'The Brexit Arms' is now open. Friendly cosy pub with log fire for leavers & remainers to chat & ponder life, the universe, & Brexit.

[surferjet]

You are all most welcome

So not smallfox.

Guardian.

Surely those who should be cheering today’s high court judgment the loudest are the people who have been the most passionate defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So rejoice, Daniel Hannan: the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Put out the bunting, Michael Gove: your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval. Let all those who spent the spring trumpeting the glory of England, hailing it as the mother of parliaments, can now celebrate their victory.

Except, of course, they won’t. Those who campaigned for leave in the name of wrestling power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50? Suddenly they found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central, that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

We'll know soon enough if csc78 is smallfox, dear old small could never last long without mentioning her wealth, success, and intellectual superiority!

But it's the 'if' in your last sentence that worries me, do you think not leaving is now a possibility?

Honest answer.

It has been an 'if' since referendum day merely because the result is not legally binding but only politically binding.

There are practical reasons why it might not happen and they have always been there. That's not changed because of this ruling. I'm not sure that the chances of leaving or not leaving have changed as a result of the ruling either.

It a reflection of four things: the narrowness of the result, the demographic of who voted for the winning result, the very complex nature of leaving and the economics of leaving.

These are realities that are unavoidable. Part of it is about the political will to leave but part of it is also about our ability or capacity to leave. (By that, on our terms and not because of something the EU does or does not do). These are different things; so far we do have the political will, but we are yet to develop the capacity to (call it The Plan if you want to simplify it).

Until there is a firm plan which the public and parliament are party to, then yes, it is still definitely an 'if' about whether we leave.

How you go about Brexit was and still is about the need to build a consensus for both will and capacity. May's approach so far, has not been helpful to that in any way. Its just polarised opinion and raised other fears about what Brexit will bring and has actually alienated Europe even further.

This is why I say, I don't necessarily think the ruling today means that Brexit is less likely. Why? Because it might mean that the political direction now is forced to build that much needed consensus.

Realising this and working with Remainers is more likely to ensure Brexit will happen, though this might sound counter to what you think. Forcing the issue will only make people more afraid and get them digging their heels in.

Brexit has to be a compromise for all, not something imposed, for it to work and for it to be viable.

Leavers can not simply go "we won! lets brexit now!" because that's not the reality of the system. The system is like that for good reason, even if its damned frustrating for all of us at times (and is undeniably flawed and in much need of reform).

FWIW I think it will happen. DH does not.

I know others share his opinion.

I'm a leave voter and I have no problem with this A50 will have to be triggered at some point lets get it right and do it via parliament that's what I thought I was voting for anyway. I would prefer 'hard' Brexit but as long as we leave the EU I don't really care on what terms. Those terms will be constantly renegotiated in years to come this is all just baby steps. It's taken forty years for the EU to grow into the wasteful vile behemoth it's become I expect it to take ten years or more to shake it off. I would rather we, the UK, had conducted ourselves better as that would be better for our economy, certainty always is, but I've stopped expecting it. Both sides of this 'event' have lied fought obfuscated and tried to prevent the other side 'winning' and the end result is we have all lost.

Cross posted with Red there

YY to the 'tard' obsession.

I fucking hate that.

But if it was smallfox it would have had looooooooooooooong posts of boring accompanying it.

Ergo: Cxc78 is not smallfox.

If I was TM I wouldn't appeal. I would announce that I was delaying triggering A50 till after the GE. I'd string GE out as long as possible, garnering support by making my manifesto stuffed full of promises, including a promise to trigger A50 the next day after she won the election, and whatever Scotland wants to ensure the Tory vote.

bored that's an odd post from a Leaver.

If there had been a proper plan in place then a lot more people might have opted for it.

Are you honestly saying you want us to stay in limbo until 2020?

I think the EU would have something to say about that too.

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB
Article 50 judgement not a rejection of BREXIT but of Theresa May's strategy for dealing with it. She is today's big loser

I think this tweet is a very good summary of what has happened today really.

Bear. If we are coming out 'properly' then why not 2020? And it's UKs decision, not EU's...unless that's going to be referred too?

Because it's too long a period of uncertainty- we'd be back at square 1.

The GE would be fought over Brexit and the vote could go either way again and in the meantime businesses, the economy and people in general would have endure long term uncertainty.

Bored, I am of the opinion that we should be making the decision on timing.

What May did when she said March 2017 for a50 was actually to bow to both Hard Leavers who wanted it as soon as possible (they are scared that the longer it takes the less likely it is to happen) AND to the hard line of the EU who want us out as soon as possible for their own interests AND to German / French politicians who have elections next year and don't want the subject still hanging in the air whilst they are preoccupied with their own political issues because it could spill into what happens there.

There is also the desire to have us invoke prior to next summer as that's when the next budget talks for the EU from the start of 2020 begin. And misses the next EU elections in June 2019. So from a financial point of view the logic is also there. As is the political point of wanting to avoid EU elections which will open up wounds.

Article 50 triggered in March 2017 avoids all these problems as well as clashing with the next planned British GE in 2020 (I think we will have one earlier) and would mean we would be leaving 1st April 2019.

March 2017 does make a hell of a lot of sense. If we want to leaving in 2020, then article 50 can't be invoked until Dec 31st 2017 at the earliest because the whole process is so uncertain and vague.

However as far as I am concerned and what I believe is in the better interests of the UK, is not trigger article 2017 until later than March. May's decision to name a date plays against us for many reasons, not least the fact we simply won't be prepared (probably even for a transition deal) by April 2019.

Politically she made a decision, which she obviously felt she needed to. It now is likely to be something that will bite her on the bum from all sides as March 2017 is much less realistic.

It will annoy the EU (again) and it will annoy hard line leavers. But a later leaving date is better for the UK really.

But if it was smallfox it would have had looooooooooooooong posts of boring accompanying it
True enough! I don't know if anyone else suffers from this..... But whenever I see a post has been started by smallfox and her ilk, my eyes seem to roll back in my head and by the time they've swiveled back I've scrolled on by!

Yeah it's because you don't understand them - they go right over many Leave voters' heads.

Waiting till after the EU elections - or saying she will - is better I think.

Perhaps remainers are a little disappointed at the lack of wailing snd shirt rending

I think the return of the testy tone indicates this

Says her who started effing and blinding on page 2...

Eh, I thought most brexiters would be over-joyed at this- it was all about parliamentary sovereignty, wasn't it?

Where's al Murray gone with the drinks?

WinchesterWoman, on the contrary, we have been doing nothing but pointing out that this is a victory for democracy- and sovereignty-loving leavers and that you should be as pleased by this result as the rest of us. And you really should be. It hasn't killed Brexit, just opened it to scrutiny and due process.

And the pound has gone up, so if nothing else you can at least be happy about that, even if this isn't your kind of sovereignty.

My bad, page 10!! Doorbellgate...

Waiting till after the EU elections - or saying she will - is better I think.

I don't understand the logic in boreds comment but would be interested if any other leavers would be happy to wait until after a GE to invoke a50?

It seems a crazy thought to me.

Interesting that your DH thinks we might not leave the EU Red

FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if we "leave" but in fact the EU is reshaped to be multi-speed. That wouldn't mean too much change from the current reality in that we are already outside the Euro zone and would rather be a formalisation of the current position. Immigration rules could perhaps be tweaked so that freedom of movement is only permitted where someone had a job and with some sort of emergency brake. The immigration change and the description of the "outer" EU zone as Not Europe (maybe it could be called "Single Market"?) might well be sufficient for a good number of Leave voters. Also we would not be committed to continual further integration with Europe and could retain UK parliamentary sovereignty in name at least (although in practice there would need to be regulatory harmonisation with other Single Market countries much like what we see in the EU at the moment).