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 ā
2 Likes
3 Likes
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 youāre 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.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ecj-ruling-article-50
3 Likes
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 āunder terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member stateā. That means the UK would keep all the opt-outs and the EU budget rebate it has at the moment.
Thats canāt have strings attached. It would also mean that the UK could also activate Article 50 again as that is āunder the terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member stateā.
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 āsubmitted in writing to the European Councilā, and it must be āunequivocal and unconditionalā. 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 isnāt 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.
1 Like
Feels pointless as the vote isnāt legally binding, and they are focusing on what they donāt want rather than what they want. Wonder how much every vote costs the tax payer. The irony is the MPs have had two āmeaningful votesā on the exact same deal, both times itās been turned down.
1 Like
Third time lucky 
Itās also a āfree voteā as long as you freely vote their way
I canāt wait to explain this utter omnishambles to my kids in years to come.
3 Likes
You wonāt have to, itāll still be going on at the stage theyāre explaining it to their kids
3 Likes
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 donāt 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 ā¦
I wish I could believe they were that cunning. Theyāre just straight up incompetent and fearful of popularity polls. Too busy focusing on staying in power and not grasping the concept that thereās no point in being in power if thereās nothing to be in power of.
3 Likes
Question: during situations such as Brexit how can we ensure that those we trust in power remain objective.
This is inspired by this news article: Jacob Rees-Mogg āhas earned Ā£7,000,000 from investments since Brexitā | Metro News
Now obviously i am not privy to the facts and i personally have no insight into Mr Rees-Mogg or his business, but it does raise the question in my mind, should we somehow prevent those who are making these decisions from profiting from them? e.g. asset freezing or strict controls on what they can invest in. Otherwise how can we trust our āleadersā?
AFAIK you canāt. This is a fundamental problem in Economics and Philosophy of Economics and spawns in situations where thereās information asymmetry between two actors. Itās called the Principal-Agent Problem.
A politician is always considered to have an information premium over a civilian for a multitude of reasons (expert advising, access to secret state level information, etc). It can be argued that his actions are (at least) executed to maximise your own benefit regardless of your own perception, in light of that information premium. Proving that though is impossible.
To make the above a little bit more explicit, JRM might claim that what heās doing is to his knowledge and information the best for you and England. Proving that he is doing that and that heās not screwing you to his own benefit is impossible (well, at least without Law Enforcement engaging, or under the light of history several years later).
For a more well reasoned take on this, see this Reddit post.
2 Likes
3 more months of this 
7 Likes
Wonāt get any better. Bercow needs to allow MV3 happen, so May can have another crack at passing. 
Or EU needs to back down on MPs agreeing to the deal before the short extension.
Doesnāt look good. Unless May triggers a new general election, or a āmeaningfulā peopleās vote, which should convince the EU to give a longer extension. But then it will return to this carnage in a few months. 
Weirdly they all swear they are upholding what the people want 
1 Like
It gives the trust I work for another 3 months to issue even more āBrexit emergency contingency planā emails. Iām going to have to create a Brexit sub inbox at this rate 