Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Will the Miller case come back and bite her on the nose.

She got her meaningful vote, if the EU wont accept that Parliament have rejected the current deal then a no deal must be the most likely event.

Does look that way but I think Miller was right to ask that parliament got involved, that's what they're there for. What did she have to lose anyway? We were leaving then and we're still leaving, just how?

Does May ignore the non-binding motion passed Tuesday that No Deal should not be allowed? I think she will ignore it.

Unless the EU move position I think May has run out of options on anything but a No Deal.

Should I start stockpiling.;)
 
No point retreading all this really. We are leaving and we have to accept that. Just responding to yet another anti Scottish post. That's why it was posted I'm sure, for a bite?:confused: People are allowed to disagree.

Dress it up all you like, every single voting area of our country within the UK voted remain, that is a unified position so surely you'd expect that to be respected, also we had one Tory MP at the time of the referendum, D Mundell so Tory views on Europe are not representative to us. I think it's not unreasonable to defend that view if we like. As I said earlier wont make a hoot of difference anyway.
When I voted I didnt consider I was voting for England, it was a UK vote where you and I are UK citizens and have one UK vote each. I find it sad that so many Scots keep suggesting their country voted to leave.
 
Does look that way but I think Miller was right to ask that parliament got involved, that's what they're there for. What did she have to lose anyway? We were leaving then and we're still leaving, just how?

Does May ignore the non-binding motion passed Tuesday that No Deal should not be allowed? I think she will ignore it.

Unless the EU move position I think May has run out of options on anything but a No Deal.

Should I start stockpiling.;)

The motion passed on Tuesday has no legal standing where as there is legislation in place for us to leave in March. The EU knew that the deal had to be ratified and they knew that the NI border issue was always going to be a major factor.

This really should have been resolved/understood right from the beginning. Continues to show the complete ineptitude of the UK negotiation team.
 
Does look that way but I think Miller was right to ask that parliament got involved, that's what they're there for. What did she have to lose anyway? We were leaving then and we're still leaving, just how?

Does May ignore the non-binding motion passed Tuesday that No Deal should not be allowed? I think she will ignore it.

Unless the EU move position I think May has run out of options on anything but a No Deal.

Should I start stockpiling.;)

I suspect (most of) labour will fall behind her deal and it will get through with some minor amendments. The price will be upsetting the ERG group and may well lead to her being replaced as PM. But I suspect she does not want under any circumstances her, or the Tory parties legacy, to be a no deal. As you can spin it as much as you want as the fault of the EU, but the opposition will be able to use it for years as a stick to beat the Tories with.
 
When I voted I didnt consider I was voting for England, it was a UK vote where you and I are UK citizens and have one UK vote each. I find it sad that so many Scots keep suggesting their country voted to leave.

But their country didn't vote to Leave. 62% of Scots voted Remain, not 100% of Scots.
 
Last edited:
The motion passed on Tuesday has no legal standing where as there is legislation in place for us to leave in March. The EU knew that the deal had to be ratified and they knew that the NI border issue was always going to be a major factor.

This really should have been resolved/understood right from the beginning. Continues to show the complete ineptitude of the UK negotiation team.

If we are going down that road then you could argue that the referendum was advisory. And to quote wikipedia about the referendum act 'The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government'. But hey ho. ;)
 
If we are going down that road then you could argue that the referendum was advisory. And to quote wikipedia about the referendum act 'The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government'. But hey ho. ;)
Invoking article 50 was legaly binding.
 
Will the Miller case come back and bite her on the nose.

She got her meaningful vote, if the EU wont accept that Parliament have rejected the current deal then a no deal must be the most likely event.
Miller's specific 'influence' ended when Parliament voted to trigger Article 50. Though the ruling also covers any other Law that Parliament has instigated - so Cabinet/the PM cannot simply overrule it (Parliament) using 'Royal Prerogative'!

Miller's case had/has nothing to do with whatever deal might (not) be negotiated, simply how a deal can be accepted! I'm certain that by triggering A50, Parliament has implicitly accepted the terms of Article 50 relating to what happens in the case of no deal being agreed.

Time you 'lost your grudge' against her and what she did. She's actually, imo, brought clarity to the limits of what a PM can do. Imagine if May was able to simply sign UK up to her (actually the EU's!) 'deal'!
 
...and Cameron had his fingers crossed behind his back when he "promised to implement what you decide!" :)

Just pointing out the, at times, use by both sides of semantics to make a point around what has or has not been promised and what is or is not legally binding or what can or can not be dismissed or indeed what is or is not democracy. When in reality a lot of it is on the eye of the beholder, depending on what viewpoint they have.
 
The motion passed on Tuesday has no legal standing where as there is legislation in place for us to leave in March. The EU knew that the deal had to be ratified and they knew that the NI border issue was always going to be a major factor.

This really should have been resolved/understood right from the beginning. Continues to show the complete ineptitude of the UK negotiation team.
I'm certain that the EU team recognised the importance of the NI border - both to them and to UK. The almost certainly used that as a 'negotiation strategy'. They have, however, made a proposal about how to handle the issue.

I'm not altogether certain that 'ineptitude' is really the correct term. They simply had little real ammunition - the (mutual) Trade issue had already been removed. I'm pretty certain the EU figured that economic 'damage' would be primarily to UK and would actually 'benefit' EU members - at least in the short term! German car manufacturers might disagree though!
 
Will the Miller case come back and bite her on the nose.

She got her meaningful vote, if the EU wont accept that Parliament have rejected the current deal then a no deal must be the most likely event.

I think she's been playing for it. How can she appear to be so calm at the despatch box? It's all in the plan (I think)
 
Becauuuuuuuuuse. It's either she thinks all will be ok and we will come out of this amazingly well OR she's hoping it will all go to hell in a handcart with in a month and we'll have to rejoin, which is what she has wanted all along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top