They have confirmed we can cancel it unilaterally if we demonstrate that we no longer wish to leave. Specifically to avoid the scenario you state.

I’m not sure where you’ve got that bit in italics from or what it means. Can you elaborate?

Far as I’m aware as long as the government comply with our own internal constitutional stuff we can revoke Article 50. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless that’s what you meant?

In view of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.

What I said then (I appreciate the link, mind, I’ve never read it).

I doubt the ECJ would even have jurisdiction to decide whether a member state had complied with its own constitutional laws. In the event of a legal challenge that would surely be decided by the member states own Courts.

The idea that we can have a second referendum and put things back to how they were before all this happened is some daydreamy bullshit, whichever way the vote went the country would be a toxic dump with no end in sight. But leaving with no deal would be a disaster, if it becomes a choice between that and another referendum then we should have another referendum.

On the other hand a deal which ends up giving them departure from the EU pretty much in name only and ends up with us rejoining after a referendum in a decade's time is not "appeasement", it's the only way I can think of to possibly get the fuckers back under the rocks from which they crawled.

Ben Nevis court?

If we leave in name only then the same right wing ass-hats will continue to bitch and moan in much the same way as they would if there was a second referendum and we ended up staying, especially if we then rejoined a few years later on worse terms than we have now.

Obviously I'd stock up on soup and stuff in the weeks before it actually happened.

it's the only fucking thing that'll shut the ultras up and it'd be the world's biggest ever 'Told you so'.
.

Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) :

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the outcome of the Prime Minister’s recent discussions with the European Commission and European Heads of Government regarding the Withdrawal Agreement, and potential ways forward.

Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con) :

Go back to Skye.

No, but if we have politicians standing up and saying "We'll withdraw it then resubmit it" (which will happen because our pols are idiots who think that the EU aren't allowed to read British newspapers) then they could quite reasonably state that the decision to withdraw it was not 'clear and unequivocal'

Alright let's do state aid – the last part of the puzzle. This is the bit Corbyn seems to care the most about. Basically, the EU is considered an impediment to socialist government.

Is it?

It depends what you mean by socialism. If you mean Bolshevik Communism, then it absolutely is. If you mean Scandinavian-style social democracy, it is not.

The fact most Scandinavian countries are in the EU is kind of a giveaway I suppose.

Yep. OK so most importantly, let's get one thing absolutely clear. The EU is not an obstacle to national ownership of anything. Part seven, article 345, of the general and final provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union….

You're such a dick.

...is explicit about this. It says: "The treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in member states governing the system of property ownership." The EU can't stop you taking the railways, say, or water, into public ownership. Nor can it stop a government becoming the majority shareholder in a car firm

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu?__twitter_impression=true

Allotment wanker.

“What we will do is vote against having no deal, we’ll vote against Theresa May’s deal”

I wonder if this is a prelude to whipping Labour to abstain on the Withdrawal Agreement vote later this month. I suspect this because it would be perhaps the most useless and cowardly thing he could do, and he appears to be a useless coward.

"what the fuck are you guys doing?"

In fairness, only the stupid people in the country actually want this; which is probably your go-to best response if you're feeling embarrassed by the entire shitshow (which I perfectly understand).

We are not allowed to call the bunch of bone headed morons that just voted for their very own jobs, hopes, and dreams to go down the shitter 'stupid' as it is counterproductive to something.

Also, I'm led to believe that Australian politics is as sadly batshit as every other major country has become in recent years so a list of, "Well, yeah, but look at what our country has done since Brexit!" arguments might not be hard to come by as a balancing factor.

Fuck sake. Everything's basically broken and/or on fire really isn't it?

I do also find it strange, living in a federation, with each state can have differing regulations. I couldn't say if it's better or worse (than what?) but coming from the UK it did feel odd.

Is that someone you know? I suspect some trolling because ‘ruel feeline angery’. I think most of this is people taking the piddle with the occasional actual stupid. But maybe I’m being generous.

Nope, saw it posted elsewhere. I’d really hope it’s a spoof and the all caps reply looks like one.

Nope, saw it posted elsewhere. I’d really hope it’s a spoof and the all caps reply looks like one.

So it's a real thing that's appearing in GP Surgeries in the UK?

This has appeared on Twitter, source unverified yet.

Is this really where we're at?