Re: OT: this is somewhat intersting and horses mouth.

MPs can vote to rescind Article 50.

But there is no provision in Article 50 to do that, so it would be irrelevant. The treaty would cease for the UK regardless.

1. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

I was planning to take on a commercial property lease a few years ago. I read through the landlord's lease and I couldn't see any provision for ending the lease, by either side, ever. I had to get a solicitor to look at it and he explained to me that much of the arrangement would be governed by the Landlord & Tenant Acts of 1956, 1973 and 1979. There was no way it turned out that I could just read the lease and presume I knew what it meant.

Now surely you are as educated and intelligent as the next bloke but just reading the words of the treaty doesn't make you an expert in international relations. In fact it may seem to make sense but you and I probably can't even understand what it says, because there is loads of context and loads of other stuff we don't know about.

TW

You'll find out in 4 month how wrong you are.

On 22/11/2018 08:10, Bob Martin wrote: arliament doesnâ??t agree to some sort of deal and that seems unlikely now.

They cant legally.

Strictly speaking they can legally, but it has no legal effect if they do.

Please don't keep telling yourself that. When reality bites it is really going to be hard. For you and for those around you.

TW

I said they can't *legally*.

Of course that has never held the EU back in the past but it would be a first for the UK parliament.

They can actually. Of course the EU can ignore that legally too.

Nope, its done that plenty of times in the past.

Perhaps what TNP means is that they can't do it such that it has legal

Since when has an act of parliament not been the law? I know they get it wrong sometimes but that just means they have to change some other act to put it right.

About the only thing that can stop parliament doing what it likes is the ECJ and the ECHR.

Who said anything about an Act? There are votes which are non-binding.

If they want to stop brexit what's to stop them passing an act to do so? Other than the ECJ or ECHR? So anyone that claims that parliament stopping brexit is illegal is in cloud cuckoo land.

Who is "them" in this context?§

It would have to be the Gumment that proposed such an Act, why would they do that if The Deal passed? If they did it after The Deal *didn't* pass, what options would they be left with?

And don't say "Not leaving". That option was ruled out in June 2016.

governments usually change the law when they want to do something that's not within current law.

NT

There are a few *major* problems associated with any attempt by parliament to block or further delay Brexit:

It's also not the least bit inconceivable that we could end up in something akin to a low-level civil war for decades to come.

What TNP says has very little meaning at all. The text of article 50 has been debated and discussed at the highest level by the country's greatest legal minds and they are advising parliament that the uk can withdraw their withdawl so to speak and cancel the notice given under article 50. Also the EU have indicated that they are of the same mind.

I know this is a diy group but really this is too absurd! Who do you believe? Turnip and that numbers bloke, or the Law Lords?

TW

That is what governments do alright. that's what governments are for. Why do you think that part of the government is called the legislature? It makes laws. TW

I think the gloves are now off. No one is even pretending we live in a democracy any more.

See above. They don't care.>

See above. They don't care.

Why do you think there is 100% surveillance in place already?

More like 60 years of soviet slow collapse