@marty As I understand it, the case isn't judging whether leave broke the rules, rather it's deciding if the referendum result should be voided - that would be huge. There's also a suggestion the court could rule that invoking Article 50 was invalid which would be even huger (especially as we have the right to withdraw it).

But I'm not sure I do understand it very well.

That the sales guys lied a lot and that it made a significant difference can both be true. Especially in a close result.

The real scandal is people like aaron banks were working with the likes of steve bannon in an underhand and quite likely illegal way.

I can't comprehend how they can rule on the refrendum being void without first looking at the process that got there and if those processes were corrupted.

And the guy who wrote Article 50 has said from the start that the UK can just revoke if they like. Seems like another pointless exercise to me.

ooh good to know. So hurricane is actually storm in a teacup.

@Marty Sure they're looking at the process closely but there's a huge difference between them ruling that leave overspent/etc and an actual high court judgement that the referendum was void or that invoking article 50 invalid.


Being able to revoke is a small part of the picture. The referendum being void would make it far more likely that parliament would actually revoke it. If the high court did go all the way and rule that article 50 wasn't even invoked in the first place then that would be of epic brilliance and importance.

It's one of the most overblown arguments ever. It's only happening because of the myth of the big bad EU that secretly loves the backstop and is trying to trap the UK into it.

It's just a mechanism to force the negotiations from both sides

Eh I thought it was overblown cos when May came back, everything she said then would correlate to this advice, so i thought it was obvious. The fuss should have been then, not now, if there was to be any.

MPs are quite thick.

This thread or the discussion in parliament...

No, it can't be broken unilaterally and, in the event of Brexit, it will happen.

Here's the thing. May's 'deal' is not a deal, it's a deferred No Deal. It's an eighteen-month Withdrawal Agreement, with a once-only option (at a cost to be dictated) to extend for two years, up to 2022.

That is nothing like long enough to conclude a free-trade deal and get it ratified by the 27, including those pesky Belgian regional parliaments. Nothing like long enough. Remember how long Canada took, and that deal doesn't even include services, which account for 80% of the UK economy.

After 2022, the backstop will apply indefinitely. And the backstop is 'No Deal except for Northern Ireland, which will maintain regulatory alignment with the EU.' This is laid down by the EU and the UK will have no choice in the matter.

As for No Deal or 'WTO rules' as Brexitards prefer, this is what a pro-Leave site pointed out all of eighteen months ago.

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blo...s9eTz74nTWYNpU

And remember, May's deal is just a deferred No Deal (because she's psychologically incapable of anything but kicking the can down the road), which means catastrophe, and it appears that Parliament won't wear it.

We'll find out on Tuesday. If it fails, then there is literally no option but to Remain, because there is no question that could be put on the ballot paper for a referendum. You can't go to the country with a proposal rejected by Parliament.

And at 0900 CET (0800 GMT) on Monday, before Tuesday's 'meaningful vote' in the Commons, the ECJ will publish their definitive ruling on the revocation of Art.50.

Incidentally, Brexitards have been trying to claim that it's too late to stop Brexit, because 'there's not enough time for primary legislation.' This is not true.

Parliament can vote to require the Prime Minister to write a letter of revocation to Donald Tusk. They can then repeal the Withdrawal Act and restore the status quo with a one-paragraph bill. It can be done in a day.

The only question is whether the ECJ will require the consent of the 27, or the Council and Commission, or whether it will accept the Advocate General's opinion and rule for unilateral revocation. We'll know on Monday.

lol amazing

Well, there's also the problem that the Banks company that funnelled the UK's largest-ever political donation into Leave was apparently never legally registered in the UK -- or indeed in the Isle of Man -- and has never disclosed its accounts as required by law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46460194

Not sure how that plays out in electoral law -- and it already appears that May as Home Secretary blocked an MI5 investigation into Banks, which is something that a future public inquiry should look at -- but, if a winning race car fails the post-race scrutineering, the stewards don't have to prove that the technical violation affected the result. Under FIA rules the driver is simply disqualified and the next-placed driver becomes the winner.

Unless I'm missing something then this graphic is truly amazing.

They've gave up on the north already by looks of it.

Banks is in deep water now (may be much worse than water). what a pity

looks like we're going to find out how it plays out in election law.

I'm pretty sure that these leavers can goto 1 of our isles to be free of immigrants if they so wish

were you a basic programmer in your youth?

I assume those teal areas are your versions of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi, etc

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other

Me? lol yes.

I assumed that one teal area on its own and almost central is bitterballs house.

Extreme youth I'd say, before he learned to start at line 10.

Sorry for bothering y'all Hit that button...