(Adam) #81

Wouldn’t that lead to a massive backlash?

(Emma) #82

Whatever happens will have a massive backlash. The next season of Game Of Thrones will end up looking like a channel 5 documentary on Britain today


This is one of the best things I have read today ! You really made my day @Rat_au_van so nerdy and intelligent at the same time –


(Aris David) #85


Next chapter: no deal Brexit to be voted tomorrow


No, this is impossible. The EU courts that ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 said they would only accept it if it happened in good faith. They explicitly ruled out the scenario you’re describing as a revocation in bad faith. They reserved the right to just kick out the UK with no deal if they think that the withdrawal happened in bad faith.

(Kevyn) #88

I have to say, it is wrong to say that the UK has to act in good faith if they revoke Article 50.

Your link clearly states:

The ECJ has said that if the UK revoked Article 50, it would stay in the EU “under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state”. That means the UK would keep all the opt-outs and the EU budget rebate it has at the moment.

Thats can’t have strings attached. It would also mean that the UK could also activate Article 50 again as that is ‘under the terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state’.

Acting in good faith is only in the EU withdrawal treaty which has been rejected.

It does state, in your defence, that:

The revocation of Article 50 itself must be “submitted in writing to the European Council”, and it must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. That the revocation must be unequivocal implies that the UK could not revoke to get a breathing space in order to prepare better to resend the Article 50 notification in due course.

Implying things isn’t a legal standing and the article accepts this by stating:

However, it is not exactly clear what the EU could do about it if the UK did adopt that approach.

(Emma) #89

Round we go one more time, keep your hands inside the car and scream if you want to go faster :roller_coaster:


Feels pointless as the vote isn’t legally binding, and they are focusing on what they don’t want rather than what they want. Wonder how much every vote costs the tax payer. The irony is the MPs have had two “meaningful votes” on the exact same deal, both times it’s been turned down.

(Emma) #91

Third time lucky :four_leaf_clover: :crossed_fingers:


It’s also a “free vote” as long as you freely vote their way

(Aris David) #93


(Emma) #94

Well this is terrifying


(Chris) #97

I can’t wait to explain this utter omnishambles to my kids in years to come.

(Emma) #98

You won’t have to, it’ll still be going on at the stage they’re explaining it to their kids


Oh **UK! indeed


I suspect this is all just cunning smoke and mirrors created by our government to justify their jobs and cover up the fact that we just don’t need them.

Kind of like when your manager goes on holiday for 2 weeks and yet somehow the team not only manages to survive but actually thrives in those 2 weeks, thus bringing into question the actual purpose of said manager …

(Chris) #101

I wish I could believe they were that cunning. They’re just straight up incompetent and fearful of popularity polls. Too busy focusing on staying in power and not grasping the concept that there’s no point in being in power if there’s nothing to be in power of.