Is a Gerneral Election the only way to break the Brexit gridlock?

Today MPs voted to extend the Brexit deadline but also voted (by about 80%) not to have a second referendum. May has pretended to offer labour MPs a deal and offered almost nothing, gone back to Brussels to renegotiate what couldn't be renegotiated and failed. Tory MPs voted to have a leadership contest but then voted to (more or less) keep her in place.

Its a PM with no authority, leading a party with no majority trying to deal with a complex historically important issue which nobody in the country can agree on. We can't extend the deadline forever and something has to give. I think eventually there will be some kind of Brexit but not a hard Brexit and nobody will be happy.

The twin truths are that the referendum voted to leave the EU and that there is no mandate to change that. Also that Brexit is more complex than anyone imagined and that it can't deliver what it promised.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Correction. The country voted to do it.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson But how to do it and in what way?

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Original EU charter covers it. The ones trying for a deal actually want to relitigare the vote. @Burnley123

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson WTF does that even mean? You know nothing John Snow.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Wrong again Burnsie. Article 50 states:

[quote]The right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union was introduced for the first time with the Lisbon Treaty; the possibility of withdrawal was highly controversial before that. Article 50 TEU does not set down any substantive conditions for a Member State to be able to exercise its right to withdraw, rather it includes only procedural requirements. It provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter's future relationship with the Union. If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.
The legal consequence of a withdrawal from the EU is the end of the application of the EU Treaties (and the Protocols thereto) in the state concerned from that point on. EU law ceases to apply in the withdrawing state, although any national acts adopted in implementation or transposition of EU law would remain valid until the national authorities decide to amend or repeal them. A withdrawal agreement would need to address the phasing-out of EU financial programmes and other EU norms.
Experts agree that in order to replace EU law, specifically in any field of exclusive EUcompetence, the withdrawing state would need to enact substantial new legislation and that, in any case, complete isolation of the withdrawing state from the effects of the EU acquis would be impossible if there is to be a future relationship between former Member State and the EU. Furthermore, a withdrawal agreement could contain provisions on the transitional application of EU rules, in particular with regard to rights deriving from EU citizenship and to other rights deriving from EU law, which would otherwise extinguish with the withdrawal[/quote]@Burnley123

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@jackjjackson Mate, you don't have a clue. It's a wall of text that does nothing for your point. What is relitugare, anyway?

Article 50 wax deliberately designed to make it hard to leave because it put negotiating power in the hand of the EU.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Yep. The vote was held. Times up. @Burnley123