Article 50 is a rubbish piece of legislation, largely because it was written in a happier time when it was almost unimaginable any member state would want to leave the EU. It was never designed to be used.
It is legitimate to want to leave the EU, but there was no prospectus, no unified proposition that people voted for so I believe it is a very flawed mandate. I cannot fathom how any serious or responsible politician could start a time-limited process with no idea of where they want to end up – it is hubris and recklessness of a sort I never thought I’d see. But Mrs May did, because of party pressures.
Read more: Scots battle to win MPs' right to halt Brexit 'likely to succeed'
She didn’t want to include Parliament in the process, and was only forced to after the Gina Miller case. Mr Corbyn wanted it triggered even sooner. Our court case is going to clarify a simple point: can Article 50 be revoked, and on what terms?
It is clear that it can, but there is now an industrial scale spin operation in effect to try to persuade people that Brexit is somehow inevitable, even that it has already happened.
Well, it isn’t. Can MPs revoke Article 50 if it’s clear Brexit will leave us poorer and damaged? MEPs will also have a vote on the deal, what happens if we reject it and persuade others to do likewise?
Read more: Exports to EU support 40,000 jobs in and around Glasgow, as no-deal cliff-edge fears mount
It is imperative MPs and MEPs know the detailed implications of rejecting a deal. The UK Government has fought us tooth and nail, on the basis such a revocation is hypothetical so we should just be quiet, get to the back of the bus and let it get on with it.
Well, it might not be hypothetical for much longer. I’m not going to stand by and allow it to steer us on to the rock, and, in doing so, spend most of its time trying to persuade the public the rocks are out to get us. We deserve a clear-eyed, rational roadmap of how to exit from all this. We should be able to change course.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel