trousers

So, when May implements ye olde 'statutory instrument' to remove 29th March from the statute book, does she have to set a new date (12th April?) or can she leave it open ended?

Yep, I know that, you know that.... but of course Macron can't be seen to be explicitly advocating such an eventuality at this moment in time....

I knew it was only an advisory referendum because it was widely publicised as such. If others thought otherwise then it just goes to show how little attention some people pay to important details.

Macron: "It's a no-deal Brexit if MPs reject deal again" (BBC News)

Why didn't he just say "....I will deliver it"? It could be argued that the fact he sowed an element of doubt into his proposed action is the opposite of being misleading. He was in fact indicating there's a chance that he (or his successor) might not be able to deliver it. If he had straightforwardly said "I will deliver it" then, yes, that would have been misleading...

I'm not in favour of re-running the original referendum. I think we should have a different one now.... The first one asked whether we wanted to leave or stay in principle. I think a new referendum should now ask whether we want to leave in practice. Seems logical to me. I'm with Jacob Reece-Mogg on this. IIRC, he was originally in favour of two votes (before the terms of the original referendum were agreed). i.e. an opinion based referendum followed by a ratification referendum.

Whilst acknowledging that these online petitions are token gestures, I've never seen one go up quite as quickly as this one: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584 (It keeps crashing btw)

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1110569?sf209672524=1

Surely, by directly slagging off MPs in a live televised appeal to the public this evening, May is a genius and playing a blinder, in the knowledge that this is bound to entrench MPs even further into not supporting her deal, and thus ultimately lead to us staying in the EU (as she privately wants)? Either that or she thinks it'll galvanize support for her deal and she's just a bit dim...?

I agree that revocation is looking like the most likely outcome now, and the EU have kindly teed up a 'Here, you can even blame it on us' olive branch. I feel it also means we could revoke A50 "in good faith" thus leaving May also to appease the brexiteers that this isn't necessarily the end game. Maybe. Maybe not. Who the **** knows?!

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/17515112.southampton-ace-danny-ings-plays-in-behind-closed-doors-win DANNY Ings took another step towards being fully fit after playing for Saints in a behind-closed-doors friendly today. Ralph Hasenhuttl’s team won 3-2 against Championship side QPR, with Charlie Austin, Sam Gallagher and Jake Vokins bagging the goals. Ings, who hasn’t played since the beginning of February, managed to get 45 minutes of game-time under his belt. Hasenhuttl’s side were due to play Bristol City behind-closed-doors last Friday, however, the game was unable to go ahead. Saints’ boss also used the friendly with QPR to take a closer look at Fraser Forster.

Because there wouldn't be enough time to get the WA legislation in place before 29th March? (i.e. a 'technical extension')

Tusk has left open the door for a longer extension though (if MV#3 doesn't happen or fails), which some (majority?) of MPs might hold out for?

Tusk: "May's request for a short extension will be acceptable on condition that the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by HoC before 29th March..." Assume that means that Bercow can't now block MV#3 as that EU condition constitutes a significant change in circumstances....?

Et voila....? Edit: report being denied by French government

If the Scots had voted for independence in 2014, then it was a certainty that they would no longer be a member of the EU at the moment they left the UK. Of course, that reality doesn't stop the SNP continuing to pedal the "Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will due to Brexit" mantra whilst drawing a veil over the fact that a different result in the 2014 Scottish referendum would have resulted in the same outcome. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-eu-independence-referendum-scotland-join-queue-membership-apply-a7627201.html

Given that she believes the deal she has struck is 'good' rather than 'bad', I guess she could argue there's nothing contradictory in that article? i.e. in her eyes, there's no bad deal to be walking away from...?

Precariousness

If you squint hard enough, those buttocks in the foreground can be made to look like they belong to a lady. (No? Just me then. Maybe I should get out more)

The flagrant hypocrisy aside, that's not bad going for a football club that's merely 7 years old and which has spent their entire existence languishing in the 3rd and 4th tiers of English football.

Rings a bell. I guess we could argue it wasn't in bad faith but a necessity in the circumstances. All a tad subjective perhaps.

What are the EU rules on re-triggering article 50 a further time, having previously revoked it? I've got a feeling there's a "one time only" clause in there somewhere which prevents a country triggering it more than once? Although, maybe that's conditional on the circumstances. (For example, perhaps a country can revoke then invoke again if the basis on which they want to leave is fundamentally different to the first time?) If it's technically possible for a country to invoke article 50 again in the future, after a revokation, then maybe that's the way May sells it in the end. i.e. "I'm reluctantly pressing the revoke button at the 11th hour as it's better to pause and possibly reinvoke it later than go out now on no-deal". In other words, it could be sold as just an alternative method of delaying Brexit (if the EU veto our request for a delay) rather than canning it altogether, in order to get enough MPs onside. Dunno. Usual thinking-out-loud stuff from yours truly.

Given the EU don't want the UK to leave, isn't it obvious to them that their best tactic now is to engineer a veto on an extension to article 50? That will just leave 'no deal' and 'article 50 revocation' as the only two options left on the table before 29th March. Given that scenario, isn't it more likely the Commons will vote for revocation, citing it as the lesser of two evils?

https://southamptonfc.com/news/2019-03-18/monday-briefing-18-march-southampton-football-club