This is unbelievable!

[Workingman]

Breaking news is that MPs will be able to vote on the final Brexit agreement in order to ratify it once negotiations are completed. It slipped out when a government lawyer made the comment in the High Court and was confirmed by No10.

What is not clear is whether the Commons vote will be legally binding or a rubber-stamp exercise because the government can use its executive powers to push it through anyway..

It is all a bit of a mess. The government is currently in the High court over whether Parliament should have a vote before Article 50 is triggered. There is also the argument that a law to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act that enshrines UK membership of the EU is needed.

[cromwell]

Unbelievable, but it looks like it's true. If it is and Brexit is blocked, we may as well not bother voting for anything ever again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37691270

[Suff]

Unbelievable, but it looks like it's true. If it is and Brexit is blocked, we may as well not bother voting for anything ever again.

Wrong answer. Vote UKIP, vote every other party out. Live with the consequences for 5 years. Get what you want.

THAT is how you deal with this.

However, someone might want to contrast Brown signing the Lisbon Treaty to Brexit then shaming the MP's. Orders of magnitude difference in impact to the UK, with Lisbon being of HUGE, potentially incalculable, impact.

They won't get a vote on A50 being triggered because that decision does not rest with them. Once it's triggered the ONLY thing they can do by being a bunch of idiots about the terms, is force the UK to be summarily ejected from the EU without a deal.

This is the press, again, trying to make us believe there is an option to Brexit. There isn't. Time for them to get over it.

[Workingman]

This is the press, again, trying to make us believe there is an option to Brexit.

It is not the press, it was a statement made by a government lawyer in the High Court where it is fighting a legal case on whether or not MPs do get to vote on A50 or if it the government can use its Royal Prerogative to push it through. Even if MPs win the current legal challenge they are not likely to delay, delay and delay some more. The end of March 2017 date will still stand.

The issue of whether MPs get to ratify Brexit, and which was confirmed by the government as being part of its thinking, is another matter and a rather interesting one.

Cameron left all sorts of doors open by not making the referendum legally binding. Whether that was by accident or design we will probably never know. With the referendum not being legally binding the government could simply choose to ignore it. However, any party in power doing that would be committing political suicide, so that looks unlikely. On the other hand if it is put to MPs, or parliament, it would not be down to a party but MPs themselves. That is never going to happen, either: there would be riots with people from all sides taking to the streets.

As for the A50 process. What then happens is exercising the very best legal minds, and about the only thing they agree on is that the negotiations have two years unless the other 27 unanimously vote to extend them. Where they differ greatly is on the possibility of suspending the negotiations once they have started. Some argue that they have to continue to a conclusion, no matter how long that takes. Others think that the country invoking A50 can change its mind and revoke A50 at any time. Both sides agree that it will probably take a legal test case to decide the matter. So, the question of MPs ratifying any decision throws up an intriguing scenario. Imagine that negotiations do not go well, it could happen, and the deal does not look to be in the UK's best interests. The government could come back and explain that, for the moment, Brexit is not the best option. Would it be able to sell the decision to the country and would MPs vote the deal down i.e. stop Brexit? The option does look to be there.

So, there are ways left to stop Brexit. I think that MPs would be fools to do so, going against the will of the people would be madness of the most reckless kind, but then they are MPs. If there was even the inkling of any attempt I would certainly take to the streets

[AliasAggers]

So, there are ways left to stop Brexit. I think that MPs would be fools to do so, going against the will of the people would be madness of the most reckless kind, but then they are MPs. If there was even the inkling of any attempt I would certainly take to the streets

I'm puzzled, Frank.
I thought you were originally against Brexit?

[Workingman]

That is certainly true, John.

However, I am also for democracy and totally against our government and parliament acting against the will of the people. We are ignored often enough by not being allowed to become engaged in the decision making process of many things. We air our views in the press and on social media and sometimes in polls, but MPs still follow their own agendas. So, when we are directly asked to give our verdict, that verdict should be followed. We were asked about Brexit and the majority voted for it and that is what must be delivered.

As Cromwell says, if Brexit is blocked we might as well not vote and simply live with the collective dictatorship in Westminster.

[Suff]

Aggers, WM is both a republican and a believer in conspicuous democracy. He's also a realist, coming from both the services and IT, it would be highly surprising if he were not.

Think of it this way. What you want and what has been decided may be in opposition to each other. WM, as I am, is well aware of the Kübler-Ross model of grief management. He's gone straight to acceptance and his energy is aimed at ensuring the best transition with the best conditions. Part of that is accepting the reality rather than the starry eyed "story" which has been sold.

If you recall I've been saying, all along, that there is a Price attached to Brexit. I've always asserted that this price is both necessary and a better choice than living with the status quo.

This is not, however, what many of the wishy washy voters voted for. Many of these voters thought they could get out of one of the most restricted trading zones in the world practically unscathed. A regime which takes great enjoyment out of running our lives and using our influence in the world without giving us anything other than what they want, regardless of what we want.

These "political divorces" (let us make no mistake, this is more a political divorce than a trading divorce), are fraught with Kübler-Ross esque issues.

WM is one of the stablest on this. We may argue semantics of how it will happen or the reality of what our leaders may do, but I have never doubted his sincerity or genuine concern for the UK as a whole.

On the point I was trying to make.

Yes the lawyer said the MP's will get a vote on the "deal". They will not, however, get a vote on the triggering of A50.

Why not?

Because UK courts have no jurisdiction to rule on that law. That law is an EU law replicated onto the UK statute books, giving the EU and the PM the sole control over this process.

So anyone thinking that a UK court can overrule this process is in lala land. The ONE thing I do thank Brown for, in signing the Lisbon Treaty, was in giving the PM the ability to thumb his or her nose at Parliament, the courts or, pretty much, anyone other than the queen and trigger A50 alone.

The second point about this is the belief that if "we" can't agree a deal on separation, that we can just go back and "un trigger" A50. Let's be utterly and totally clear here. The Lisbon treaty sets out the mechanism. You trigger it and you LEAVE. How you leave is up to the leaving nation and the remaining 2(X) nations who are going to approve it unanimously.

The Lisbon treaty sets it out in clear and graphic detail. There is a 2 year (maximum), window for the nation to leave. During that time a unanimously agreed deal _can_ be struck. At any point, during that time, the leaving nation, with the unanimous agreement of the remaining 27 (today), states, may leave. If, however, after 2 years, no unanimous agreement is made, then the triggering country is summarily removed from the treaties and shoved out the door.

There is no backtracking option, it does not exist within the treaties. There is just an escalator and a door. Step on the escalator and it takes you straight to the door, where the door opens and the escalator pushes you out of it. The escalator doesn't go backwards and it can't be switched off.

The two years is to negotiate how close to the ground the door is when the nation emerges from the building of the EU. No agreement and it goes to the roof and you are pitched to the ground. Full agreement and it goes to the ground floor and you exit on the street.

To do anything else would require a treaty change. Something which will not be opened until 2020. We will be out the door before any treaty changes are agreed.

As I fully believe we're going to wind up on the roof, I suggest we learn to fly. Or at the very least, organise a very good parachute. Alternatives range from building a stairway down or an express chute with a trampoline on the bottom to allow us to bounce.

The press is still in Denial. The majority of those who wanted to stay are either in denial or anger at this time. I doubt they will reach acceptance until we actually exit and that is a very dangerous thing. Because when we wind up going over the top of the roof, the last thing we need is to be weighed down by people in denial of the drop or people who are angry that they are being pushed over the drop. Everyone needs to be working towards making that drop as easy as possible.

Why do I keep talking about a drop and not about exiting on the ground floor?

Because in my experience of the EU and the countries in the EU and the attitudes of those in the EU institutions and in the countries themselves, nothing has led me to believe that they either can be, or want to be, reasonable.

With that in mind, you might have a slight inkling of my contempt for these attempts to subvert a process, mandated by a democratic majority of the people who bothered themselves to vote, which will take us out of the EU.

May and the Tories cannot possibly make any other choice.

Let me also expound on a few other thoughts.

I see the press talking about how we should not trigger A50 until after the German elections. As if Germany IS the EU and only Germany can give or deny us what we need.

What I see is that the government has already accepted reality. A50 will be triggered after the US President has been chosen and Inaugurated. Why? Because when you have accepted that the EU is essentially hostile to your exit, then the bridges need to be built between what you are leaving and where you are going. Preferably from rooftop to rooftop but any other level will be fine so long as it's not a fall.

Germany? France? Elections? Who cares? The reality is that our future is now tied with the rest of the world and we'd better get on with making our relations with them. There can be no better negotiating stance with the EU than having a better offer elsewhwere!

After all, who tries to negotiate with their insurance provider without having obtained a lower quote elsewhere? Trade and access negotiations are no different. You negotiate from a position of strength. Not the position of weakness that, especially, the Lib Dems want and to a larger extent Labour.

That's my position in a nutshell. Don't listen to the press, don't listen to the bumbling attempts to change the course of history in the UK courts. Look at the actions being taken and work it out.

[AliasAggers]

Thanks, Suff.

I certainly enjoy reading your comprehensive deliberations on current affairs, and wish I had accumulated
the understanding of these affairs to the same degree. I wish also that a few of our politicians had similar
knowledge of what they are trying to do.

[Suff]

Glad you liked it Aggers. I just like to talk and argue sometimes and try to get my point over.

I've spent a lot of years piecing together what I say through travel, work and experience. I do try to reason what I have to say and present it in an understandable package.

Politicians. The only exam they have to sit is how to get votes. The best passes end up in seats. Other skills are incidental as they keep proving with monotonous regularity.

[Workingman]

Thanks Suff, actually, Aggers, he is nearly spot on.

We were given a referendum where the choice was clear: Remain or Leave. It was a fair and open referendum, and anybody could take part. There were no suggestions, none whatsoever, that the result was rigged in any way: it was clean. OK, there are always dodgy votes, but there was nothing to get het up about.

The campaigns, by both sides, were pretty distasteful, but we didn't have to read or listen to them. We could have bought a different paper, or listened to a different radio station, or watched a different TV channel, gone on the Internet or to the library. We had so many options to get informed that when we arrived at the polling station we should have known what we were voting for: Remain or Leave, simples.

So, my side lost, what now?

As far as I am concerned there are three major camps in the Remain side. There is a group who, like me, think that we now need to get behind the result and make it work. The people have spoken and the majority wanted to leave. Another group want to complain but also come up with constructive criticism. They are largely neutral, but vocal, and I am comfortable with that. The third group is the problem. They are rightly called "Remoaners" by the Leave camp. They will try any dirty trick or tactic to scupper, delay or even block Brexit, and I have no time for them. My assessment might not be to everyone's taste, but that is how I see things.

When it comes to the other things in my OP I was simply pointing out potential pitfalls.

A50 might well be an EU treaty article, but the argument about its invocation is whether or not it comes under the government's jurisdiction to implement it as a UK procedure or whether parliament gets a say. It does not really matter if it is a win, lose or draw, it is a delaying tactic and weakens the government's hand.

The same goes for the suggestion that the Brexit team keeps giving updates on the negotiations made and next steps. We need to keep our cards as close as possible. Updates are fine, so long as is stops there. Next steps, no way. They are for the negotiating team, after all, the EU is not going to publish its next steps, is it? These things can all weaken our hand, or the EU's, and are just a delaying tactic.

As for MPs, or parliament, ratifying the end result. This is where the hammer falls. Why the government has admitted that it is "in their thinking" is a bit of a mystery, or is it? PM May is having to tread a fine line when most parties do not want Brexit, so leaving it very late for them to have any say might be a good tactic.

The situation remains, however, that the government, or parliament, could still ignore the referendum result. Would either survive if that choice was made? Would the UK as we know it survive? Doubtful.

Brexit is not yet signed, sealed and delivered and until it is anything could happen.

Please do not shoot the messenger.