BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 03:42 AM

The game is far from over. First the House has to agree on something, then they have to find a way of getting the PM to put that forward. Suppose, for the sake of argument they agree on some form of customs union. Teresa May takes that back to the EU and says that is the will of the House, and the EU grants a year's extension. May resigns and let's say Rabb becomes PM.

So we move from what Leavers claim is a Remainer trying to negotiate Leave, to a hard line ERG PM trying to negotiate a close union. I can see that working well.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 03:56 AM

Remain MP Dominic Grieve suffers no confidence vote from his local constituency party

Dominic Grieve has shown himself to be a very measured and thoughtful MP. I am 100% certain he considered that he might be deselected and acted as he did fully aware of that possibility.

I know it is hard to admit that some people are not wholly driven by self-interest, but they do exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 04:02 AM

But only when they agree with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 04:31 AM

No, there are plenty throughout history and quite a few I have known personally.

I have told a story before in other contexts about one of my supervisors who was offered a position as general manager of a company, which was a very significant promotion. The offer included a copy of the assessment criteria so he went through it answering them not as he felt, but giving what he believed the answers they would most want, then looked at them and said to himself "Is that the sort of person I want to be?" He decided it wasn't, so turned it down without formally applying.

I find that admirable, whether or not I think he would have made an excellent general manager (which he would have, in my opinion.) I regret 'the waste' of his talent, but not his determination to be true to his own standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 01:23 PM

"I know it is hard to admit that some people are not wholly driven by self-interest, but they do exist."
You can immediately spot the self interest crowd by whether or not they are likely to lose money out of the move - most of us are, those in the position to, like Dyson and Rees Mogg can push Brexit through and do a runner with teir investments - as both have

I always find it fascinating why Brexiteers refuse to respond to this fact (I refuse to believe all of them are lemmings by instinct)
Another fact being studiously ignored

The leaver's policy has now become perfectly clear - leave whatever the consequences and when the shit starts flying, blame the people for making the wrong decision


IGNORE THE FACTS AND BLAME THE PEOPLE POLICY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 05:09 PM

The leftards response to Dominic Grieve being held to account by his constituency party as exemplified by Phil Wilson who said the vote was "ridiculous", adding: "I'm not of the same politics as Grieve but to deselect him as a Conservative candidate is to diminish politics, see an end to political integrity and deprive politics of a sincere and thoughtful practitioner."

Grieve’s arrogance was that he thought he could shift from promising his members – in writing – that he would respect the outcome of the referendum, to leading the efforts to thwart Brexit, without cost. Breaking your word to voters, particularly the ones who get out the vote for you, is risky.

or as another wit says:Dominic Grieve said in the Commons a few days ago he had never been so ashamed to be a Tory.

Last night, his local Conservative party voted that they were ashamed to have Dominic Grieve as their MP.

Should be the quickest case ever through the divorce courts if both sides are that fed up with one another !!

Douglas Carswell states it very well:

“If Dom Grieve is a brilliant MP like other MPs are claiming, he’d have no qualms about calling a snap by election and getting a mandate directly from his electorate. You’ve only got to put it like that to realise that he’s just another safe seat MP with tenure."

It begins to look as though we have an entire party(/parliament) that believes it can sit in "tenure".
If nothing else, the Brexit vote has exposed this perilous state, and it can’t be sustained.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 05:54 PM

There is a story in the Guardian that sounds like could reach a new crescendo in absurdity, naturally going back to Cameron. It seems like one of May's ideas is to call a snap election to prevent a no deal. But to do that she needs a two-thirds majority in the house and there are sufficient no-deals to make that very risky, since they would far rather stay in government with a Brexiteer at the helm. Why risk a Corbyn government ?

So her only option would be to call a no confidence vote in herself and her own government since that only requires a simple majority, not a two-thirds one. When she call it, to maximise the chances of losing (ie getting what she wants) she and her loyalists would have to declare themselves incompitent. But since the rest of the Tories would still not want to risk losing their seat she could even lose that.

And so we end up with the same PM and government even though she and many of them say they are incompetent....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 06:19 PM

So it appears that Teresa May wants a forth bite of the cherry, despite her 'deal' having been suffered the largest defeat in the history of Parliament.

I am sure I am not alone in finding this more than a little incongruous when she will not allow the public even a second bite at the cherry.

Yet another example of one law for us and another for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Mar 19 - 06:40 PM

Results for: Do you think parliament should accept or reject the proposal that the UK revokes Article 50 and remains in the EU?
Fieldwork end date
Pollster        27 March 2019
Poll by Sky Data
Accept        37%
Reject               41%
Don't know        22%

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 02:48 AM

What has become totally clear from the latest statements by politicians is that they are putting into place a plan that if/when Britain leaves the EU, everything that will inevitably go wrong will be put squarely at the feet of the General public "We only did what you told us to do"
Of course they will take the credit if things aren't as bad as is predicted.
The constant claim that the only democratic thing is to go plunging over the cliff - "the people's choice" has become a solid part of the creation of that 'Get out of Jail Free' card'
The people will not only be the victims of this lemming-leap, but the cause of it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 02:53 AM

That is an interesting set of poll results. I can't find the details but looking at other polls the margin of error is around 2% for other sky polls, so the option of revoking is well within shouting distance of continuing with either a deal or no-deal. The very large unknowns makes thie actual wishes indecipherable.

. I believe it would be perfectly possible to get a huge vote in favour of revocation by preceding the survey with an accurate statement like this:

We are nearing completion of the first phase of the Brexit negotiations, the withdrawal agreement. The next phase will involve negotiating our continuing relationship with the EU and other countries. Such negotiations have typically taken seven years or more, and will be unavoidable for either deal or no-deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 03:00 AM

I'll put that a different way. The one thing the general public is absolutely clear about is that most want he media to stop talking about Brexit all the time. Only revocation achieves this. (OK, it may take a month or two to fall off the news but not years or decades like either deal or no-deal)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 04:11 AM

"The one thing the general public is absolutely clear about is that most want he media to stop talking about Brexit all the time."
Surely the most dangerous aspect of this whole dirty business is that it was pushed though on a single issue - control of immigration
If the subject is re-voted on without open discussion on all the aspects of leaving the public will be no clearer than they are now - an extremely dangerous position to be in
It is very significant that two of the main speakers at Friday's protest demonstration were Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson and several of the demonstrators, when asked where they got their information from replied, from Robinson's website
Scum like this pair need to be taken out of this debate - both have infringed British law in spirit - one has been prosecuted for doing so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 04:26 AM

Channel 4 has had to apologise because Jon Snow remarked that the pro-Brexit demonstrations that he had ‘never seen so many white people.' The channel clarified in its apology that "Jon has covered major events such as this over a long career and this was a spontaneous comment reflecting his observation that in a London demonstration of that size, ethnic minorities seemed to be significantly under-represented."

It will be interesting to see if the charge of under-representation is challenged in its turn. I would guess not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 04:34 AM

Surely the most dangerous aspect of this whole dirty business is that it was pushed though on a single issue - control of immigration

I am sure we would all like to see some proof to substantiate such an absurd statement. More once upon a time nonsense

Scum like this pair need to be taken out of this debate -

scum definition: 1. a layer of unpleasant or unwanted material that has formed on the top of a liquid:

The sort of thing you find floating on top of a bog. Now what does that remind me of?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 05:07 AM

A racist outed already and I've not had breakfast yet
It's gonna be a great day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 06:08 AM

An outbreak of racism by a Brexit supporter denying that racism has anything to do with Brexit - you couldn't make it up !!!
Someone needs to tell Robinson or Farage that their plant needs watering
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 07:13 AM

It seems that this disaster of a prime minister is trying again to bully her deal through, this time by insinuating that she might call an election if she doesn't succeed. Well that'll be another Commons vote she'll lose if she tries that one on. She needs a two-thirds majority before she can call an election. Labour may say yes but a huge wodge of Tories and the breakaway group will say no. I think an election would be a terrible idea. Assuming that it would happen during a longer extension, it would be fought on a single issue. Both major parties' hands would be tied in the campaign for fear of alienating the public via any sniff of a suggestion that "democracy is being betrayed" or " the will of the people is being ignored." It would quite likely give us another hung parliament and, worse still, as far as brexit is concerned we'd be back to square one. I think the Labour leadership know this, and have only been bellyaching for an election from the luxurious position of knowing that she can't or won't call one. It can hardly be said that Labour are playing a blinder in all this.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 07:17 AM

Just put it up on the other thread
The Sunday Times has erported that not only is Parliament unable to agree on a way forward but the splits in the Cabinet make it totally unable to act as a Governing body
Next step - send in the army to Govern Britain
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 07:20 AM

"We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."

― Konstantin Josef Jireček

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 07:31 AM

"It can hardly be said that Labour are playing a blinder in all this."

'All this' is the result of Conservatives, beginning with CaMoron, and ending with the bunch of scrotes in charge now, putting party before country.

They started it, they've kept everyone else out so that they could have it all their own way, so they should be left to deal alone with the results of their ill-deeds. The Labour Party should steer well clear of having any involvement whatsoever in this cataclysmic balls-up, as should all the other parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 08:07 AM

I may be changing my mind about how well Labour are playing this. The Gateshead speech where Corbyn was emphasising all the other things that matter apart from Brexit is not a bad foundation for a potential manifesto. That the Tories own the chaos of Brexit and Labour is focusing on job security, education, the NHS and other bread-and-butter issues could be a good position to be in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 08:26 AM

"I may be changing my mind about how well Labour are playing this."
I said some time ago that Corbyn was either attempting to appease his own Brexiteers to keep his supporters on top or was dithering - my continuing faith in him depended on which was
My hope is that you are right - we don't want another Tory party that calls itself 'Labour'
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 11:38 AM

"I may be changing my mind about how well Labour are playing this. The Gateshead speech where Corbyn was emphasising all the other things that matter apart from Brexit is not a bad foundation for a potential manifesto. That the Tories own the chaos of Brexit and Labour is focusing on job security, education, the NHS and other bread-and-butter issues could be a good position to be in."

Right on the nail, DMcG. Couldn't agree more.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 12:01 PM

I hope you are right DMcG. Only time will tell but my money is currently on Corbyn.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 04:21 PM

I wasn't saying that Labour carry any responsibility for the farce. They (we) don't. But there has been a long-standing suspicion that Jeremy is a closet leaver who has refused to speak up for the overwhelming majority of party members who voted remain. He's made it harder for us to make the argument. Just because a large number of Labour constituencies came out for leave, it doesn't absolve him from making the case for what would be in the country's best interests, which all but the terminally insane know is for this country to remain a member of the EU. Certainly his softer brexit would be better than May's deal, but it still isn't good enough. I don't want to see political vote-saving compromises. I want to see an honest case being made for what is best for the country, and he's run scared of doing that. I'm disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 05:29 PM

“But there has been a long-standing suspicion that Jeremy is a closet leaver"
If I thought there was a better choice I would have no desire to support a bunch of Capitalist states
Given the racist nature of the decision to leave,, the populist tactics which brought about that decision, the immediate spike in racism in Britain, Trump's taking heart from the Brexiteer's use of populism to take power power in the US, Peter Casey's use of populism to fight an Irish Presidential election, the rise of extremist right wing parties based on destroying the EU.... I don;'t thing there is a workable alternative
Better the devil you have a say in than one you don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 06:41 PM

I still support Jeremy and I'm still a card-carrying member, Jim, and I know that there's no better alternative. It's one hundred percent a Tory mess. I couldn't be any clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 07:50 PM

It's a funny old world isn't it? Mrs May promised us Brexit and, it would seem, can't deliver it. Corbyn always wanted to leave the EU but now as leader can't say what he personally wants and has to agree to a contrary party line. He sits on the fence and opposes anything Mrs May tries to do.

Anyone who thinks that either party comes out of this looking well is living in cloud cuckoo land. As a long time Conservative I'm all in favour of a general election as long as Mrs May is no longer our leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 08:18 PM

But what Mrs May is trying to do would be very damaging for the country. Every economist, including the ones advising the government, have said as much. And I challenge you to tell me what, post-election, whatever the outcome, would happen next. Whether it would be any better than what we have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 31 Mar 19 - 09:41 PM

You missed out, in parenthesis, 'Who is against Brexit', as you are. And no vicious personal insults. Steve you are letting your standards slip.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 03:28 AM

"And no vicious personal insults"
Isn't contanly ignoring what people have to say "insulting"
You never reply to what has been put up - not ever
It seems some people appear to regard argument as insult
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 03:42 AM

More accurate than that, stanron, would be to put "except Prof Minford and his team" in parentheses. Unless you can name some economists not associated in any way with Minford? Even Minford accepts that the UK farming and industrial sectors could be severely damaged, but sees this as a rebalancing between producers and consumers.   I think even so most people would regard a severe shrinkage of those sectors as "very damaging for the country". (Certainly, if we came under sort of sanctions in the future for whatever reason, our ability to withstand them would be severely hampered. That ability to be independent is a form of sovereignty, by the way.)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 04:07 AM

Nigel and I have been comparing predictions, which I summarised as

Over on the earlier thread, I referred to a prediction Nigel had made that we would leave on 31st on WTO rules, whereas I predicted come the 1st April we would still be trying to decide what we are doing.


Since it is now 1st April, I thought I would check up where we were. I think we will all agree that my half was right: we are still trying to decide what to do. However, it turns out I don't have Nigel's prediction quite right. What he said was:

====
Subject: RE: BS: Predictions for the coming new year
From: Nigel Parsons - PM
Date: 23 Dec 18 - 07:46 PM

UK will leave EU on WTO terms.

====
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons - PM
Date: 15 Mar 19 - 06:50 AM

DMcG:
Sorry Nigel, but the odds now that your prediction that we would leave on 29th March and mine that we would still be in a state of uncertainty on 1st April currently looks in my favour.
Actually, we could both be right :)

====
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons - PM
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 08:15 PM

Yes, amending the date could be dealt with quickly. If the EU agree to the request. We can't unilaterally delay Brexit.
Even if the EU agree to the request, there needs to be legal agreement in parliament to cancel the Brexit which is already in law for 29 March. The way things have gone so far, can you see all that being passed through all the required stages in the next 11 days?
====


Read all that very carefully, and we can see Nigel never quite predicted we would leave on 29th March...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 04:28 AM

"All this from the plastic paddy"
Can the mods please do soething with these persistent racist attacks on forum members ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 05:38 AM

On second thoughts
Parhaps somebody who objects to being accused of racism using terms like "plasic Paddy" and who objects to being called a ""Little Englander" by suggesting that if you don't live in England you have no right to an opinion on what goes on there, is in need of help rather than disciplining   
You really couldn't make this up if you were script-writing for Spitting Image
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 12:16 PM

I knew some Brexiteer would immediately yelp about the motions Bercow selected, so I was hardly surprised when Farage tweeted:


The 4 motions Bercow has just selected for votes tonight are all Remain and all continue uncontrolled free movement.

Really not keen on Parliament having control, is he?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 12:21 PM

Is a Speaker who is not impartial truly a Speaker?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 12:51 PM

Farage is wrong as usual. The only one of those motions which would continue free movement, not uncontrolled of course, it never has been uncontrolled, is the Boles motion. Clarke's customs union would not. Kyle's motion would allow a vote on it. And Cherry's would just prevent an utter catastrophe.

And in any case, free movement is a massive boon for the people, particularly the young and ambitious people, of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 01:25 PM

"Is a Speaker who is not impartial truly a Speaker?"
A Tory who thinks he is Donald Trump methinks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 01:25 PM

"Is a Speaker who is not impartial truly a Speaker?"
A Tory who thinks he is Donald Trump methinks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 01:48 PM

Is a Speaker who is not impartial truly a Speaker?

The government cannot resubmit motions a second time however those that have hijacked the Parliamentary process merely have to change the name of the person submitting the motion in order to submit it times without measure.
The crowning insult is grubby little corbyn 3 line whipping for free movement despite the total opposite on their election manifesto.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 01:51 PM

John Bercow has cooked up yet another Speaker’s Stitch-up Special with his selections for tonight’s second batch of indicative votes tonight. Bercow selected only four Remainer motions for MPs to vote on tonight. They are more or less identical to the ones which were all rejected just five days ago:

    C (Clarke) – Customs Union – already rejected 272-264
    D (Boles) – Common Market 2.0 – already rejected 283-188
    E (Kyle) – Second referendum – already rejected 295-268
    G (Cherry) – Revoke Article 50 – already rejected 293-184

Bercow refused to allow any Brexiteer motions including John Baron’s Motion A on a unilateral right of exit from the backstop. Despite this previously securing a majority in the Commons in the form of the Brady Amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:09 PM

Just saw this on FarceBook, from Sunday 31/3/19...

From The Sunday Times and The New Law Journal today......

"David Wolchover sets out why moves are afoot to prosecute the prime minister for misconduct in public office

On Friday 22 March Oxford University Professor of Physics Joshua Silver and I formally asked Westminster Magistrates' Court for a summons against the prime minister alleging misconduct in public office, a crime under common law carrying a maximum of life imprisonment. The application was adjourned to April 9 for a full oral hearing before the Deputy Senior District Judge for England and Wales.

This is no stunt. Nobody is above the law, least of all high officers of state administering major government business. Although the allegation concerns the activation of Article 50 on 29 March 2017, the conclusive evidence only surfaced in January, as I recently revealed in New Law Journal ('Did activating Article 50 constitute an indictable offence?' 12 March 2019).

Our case essentially hinges on the statutory basis of the European Referendum 2016. As the Supreme Court affirmed in the landmark Miller decision it was no more than 'advisory,' the commons briefing paper on the EU Referendum Bill having explained that the proposed ballot was of a 'type . . . known as pre-legislative or consultative which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.' Not only was that definition never disavowed by the Cameron Government but it was implicitly adopted by Minister for Europe David Lidington during the Commons Committee stage of the Bill. This did not deter David Cameron and his ministers from repeatedly stating that they would 'honour' the outcome. But those avowals were, as the Supreme Court further held, no more than political and were based on no legal foundation.

In the Webster case last year the Administrative Court confirmed that the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, passed in response to Miller, had delegated to the prime minister the discretionary power to make the Article 50 withdrawal decision. But that discretion was not unfettered. Since the referendum was not legally determinative of the leave/remain issue but merely advisory I would contend that the prime minister was constitutionally debarred from making the withdrawal decision exclusively on the basis of the referendum result.

Instead, she was duty bound to abide by that universal precept of rational policy-making, the obligation to scrutinise methodically all relevant and tangible factors. It's what sensible people do in their own lives. We don't buy a car simply because it's red. Good governance is no different.

But we now know that in deciding to activate Article 50 the prime minister ignored everything but the referendum outcome. Strong suspicions about this were provoked by the government's vacillations in Parliament over the impact assessments and were finally confirmed in the response by the Cabinet Office on January 23 to a Freedom of Information request by Action for Europe's Richard Bird.

As I argued in my New Law Journal article, the democratic imperative was not satisfied simply by implementing the statistically insignificant slight tilt towards leave. What counts is the constitutional imperative of rationally examining all relevant considerations. Constitutional imperatives are legal ones. They are the law and without the rule of law, democracy is meaningless. The prime minister deliberately flouted her constitutional obligations. With potentially disastrous consequences she broke the law.

It might be countered that the prime minister must have assimilated all the leave/remain arguments put forward during the referendum campaign and the passage of the EU (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill. But exposure to tendentious, if not mendacious, assertions advanced in the emotionally charged context of the debate on whether to continue our membership of the EU can hardly equate to dispassionate scrutiny of expert, systematically researched and detailed multi-disciplinary impact predictions. We now know that no such assessments were undertaken until those which were commissioned by the Department for Exiting the EU at the earliest in late 2017. There were no formal consultations outside Parliament and of course no public inquiry has ever been held.

It is inconceivable that Mrs May was on a frolic of her own when she activated Article 50. She was plainly supported and encouraged by her cabinet colleagues and since it may be comfortably assumed that they too had no regard for any factors apart from the referendum outcome it can be inferred that to a man and woman they were aiding and abetting her. No doubt this will be confirmed by cabinet minutes to which as yet the public are not privy. But there can be no safety in numbers. Collective responsibility will not exculpate any one of them, whether the prime minister or her colleagues.

This brings us to the impending Conservative leadership contest. If her successor was in the cabinet on the fatal date it may be appropriate to add that individual to the indictment. In the next few days we shall therefore be considering for the time-being a postponement of our application.

David Wolchover is a barrister at Ridgeway Chambers and Article6Law, 2 King's Bench Walk."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:23 PM

Britain has been without an effective gobvenment for some time now yet still the Brexit Braindeads talk about 'stitch-ups' un order to move things one way or the other - patriots who accuse critics of the elected government of being "traitors"
While i's comfortable to see them all running around like headless chickens it makes you wonder who's minding the store
I'm sure our patriotic friends here could tell us
Clowns all - inside and outside politics
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:26 PM

Just saw this on FarceBook, from Sunday 31/3/19...

Some people are far too gullible on All Fools Day.
The post claims to be from a date in the twentieth century: 31/3/19... and mentions the 2016 referendum.

Was that long post really worth quoting?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:28 PM

I'm pretty certain that if you could ask Bercow why he rejected the motion concerning unilaterally leaving the backstop, he would tell you that he doesn't want MPs wasting time debating a motion that would be impossible to execute. The whole point of the backstop is that any decision to leave it must be made by both sides agreeing with each other. If we could leave it without the EU's agreement it wouldn't be a backstop.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:40 PM

Eric Bogle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzoh0e_YOiI

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:48 PM

Just saw this on FarceBook, from Sunday 31/3/19...

Some people are far too gullible on All Fools Day.
The post claims to be from a date in the twentieth century: 31/3/19... and mentions the 2016 referendum.

Was that long post really worth quoting?

Really? Sunday 31/3/19 sounds like yesterday to me. After all 31/3/1919 was a Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 19 - 02:50 PM

"Was that long post really worth quoting?"
I think the answer lies in the name 'Farcebook' Nigel
Some people welcome a distraction from the daily horror of having to pick their way over the ruins of real news - keeps us from grabbing a rope and looking for a lamppost
This has got to be more and more like a daily display of nasty children throwing their toys out of their pram (nicely reflectedby the Brexiteers here
Apart from Codeword, my only pleasure in buying a newspaper is to join the newsagent in curling up over the antics of "them lot over there"
Britain has become the laughing stock of the world - even Trump is drawing a line on America's dealings if ther is a 'no deal' crashing out
When lunatics like him wash their hands of the shenanigans of the asylum things have gone badly awry
The economist who predicted that Brexit would break up the UK and destroy the economy got that one right
Must go, 'That Was the UK That Was' is on tele shortly
Jim Carroll