"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

Ben: Oh, what you will have done is, when it flashed up on your screen, ‘Do you want to watch Bangkok Chick-boys?’ you must have pressed the button that said ‘yes’.

Alan: Yeah, well, as I say, it’s very confusing.

Ben: Do you want me to come up and show you the button that says ‘no’?

I think you are right. Either the May deal will be dressed in new clothes and able to just be squeezed over the line, although that's far from certain as Labour and the LibDems would oppose.

More likely I think is Parliament (not just leavers) acting together to ensure that the EU grant an extension. I guess this would have to be via a vote of no confidence and an interim PM with a cross party temporary government of national unity with a date set for a GE. A new PM would ask for the extension which would probably then be reluctantly granted.

Johnson, and the Cabinet, are all sticking to the line of not answering how they intend to comply with the law but not ask for the extension which the law now requires. It makes them all seem ridiculous. Maybe Johnson will resign or hand temporary control to Gove, so he can ask and then go to Brussels and veto the approval vote. Maybe he will call a vote of no confidence in himself. More likely though is it's just bs, which seems to be his stock in trade.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (17 Sep 2019 9.47am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The minimum penalty for treason is 40 years in prison and if anyone tries to pull that stunt we should have a show trial as a warning to others

I don't know....but I'm planning to eat a lot of popcorn between now and whenever this saga ends.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There's a scenario where a lot of us will probably be traveling towards the same time and location certainly.

But I'm more optimistic that we will be leaving....in one form or another. It's about the principle more than anything else.

If we have another referendum in a couple of years and we revert back....then so be it.....With the demographic change it's inevitable anyway.....here anyway.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Sep 2019 10.28am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Don't you think it's Parliament as a whole, irrespective of whether it's individual members were originally in favour of leaving or remaining, that have simply reasserted their supremacy over the executive?

Many MP's have accepted, even if they don't personally want it, that they are honour bound to try to implement to referendum decision.(I don't agree with them, but that's not the point). Their issue is the way we leave, and not if we leave. Other's take different positions but there are enough to be a majority against leaving without a deal.

So this is now no longer simply about Brexit. It's about ensuring the preservation of Parliamentary democracy. Allow an executive to dominate Parliament and ignore their decisions is a big step towards allowing a future wanna be dictator to ride roughshod over our democratic processes. Parliament cannot allow such a precedent to be set.

So I think your description of how things are is way of the mark. Preserving our system comes much higher up the agenda. Brexit has already been delayed so a another month or two hardly matters.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Because many doesn't mean all or even most.

It's when all those who oppose any kind of Brexit come together with those who just oppose a no deal Brexit that Parliament has a majority against the government's current stance.

If and when there is another referendum deciding what will be on the ballot paper will undoubtedly be another long drawn out process subject to legal reviews

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down.

I always view these Supreme Court cases as inherently unfair, in my cynical way I think that the side with the most money usually wins.

The government can progress through court after court throwing the taxpayers money at it, what do they care, whereas their opponent presumably has to cough up themselves, unless they win.

That's a hell of a risk, imagine how costly it is, suspension probably hasn't worked for Johnson anyway.

At the end of the day, as Cameron said last night on TV, he will just have to go back to the parliament where the majorities are now considerably against him.