EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Cripes... (Just caught up with the voting)

Oof - Ayes have it.

Government in contempt.

Crikey... (Just caught up some more)

Now for the legal advice to be a bit like the Wizard of Oz.

Does anyone (Tory MP) go to jail,
or, some other way is prevented from voting on May's Withdrawal Agreement?

https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1070002844588277762

To see Geoffrey Cox actually having to resort to pantomime to make a living (rather than just playing that kind of role in the Commons) would be a good outcome

I'm not sure about the Grieve amendment... I wonder whether it might muddy the waters by switching discussions to other Brexit options, rather than keep a laser focus on a "people's vote".

(But I don't know that much about it)

The Peston thread on it was interesting (and convoluted)
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1069981350822899712

Because the advice will contain a section called "how we could break the terms of the withdrawal agreement" or something similar - and I imagine the government doesn't want the routes that they have mapped out for screwing the EU made public.

Really? I doubt that very much. Obviously, if you were right that would be a most interesting political development--and despite the odds it would certainly have chances of being politically damaging.

I'd be amazed if it didn't - how can any advice be complete if it doesn't address what happens if you break the agreement? It would be irresponsible of Cox not to have included a section on the implications of breaking the agreement.

Thanks. Interesting.

I'm not sure about the Grieve amendment... I wonder whether it might muddy the waters by switching discussions to other Brexit options, rather than keep a laser focus on a "people's vote".

That was my thought too, but I guess it depends whether the EU are prepared to offer anything else. If they stick to their guns that this is the only deal, then remain becomes the only other option.

If you want to email your MP (for what it's worth...) to let them know about the outcome of the Article 50 case then you can use this form...

https://goodlawproject.org/article-50-case/

Any lawyers in the House?

“I’m sorry, that’s a plea of mitigation and not a defence,” Starmer said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/mps-demand-for-brexit-legal-advice-too-vague-says-geoffrey-cox

But why would the Government want to prepare for a breaking of a transnational legal agreement? In the event of a Government with a different agenda coming to power?

Anyway, I've now concluded that May is using all this as a tactic to distract from the fact they're not publishing the full truth about UFOs.

Genuine question for the advocates of another referendum; why do you think that will resolve this issue?

It's the scenario in which no Brexit seems most likely. Admittedly, I haven't really tested the assumptions too keenly (I'm too scared!)

Would it not be much more straightforward for the government to withdraw article 50?

Because somehow parliament has decided to hide behind "the will of the people" to push their own agenda [a Remain mp cabinet implementing a non-binding referendum to leave, wtf?] and it seems facts and the national interest make no difference so the only way out I see is another referendum so they can't hide behind "the will of the people" again.

Which is a high risk strategy you could argue. And really not ideal, for many many reasons.

And hopefully not needed because, hopefully, 5 minutes before Brexit the train leaves decide that the national interest is more important, jump out of the Brexit express, and sit down and fix up the UK.

One can dream?

Yes, but with what justification?

Having given up on mainstream media, this thread is now my primary source of Brexit news.

Take a bow, LFGSSBNN

Quite simply, a decision this momentous needs more than a narrow win in a non-advisory referendum. That the winning side lied, broke electoral law and then fucked off when it came to actually negotiating our exit could be cited too.

There is no upside. The NHS will not receive £350 million more per week. We will all be poorer. We will be less sovereign and have less control over our laws and borders. The promised sunlit uplands are a fantasy.

But why would the Government want to prepare for a breaking of a transnational legal agreement? In the event of a Government with a different agenda coming to power?

Even if they did not it would be irresponsible for the legal advice to not outline what the implications would be.

You will have seen from Raab stating that in his view (as an International Lawyer I think is how he put it) the UK would not be able to unilaterally revoke the backstop that this is clearly something the cabinet had been considering, therefore for the legal advice not to have included exactly this would be surprising.

Also, it may be that May doesn't want the legal advice to state "we can't break this", as a number of leavers may currently think that the game here is to agree to everything and then renege once we're out on the 29th. To be confronted with that being fantasy would upset that particular apple-cart.

Err... I doubt My MP would listen to me - he's Dominic Raab.....