The Brexiteers' Plan.

[Workingman]

I might have been too clever by half when using "pause" as a metaphor for an attempt to revoke A50.

Let me try to clear up the mess.

There is open warfare within and between the two main political parties and we are full throttle to a destination we are not sure of, many of us do no want to be at, and we are almost at the end of the line and the buffers. The clock is ticking, tick-tock. However, there is no provision in the legislation for either side to call a much needed 'time-out' at sticky times. The only way to get the "pause" I was alluding to is to attempt to revoke A50.

How does it work?

Once the UK sends notice to the EU the Commission can either accept it and Brexit is put on hold, or the notice is denied, in which case it has to be referred to the ECJ.

As soon as the ECJ receives it, it becomes sub judice and everything stops. Then comes the telling part. The ECJ would go for the 15 judges jury. Those judges would have to be agreed by the UK and EU and their selection would take time. Once the court sits both sides would independently put their cases and where there is conflict they could be called back to give further evidence. This process continues until the judges and their advocates feel there is sufficient evidence for deliberations. Once the deliberations are completed both sides are informed and can go forward. There is no right to appeal.

Whether the ECJ eventually allows or denies revocation is a guessing matter, but the length of the process does allow, both sides, to step back, take a deep breath and reflect.

[cromwell]

Labour's Emily Thornberry (Lady Nugee) has put her twopennorth in, saying that any deal Theresa May does will be rejected by Labour unless it meets their "six tests". She also said it is very unlikely that it would meet the six tests.

So whatever the deal is, it will be rejected? Which leaves us with either 1. Out with no deal or 2. Staying in, which is what most of the political class want anyway.

What a farce. Hopefully I'm wrong though.

[Workingman]

What a farce.

Precisely!

That is why we need a time-out in order to get ourselves sorted out.

None of the 'deals' currently on offer have any popular support in the country.

[Suff]

Once the UK sends notice to the EU the Commission can either accept it and Brexit is put on hold, or the notice is denied, in which case it has to be referred to the ECJ.

Not sure about that.

If the Commission denies the notice, the UK can take it to the ECJ, it will not go there automatically and the Commission will not refer it. The ECJ can also reject the petition. If the Commission has already given reasoning for the denial and the ECJ finds that reasoning to be correct, then it will not accept the UK petition and it will not become "sub judice". Hence, just because you petition the courts, does not mean that everything stops.

Chances the ECJ will try to overrule the Commission; on a competence which is written into EU statute and that the EU Commission is the sole arbiter of? Just because the Article doesn't close every single eventuality by saying "no you cannot"? I would say Very, Very low. There is such a thing as reasonable interpretation. If the court feels there is nothing more to add to the interpretation, it can find the petition without cause. End of case.

That is my bet. No pause, get ready to crash out of the door on the top floor and fall to the ground.

As I said before and will continue to say, over and over. A50 is an EU competence and the UK, having triggered it, is subject to the conditions. The UK cannot, unilaterally, do anything about it other than just leave before it is over. Everything else requires the EU to make a decision and my radar says that the EU is unlikely to give us the steam off their excrement, let alone anything we actually want, unless we extract it from them by threat of loss of revenue due to significant loss of trade with the UK.

This is the reality of where we stand today. If people didn't want that, they should have spoken up before A50 was triggered. If they didn't understand what A50 meant? Tough. Educate themselves. They had a vote and they used it. If they did not understand what that meant, not my problem. A vote is a responsibility and with that responsibility goes the requirement to use it wisely. If it was used unwisely and then things happened which they did not want, then that is a lesson to be learned. When you make a mistake, as an adult, you have to live with it. Adults are supposed to have learned to be responsible. That is why children do not get a vote. Because there is no place in voting to learn by your mistakes, you are actually supposed to be responsible enough to use it wisely.

All this "I didn't know" and "I want it changed I don't like it" is not really working for me. They voted and they now need to take the responsibility of that vote. If what is on the table is not what they thought they would get, when they voted, then that's just a learning experience. Perhaps next time they will use their vote more wisely. This time they're going to have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Just as I had to suffer the consequences of the actions of the voters in 1975. Plenty of people were pretty damned mad about that one. But I note that there were no court actions, no riots in the streets. People just shrugged and got on with it.

The public, then, were adults. Apparently we now have juveniles with a vote!

[cromwell]

To be fair Suff, people in the UK have had more than two years of unceasing anti-Brexit propaganda, with the BBC leading the way.

Only this morning MrsC turned off Radio Leeds which was interviewing people about how "the uncertainty of Brexit" was affecting them She turned over to Radio Five - which was also asking people how they had been affected by the "uncertainty of Brexit". It's every day, this stuff never stops.

[Workingman]

We may as well stop running round in circles as we will never agree, and we will not get the chance for a test case, so it is academic.

Theresa May, our strongest and stablest PM ever, has come out and said that it is "Her deal or no deal"; then she stamped her leopard skin patterned shoed foot for emphasis.

So, we have a part pregnant, half in-half out, hokey-cokey, already trashed by the EU deal, or no deal; neither of which a majority voted for. Oh, and one other thing, that is unless a future PM decides to 'alter the relationship', as Michael Gove said at the weekend and which was agreed today by a No10 spokesperson.

[Workingman]

Cromwell, the reason it never stops is because there is uncertainty.

We have been on this road since January 2013 when Cameron promised a referendum. We then got the referendum on the 23rd of June 2016. On the 24th of June 2016 following the result he did not like he resigned. On the 13th of July May becomes PM. On the 29th of March 2017 May invokes A50. On 18th of April 2017 May calls an opportunistic and spirit of the law breaking general election for the 8th of June to strengthen her hand. She loses her overall majority. The rest is just poo.

Five and a half years we have been at this lark and with only six months to go we do not have a clue what the end result will be.

Of course there is uncertainty, and of course it is affecting people.

[Suff]

So, we have a part pregnant, half in-half out, hokey-cokey, already trashed by the EU deal, or no deal; neither of which a majority voted for. Oh, and one other thing, that is unless a future PM decides to 'alter the relationship', as Michael Gove said at the weekend and which was agreed today by a No10 spokesperson.

Indeed. What was it people hoped for when they voted? That we would leave the EU and still retain all the benefits of the EU? I don't think Brexit voters voted for that. But the people on the airwaves wanted us to remain in the EU, so they keep on blathering on about the "uncertainty" of getting that when it was never what the voters wanted in the first place.

As for Gove's statement? That is exactly what Leave voters voted for. Namely that the power to decide what the UK would and would not, do, in order to retain trade relations with the EU, resides with the elected government of the UK and not the "faceless men" of Brussels.

In the final analysis, the first time this happens, every leave voter will recognise, all over again, what they voted for.

Gove's rather subtle reminder is quite skilful and the Remain leaning press are trying to use it as a stick to beat Leavers with.

As we close in on achieving what was voted for those who believe in "Remain at any cost" are becoming more and more strident because they thought that if they just made enough noise and went to court enough times and bleated loud enough, then they'd get what they wanted. Because this is what they have learned over the last 45 years. Namely that a loud and vociferous minority can get what it wants and the silent majority will just have to lump it.

May is standing fast and insisting on delivering on what people voted for. I believe this is a good thing because if people voted Leave but really didn't mean it, they need to understand the consequences of their actions.

As for the deal? Smoke Screen. The EU were always going to "give" us whatever provides the EU with the most advantage and the UK the least advantage as they have done for the last 4 decades. What is most vital is understanding that the Machiavellian intrigue of Brussels, in negotiating the UK exit from the EU, will stand precisely as long as a UK government wishes it to stand and no longer. Witness what Trump is doing to NAFTA.

If you ask an American if they thought NAFTA was going to last forever, they'd say to you "don't be stupid, it's a trade deal". If, however, you asked them whether being a member state of the United Sates of America would last forever, they'd look at you as if you were crazy, after all they fought a war to decide that one.

This is the difference between the two and people need to understand it. Remaining in the EU was forever, warts and all, with almost no chance of the UK changing what it was or how it works.

A trade deal? What's all the fuss about? We can change that in 2021 if we want to, that will be up to us. Countries, truly sovereign countries, create trade deals all the time. Member states make the decision; once; in? Well; ONCE.

There is no chance of getting that discussion going in the press or the media prior to April 2019, but I do hope that, shortly after, more sober heads prevail. I've had enough of the histrionics of the Unionists. In the US the Unionists won, in Scotland the Unionists won. In the EU they lost. Time to get over it and start working for the benefit of the newly emergent UK. Not that I'll hold my breath.

[Workingman]

Back to the future and A50.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh has, on appeal, allowed a cross-party group to petition the European Court of Justice (ECJ) requesting clarification on whether the UK can unilaterally revoke A50.

The petition has been sent to the ECJ and is as follows:

"Where a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member state?

"And, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the Member State remaining within the EU?".

The senior judge delivering the appeal decision stated:

"It seems neither academic nor premature to ask whether it is legally competent to revoke the notification and thus to remain in the EU.

"The matter is uncertain in that it is the subject of a dispute; as this litigation perhaps demonstrates.

"The answer will have the effect of clarifying the options open to MPs in the lead up to what is now an inevitable vote."

The judge also said the European court would not be advising parliament on "what it must or ought to do".

Instead he said it would be "merely declaring the law as part of its central function", adding that "how parliament chooses to react to that declarator is entirely a matter for that institution".

If the petitioners request an expedited procedure, as seems likely given the timeframe, we could know by the end of October or early November.

Spectacular timing given the delays we are currently experiencing.