Possibly momentous ruling from the EU high court

[Denzil_DC]

56. This has been brewing for a while, just under the radar for some in the UK, not just in the USA.

The case was brought by a collaboration between English QC Jolyon Maugham and some Scottish politicians before a Scottish court (we have our own legal system up here) because the yellow media like the Daily Mail in England would have gone apeshit calling the judges "enemies of the people" etc. etc. all over again, and nobody needs that clouding the water. It was eventually referred to the ECJ, and an advisory opinion released a week or two ago was borne out by this judgment. It's just confirming what was already strongly suspected, as Lord Kerr, who drafted Article 50, has always insisted unilateral withdrawal of it was an option.

It doesn't really suit the EU itself - its line has been that Article 50 can be withdrawn only with the consent of the 27, not least because it doesn't want any other member states going through the motions of leaving in future as a bargaining ploy without any penalties attached. I expect the future Article 50 process to be reviewed to take account of this development at some point.

The decision does at least cut away one excuse from the Brexiters - it's mindboggling that exploration of all the options wasn't carried out by the UK government and civil service - but I'm afraid it's unlikely to change anything. It just confirms that sticking by Article 50 is a political decision, not a legal one.

May seems intent on running out the clock on Brexit until the end of next March and having the UK leave with no deal (perhaps not coincidentally, that might protect some of the UK's major dark money interests from some of the ramifications of the EU's crackdown on tax evasion and moneylaundering), and all this running around in pursuit of impossible incoherent deals is probably just for show. Little else makes sense of the cack-handed way this whole debacle has been dealt with, though sheer incompetence can't be ruled out as a factor.

A while back, Parliament granted the government a wide range of autocratic powers ("Henry VIII clauses" ), supposedly to smooth the transition period when a lot of legislation might need to be changed and passed very quickly without time for full parliamentary scrutiny, and soon that's going to come home to roost, under another prime minister if not May. The refusal - so far, at least - to allow MPs to vote on May's deal when it looks certain it would be defeated is just the beginning.

At the moment, Labour's leadership seems content to see all this happen while making half-hearted noises of opposition, and is in no hurry to attempt a no confidence motion that might trigger an election before then - it's very unlikely they'd have the numbers anyway, the Tories would likely circle the wagons (for fear of losing their seats), the DUP kingmakers probably wouldn't want to deal with Corbyn, not least because of his past support for Sinn Fein and dealings with the IRA, nor a Labour government under anyone else, and the opinion polls aren't favourable despite the governmental mess.

Corbyn's idea seems to be to wait till Brexit comes about, then go for an election, after which we're all set for a spot of disaster socialism.

I'm sure that will work out well.