The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:
	I think you are. Erskine May is just a guidebook to parliamentary procedure. It's not a specific precedent or legal ruling, or even a set of rules. The book is used all the time, in that the way parliament operates day to day is laid out in Erskine May. To give you an idea of how much it's used, the book's 25th edition is coming up this year. The first was in 1844, so on average it's revised every seven years. That would be a lot of work for a book that wasn't opened very often !

In that case, it’s somewhat unbelievable that nobody in government saw the Speaker’s announcement coming. Table an almost identical motion for a third time within a short period and expect no eyebrows to be raised?

I don’t blame him, to be honest, but he did seem to be enjoying his moment in the spotlight and the potential for his spot in history.

[SponPlague]

Nobody saw it coming? IIRC the speaker said this was likely last week, and he would make a ruling at the appropriate time - i.e. yesterday...

	Quote:	SponPlague
	Nobody saw it coming? IIRC the speaker said this was likely last week, and he would make a ruling at the appropriate time - i.e. yesterday...

The way everyone was squawking in parliament and on the news yesterday, you would have thought he’d just surprise-announced that he was Elvis.

	Quote:	3Wishes
	How so? The UK is still in the EU until it is officially out on March 29 or later. If Parliament revokes Article 50 before that date, UK is still in the EU. The only way the UK would have to reapply for membership is if it actually leaves.

Your post was in response to this one:

	Quote:	Jim2007
	There is no way. A new application for membership would be required.

... which was in response to this comment:

	Quote:	Troublawesome
	No deal could happen and weeks after the UK will be begging to go back to the negotiating table to undo the damage...hopefully it won't get there but I don't see Art 50 been revoked, no one has the balls.

As I understood it, Troublawesome was talking about a situation where the UK had crashed out of the EU without a deal, but then had regrets and wanted to "undo the damage".

[Mikers]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	How so? The UK is still in the EU until it is officially out on March 29 or later. If Parliament revokes Article 50 before that date, UK is still in the EU. The only way the UK would have to reapply for membership is if it actually leaves.

If this happened I might actually piss myself. It would be the ultimate two fingers: reject the article 50 extension, UK crashes out without a deal, then reapplies, is allowed to rejoin but must follow all procedures including swapping pound for Euro.

	Quote:	Mikers
	If this happened I might actually piss myself. It would be the ultimate two fingers: reject the article 50 extension, UK crashes out without a deal, then reapplies, is allowed to rejoin but must follow all procedures including swapping pound for Euro.

Hmmm... plot twist?

Is this what JRM, Gove, BoJo, et al were secretly planning all along..? The scoundrels.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	That means a sovereign people... so who is going to get to make it up as you go along then? This is just nonsense we are now at a point were the speaker is summoning up a precedent from a parliament that has not sat since before the Act Of Union in 1707 to justify his decision.

John Bercow said the convention had been confirmed again many times, including in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. “Indeed, Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920,” he said.
So it seems the precedent is well established?

[eng_ch]

Not only that, the precedent is so well established that it hardly has to be invoked these days because that procedure is followed almost without exception; once something is voted down, it isn't brought back in the same session of parliament. One notable exception at the mo of course

[marton]

A Telegraph headline today

	Quote:
	No deal is better than Brexit delay, say voters – exclusive Telegraph poll

What the article actually says;

	Quote:
	Three in 10 adults (30 per cent) think leaving the EU without a deal on March 29 will be the best possible outcome, according to the poll, compared with more than two in five who disagree (43 per cent).

#FakeNews!
Source

Edit; I expect they are hoping their readers will think three in 10 is more that two in five; which is why they did not write four in ten!

	Quote:	marton
	A Telegraph headline today What the article actually says; #FakeNews! Source

Most of the media outlets seem to figure that people only read headlines these days due to the saturation of news all over the internet. Cram your point into a screaming headline and bury the facts further down the article. The last paragraph or so on most articles is usually them most telling.

Reading the comment sections of these publications seems to cement this assumption.

	Quote:
	people only read headlines these days

That would never happen with posters on EF.

	Quote:
	Most of the media outlets seem to figure that people only read headlines these days due to the saturation of news all over the internet. Cram your point into a screaming headline and bury the facts further down the article. The last paragraph or so on most articles is usually them most telling. Reading the comment sections of these publications seems to cement this assumption.

Headline and lead paragraph. And often, it‘s the editor who creates this bit...but if read through the whole thing, you might end up with a very different notion.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	I think you are. Erskine May is just a guidebook to parliamentary procedure. It's not a specific precedent or legal ruling, or even a set of rules. The book is used all the time, in that the way parliament operates day to day is laid out in Erskine May.

With respect, I knew that, but I fully understand that many people wouldn't have. It's a term of phrase, similar to referring to 'Stones' instead of referring to 'the Crown vs........'

For anyone interested in the legalities of the situation, I'm just posting 1-3 of this 15 post long thread. It makes for interesting reading, but even in the legal community there appears to be a split.

	Quote:
	Jo Maugham QC We're running very short on options. And (unless the EU27 come to our aid) we're realistically down to two: revocation and No Deal. MPs need do nothing for No Deal. It is (presently) the default. But what's the minimum needed to revoke? /1 The decision to revoke needs to be taken "in accordance with our constitutional requirements" (see paragraph 58 of Wightman http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documen...=1&cid=4582670 …). But what does our constitution require? /2 There has been a lot of debate on this in the legal community and there are two schools of thought. The first is that legislation is required and the second is that Theresa May could revoke without legislation. /3

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/st...88600341233665

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Mikers
	If this happened I might actually piss myself. It would be the ultimate two fingers: reject the article 50 extension, UK crashes out without a deal, then reapplies, is allowed to rejoin but must follow all procedures including swapping pound for Euro.

You missed a bit, rejected by referendum in Denmark/France/Ireland, one of the 37 regional or national parliaments, failure to meet some criteria or other etc...

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	eng_ch
	Not only that, the precedent is so well established that it hardly has to be invoked these days because that procedure is followed almost without exception; once something is voted down, it isn't brought back in the same session of parliament. One notable exception at the mo of course

Exactly, and it's not the first time the PM has tried to bend procedure in her favour.

Some are saying that this is occasion an exception because it's an extended session of Parliament, but I firmly believe that whoever is advising the PM should see their arse for this. Bercow has spent the weekend doing his homework and taking advice, whereas the government have spent the weekend trying to appease (bribe?) the DUP, amongst others. The phenomenal waste of a limited time scale is scandalous.

The EU have been very clear that the PM should reach across the house in an effort to move forward. To my mind, that should have happened on day 1. The PM should have formed a consensus on the aspects of leaving that were commonly held goals across the house and with the EU. She should have got those aspects agreed and firmly wrapped up before moving on to the more contentious issues. Every successful negotiation I've been involved with began that way, but noooooo..... She's gone into the steak restaurant and said "I don't want steak. I don't want meat. I don't want fish. I don't want cheese. I don't want sauces. I don't want potatoes." etc... and the EU has said "Fine. Take your green leaf salad and eff off!"

[eng_ch]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The EU have been very clear that the PM should reach across the house in an effort to move forward. To my mind, that should have happened on day 1. The PM should have formed a consensus on the aspects of leaving that were commonly held goals across the house and with the EU. She should have got those aspects agreed and firmly wrapped up before moving on to the more contentious issues. Every successful negotiation I've been involved with began that way, but noooooo..... She's gone into the steak restaurant and said "I don't want steak. I don't want meat. I don't want fish. I don't want cheese. I don't want sauces. I don't want potatoes." etc... and the EU has said "Fine. Take your green leaf salad and eff off!"

All sorts of things she should have done and should not have done from the outset - if she could do something wrong it seems she has - but I find it utterly inconceivable that we've got to this stage and she is still so blind to reality. And that the politicians are STILL so worried about their own seats and political futures that they haven't the guts to do anything but let her drag them and the country down with her. Bercow seems to be the only one with both balls and power (balls and numbers would work too) to say something in the approach HAS to change - after all, the definition of insanity is keeping doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.


And in the meantime, citizens rights are STILL being totally thrown under the bus; we here in CH are the lucky ones (at least those whose interests are exclusively in CH and not cross-border - those of us operating cross-border with the EU are still in limbo)

[3Wishes]

	Quote:
	Your post was in response to this one: ... which was in response to this comment: As I understood it, Troublawesome was talking about a situation where the UK had crashed out of the EU without a deal, but then had regrets and wanted to "undo the damage".

Oy, thanks for clarifying. This thread is a blur to keep up with.

[SponPlague]

There’s an interesting piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the DT today on Switzerland’s issue with the rest of the EU:

	Quote:
	MEANWHILE, the EU’s other showdown with a democratic European state is going badly wrong. The Swiss are holding out against the hegemony of the European Court and an attempt to gut their national sovereignty. <snip>

[SponPlague]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	With respect, I knew that, but I fully understand that many people wouldn't have. It's a term of phrase, similar to referring to 'Stones' instead of referring to 'the Crown vs........' For anyone interested in the legalities of the situation, I'm just posting 1-3 of this 15 post long thread. It makes for interesting reading, but even in the legal community there appears to be a split. https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/st...88600341233665

Erm, this Jolyon? https://order-order.com/2019/02/26/j...-uber-receipt/

[marton]

Meanwhile some good news

	Quote:
	Strongest UK employment growth in more than three years UK Unemployment drops to fresh 44-year low

Source

Must be the Trump effect