So if the eu won't offer an extension, then there can't be a second referendum can there? So it's now surely bets on A - WTO B - Revoking article 50 C - Death match royal rumble style
I thought I heard may say that if the house voted to remove the no deal option tomorrow, it would not remove the legal position that article 50 allows for no deal leaving?
All the signs are that T May in a previous life was probably the captain of the Titanic proceeded by ordering the charge of the light Brigade. So, this pantomime only needs Brian Rix to make an appearance. Any road up she's shown that she's absolutely not up to the job, I'd like to see her resign. TB
What would the EU gain by refusing an extension, especially as they have previously offerred one? Loathsome is taking a beating with the implied distrust of her & the government following the running down of the clock manoevers, finagaling and tricks.
Call it a hunch (somewhat supported by an angry German fella with a tash) but I'm not convinced that the entire lot of them will sign it off. The continued back and forth playground tactics by all sides might actually backfire and force a no deal by default. It's either that or Royal rumble......
Wow, Alastair Campbell.....just when you forgot how cuntish someone could possibly be he pops up and reasserts his cuntishness Bravo that man
You could well be right. I suppose the EU may want some assurance that the issue will be resolved in one way or another within an extension. They could require a second referendum to be announced which would offer a final decision. If no deal is voted out of the question tomorrow, I can see that they won't want to have another three months of May saying the same things as she has for the last 3 years and ending up no further forward.
So just to clear something up. If these muppets vote 'to take no deal off the table', then they don't agree anything else.....surely it ends up no deal anyway or revoke article 50?
Within the UK, the High Court's power of judicial review means the power to rule whether an executive act taken by (e.g.) a government minister was valid or should be set aside, on grounds such as that it was in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly unreasonable. It does not include any power to set aside primary legislation, e.g. an Act of Parliament, wholly or in part. Two further points though. First, many Acts rather than taking effect directly, grant power to the Secretary of State to exercise some function. A challenge by judicial review lies against the action of the minister, not against the Act as such. Of course to the casual observer there may not seem to be much practical difference. Second, in other jurisdictions outside the UK, "judicial review" often has a wider meaning. In the USA for example, the Supreme Court does have power to strike down legislation on the basis that it violates the constitution. Most states have similar arrangements. Since the British constitution, such as it is, is not entrenched that consideration does not arise here.
I was thinking it needs an appearance by the Prince of Denmark, so that it’s recognisable as a real tragedy!
The government has consistently said it would honor all financial comitments to the EU. A vote tomorrow confirming No Deal is not an option will rubber stamp it.
