No public disclosure of the legal advice??Little John wrote:No
The legalities are very much here and now. The arguments depend on the legalities. Whatever happens, I don't believe that withholding knowledge of the legal situation from the public is a legitimate or wise way to proceed.The "legalities" are neither here nor there.
There's nothing to indicate that in what I posted. I still want the UK to leave the EU - if anything my problem is that I dislike the way the negotiations are proceeding and I think the UK should play hardball. That even includes threatening to "rejoin" the EU as Mr uber-awkward in order to try to win concessions from them.I may be mistaken here, but you're sounding like you might be a leaver with regrets UE.
Even if that threat provides a mechanism for getting a better deal (one way or another) out of the EU??Well - if so - you are entitled to those regrets. But, you are not entitled to expect or endorse this or any other government refuting the democratic process by reversing wholly or partially the decision to leave, unequivocally and without qualification. Or, for that matter, even threatening to.
If they are legal options, then they are on the table whether you like it or not. This really isn't over until it is over. I think it is a sort of bargaining chip, in a rather unorthodox way. It is a way of calling the EU's bluff. They are proceeding on the assumption that it is politically impossible for the UK to revoke Article 50, but I personally suspect if Juncker, Barnier and their cronies suspected a revocation of article 50 was a realistic possibility, they might just become a little more flexible either on the terms under which we leave, or under which we stay.To be absolutely clear about this; the terms of continued membership - whole or partial - are not on the table and should not be on the table to be used as some kind of bargaining chip.
I think maybe where I differ from you is that I have different red lines. I'm not 100% opposed to the UK remaining part of the EU provided the terms of membership were substantially altered in ways that the EU so far has point blank refused to consider. At the moment this is not really a "negotiation" at all - it is more like the EU making a list of demands that the UK has to sign up to, with no reciprocal flexibility. I think it is possible that the final outcome of this whole process could be a substantially reformed EU rather than a UK-less EU. And I don't think this would necessarily be a bad thing - I'd need to see the details of any new arrangement before I'd be able to pass judgement.
But we need to be able to threaten them with something they seriously don't like, and I think a revocation of article 50 would be just that.