Precisely a cunning plan don’t you think! 
I think it makes the setting of laws, and financial agreements very difficult because they are set for a parliament so by having us at the table with a voice setting future laws or agreements, we could potentially block or agree things that would benefit us or disadvantage Europe to our benefit once we leave. It’s a bit like having the fox 
coming to sleep in the hen house!
They are also trying to avoid the likes of Le Pen gaining ground. I think I read the other day that she is only 2% behind Macron in polling. Having us in the European Parliament singing the praises of Brexit is only going to encourage further breakaway elements. They are shit scared of Le Pen as she has offered up a Frexit vote. If that was successful and France voted to leave to, then the European dream crumbles. The stakes are very high. It’s why they have their red lines but are trying to help us get this deal over the line. The alternatives come with future far reaching consequences.
2 Likes
It’s just another complication that the EU could do without Mat, until the UK actually leaves it has to be represented in the European Parliament either via the elections in May or by the UK proposing suitable individuals, apparently Croatia did this when it joined half way through a Parliament term.
1 Like
Very true. It is terrifying. I fear we are sleep-walking into a total disaster.
1 Like
They don’t see it as an option I get that Tim, but few commentators are saying it even is an option. It’s an unpalatable one and a very unlikely one and one I’m not advocating either at this time the point I was making is that May is selling this as no deal or her deal are the only option and it’s not true. She has the power unilaterally as granted her by the European court I think it was to revoke article 50 simply by writing to the Junker/Tusk and revoking our Article 50 request. She doesn’t need a statute instrument, a Parliamentary vote or anything I believe she simply can write a letter revoking it. It’s in her gift because she requested it.
Now wouldn’t that be a refreshingly simple solution! 
1 Like
I’m sure revoking Article 50 will really please the 17410742 people who voted ‘Leave’ !!
2 Likes
You never know the other 49548274 might feel quite okay about not being worse off! 
2 Likes
You mean the 16141241 who voted ‘Remain’ ?
1 Like
Nope population as a whole . Hope you have a nice afternoon.
1 Like
Please don’t let us forget all those Adults who were not allowed to vote in a process which is bound to have chaotic effects on their lives…
3 Likes
See I’m already building a consensus to build on just like Mr Corbyn was suggesting lol
1 Like
Sorry Brian but I don’t think she has that power, only a Parliamentary vote can revoke A50.
Okay here’s to some fun with numbers. I have been doing some interesting maths. Having said that it has never been my strong point so feel free to correct me!
So 17 410742 people voted for Brexit.
Of those an estimated 600 000 have now passed away.
So that leaves 16 810 742 Brexit voters.
If there was to be another vote, of the 2 000 000 newly eligible voters 75 % have indicated they would vote remain.
That takes us to 17 641 241 remain voters ( but we don’t know how many remain voters have died, just that they tend to be younger, hence less likely to die)
Now assuming 1/3 of new voters don’t make it out to vote on the day…
That is still 17 141241. But I think young people are much more motivated to vote now than they were in 2016.
If we were to add on the votes of the 1.5 million Brits in the EU that would become really interesting. How many of these would vote remain? Given the choice of no deal catastrophe or Brino, how many of these people would vote against their own interests in the EU, given that the supposed return of sovereignty has been proven to be a sham with Brino. To be blunt how many of them are still drinking the Brexit moonshine? 
So if there was another vote it wouldn’t even need anyone to change their mind.
4 Likes
Sorry Tim it’s not actually been agreed in law yet whilst the law (Supreme Court) agreed it required an act of Parliament to invoke Article 50. It did not rule that the same law applied to revoke it, it only made reference to that being the sensible conclusion for revocation. It did not rule that to be the case it would be subject to judicial challenge I’m quite sure but as it stands she and her Government could and I use the word could very deliberately if she so chose to simply write a letter and cancel Brexit. It would of course only bring about a constitutional crisis of epic proportions but none the less at present in law she could do this. See below from an article from when the judgement was made
I may have missed it but I don’t believe there has been a subsequent court hearing to rule on this matter.
1 Like
I’ll let you dream on Brian but leave you with this thought, would you want such power in TM’s hands?
Tim hell no I would not want her to have that power and I don’t advocate revoking it at all. I think it is not the way to go it would cause such unrest in the country. It is not my dream at all it would be a bloody nightmare to be honest. I’m simply making a point that the Government is being dishonest when it says there’s the deal or no deal when actually there is also the third option of removing Brexit. Regardless of whether they wish to do it or not it is still a valid option to the impasse
2 Likes
The crossover day was January 19th.
2 Likes
Okay, have another referendum and the result is a narrow Remain win, is this one binding or do we have a decider (best of three)?
If that’s the way you want to play it why not. I think the Swiss have got quite a good system. But now need to stop posting and get back to work!
I am quite happy to make this a legally binding referendum this time as last time is wasn’t. Then just get on with the result whichever way it goes.
This time there would be a deal to vote on.
2 Likes