It was intriguing to note that leading Brexiteer Mark Francois earlier this week wrote a letter to Graham Brady, the chair of the Tories’ 1922 committee, demanding another vote on Theresa May's leadership of the Tory party. In December, Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote, which was triggered by 48 of her own MPs who had grown disillusioned with her handling of the Brexit process.
Two hundred Tories backed May, while 117 voted against her, with Francois in the latter camp. The MP for Rayleigh and Wickford now wants a second “informal” indicative vote on May, given the change in circumstances since December.
This is rather odd as we have had the spectre of Francois, who is dead set against another referendum on the UK’s position in the EU, now looking again to oust the prime minister.
In addition, we have witnessed MPs having three says on trying to pass the EU withdrawal agreement, many of whom changed their minds over the course of the votes. The irony will surely not be lost on anyone that Francois seems to find no issue in MPs like himself being able to have countless votes on matters, but woe betide the public, many of whom have likewise changed their minds, being afforded the same opportunity.
There's nothing undemocratic about revoking Article 50 – reconsidering Brexit is the only way out of this mess The prime minister has at last acknowledged that she had no majority for her deal. Her options will have narrowed to two: no deal or revoke – and now she will have to choose
Imagine a different world. It’s 2015 and the Conservative Party has just won the general election and is thinking about how to deliver its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. It needs to put the question of our membership of the EU to the people. But it wants to do it in a way which is democratically sustainable. What does it do? It decides to do this; to hold a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act. It appoints a panel of independent members. They are to listen to the evidence and get to the truth. If we leave the EU what relationship would we want with it? What advantages and disadvantages would that relationship bring compared with remaining? And might that relationship have majority support in the country – because there would be no point in holding a referendum if the answer was predetermined?
They are given six months to hear evidence from pollsters and trade experts and economists and even EU lawyers, then a further two months to produce a report. Then, if the report so recommended, a referendum and, dependent upon the outcome, the speedy negotiation of a withdrawal agreement and our prompt departure from the EU on the terms that delivered that relationship. Who among us, if we could roll back the clock, would not now choose to do that instead? But here’s the thing: we can
On Sunday, the prime minister at last acknowledged that she had no majority in parliament for her deal. Unless the EU gives her an extension, her options will have narrowed to two: no deal or revoke. And she – or MPs, should she give them the decision – will have to choose.
No deal will cause profound damage to our economic and social infrastructure. Moreover, it lacks any democratic mandate at all. It was simply not a feature of the referendum debate. If May gets an extension her withdrawal agreement might be back on the table, but that does little more than park the contradictions between the visions – deregulating and nativist – of life outside the EU to which “leave” gave a mandate. It stores up problems rather than resolving them; the withdrawal agreement was supposed to be the easy bit.
A referendum offers a binary “take it or leave it” choice, but it is between two unresolved unknowns. The confirmatory public vote motions specified neither what the people might be asked to approve nor what would happen if they did not. And the difficulties involved in crafting that choice should not be underestimated: if it were between the two most popular options, no deal and remain, then moderate Brexiteers might feel obliged to campaign for the latter. If it were between a customs union and no deal what would this mean to the majority of the population that now support remain? And there are no two choices that do not raise difficulties of a similar magnitude. And then a horrific and divisive referendum campaign on that flawed choice. A Norway-plus style Brexit delivers neither for those whose who seek a profoundly different relationship with the EU nor those who cannot understand how the national interest is served by us relinquishing influence over the structures to which the UK will be subject.
But when forced to make a way out of no way, isn’t revoke the worst option of all? Is it not the ultimate triumph of remote elites ignoring the wishes of the 52 per cent; just acting like the referendum never happened?
Theresa May is sitting on her sofa saying don’t panic, so don’t panic That’s a powerful point – but it’s not without answer. And the answer is, it depends on what happens next. We’ve all done a lot of talking, mostly across one another, about what Brexit means and it’s driving us further and further apart. But there hasn’t been much listening. There hasn’t been any real attempt to find a model of Brexit that has a genuine democratic mandate. Don’t we need some of that?
If the EU was to agree to a long extension we could yet embark upon the inquiry without revoking Article 50. But if it does not, why should we not revoke and then reconsider? Why should we not recreate in 2019 the world we should have had in 2015, the world where we did all of this properly? European law, I believe, permits it. All that restrains us is a dogmatic attachment to a series of highly unsatisfactory alternatives. Revoking is not democratically the worst choice – it is the best.
Theresa May gives strongest hint yet about vote on second referendum The Prime Minister has consistently said that she opposes another vote but MPs could bring it
Crisis averted – now end the chaos: Business reacts to second Brexit extension
Westminster was warned of a 'disaster' for confidence in the UK if MPs squander the next six months and fail to find a resolution before October 31. More The second delay to Brexit must be used to end the “chaos” facing the country, business leaders have urged. Westminster was warned of a “disaster” for confidence in the UK if MPs squander the next six months and fail to find a resolution before the new Halloween deadline. The extension to Article 50 agreed by Theresa May with fellow EU leaders removed the threat of a no-deal Brexit on Friday, but did not remove it as a potential outcome completely.
Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI, tweeted: “This new extension means imminent economic crisis has been averted, but it needs to mark a fresh start. “For the good of jobs and communities across the country, all political leaders must use the time well. Sincere cross-party collaboration must happen now to end this chaos.” Dr Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said businesses will be relieved, “but their frustration with this seemingly endless political process is palpable”.
“For most businesses, the ‘flextension’ agreed by the European Council will be preferable to deadlines that are repeatedly moved forward at the last possible moment,” he said in a statement.
BREXIT DISGRACE: Government STOPS no deal planning - after £4bn already spent GOVERNMENTAL departments have been told to stand down their planning for a no-deal Brexit with immediate effect after the EU agreed an Article 50 extension until October 31 - even though £4 billion has already been spent on preparations.
UK stands down 6,000 no-deal Brexit staff - after spending £1.5bn
The government has stood down an army of 6,000 civil servants who had been preparing for a no-deal Brexit, at an estimated cost of £1.5bn. The civil servants who had been seconded from elsewhere will now return to their normal duties, but there is no clear role for an estimated 4,500 new recruits after article 50 was extended until Halloween. More than 16,000 civil servants in total have been working on Brexit. The Labour party’s Hilary Benn said it was a “costly price” to pay for Theresa May’s belligerent insistence of keeping a no-deal on the table.
Brexit delay 'not easy choice' Like many of the papers, the Financial Times examines the Brexit deadline extension, granted early yesterday by the EU. The paper says the UK has been given "respite", and points out that deciding to allow a delay "was not an easy choice for EU leaders". It urges politicians at Westminster not to waste the opportunity they've been given - but suggests that it would be a "grave mistake" for Theresa May to present an unchanged version of her deal to the Commons for a fourth vote.
There are now only two choices, revoke or referendum – no wonder Brexiteers are coming round to a Final Say We wouldn’t need a lengthy campaign to discuss the options – we have spent three years on this giant exercise in deliberative democracy
Brexit fatigue and chaos could, in other words, be cured at a stroke if Article 50 were to be revoked – and this could be done rapidly and unilaterally by the UK. The Conservatives could then get on with reinventing themselves under a new leader in good time for the 2022 general election, Brexit but a painful memory.
It might, though, be too much for many, who would find it a betrayal, and offensive. The second option would salve their feelings – to put the options to the people. As The Independent has consistently argued, a second referendum, a Final Say, is inevitable if the Brexit process is to resolved in the way it started – through the will of the people, freely expressed. Six months should be sufficient time for that.
We wouldn’t need a lengthy campaign to discuss the options – we have spent three years on this giant exercise in deliberative democracy. We do not need any more buses with big numbers on the side, or “project fear”, or graphics explaining single markets and customs unions. We’re fully educated
The 2015-16 legislation on an EU referendum can readapted, the flaws in the last referendum repaired, and the voting can take place with as many sensible options on the ballot paper as possible – guided by the expertise of the electoral commission. This ought to include Remain and one or two Brexit options – Ms May’s deal and/or the WTO or hard Brexit option, which, though economically ruinous, is at least practical.
Of course the British will not want to make a quick decision, and the generous holidays enjoyed by MPs mean that the opportunities for the House of Commons to resolve matters will be severely curtailed.
The chances are that Ms May, or her replacement, will be back in Brussels sometime after the British party conferences, in mid-October, asking for more time. The Europeans will also ask the usual questions about a plan. They will agree a further extension and another and another if need be, because the EU does not wish to force a hard Brexit, and the British parliament has virtually outlawed it. Even if, say, Emmanuel Macron eventually ran out of patience and played his veto, the UK would almost certainly not leave the EU because the choice would then be to crash out or to revoke. And this and any plausible future House of Commons will never vote for a no-deal Brexit. Brexit is, to all intents and purposes, dead. The only possibility of reincarnation is via a second referendum, which some of the more clear-sighted Leavers are starting to realise. Perhaps a consensus will eventually form around that proposition. It will take longer than six months, however.
Some people on this thread are not keen on ifs and buts, but if we look to the future, some things are predictable.
The Article 50 extension in itself, is not a solution, it merely postpones the cliff edge until the end of October.
When we get there it will be a choice between no deal and a further extension. Unless of course the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed.
The Government has suspended no deal preparations, and moved the 6,000 staff involved. Presumably with a view to restarting as we approach October.
There are many important projects that they could have spent the £4billion on.
Even though Parliament has voted decisively against the prospect of no deal, a number of times, I suppose it is still possible.
The length of the extension is not huge if you take Parliamentary holidays into account.
For me there is a huge question mark over how we reach a satisfactory conclusion, and I am not really certain how many members of the general public appreciate exactly where we are.
The Withdrawal Agreement is a Ronseal, exactly what is says on the tin. It refers to the terms under which we leave.
Specifically the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and Brits living in the EU.
The divorce bill.
The Irish border issue.
Included in this agreement is a 26 page Political Declaration.
This is a framework for the future trade negotiations which is not legally binding, and is likely to cause difficulties in the future.
As far as the WA is concerned the EU wont change it, and a majority of MPs wont vote for it.
However if it was somehow miraculously passed what would happen next?
Theresa May has promised to resign and make way for a new Tory leader. If she cant get it through she is likely to lose a vote of no confidence before the end of the year.
So either way we will have a new PM this year.
We can only speculate who this may be. Very few of the likely candidates are in favour of the WA because of the Backstop, or her idea of a trade deal.
An ERG candidate wont wear the Backstop, and probably favour no deal, Boris would agree with the ERG on the Backstop, and favour a Canada style free trade deal.
Few will agree with the PMs least worst option.
The EU-Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, and two years to implement.
Experts say ours wouldn't take as long, as we are already aligned with the EU, but it would take years.
The plan on leaving is to enter a 21 month transition period, and then the Backstop while the trade negotiations continue.
Any Parliament is unable to tie the hands of any future Parliament.
So there will be at least one new Tory leader/PM this year, possibly two if they appoint a temporary leader while they conduct the election. There will be a General Election in 2022, or before.
There is therefore a huge problem in concluding negotiations.
The new leader is unlikely to be sympathetic to Theresa Mays views on Brexit.
If Jeremy Corbyn was elected prior to negotiations being concluded, he would probably want to rip up what had gone before, and start again.
How many times could we start all over again?
How can we plan for a solution when we will possibly have a further two or three different PMs, a new Parliament, maybe a new party in power, and possibly another minority Government.
Any successful negotiations between the Tories, and Labour would not seem to be worth a light, as they wouldn't be legally binding, and undone by Boris on his first day on the job.
A referendum would seem to be by far the best solution for providing a definite solution.
I appreciate that it would cause some moaning, but I don't buy the threats of Civil War.
Ignoring ifs and buts, we will definitely have a new PM, and a General Election before any conclusion.
Some people on this thread are not keen on ifs and buts, but if we look to the future, some things are predictable.
The Article 50 extension in itself, is not a solution, it merely postpones the cliff edge until the end of October.
When we get there it will be a choice between no deal and a further extension. Unless of course the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed.
The Government has suspended no deal preparations, and moved the 6,000 staff involved. Presumably with a view to restarting as we approach October.
There are many important projects that they could have spent the £4billion on.
Even though Parliament has voted decisively against the prospect of no deal, a number of times, I suppose it is still possible.
The length of the extension is not huge if you take Parliamentary holidays into account.
For me there is a huge question mark over how we reach a satisfactory conclusion, and I am not really certain how many members of the general public appreciate exactly where we are.
The Withdrawal Agreement is a Ronseal, exactly what is says on the tin. It refers to the terms under which we leave.
Specifically the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and Brits living in the EU.
The divorce bill.
The Irish border issue.
Included in this agreement is a 26 page Political Declaration.
This is a framework for the future trade negotiations which is not legally binding, and is likely to cause difficulties in the future.
As far as the WA is concerned the EU wont change it, and a majority of MPs wont vote for it.
However if it was somehow miraculously passed what would happen next?
Theresa May has promised to resign and make way for a new Tory leader. If she cant get it through she is likely to lose a vote of no confidence before the end of the year.
So either way we will have a new PM this year.
We can only speculate who this may be. Very few of the likely candidates are in favour of the WA because of the Backstop, or her idea of a trade deal.
An ERG candidate wont wear the Backstop, and probably favour no deal, Boris would agree with the ERG on the Backstop, and favour a Canada style free trade deal.
Few will agree with the PMs least worst option.
The EU-Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, and two years to implement.
Experts say ours wouldn't take as long, as we are already aligned with the EU, but it would take years.
The plan on leaving is to enter a 21 month transition period, and then the Backstop while the trade negotiations continue.
Any Parliament is unable to tie the hands of any future Parliament.
So there will be at least one new Tory leader/PM this year, possibly two if they appoint a temporary leader while they conduct the election. There will be a General Election in 2022, or before.
There is therefore a huge problem in concluding negotiations.
The new leader is unlikely to be sympathetic to Theresa Mays views on Brexit.
If Jeremy Corbyn was elected prior to negotiations being concluded, he would probably want to rip up what had gone before, and start again.
How many times could we start all over again?
How can we plan for a solution when we will possibly have a further two or three different PMs, a new Parliament, maybe a new party in power, and possibly another minority Government.
Any successful negotiations between the Tories, and Labour would not seem to be worth a light, as they wouldn't be legally binding, and undone by Boris on his first day on the job.
A referendum would seem to be by far the best solution for providing a definite solution.
I appreciate that it would cause some moaning, but I don't buy the threats of Civil War.
Ignoring ifs and buts, we will definitely have a new PM, and a General Election before any conclusion.
£4b....... the politicians involved-all sides-should be ashamed, unfortunately they have no shame....arrogant,power hungry narcissists, most of them!
Some people on this thread are not keen on ifs and buts, but if we look to the future, some things are predictable.
The Article 50 extension in itself, is not a solution, it merely postpones the cliff edge until the end of October.
When we get there it will be a choice between no deal and a further extension. Unless of course the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed.
The Government has suspended no deal preparations, and moved the 6,000 staff involved. Presumably with a view to restarting as we approach October.
There are many important projects that they could have spent the £4billion on.
Even though Parliament has voted decisively against the prospect of no deal, a number of times, I suppose it is still possible.
The length of the extension is not huge if you take Parliamentary holidays into account.
For me there is a huge question mark over how we reach a satisfactory conclusion, and I am not really certain how many members of the general public appreciate exactly where we are.
The Withdrawal Agreement is a Ronseal, exactly what is says on the tin. It refers to the terms under which we leave.
Specifically the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and Brits living in the EU.
The divorce bill.
The Irish border issue.
Included in this agreement is a 26 page Political Declaration.
This is a framework for the future trade negotiations which is not legally binding, and is likely to cause difficulties in the future.
As far as the WA is concerned the EU wont change it, and a majority of MPs wont vote for it.
However if it was somehow miraculously passed what would happen next?
Theresa May has promised to resign and make way for a new Tory leader. If she cant get it through she is likely to lose a vote of no confidence before the end of the year.
So either way we will have a new PM this year.
We can only speculate who this may be. Very few of the likely candidates are in favour of the WA because of the Backstop, or her idea of a trade deal.
An ERG candidate wont wear the Backstop, and probably favour no deal, Boris would agree with the ERG on the Backstop, and favour a Canada style free trade deal.
Few will agree with the PMs least worst option.
The EU-Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, and two years to implement.
Experts say ours wouldn't take as long, as we are already aligned with the EU, but it would take years.
The plan on leaving is to enter a 21 month transition period, and then the Backstop while the trade negotiations continue.
Any Parliament is unable to tie the hands of any future Parliament.
So there will be at least one new Tory leader/PM this year, possibly two if they appoint a temporary leader while they conduct the election. There will be a General Election in 2022, or before.
There is therefore a huge problem in concluding negotiations.
The new leader is unlikely to be sympathetic to Theresa Mays views on Brexit.
If Jeremy Corbyn was elected prior to negotiations being concluded, he would probably want to rip up what had gone before, and start again.
How many times could we start all over again?
How can we plan for a solution when we will possibly have a further two or three different PMs, a new Parliament, maybe a new party in power, and possibly another minority Government.
Any successful negotiations between the Tories, and Labour would not seem to be worth a light, as they wouldn't be legally binding, and undone by Boris on his first day on the job.
A referendum would seem to be by far the best solution for providing a definite solution.
I appreciate that it would cause some moaning, but I don't buy the threats of Civil War.
Ignoring ifs and buts, we will definitely have a new PM, and a General Election before any conclusion.
£4b....... the politicians involved-all sides-should be ashamed, unfortunately they have no shame....arrogant,power hungry narcissists, most of them!
I am flabbergasted that they have been able to achieve so little in so much time. Amazingly they don't return until 23rd April. Then at the end of July they go off for 7 weeks. Return for a week. Then go off for more than three weeks, for their conferences. This equates to just about 3 months absence in total between now and the end of October.
Some people on this thread are not keen on ifs and buts, but if we look to the future, some things are predictable.
The Article 50 extension in itself, is not a solution, it merely postpones the cliff edge until the end of October.
When we get there it will be a choice between no deal and a further extension. Unless of course the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed.
The Government has suspended no deal preparations, and moved the 6,000 staff involved. Presumably with a view to restarting as we approach October.
There are many important projects that they could have spent the £4billion on.
Even though Parliament has voted decisively against the prospect of no deal, a number of times, I suppose it is still possible.
The length of the extension is not huge if you take Parliamentary holidays into account.
For me there is a huge question mark over how we reach a satisfactory conclusion, and I am not really certain how many members of the general public appreciate exactly where we are.
The Withdrawal Agreement is a Ronseal, exactly what is says on the tin. It refers to the terms under which we leave.
Specifically the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and Brits living in the EU.
The divorce bill.
The Irish border issue.
Included in this agreement is a 26 page Political Declaration.
This is a framework for the future trade negotiations which is not legally binding, and is likely to cause difficulties in the future.
As far as the WA is concerned the EU wont change it, and a majority of MPs wont vote for it.
However if it was somehow miraculously passed what would happen next?
Theresa May has promised to resign and make way for a new Tory leader. If she cant get it through she is likely to lose a vote of no confidence before the end of the year.
So either way we will have a new PM this year.
We can only speculate who this may be. Very few of the likely candidates are in favour of the WA because of the Backstop, or her idea of a trade deal.
An ERG candidate wont wear the Backstop, and probably favour no deal, Boris would agree with the ERG on the Backstop, and favour a Canada style free trade deal.
Few will agree with the PMs least worst option.
The EU-Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, and two years to implement.
Experts say ours wouldn't take as long, as we are already aligned with the EU, but it would take years.
The plan on leaving is to enter a 21 month transition period, and then the Backstop while the trade negotiations continue.
Any Parliament is unable to tie the hands of any future Parliament.
So there will be at least one new Tory leader/PM this year, possibly two if they appoint a temporary leader while they conduct the election. There will be a General Election in 2022, or before.
There is therefore a huge problem in concluding negotiations.
The new leader is unlikely to be sympathetic to Theresa Mays views on Brexit.
If Jeremy Corbyn was elected prior to negotiations being concluded, he would probably want to rip up what had gone before, and start again.
How many times could we start all over again?
How can we plan for a solution when we will possibly have a further two or three different PMs, a new Parliament, maybe a new party in power, and possibly another minority Government.
Any successful negotiations between the Tories, and Labour would not seem to be worth a light, as they wouldn't be legally binding, and undone by Boris on his first day on the job.
A referendum would seem to be by far the best solution for providing a definite solution.
I appreciate that it would cause some moaning, but I don't buy the threats of Civil War.
Ignoring ifs and buts, we will definitely have a new PM, and a General Election before any conclusion.
£4b....... the politicians involved-all sides-should be ashamed, unfortunately they have no shame....arrogant,power hungry narcissists, most of them!
I am flabbergasted that they have been able to achieve so little in so much time. Amazingly they don't return until 23rd April. Then at the end of July they go off for 7 weeks. Return for a week. Then go off for more than three weeks, for their conferences. This equates to just about 3 months absence in total between now and the end of October.
The only thing that I could think of that would be worse than the current political farce would be that ultimate ego, Nigel Farage refusing to give up on his power trip and
I dunno forming another disruptive, nationalistic, xenophobic party, called I dunno the Brexit party?
This will never happen because the majority of clear thinking British people won't be taken in twice, will they?
Comments
In December, Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote, which was triggered by 48 of her own MPs who had grown disillusioned with her handling of the Brexit process.
Two hundred Tories backed May, while 117 voted against her, with Francois in the latter camp. The MP for Rayleigh and Wickford now wants a second “informal” indicative vote on May, given the change in circumstances since December.
This is rather odd as we have had the spectre of Francois, who is dead set against another referendum on the UK’s position in the EU, now looking again to oust the prime minister.
In addition, we have witnessed MPs having three says on trying to pass the EU withdrawal agreement, many of whom changed their minds over the course of the votes.
The irony will surely not be lost on anyone that Francois seems to find no issue in MPs like himself being able to have countless votes on matters, but woe betide the public, many of whom have likewise changed their minds, being afforded the same opportunity.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/brexit-eu-theresa-may-brussels-summit-mark-francois-a8863996.html
The prime minister has at last acknowledged that she had no majority for her deal. Her options will have narrowed to two: no deal or revoke – and now she will have to choose
Imagine a different world. It’s 2015 and the Conservative Party has just won the general election and is thinking about how to deliver its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. It needs to put the question of our membership of the EU to the people. But it wants to do it in a way which is democratically sustainable. What does it do?
It decides to do this; to hold a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act. It appoints a panel of independent members. They are to listen to the evidence and get to the truth. If we leave the EU what relationship would we want with it? What advantages and disadvantages would that relationship bring compared with remaining? And might that relationship have majority support in the country – because there would be no point in holding a referendum if the answer was predetermined?
They are given six months to hear evidence from pollsters and trade experts and economists and even EU lawyers, then a further two months to produce a report. Then, if the report so recommended, a referendum and, dependent upon the outcome, the speedy negotiation of a withdrawal agreement and our prompt departure from the EU on the terms that delivered that relationship. Who among us, if we could roll back the clock, would not now choose to do that instead?
But here’s the thing: we can
On Sunday, the prime minister at last acknowledged that she had no majority in parliament for her deal. Unless the EU gives her an extension, her options will have narrowed to two: no deal or revoke. And she – or MPs, should she give them the decision – will have to choose.
No deal will cause profound damage to our economic and social infrastructure. Moreover, it lacks any democratic mandate at all. It was simply not a feature of the referendum debate.
If May gets an extension her withdrawal agreement might be back on the table, but that does little more than park the contradictions between the visions – deregulating and nativist – of life outside the EU to which “leave” gave a mandate. It stores up problems rather than resolving them; the withdrawal agreement was supposed to be the easy bit.
A referendum offers a binary “take it or leave it” choice, but it is between two unresolved unknowns. The confirmatory public vote motions specified neither what the people might be asked to approve nor what would happen if they did not. And the difficulties involved in crafting that choice should not be underestimated: if it were between the two most popular options, no deal and remain, then moderate Brexiteers might feel obliged to campaign for the latter. If it were between a customs union and no deal what would this mean to the majority of the population that now support remain? And there are no two choices that do not raise difficulties of a similar magnitude. And then a horrific and divisive referendum campaign on that flawed choice.
A Norway-plus style Brexit delivers neither for those whose who seek a profoundly different relationship with the EU nor those who cannot understand how the national interest is served by us relinquishing influence over the structures to which the UK will be subject.
But when forced to make a way out of no way, isn’t revoke the worst option of all? Is it not the ultimate triumph of remote elites ignoring the wishes of the 52 per cent; just acting like the referendum never happened?
Theresa May is sitting on her sofa saying don’t panic, so don’t panic
That’s a powerful point – but it’s not without answer. And the answer is, it depends on what happens next. We’ve all done a lot of talking, mostly across one another, about what Brexit means and it’s driving us further and further apart. But there hasn’t been much listening. There hasn’t been any real attempt to find a model of Brexit that has a genuine democratic mandate. Don’t we need some of that?
If the EU was to agree to a long extension we could yet embark upon the inquiry without revoking Article 50. But if it does not, why should we not revoke and then reconsider? Why should we not recreate in 2019 the world we should have had in 2015, the world where we did all of this properly? European law, I believe, permits it. All that restrains us is a dogmatic attachment to a series of highly unsatisfactory alternatives.
Revoking is not democratically the worst choice – it is the best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-news-article-50-revoke-theresa-may-eu-merkel-deal-a8861191.html
The Prime Minister has consistently said that she opposes another vote but MPs could bring it
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/theresa-gives-strongest-hint-yet-14274909
Westminster was warned of a 'disaster' for confidence in the UK if MPs squander the next six months and fail to find a resolution before October 31.
More
The second delay to Brexit must be used to end the “chaos” facing the country, business leaders have urged.
Westminster was warned of a “disaster” for confidence in the UK if MPs squander the next six months and fail to find a resolution before the new Halloween deadline.
The extension to Article 50 agreed by Theresa May with fellow EU leaders removed the threat of a no-deal Brexit on Friday, but did not remove it as a potential outcome completely.
Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI, tweeted: “This new extension means imminent economic crisis has been averted, but it needs to mark a fresh start.
“For the good of jobs and communities across the country, all political leaders must use the time well. Sincere cross-party collaboration must happen now to end this chaos.”
Dr Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said businesses will be relieved, “but their frustration with this seemingly endless political process is palpable”.
“For most businesses, the ‘flextension’ agreed by the European Council will be preferable to deadlines that are repeatedly moved forward at the last possible moment,” he said in a statement.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/crisis-averted-now-end-chaos-060621721.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/11/geoffrey-cox-says-ministers-will-listen-demands-second-brexit/
GOVERNMENTAL departments have been told to stand down their planning for a no-deal Brexit with immediate effect after the EU agreed an Article 50 extension until October 31 - even though £4 billion has already been spent on preparations.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1113105/brexit-news-no-deal-planning-theresa-may-operation-brock
The government has stood down an army of 6,000 civil servants who had been preparing for a no-deal Brexit, at an estimated cost of £1.5bn.
The civil servants who had been seconded from elsewhere will now return to their normal duties, but there is no clear role for an estimated 4,500 new recruits after article 50 was extended until Halloween.
More than 16,000 civil servants in total have been working on Brexit.
The Labour party’s Hilary Benn said it was a “costly price” to pay for Theresa May’s belligerent insistence of keeping a no-deal on the table.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/uk-stands-down-6000-no-deal-brexit-staff-after-spending-£15bn/ar-BBVQRM4?ocid=spartandhp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/boris-and-his-tory-leadership-campaign-team-hold-secret-talks-with-the-dup-as-pressure-builds-for-may-to-stand-down/ar-BBVRfZr?ocid=spartandhp
Brexit delay 'not easy choice'
Like many of the papers, the Financial Times examines the Brexit deadline extension, granted early yesterday by the EU.
The paper says the UK has been given "respite", and points out that deciding to allow a delay "was not an easy choice for EU leaders".
It urges politicians at Westminster not to waste the opportunity they've been given - but suggests that it would be a "grave mistake" for Theresa May to present an unchanged version of her deal to the Commons for a fourth vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47903686
We wouldn’t need a lengthy campaign to discuss the options – we have spent three years on this giant exercise in deliberative democracy
Brexit fatigue and chaos could, in other words, be cured at a stroke if Article 50 were to be revoked – and this could be done rapidly and unilaterally by the UK. The Conservatives could then get on with reinventing themselves under a new leader in good time for the 2022 general election, Brexit but a painful memory.
It might, though, be too much for many, who would find it a betrayal, and offensive. The second option would salve their feelings – to put the options to the people.
As The Independent has consistently argued, a second referendum, a Final Say, is inevitable if the Brexit process is to resolved in the way it started – through the will of the people, freely expressed. Six months should be sufficient time for that.
We wouldn’t need a lengthy campaign to discuss the options – we have spent three years on this giant exercise in deliberative democracy. We do not need any more buses with big numbers on the side, or “project fear”, or graphics explaining single markets and customs unions. We’re fully educated
The 2015-16 legislation on an EU referendum can readapted, the flaws in the last referendum repaired, and the voting can take place with as many sensible options on the ballot paper as possible – guided by the expertise of the electoral commission. This ought to include Remain and one or two Brexit options – Ms May’s deal and/or the WTO or hard Brexit option, which, though economically ruinous, is at least practical.
Of course the British will not want to make a quick decision, and the generous holidays enjoyed by MPs mean that the opportunities for the House of Commons to resolve matters will be severely curtailed.
The chances are that Ms May, or her replacement, will be back in Brussels sometime after the British party conferences, in mid-October, asking for more time. The Europeans will also ask the usual questions about a plan. They will agree a further extension and another and another if need be, because the EU does not wish to force a hard Brexit, and the British parliament has virtually outlawed it.
Even if, say, Emmanuel Macron eventually ran out of patience and played his veto, the UK would almost certainly not leave the EU because the choice would then be to crash out or to revoke. And this and any plausible future House of Commons will never vote for a no-deal Brexit.
Brexit is, to all intents and purposes, dead. The only possibility of reincarnation is via a second referendum, which some of the more clear-sighted Leavers are starting to realise. Perhaps a consensus will eventually form around that proposition. It will take longer than six months, however.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/brexit-extension-referendum-final-say-revoke-article-50-a8865741.html
Some people on this thread are not keen on ifs and buts, but if we look to the future, some things are predictable.
The Article 50 extension in itself, is not a solution, it merely postpones the cliff edge until the end of October.
When we get there it will be a choice between no deal and a further extension. Unless of course the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed.
The Government has suspended no deal preparations, and moved the 6,000 staff involved. Presumably with a view to restarting as we approach October.
There are many important projects that they could have spent the £4billion on.
Even though Parliament has voted decisively against the prospect of no deal, a number of times, I suppose it is still possible.
The length of the extension is not huge if you take Parliamentary holidays into account.
For me there is a huge question mark over how we reach a satisfactory conclusion, and I am not really certain how many members of the general public appreciate exactly where we are.
The Withdrawal Agreement is a Ronseal, exactly what is says on the tin. It refers to the terms under which we leave.
Specifically the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and Brits living in the EU.
The divorce bill.
The Irish border issue.
Included in this agreement is a 26 page Political Declaration.
This is a framework for the future trade negotiations which is not legally binding, and is likely to cause difficulties in the future.
As far as the WA is concerned the EU wont change it, and a majority of MPs wont vote for it.
However if it was somehow miraculously passed what would happen next?
Theresa May has promised to resign and make way for a new Tory leader. If she cant get it through she is likely to lose a vote of no confidence before the end of the year.
So either way we will have a new PM this year.
We can only speculate who this may be. Very few of the likely candidates are in favour of the WA because of the Backstop, or her idea of a trade deal.
An ERG candidate wont wear the Backstop, and probably favour no deal, Boris would agree with the ERG on the Backstop, and favour a Canada style free trade deal.
Few will agree with the PMs least worst option.
The EU-Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, and two years to implement.
Experts say ours wouldn't take as long, as we are already aligned with the EU, but it would take years.
The plan on leaving is to enter a 21 month transition period, and then the Backstop while the trade negotiations continue.
Any Parliament is unable to tie the hands of any future Parliament.
So there will be at least one new Tory leader/PM this year, possibly two if they appoint a temporary leader while they conduct the election. There will be a General Election in 2022, or before.
There is therefore a huge problem in concluding negotiations.
The new leader is unlikely to be sympathetic to Theresa Mays views on Brexit.
If Jeremy Corbyn was elected prior to negotiations being concluded, he would probably want to rip up what had gone before, and start again.
How many times could we start all over again?
How can we plan for a solution when we will possibly have a further two or three different PMs, a new Parliament, maybe a new party in power, and possibly another minority Government.
Any successful negotiations between the Tories, and Labour would not seem to be worth a light, as they wouldn't be legally binding, and undone by Boris on his first day on the job.
A referendum would seem to be by far the best solution for providing a definite solution.
I appreciate that it would cause some moaning, but I don't buy the threats of Civil War.
Ignoring ifs and buts, we will definitely have a new PM, and a General Election before any conclusion.
Amazingly they don't return until 23rd April.
Then at the end of July they go off for 7 weeks.
Return for a week.
Then go off for more than three weeks, for their conferences.
This equates to just about 3 months absence in total between now and the end of October.
I dunno forming another disruptive, nationalistic, xenophobic party, called I dunno the Brexit party?
This will never happen because the majority of clear thinking British people won't be taken in twice, will they?