Mother Theresa Takes Control

[Steve B]

There will be  "No walk away" while she is running the show"

[Sir Tigger KC]

If the EU27 attempted to impose unacceptable conditions during agreed revocation negotiations, then we'd just have walk away, revoke unilaterally and take our chances in the ECJ (should the EU decide to contest it). I've no idea if the ECJ would determine Art50 is or is not revocable, but whatever they decide it would be unconditional and apply equally to all EU members from then on.

We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.

No.  If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament. It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I have spent much of this evening revisiting several episodes of The thick of it, which reminded me how the game of politics works, and how little us mere voters know about what is really going on inside the bubble.
For those who have seen the programme, my new nickname for Mother Theresa is Nichola Murray. 

[aaronjb]

Are you guys all still debating what will or won't happen? Yeesh..

Nothing any of us do or say is going to make any difference to the outcome, so just sit back, relax, and let it happen...

...I'm sure they'll use lube, at least.

[LC0112G]

We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.

No.  If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost

No such thing as "at any cost". There are some things that HMG simply won't give up.

and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament.

Other way around initially at least. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament has to vote to decide to hold another referendum - the Govt can't do it unilaterally. If Parliament agree to make the referendum binding (like the Scottish indy one) then no further input from Parliament required. If they don't make it binding, then yes back to Parliament (as per the Gina Miller case). 

It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

We're already there. It's about getting the least worst result now. If that's Hard Brexit then so-be-it. If it's Hard Brexit or take our (50/50) chance in the ECJ, then what is there to lose in the ECJ?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Are you guys all still debating what will or won't happen? Yeesh..

Nothing any of us do or say is going to make any difference to the outcome, so just sit back, relax, and let it happen...

...I'm sure they'll use lube, at least.

Which was not a luxury afforded to Jimmy during his time at boarding school.

[Sir Tigger KC]

We'd be no weaker than we would be anyway, because we can only get to the unilateral revocation/ECJ stage if No Deal Brexit is the only other option. If the ECJ decide Art50 cannot be revoked, then we end up with No Deal Brexit so no difference.

No.  If we get to the stage where we try to revoke A50, it will be to avoid No Deal at any cost

No such thing as "at any cost". There are some things that HMG simply won't give up.

Sadly I don't share your confidence Malcolm. 

and we'd probably have to arrive at this point via a 2nd referendum and a vote in Parliament.

Other way around initially at least. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament has to vote to decide to hold another referendum - the Govt can't do it unilaterally. If Parliament agree to make the referendum binding (like the Scottish indy one) then no further input from Parliament required. If they don't make it binding, then yes back to Parliament (as per the Gina Miller case). 

Yes you are right, but I still can't see it happening.   

It would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since 1066 and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

We're already there. It's about getting the least worst result now. If that's Hard Brexit then so-be-it. If it's Hard Brexit or take our (50/50) chance in the ECJ, then what is there to lose in the ECJ?

If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy.    

Personally, I would never bother voting again. 

[LC0112G]

If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy.    

Personally, I would never bother voting again. 

Even if it were after another referendum which produced a remain vote? Surely the electorate is allowed to change it's mind - you know democracy in practice

This is a decent overview of the Art50 revoking options. 2 professors of law argue each way, and quite surprisingly don't come up with 3 different opinions.

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/01/can-article-50-notice-of-withdrawal.html

[Sir Tigger KC]

If the government tried to abandon BREXIT, we'd lose any idea that the UK is a democracy.    

Personally, I would never bother voting again. 

Even if it were after another referendum which produced a remain vote? Surely the electorate is allowed to change it's mind - you know democracy in practice

I was having a similar conversation the other day with a Scottish friend who campaigns for IndyRef2 using a similar argument.  I said presumably he wouldn't have a problem if Unionists campaigned for IndyRef3 if IndyRef2 produced a vote for independence. Funnily enough he didn't seem so keen on democracy in practice in those circumstances. 

So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds?  After all that's democracy in practice right? 

Ah no, that would be silly!    Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! 

[Terbs]

And what is the 'right result' 

[Doctor Gollum]

No means no, kids

[Nick W]

And what is the 'right result' 

A worthwhile majority to a simple question with a clear and achievable plan behind it. The only part of the Brexit referendum that accomplished that was the simple question. And that's why the whole thing continues to be a monumental clusteropps.

[LC0112G]

So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds?  After all that's democracy in practice right? 

Ah no, that would be silly!    Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! 

It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.

I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.

[STEMO]

The only reason we got a referendum was to keep UKIP at bay. Cameron was shit scared of them and it was his cunning plan.
Where is he again? 

[Viral_Jim]

The only reason we got a referendum was to keep UKIP at bay. Cameron was shit scared of them and it was his cunning plan.
Where is he again? 

Presumably hanging out the front end of a luckless pig somewhere.