Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders. Boris and co learn the basics - and limits - of British sovereignty and democracy.

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 16:42

There is a plan.

It is not a very good one, but May says she has a plan.

As May declared a revolution and set out her vision for a Britain ‘open’ for free trade and hard working people she managed to further drive in the wedge of division into a society which needed measured and sensitive handling.

Her speech was met, with much derision and horror both here and abroad. Even UKIP voices say the Conservatives went too far.

Brexit began to take shape. It appeared hard and fast. Without the consent of parliament. It was to be run by the executive alone. As the ex-Polish Foreign Minister points out, the shape of it decided because it was viewed as the ‘easiest’ option. Not the one in the best interests of the country. Leaving the EU has become indistinguishable to the Single Market. We are told by Mr Davis that there is no down side to this.

Then something else began to happen and the plan is beginning to not look so clever…

The pound plunged.

Mr Hammond, who has seemed to have resisted the urge to take the hallucinatory drugs being handed out in vast quantities around the Cabinet Table, came out saying that we must consider the economic reality of Brexit.

It was followed by a leaked paper that put the cost of Hard Brexit at between £38bn and £66bn a year. Our EU membership cost £8bn last year. Where are those NHS buses now?

The government response? Oh that was George. He just made it up for ‘Project Fear’. Or something to that effect.

The government on the one hand were saying how great Brexit will be, yet were not prepared to make the case in parliament. The Times editorial came out as categorically for the Single Market. Even the Sun on Sunday editorial spoke up for the Single Market (though was still in the land of cake wanting immigration control too).

David Davis took to the Commons to answer questions and was met with a chorus of rising alarm. Whilst he confirmed that the majority of EU citizens here do have their right to remain here as being their legal entitlement, it does not guarantee their rights under this. He echoed the language of the citizen of nowhere in May’s speech and, perhaps can be seen to make, the stark message that you should consider taking on British Citizenship.

Parliament has started to wake up to what is at stake. It is not just whether we stay in the EU or not, but Brexit presents a challenge to democratic processes and threatens to bypass the checks and balances to power that parliament is supposed to provide. It is a threat to our international reputation as a champion of liberal values and democratic stature. It is a threat to our economic security. It is a threat to our diplomatic relations, with the reckless comments and language coming from some. .

The stirrings of rebellion and a credible opposition come from a variety of quarters. From both leavers and remainers alike. From every party including the governments. Initially the government refused to give, so Labour announced an opposition debate on transparency of Brexit and it all started to fall apart. Faced with a vote they could not get enough support to win they made an apparent U-Turn and agreed to parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s position ahead of a50 within certain limits.

Keir Starmer, making the point that Human Rights Lawyers are not to be messed with, has written 170 questions, one for every day before the end of March when a50 is due to be triggered, for Davis to respond to.

However, the agreement to this debate on negotiations is none binding and there is no date for it as yet. The government must not be allowed to pay lip service to rebels. They must be held to this reversal.

Today’s opposition debate seems to suggest that the government definition of scrutiny is wheeling out David Davies and get him to waffle a lot and not say anything. This has gone down like a lead balloon. The government can not maintain this. Something will give. He has still refused to release a green or white paper which many expected.

May’s choice will be blunt. She either keeps pretending Santa is real and can deliver the pony whilst losing the house in the process or she owns up to the looming cold hard truth of reality.

May might be fully committed to taking us off the cliff top no matter what but she’s going to have to fight to get there.

In the best interests of the country the pressure must be kept up. There must be resistance to the ‘Little England’ mentality and orders by the Mail and the Express to silence those unpatriotic ‘agents of Brussels’ who are raising legitimate concerns that need to be considered as part of the process.

Its either this or we will have to rely on the proposed new Royal Yacht to send Kate off round the world begging for trade deals “to once again project the prestige of this nation across the globe” as Mr Gove says. Prestige we still had before the referendum was announced.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 11:56

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
1. Article 50 case resumes at 10.30am with further submissions from James Eadie QC. I'll be live tweeting til it finishes, probably at 1pm.
2. Whatever your view as to which way the court will jump, it's clear the media and Government underestimated the strength of the claim.
3. But the most striking thing - even to a lawyer - to emerge from the hearing has nothing to do with the outcome.
4. Even as elements in our Executive are gripped by a kind of madness; even as Parliamentary democracy ceases to function for want of an Opposition, we can rely on our courts to act as bulwark, safeguarding our democracy. May their levees never break.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3845940/NICK-BOLES-Remain-voters-like-MiliClegg-s-attempt-block-Brexit-utterly-nauseating.html
NICK BOLES: Why even Remain voters like me find MiliClegg's attempt to block Brexit so utterly nauseating

I read this and couldn't help but wonder who is he trying to convince? Readers, or - in the style of Johnson's case for Remain article - himself?

Stewart Jackson MP ‏@Stewart4Pboro
Had enough of liberal smugness, Remoaner whining & rampant Europhilia @TheEconomist & cancelled my subscription. UK patriots shd do similar

MP for Peterborough and Parliamentary Private Secretary to David Davis

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/18/brexiters-debate-scared-plan-britains-future?CMP=twt_gu
Why are Brexiters trying to shut down debate? Because they’re scared

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-coburn-hints-at-ukip-leadership-bid_uk_5805e5c3e4b07ebc072b3458?6g7am7vi&
David Coburn Hints At Ukip Leadership Bid With ‘Cutlass’ To Theresa May’s Back

About those questions? Well here are those Davis will get on Thursday morning. Some are good, some are just to fill time and help Davis, some are repeats:

  1. Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet): What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial services and negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  2. Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr): What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the economy in Wales of the UK leaving the EU.
  3. Nigel Mills (Amber Valley): What progress his Department has made in engaging with businesses on the potential effect on their revenues of the UK leaving the EU.
  4. Wayne David (Caerphilly): What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on EU regional funding as part of his preparations for negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  5. Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock): What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
  6. John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire): If he will devolve control over immigration to the Scottish Government as part of his negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  7. Wes Streeting (Ilford North): What discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on protecting London's interests during negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  8. Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton): What progress he is making on negotiating the UK exit from the EU.
  9. Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down): If he will take steps during negotiations on the UK leaving the EU to ensure continued access to the EU Single Market for goods, people and services.
  10. Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton): What plans he has for the UK to retain EU environmental regulations after it leaves the EU.
  11. Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon): What progress his Department has made in engaging with the financial services sector on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.
  12. Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge): What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on employment and workers' rights deriving from EU legislation and rulings of the European Court of Justice being given domestic effect upon the UK leaving the EU.
  13. Mike Wood (Dudley South): What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
  14. Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham): Whether it is the Government's policy to restrict the movement of people from other EU countries into the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
  15. Peter Grant (Glenrothes): Whether it is his policy to allow EU nationals living in the UK to remain after the UK leaves the EU.
  16. Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire): What progress his Department has made on engaging with the tourism industry on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.
  17. Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East): Whether he has met with representatives of Scotland's universities to discuss the implications of the UK leaving the EU.
  18. Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West): Whether it is his policy for the UK to retain membership of the EU Single Market.
  19. David T. C. Davies (Monmouth): What the timetable is for the UK triggering Article 50.
  20. Bob Blackman (Harrow East): What discussions he has had with representatives of local government in England on the place of funding of community projects in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU
  21. Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire): What steps he is taking to ensure that the Government engages with the international business community during negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  22. Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire): What steps he plans to take to ensure that Parliament is engaged with the process of negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  23. Stuart Andrew (Pudsey): What discussions he has had with businesses and workers on incorporating EU law into UK law when the UK leaves the EU.
  24. Owen Thompson (Midlothian): If he will devolve control over immigration to the Scottish Government as part of his negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
  25. Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire): What recent representations he has received from the farming sector on the UK's policy in its negotiations on the UK leaving the EU. T1) Stuart Andrew (Pudsey): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. T2) James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton):
    T3) Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West):
    T4) Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn):
    T5) Karl McCartney (Lincoln):
    T6) Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park):
    T7) Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty):
    T8) Scott Mann (North Cornwall):
    T9) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham):
    T10) Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke):

I am not expecting to hear anything we've not heard already, especially since
Ciaran Jenkins ‏@C4Ciaran
Emerging from High Court: govt plan parliament vote AFTER Brexit deal negotiated, which may be too late to make any changes.

I wonder if this will influence various things... I am not surprised to here this at all. How long do you think the government can hold out on this strategy regardless of the a50 case? 2 and a half years is a very long time in politics. Especially when people are feeling the pinch.

Heathrow decision was due on Thursday
James Gurling ‏@JGurling
Govt delays decision on Heathrow. Witney by-election is on Thursday. Just saying.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/3-ways-scotland-could-block-hard-brexit
The 3 ways Scotland could block hard Brexit

www.ft.com/content/5cbe8d1e-9453-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582
Scotland seeks a place between the UK and EU
The compromise sought by Nicola Sturgeon could influence others

www.ft.com/content/4155cd6c-9485-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b
US business group warns Brexit threatens $590bn in investment
Chamber of Commerce says Brexiters’ claims on EU exit costs are ‘nonsense’

translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Fbrexit-debatte-uncool-britannia-1.3200232&edit-text=&act=url
Britain turns into UKIP Country

German article in Suddeutsche Zeitung

The mood in the United Kingdom has for the vote for the Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union changed. It is no exaggeration to say that this is no longer the same country. Great Britain always stood for worldliness. It was the country whose population was distinguished by a unique mixture of decency and insanity, madness and commitment, pride and stoicism. You just had to love it. In those days, however, Great Britain now appears to be like the land of the little mind, in which it is almost a good thing to express at least mockingly at foreigners.

Of course not all Britons have become xenophobic overnight. Of course, the character of a nation, if there is such a thing, has changed from one day to the next. But there is a tone like never before. It is as if in the referendum not 52 per cent of the British voted for EU resignation, but 99 per cent. The government has decided that this vote means, above all, that the number of foreigners must decrease, and it leaves no opportunity to stress that.

The Lords are currently holding a EU Justice Sub-Committee session hearing evidence from HE Dan Mihalache, Ambassador of Romania, Romanian Embassy HE Arkady Rzegocki, Ambassador of the Republic of Poland, Polish Embassy on the subject of Acquired Rights. I'll keep an eye out for a transcript as I think the subject is potentially relevant to a few people here.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-white-blue-collar-supporters
I Spent 5 Years With Some of Trump's Biggest Fans. Here's What They Won't Tell You

This is a long read. Its about the US, but its just as relevant to the UK I think.

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB
William Hill report that 71% of all money bet in White House Race has been on Clinton - but 65% of individual bets are on Trump
Exactly the same pattern as Brexit - though since betting is illegal in the US this probably reflects British thinking rather than US thinking (and does not take into account the electoral college system) but its kind of worrying none the less.

On going a50 case. To the defence from Lord Chief Justice.
Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
LCJ: I'm slightly baffled.These rights are derived from Treaty. I don't understand why content of these rights not controlled by Parliament?

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
"Baffled".

From a judge, lethal.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
Sales asks the killer question: what about foreign citizens in the UK? They have rights against the UK Gov under ECA?
Schona Jolly ‏@WomaninHavana
Coppel asserts "nothing is lost" by withdrawal because these rights are against foreign governments.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
LCJ: how does British citizen acquire right of free movement? Coppel: as a result of the international obligations we've entered into.
LCJ: and his right to EU citizenship comes from the Treaty? Coppel: yes. LCJ: OK.

Get crossing those fingers. Key questions just asked. Did the government give a good enough reply?

OP posts:
CeciledeVolanges · 18/10/2016 12:05

Re the LCJ. Not good.
Re arrogance and blowing my own trumpet: A few thoughts -
resipsaloquitursite.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/a-few-thoughts/

maizieD · 18/10/2016 12:11

Can anyone on here help me with this question or is it just a feeble straw to clutch at?

Brexiteers are making great play on the statement made in the government issued leaflet "The gpvernment will implement what you decide"

  1. Is this a legally binding statement? (I appreciate that it's probably a morally binding one)

  2. The people in government who made that statement promptly turned tail and ran when the vote went against them. Is the government we have now recognised as being the same government as that cited in the statement? If it is, then my question is answered, but if it isn't, is it bound by the statement?

If there had been a general election, which would clearly have led to the formation of a 'new' government would they have to be bound by its predecessor's statement? We didn't, of course, but the government now in place is clearly not, personnel wise, the government which made that statement. And we know that 'governments' are entirely free to overturn actions of its predecessors.

Remainers, do feel free to tell me it's a silly question Grin It just set me thinking, that's all.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 12:13

Red have you read Rachel Sylvester's column in the Times today? She references HyperNormalisation like you did yesterday - likens current situation as a hall of mirrors where everyone is asking to reflect back to people what they want to see/hear about Brexit

Yes it mentioned that in the program - it didn't say echo chambers outright but it said that humans like this and the technology was made to support this so you never see anything outside what you want to here.

Today's Sun Editorial is not good:
A Risky Game
"What's the plan? There is no plan! The Leavers don't know what they're doing" shriek the Remainers, with all the maturity of grounded teenagers.

So let us ask this of Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and their Brexit-denying chums: What's your plan?

What do you imagine happens if you thwart the biggest ballot box mandate in British history. Two ex-party leaders, personally rejected by voters, denying the majority's democratic will.

It leads not to quiet acquiescence by a public which finally "comes to its senses". It leads to violent, ugly extremism and politicians to match.

It is the diehard Europhile MPS on all sides who have no idea what they are doing or how dangerous it could prove.

The underlining message:
In short: "Keep asking annoying questions about how we're going to get out of this mess and things will get nasty."

We have a trial about the murder of an MP to get through as it is.

Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
Pannick: Rights acquired under 1972 Act are destroyed. Direct causal link between notification & removal of statutory rights.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
Heart of the case.
If court accepts this, then Article 50 cannot be done by prerogative. Needs an Act of Parliament.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
Never underestimate the legal potency of the Royal Prerogative. Case finely balanced.
But Pannick could not have put legal challenge better.

Important:
Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
Pannick: also destroyed is Mrs miller's right to ask the UK court to make a reference - given under s.3 ECA. Important constitutional right.

The right to use the courts to challenge the government's position on a50 is a right enshrined in EU law which we would loose. This means our democratic freedoms would be restricted and it would be easier for the government to silence voices it didn't like by removing an avenue within which to challenge the government.

This is really scary stuff.

OP posts:
tiggytape · 18/10/2016 12:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SapphireStrange · 18/10/2016 12:29

There is that piece of paper (I can't find a link to it now) that says there would be an in/out referendum, the government would work out a deal with the EU, and then the terms of this deal would be taken back to the country to vote on.

No one seems to be talking about that any more, but it may be more politically binding than the more well-known statement.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 12:37

Siobhan Fenton ‏@SiobhanFenton
Pannick refutes govt lawyers' suggestion that parliament will get to shape negotiations after Article 50 is triggered...

We all know this is the case and what the government are hoping so can force a deal of their choosing through.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
MR: Coppel says range of rights granted is very small. Do you agree they're not granted by ECA?
Pannick: rights to vote arise under treaty and under 2002 act. But it suffices for me if the right arises under some act of Parliament.
MR: you might also say that Treaty rights can be taken to the CJEU?Pannick: this is an important right of access to a constitutional court.
Pannick: Parl by section 2(1) has recognised the whole panoply of EU law rights including EU citizenship. Valuable rights recognised by Parl
Pannick: suppose we notify, no agreement, no extension, 2010 across doesn't apply. Only to minister to secure removal of all rights without going back to Parliament. That has to be his case. That's extraordinary as a matter of constitutional principle.
Pannick: we are out, we leave the EU. On Gov case as a matter of constitutional principle it is open to Gov to secure that result.
Sales: failure to reach an agreement may be a matter of EU position or it may be a matter of our negotiating position? Pannick: yes.
Pannick: enormity of contention - that these rights can go without need for Parl intervention - should cause court to doubt Gov's position
Pannick: as PR can't be used to create domestic law rights and obligations so they can't be used to defeat them either.
Pannick: that's what Lord Oliver was saying in the Tin Council case.

Westministenders. Boris and co learn the basics - and limits - of British sovereignty and democracy.
OP posts:
tiggytape · 18/10/2016 12:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 12:47

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
Looking over at Gov benches, Coppel is doing 'stage' nose-wrinkling. AG looks a bit down in the dumps. Eadie has fled to pastures new.

Schona Jolly ‏@WomaninHavana
Govt claim (RP may be used on international plane even to destroy rights unless Parlmt has stated RP is removed) is 180degs wrong way round.

Now crossing toes...

OP posts:
maizieD · 18/10/2016 12:59

Thank you tiggytape

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 13:10

www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2
Can an Article 50 notification be revoked?

David Allen Green article

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/newspapers-digital-first-214363
Interesting article about how newspapers are not converting to online readership as you might expect (obviously important to democracy). This is US focused but principle still stands. Interesting to see that the New European is finding a market and proving successful where other attempts to launch a new newspaper have failed - because they publish unique content and not clickbait.

Witney betting odds:
Winning Majority
Cons over 5000: 8/11
Cons 1000 - 5000: 5/4
Dead Heat: 1000/1
Lib Dems - 1000 - 5000: 12/1
Lib Dems - over 5000: 50/1

The current majority is 25000 so either way, the result looks like it will be good for the Lib Dems regardless of whether they win or loose.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/18/philip-hammond-isnt-guilty-of-thoughtcrime-on-the-single-market/
Theresa May needs to make clear that Remainers aren't traitors – and that Philip Hammond is just doing his job
The suggestion from Iain Duncan Smith that Mr Hammond should shut up or ship out is intellectually alarming. Do IDS and friends really want a Cabinet devoid of debate, ministers all adhering to a single orthodoxy on pain of being fired?That's a recipe for stupid, narrow government that makes mistakes and fails to reach out to those beyond its core supporters – something I'm sure Mr Duncan Smith would never want to bring about.

It also borders on the irresponsible at a time when markets and business are damagingly uncertain about the path the government will take through the next decade.I'm no expert, but I reckon the prospect of a finance minister being forced from office for the apparent thought-crime of advocating the single market would take at least three cents off the pound in a matter of minutes, not to mention the chilling effect on potentialinvestment.I always thought these were things that the Conservative Party cared about, but perhaps Brexit has changed even more than I realised.

This in the Torygraph...

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 13:25

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/18/heathrow-or-gatwick-airport-expansion-to-be-decided-next-week?CMP=twt_gu
Heathrow expansion: ministers free to object to pending decision

Theresa May will allow ministers to express their opposition to airport expansion for a period of time after the decision is made next week, in the strongest signal yet that the government is preparing to back Heathrow’s bid to build a third runway.

The prime minister told colleagues at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday that opponents of whatever decision was made would have a “set period” to speak frankly about their opposition.

Downing Street would not confirm whether that meant ministers would have a free vote in parliament to oppose the decision.

Trying to head off a rebellion....

OP posts:
CeciledeVolanges · 18/10/2016 13:31

Red having spent many happy hours with the claimant's skeleton argument I can say you have surmised correctly :)

SapphireStrange · 18/10/2016 13:33

tiggy, yes, I know about the government booklet. I was talking about ANOTHER piece of writing, which seems to have disappeared; at least no one is discussing it any more.

It is frustrating that I can't track it down now!

CeciledeVolanges · 18/10/2016 13:36

Also Red, in terms of there having been no question about implementing the result of the referendum in the run up to it, isn't that because everyone, including the Leavers, was planning and counting on a vote to remain? The government had no clue about the potential ramifications of a vote to leave, let alone a plan to deal with them. As you've said, I think!

Motheroffourdragons · 18/10/2016 13:37

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

tiggytape · 18/10/2016 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CeciledeVolanges · 18/10/2016 13:47

I've just noticed something about that wording. It says nothing about what the referendum would be on. It doesn't prescribe an in/out referendum. It could have been "is this renegotiation OK or will we go back to the status quo?"
I had to read that renegotiation settlement at work and I was shocked and appalled and ashamed to be a citizen of this country even then.

SapphireStrange · 18/10/2016 14:04

tiggy, maybe but it definitely specified taking the deal back to the electorate.

lalalonglegs · 18/10/2016 14:08

Blimey, smallfox, that puts rather a different complexion on things.

Can we roll things back a bit re the A50 challenge: what is happening regarding the UK's right to revoke A50 once triggered? I had the impression that this was a central tenet of the debate - whether A50 was reversible or not - so is that to be decided separately or have the judges agreed that it can not be reversed once invoked or will it be part of their judgment? Or was that what Jolyon Maughan was referring to when he tweeted: "But the most striking thing - even to a lawyer - to emerge from the hearing has nothing to do with the outcome"? Confused

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2016 14:48

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
(The AG has not stuck around to hear the rest. Eadie left earlier. Government benches now quite empty save for Jason Coppel Qc).

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
There must be a good reason, but odd that two of HMG's QCs have left the court. Especially the @attorneygeneral.
It is not as if the @attorneygeneral would have another hearing to go to.
Perhaps he is present by videolink.
Have asked @attorneygeneral press office for statement. Remarkable for him to leave court whilst Pannick dealing with AG's own submissions.

Mathew Gullick @mathewgullick
@JolyonMaugham The LCJ specifically excused both the AG and Eadie from having to stay at the end of Eadie's submissions though.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
Still odd for the @attorneygeneral not to remain, even if excused. Pannick was dealing with the AG's points.

Smallfox and lalalonglegs I'm not sure how that is an exclusive for the Independent. That report was submitted as evidence for the claimant for the a50 challenge last week! The document is policy - not legally binding - so although compelling, its perhaps is not the golden bullet it at first appears for the a50 case. However it does add wait to the political pressure for Davis to give a proper response to legitmate questions rather than more phobing off.

Can we roll things back a bit re the A50 challenge: what is happening regarding the UK's right to revoke A50 once triggered? I had the impression that this was a central tenet of the debate - whether A50 was reversible or not - so is that to be decided separately or have the judges agreed that it can not be reversed once invoked or will it be part of their judgment? Or was that what Jolyon Maughan was referring to when he tweeted: "But the most striking thing - even to a lawyer - to emerge from the hearing has nothing to do with the outcome"?

lalalonglegs, David Allen Green's most recent article explains this well:
www.ft.com/content/946c95fc-34bb-31f6-855f-ea21d58249c2
Can an Article 50 notification be revoked?

A court could look at the provision as a whole and decide that the process set out makes no sense if there can be casual starts and stops. The two-year deadline would have no meaning if the clock could keep being reset to zero. If the intention of the drafters was to have a flexible approach to notification then it would not have been so firm on the two-year expiry and be silent on revocation. Accordingly, adopting this narrow approach, the provision was intended to concentrate minds and there is no scope for revocation.

This view has been adopted by both sides in the current litigation before the High Court in London. The claimants, who are seeking a ruling that parliament has to decide on Article 50 or authorise the notification, have every interest in the decision being treated as irrevocable. Their strongest legal arguments (in my view) are about the rights that will be extinguished as a natural and direct consequence of the notification. But if it can be revoked, then the arguments fall away. The government, too, has a political interest in maintaining that notification is irrevocable, otherwise Brexit may not mean Brexit.

This shared position means the courts may not need to determine the question of revocation, as it is not in contention between the parties.

As it stands, there is no legal benefit to claiming that a50 can be revoked from either those challenging it nor the government. Therefore its not being questioned. In fact it is better for both parties to work from a position that it can not be revoked.

This position may not stay the same though.

If the courts rule in favour of the government and say that a50 can be triggered by RP, then it may well be that the legal position of whether it can be revoked or not, will be pursued by someone in the European Courts (as this falls under EU jurisdiction). Of course this could be highly unpopular.

This could come from opponents of Brexit. It could also come from the government itself, if it became clear that the 2year period was about to end and the deal on the table was so unbelievable awful that it simply would be crazy to proceed.

Tusk, has indicated that he believes it to be possible and legal. The way it was worded, does make it look like he has looked into the matter.

The point is here, that even if article 50 is triggered this is not necessarily the end - but it would need something dramatic to happen to enable it to be reversed. This is however, not beyond the realms of possibility either.

Put simply, there is a long way to go for this yet. The government still has lots of hurdles to jump over.

OP posts:
Motheroffourdragons · 18/10/2016 15:10

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

TheNorthRemembers · 18/10/2016 15:10

Some light relief with thanks for all the useful linkstuff and thoughts.

Westministenders. Boris and co learn the basics - and limits - of British sovereignty and democracy.
TheNorthRemembers · 18/10/2016 15:11

It is along from the Torygraph.

Swipe left for the next trending thread