Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Another non-answer, you think you’re being clever..............
Newsflash, you’re not.
you’ve said that twice now, I haven’t seen anyone else state that but you?
Well, I don’t know, but seeing that the EU know exactly what her goals are, and what she is prepared to accept, why not replace her with someone else.? In any event it would be after we had left anyway.
Master of the bleedin’ obvious
|
I thought Brexit couldn’t be stopped? If it’s obvious she can’t be trusted to deliver Brexit then it must be possible?
It’s been stated multiple times that it’s May’s deal or no deal. The follow on from that (if you genuinely believe it) is that’s the ERG, DUP, etc can achieve no deal from the backbenches.
I don’t know why you think I’m trying to be clever, I’m stating facts that you are uncomfortable with but that’s not the same thing.
---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
We'll know on 27 November if technically we can cancel Article 50 from a UK perspective so that could be another outcome, albeit one I think unlikely.
|
I don’t know if we will know then, I think it’s just the hearing it could be a few weeks before we know.
I’m not sure if it’s just an advice ruling for the Court of Session in Edinburgh, who will ultimately rule on the back of advice from the ECJ.
In my opinion only, I can’t envisage a scenario where the ECJ would not allow a democratically elected government of a Member State to decide it has incorrectly or inappropriately applied it’s Treaty rights in relation to Article 50 and condemn its citizens to life outside the Union. Short-lived coalition Governments across the EU have in the past lasted shorter than the A50 process.
I’m not saying that is what happened in the case of the UK, but the decision would become binding to other scenarios like the one described above.