That’s It, Then

So, why, exactly, did we have a tedious referendum if the outcome is to be undermined and ultimately ignored?

Parliament has the right to reject the final Brexit deal, No.10 has indicated for the first time – raising the possibility that Britain’s EU exit could yet be halted.

Downing Street agreed it is “very likely” that MPs and peers will be given a vote once the withdrawal negotiations are finished, after the issue arose in the High Court.

The statement – after the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to give ground on demands for Parliament to have a say on Brexit – immediately triggered furious debate about the possible consequences.

And they will, won’t they? Not least because they have convinced themselves that we were ill-informed racist xenophobes who regretted our votes. They know best and all that.

Democracy? What a joke, eh?

8 Comments

  1. It’s the Independent, hopefully they are making it up and clutching at straws. Even so, any MP who votes against brexit in a constituency that voted for it, will be taking a hell of a chance.

  2. So having spent two years or so negotiating a deal our in-house traitors, like Clegg, would be happy to see more years of uncertainty?

  3. As I understand Article 50, once a country invokes it, that country is on an irreversible path to exit the EU, Article 50 does not mention a mechanism for stopping the process. There will be negotiations, but if these are not successful, then the country will leave 2 years after Article 50 was invoked. If parliament votes down the outcome of the negotiations, I don’t see that would stop the exit process, but it would potentially lead to it being less advantageous for the UK. The EU could agree to extend the negotiation period, but I’m not sure it would, but even that would not constitute retaining membership, it would be an extended limbo.

    Should the UK parliament actually vote to ask to cancel the invocation of Article 50, I think the EU would classify that as an application for new membership and would try impose conditions on the UK that it would on any other new member, i.e. the UK’s opt outs and rebate would likely disappear. I’d be very surprised if the government would feel able to rejoin the EU without a referendum, which one would expect it to lose if it is trying to sell conditions less favourable than the ones the UK electorate has rejected in the June referendum.

    • You’re right. Once Article 50 is invoked then you’re out two years later come what may. The PM knows this and shouldn’t be underestimated.

      I’m pissing myself laughing at the referendum that would be required to rejoin. Not a cat in hell’s chance of that happening – and let’s remember that a referendum is a legal requirement before entering into a new EU treaty.

      Rejoining? Never going to happen…

      • A50 can be extended if agreeable to the other members.

        Reuters also reported a vote would be held.

        Perhaps the vote will be between the negotiated position or WTO rules. After all Mrs May agrees “out means out”

  4. So, why, exactly, did we have a tedious referendum if the outcome is to be undermined and ultimately ignored?

    They thought they were guaranteed to win.

  5. Let us hope that, in the event of the House of Common Criminals voting to remain in the EU, that each and every name voting to remain is published and these names be mentioned in the run up to the next election. Those people be asked again and again, why they voted against the will of the majority of voters. Then, if there is any justice in this world, those same names will be way down the list of those elected.

Comments are closed.