't take place at all.

In any event, the EU co-legislators have far more at stake with the remaining member states than they do with us. Juncker's hardline speeches have nothing to do with us - we're gone as far they are concerned - but are directed at the audience of rising nationalists/fascists in countries like Austria and France.

MPs may have been 4-1 against in June, but given we have thugs like the chap I spoke to this morning actually advocating violence if they don't get their way, the political landscape has changed. As you say, if they fail to take their electorate's views into account, I see a general election posthaste.

[Loz]

I think what TM is scared of is the timing issue. The plan was to trigger Article 50 in March, and so leave in March 2019. Now she has to go through parliament (that means the HoL as well) then that timetable may be delayed. But, we have to have a GE in May 2020, so any stalling will take it straight into the run up to that.

She almost certainly won't want the clash, as the country will be bitterly divided at that time. So that would mean delay triggering A50 until after the GE. But that sort of delay will be unacceptable to the Brexiteers. So, her only choice then would be to call a snap election. Which, with any luck, Brexit will be the main issue and cause fractures in both the Tories and Labour. How the Lib Dems do in the upcoming by-elections may be telling. Any party going in to a GE with a remain policy and winning would nullify the referendum.

So, the judges have well and truly taken a dump in TM's in-tray. But the decision seems pretty sound, so I suspect the appeal is just playing for time whilst Plan B is hastily formed.

[JohnL]

Still all depends on the economy IMHO.

If it begins to really hurt things will change

[jaywalker]

They are now backtracking fast over article 50.

It was agreed BY BOTH SIDES, as part of the government's defence in the High Court, that article 50 was irrevocable (once triggered no way back). But High Court said that entailed the equivalent of legislation as would change rights established under EU law. Hence court found against government.

Now they are putting it about that article 50 is NOT irrevocable so no rights are affected so no legislation necessary (oh joy of governmental duplicity) despite having argued the opposite assumption to the High Court.

So, they now hope, the Supreme Court will say its not irrevocable so there is no need for a vote.

Not sure how impressed the Supreme Court will be in an argument that contradicts the one put before the lower court - but who knows.

I see Truss has now made a statement in which she does not mention the issue that has outraged so many: the attack by the popular press and some members of parliament on a fundamental aspect of the constitution.

[teddyboy23]

Wondercat wrote I've been left in tears by comments from complete strangers about what they say I desevre to happen to me. Cat get those claws out don't think kitten think tigress

[JohnL]

It was stated as revocable by Donald Tusk and Lord Kerr (who wrote it)

Means if the economy trashes we can just give up on Brexit after 2 years.

It's May who said it wasn't

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Jay, I wondered if they'd try that stunt over the irrevocable point. The irony is however that the English Courts don't have jurisdiction to decide the point, so it will need to be referred to the ECJ.

John, Tusk and Kerr can say what they like but they don't have authority (and Tusk has a vested interest in this happening sooner rather than later as the last thing the EU wants is for this to drag on too).

Loz, good point about timing. I hadn't even thought about that. This really is a clusterf**k of epic proportions.

Teddy, thank you for making me smile!

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

On a positive note, this has made me decide to dust off my constitutional law and jurisprudence textbooks again. The evolution of the notion that law has its power because it came from a monarch anointed by God to this decision confirming the power resides in the representatives of the people is really fascinating.

[Alan Medic]

Why do the government have to appeal the decision? Any referendum is advisory not law. If TM doesn't want to delay matters then don't appeal. It's wasting time. I've a bad feeling this country is going to end up very divided.

[red devil]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...So, her only choice then would be to call a snap election.

Not as easy as it once was due to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

Two-thirds of the 650 MPs is needed to call a snap election, which equates to 434. Tories currently have 328, way short even when you add the DUP etc. I can't see Labour in it's current state voting for an election, the Tories would win hands down. If the Supreme Court upholds this week's decision I can see us being in one huge stalemate...

[DulwichFox]

Had the vote gone the other way.. Parliament would not be interfering..

All would of been deemed to be fair and all would of been deemed done and dusted.

DulwichFox

[JohnL]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...So, her only choice then would be to call a

> snap election.

>

> Not as easy as it once was due to the Fixed-Term

> Parliaments

Corbyns answer to the general election question

?Can we go outside?

We?re being harassed here.?

Ian Martin (the thick of it) called him Victor Meldrew

I think it's no - they won't talk about it

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Foxy, had the vote gone the other way, neither Parliament nor Government would have had to do anything, because no-one's rights would be changed.

Interesting that you characterise Parliament's actions as "interfering":

1. Parliament still hasn't done anything; this action was brought by private citizens.

2. Parliament is the representative of the people. If you want to get rid of them "interfering", then why not move to Belarus or some other dictatorship?

3. Parliament was always going to have to be involved with making this happen legally. The only issue here is whether when they are involved.

4. Have you actually read the judgment?

[Loz]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...So, her only choice then would be to call a

> snap election.

>

> Not as easy as it once was due to the Fixed-Term

> Parliaments

> Act...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Par

> liaments_Act_2011

> Two-thirds of the 650 MPs is needed to call a snap

> election, which equates to 434. Tories currently

> have 328, way short even when you add the DUP etc.

> I can't see Labour in it's current state voting

> for an election, the Tories would win hands down.

> If the Supreme Court upholds this week's decision

> I can see us being in one huge stalemate...

A simple vote of no confidence in the Government by the HoC would do as well. Of course, that means the Tories have to vote to have no confidence in themselves and Labour may vote to have confidence in the Tories, which would cause much amusement all round.

[JohnL]

But Labour voting confidence is just stupid even if they know they'll be hammered. It

would make them look like they have no confidence in their own party.

Corbyn would be known as the leader too scared to face the country.

No wonder he doesn't want to talk about it - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[red devil]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But Labour voting confidence is just stupid even

> if they know they'll be hammered. It

> would make them look like they have no confidence

> in their own party.

A lot of them don't with Corbyn as leader...

[Alan Medic]

Pure speculation, but what do people think will happen?

[rendelharris]

Purely speculatively, a national trainwreck which will make Suez look a triumph of careful planning and common sense. Whatever side one voted, it's obvious we're totally ill-prepared and have no real idea how we're going to get out of the EU with anything approaching a decent trade agreement - these things can take decades to negotiate, the conceit that we can knock one together between now and March is ludicrous - as is the idea that we'll now be free to negotiate hugely advantageous deals with non-EU nations. Someone the other day was pointing out that people say we'll be like Switzerland, negotiating deals on our own terms. What happened with Switzerland and China? China has said right, your market is worth $X to us, and out market is worth $XXXX to you. So, the agreement is we'll have free access to your market for fifteen years, at the end of which we'll reciprocate. Yes, we're bigger than Switzerland, but we're a lot smaller than China. It's going to be a mess.

[jaywalker]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pure speculation, but what do people think will

> happen?

Yes, this is fun. The trouble is that there are an infinity of potential bifurcations, so this is certainly wrong!

1. May is too frightened to hold a general election. Far too many signs of a Lib-Dem renaissance - she would lose as many seats as gain and her majority is already wafer thin. What would she do then if no majority? A coalition with the Lib-Dems?! :-).

2. The Supreme Court will not over-rule the High Court. They will say the irrevocable nature of article 50 must be assumed given government's own case in High Court that it is irrevocable (:-)). Attorney General is replaced. Government then appeals to Europe - but this will take months/years and make May a laughing-stock (she is too brittle to back down). They may try a 'vote without amendments' but I think that in turn would be challengeable in the High/Supreme court :-) as certainly the High Court said there had to be primary legislation (i.e. amendments must be allowed and then the process takes over a year).

3. The EU are confirmed in their existing belief that the UK government is not serious about Brexit (they may be wrong about desire or intention but it is by now obvious that this is the real politic). They offer no negotiations of any kind. May refuses to put article 50 to parliament saying that would reveal negotiating hand. So deadlock.

4. May becomes lame duck PM. Unable to trigger 50 and with only supply cannot enact any significant legislation until 2020 election. Labour party meanwhile becomes a more credible public voice: this is already happening with the hyper-competent Kier Starmer now in charge of most public policy discussion.

5. At General Election Lib-Dems win 90 seats. There are swathes of 'remainers' who will vote for them in good conscience (and me). UKIP will enjoy a minor resurgence (with Evans if they have any sense as on the le pen daughter model). But it won't be enough for significant seats (and no way Tories would join them in coalition), which with Labour's revival will leave the Lib Dems with a massive say in the new government. Probable split of the Tory Party as the swivel eyed ones depart to UKIP.

6. At which point we go for either the softest brexit imaginable or no brexit at all as Lib Dems will (rightly) say the GE over-rules the Referendum in the light of the continuing chaos caused by the latter (and this will be their manifesto commitment).

No doubt all a pipe-dream, and with Trump on the cards we may not be around to see it, but only now opening a bottle I promise.

[Seabag]

Silo mentality writ large, much like VW

[Otta]

I heard the American woman named Gina Miller on the radio today talking about the abuse she'd received from people thinking she was the Gina Miller that had brought the case. Some of it was unbelievable.

[WomblingFree]

Why so personal? Possibly because the issue is constantly framed as black and white. Both Brexit and remain cover a whole spectrum of opinions, but a lot of the nuance in the debate seems to get lost in the name-calling.

I think the internet has had an effect in encouraging the airing of more extreme views, but the papers have also been pretty divisive and maybe it?s inevitable given the referendum only had two options. I remember the Scottish were only given in or out options in their referendum, but the government ultimately offered a middle way (more devolution) to stop them leaving.

[Shaggy]

I don't think the back tracking over article 50's reversibility is sinister. I think it is actually because of the judgment. This is why:

I was at the hearings and the judgment. I think one of the most interesting exchanges occurred at the end of the first day (Thursday).

For most of the day David Pannick for the claimants had been pointing out, very simply, that parliament makes the laws, and if it had intended for the government to have had the power to trigger Article 50, that would have been put in the EU Referendum Act, which it wasn't. His case seemed absolutely watertight. Only an idiot could oppose it.

Then, Lord Thomas said (and I paraphrase a bit) "That is all very well, Lord Pannick, and I doubt anyone could disagree with you but for a huge assumption that you have been making FOR ALL OF TODAY."

Pannick looked rather worried for the first time. Thomas then explained that the claimants' case was ENTIRELY based on an assumption that Artice 50 could not be notified in a qualified way, and an assumption that Article 50, when triggered, could not be reversed. Thomas then, surprising explained that if it could not be reversed or qualified-triggered, his case was clearly a strong one, but if it could be reversed or triggered in a qualified manner "you have no case at all."

Pannick explained that he didn't think it was reversible. Thomas told him quite bluntly that he wasn't to interested in what Pannick "thought", he was more interested in what Pannick could successfully argue. He said he wanted proper arguments on that point when on the next day of the hearing, four days later on Monday.

On the Monday morning Thomas asked if that point had been addressed. The Government said that they had addressed it and they agreed that Article 50 could NOT be reversed or triggered in a qualified fashion. The Government asked the judges to allow them to continue on that basis. Pannick said he wasn't going to oppose that argument. Lord Thomas said "very well", as there wasn't much more he could say. And they continued, and the Government lost.

This shows quite a few things:

1} The judges went straight to the heart of the weakness in the case. They did not give the claimants an easy ride, and they handed the Government a nuclear trigger that could destroy the claimants case. So biased my harris.

2) David Pannick, the country's finest public lawyer, hadn't even entertained the thought that Article 50 was reversible (or had gambled the judges wouldn't ). The look on his face when the judges pointed to the hole in his case was priceless.

3)The government didn't even think it was a point worth arguing. Maybe because it isn't worth arguing, or maybe to keep their powder dry.

One interesting point, though, is that if it does turn out that Article 50 is reveresable, then the courts will quash Thursday's ruling. That wouldn't be a bad thing at all, because that would allow the government to negotiate whichever bloody Brexit they want, be it full fat "close the borders and weave baskets" or Brexit lite "full open borders, full trade access, no voice in the meetings." Then, we could even have another refendum in which we are asked to agree the deal, or go back to the status quo.

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They are now backtracking fast over article 50.

>

> It was agreed BY BOTH SIDES, as part of the

> government's defence in the High Court, that

> article 50 was irrevocable (once triggered no way

> back). But High Court said that entailed the

> equivalent of legislation as would change rights

> established under EU law. Hence court found

> against government.

>

> Now they are putting it about that article 50 is

> NOT irrevocable so no rights are affected so no

> legislation necessary (oh joy of governmental

> duplicity) despite having argued the opposite

> assumption to the High Court.

>

> So, they now hope, the Supreme Court will say its

> not irrevocable so there is no need for a vote.

>

> Not sure how impressed the Supreme Court will be

> in an argument that contradicts the one put before

> the lower court - but who knows.

>

> I see Truss has now made a statement in which she

> does not mention the issue that has outraged so

> many: the attack by the popular press and some

> members of parliament on a fundamental aspect of

> the constitution.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I wasn't in attendance in person, but my colleague was, and disagreed strongly with your characterisation of the apparent demeanour of Pannick.

I agree that the SoS's position isn't necessarily sinister, but it also shows how many assumptions the government made about the legal position that they thought they could win even with giving it away as common ground. I think the government knew it would be poltically embarrassed by needing to refer to the ECJ as well.