Text of ECJ decision on revoking Article 50 withdrawal


Read a comment somewhere yesterday that reminded of a perspective that bears repeating and questioning / reaffirming. Is this true? Where is it wrong?

  1. Why are the Tories in this mess? Austerity.
  2. Sucked the life out of the working class and blamed it on Labour.
  3. UKIP convinced the working class that foreigners were benefiting instead of them.
  4. Tories watched UKIP gain ground and coveted it.
  5. Some Tories backed Leave, many won.
  6. Cameron stupidly pushed referendum with low thresholds (% of voters; % of vote), hoping to squash it soundly.
  7. Brexit campaign, “Project Fear”.
  8. Surprise squeaker win.
  9. Cameron out, steady/dull May in.
  10. May avoiding confrontation, hoping for something anything to change.
  11. Nothing changed, so she gets her delayed reckoning today.

Then what?

  1. May survives no-confidence today.
  2. Loses “meaningful vote” in January.
  3. Mad scramble to avoid “no deal”.
  4. Labour finally calls no-confidence vote, May loses.
  5. Extend Article 50 for general election.
  6. Labour finally takes second referendum platform, Corbyn wins big.
  7. Referendum.
  8. No Brexit 62:38, matching Scottish result of first referendum.


I’d say this is wrong. Cameron promised a referendum in order to calm his backbenchers who were petrified their voters would abandon them for UKIP.

I don’t think he thought that the Tories would gain an outright majority (which given previous and subsequent elections probably seemed a safe enough bet). In a coalition the referendum could have been dropped.

Except they underestimated how well UKIP had managed to stir up voters and the Tories won. Oops.

I think that is also a bit off.

I think May was not so much looking to avoid confrontation but completely paralysed by the fact that despite all the talk about how clear the referendum result was, etc., the reality is that a lot of people voted against leaving and those in favour of leaving range from realists (if nutjobs) who accepted that leaving the EU would mean significantly lesser access to EU markets, institutions, etc. (although none of them can agree on what level of access is desirable/possible) to complete nutters who thought one could somehow leave the EU, stay out of all the bits they hate but still get all the trade benefits.

The latter view is the one that Vote Leave put forward during the referendum so if anything had any kind of democratic mandate, it was trying to deliver the “Have cake and eat it” version of Brexit which is what May has tried to do and, so far as possible, I think her deal does that.

It’s a complete load of crap which is why everyone is against it. It’s obviously massively worse than being in the EU and almost certainly worse than being fully out (give or take a decade or two of reorganisation/complete chaos and poverty) but it is as close as one can come to being out of the EU while having full access.

I think the rest of your points are hugely optimistic.

I have no idea whether May would/will survive a no-confidence motion. I suspect she will if only because none of the realistic candidates to succeed her (apart maybe from Boris) will want to have the post at the moment and will probably tell their supporters not to vote against May.

It’s a poisoned chalice.

If I were May, I’d be tempted to resign just to fuck them over.

“It has become clear that I no longer have the full support of my party and in the interest of the country it is right that I step aside to allow the party to elect a leader who has their full support and confidence.”

“Goodbye, I’m off to write my memoirs while I laugh at the antics of whichever idiot lets themselves get elected as my replacement. Good luck”.

But then, if she were the sort of person to do that, she wouldn’t be PM in the first place.


9a. General election results in having to buy support from DUP loonies.



I’m with you, calming the party was a factor. But then why risk the the low threshold referendum (Cameron) or the snap election (May)? Both thought they saw enough of a chance for a mandate sufficient to squash the internal conflicts. Gamblers. Didn’t win either one.

If I’m May, I wait until no-Brexit comes to pass and then claim I was selflessly manipulating everyone to get to this happy result while hoping to find a way to save the Conservatives, but if the party falls apart, blame it on Boris.

If it’s no-deal, I move to Vegas, get a nose job and start wearing colourful wigs.


Well, obviously my own country has a no-nothing at its head right now, but generally parliamentary systems should have some immunity to that. In Germany practically all major politicians have advanced degrees, and even in France, where Macron is supposed to be some kind of new nonconventional candidate, he has a serious masters in public administration.

When I lived in England you couldn’t get a plumber or electrician who wasn’t “fully qualified” (a term we don’t really have in the US) to work on your house (though of course you could DIY). Has that really changed? In any event, it struck me at the time how for almost all important, difficult occupations one needed some form of training and even a credential, but MPs rarely had even a law degree. For a politician it doesn’t have to be an actual degree, some level of relevant administrative life experience is a reasonable substitute, but it seems that “oldest son of a banker or baron” is still the best credential for a political career in the Conservative party.

I think it [the Tory party] has been destroyed for the next decade or two.

There is nothing ready to take its place. SNP? Monster raving loonies? Certainly not Labour, who is only marginally less flaky on Brexit than the Conservatives (and probably worse with numbers, though maybe generalizing from Diane Abbott isn’t fair).


Did someone post this somewhere on BB already?

Well, seems Andy S. from Middlesex could take over without anyone noticing.

If the no-confidence vote goes through, you guys can as well just hand over Gouvernment to the authors of Spitting Image.

Dear UK, consider me disappointed, again. And if you leave, please use the door! It has a handle, you know.

Oh, golly. Please. Don’t.


I thought I covered that with


Tricksy Remainers, they’ll STEAL it from us!

Really just perfect.


At the risk of stating the obvious, we haven’t left yet, so abandoning Brexit doesn’t mean that we would be “readmitted”. If the Government withdraws the Article 50 declaration then we simply remain in the EU and that will be that. There will be no negotiations over the terms under which we remain in the EU, There will be no Department for Remaining in the European Union.


Nothing seems obvious any more.


It should have been obvious that the referendum isn’t legally binding.
It should have been obvious that the blatant lies and propaganda of the LEAVE campaign were just that.
It should have been obvious that the referendum was a bad idea.


Electricians are different (although that’s relatively recent). As is working on gas. There are a host of things you need building control approval for and having a contractor with certain qualifications means they can self-certify a lot of those so having certain qualifications is useful.

But if you’re looking for someone to fix a leaky tap, your mate Bob can decide to quit his job as a lorry driver and set up as a plumber the next day with no problems.


There are a whole host of qualifications you can get but depending on what work you’re prepared to give up on, you don’t need any of them.

Try that in most other European countries and see how far you get.

I take exception to that, :slight_smile: …mumble mumble, law degrees are perfectly legitimate degrees, very rigourous, mumble, mumble.

More seriously, I can’t think of many degrees less useful for a politician than a law degree.

Being a lawyer of some description is very useful ,especially the Bar - very handy for Parliament, the hours are nice and flexible and advocacy skill helps with / shows you are suited to public speaking and parliamentary debate. The law degree not so much.


That doesn’t change the fact that the party is split on Brexit, and many Labour leaders have been EU-skeptics since the 1970s. Combine that with continuing intra-party fights between the Corbynites and the Blairites, and their bizarre inability to cleanly address leadership antisemitism, and I think they’re not in better structural shape than the Tories, even if they do call another referendum.


Your points are valid, but I could be here all day talking about the problems with the Labour party. We need something to hope for.

I honestly feel that a counterpower attitude is needed. Vote for Labour/Democrats/other social democrats, while working on cutting the centralised state out of socialism. But this is very off topic regarding Article 50.


If you think that after all this you can simply flip a switch and it will be alright, you’re sadly mistaken. Things have been said and done that you can’t take back. Reputations have been damaged, trust lost.


Sure, but the legal position, confirmed by the European Court of Justice, is that the UK Government can unilaterally stop Brexit.Bad blood between British and European politicians won’t change that.


And would be nothing new…


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.