Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[marshalla]

bmw535i said:

Having been mocked for allegedly being a "Daily Wail" reader and for posting a link to an Express article, I asked which newspapers were suitable to quote. Unsurprisingly, there was no response.

None of them : http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Elysium]

Derek Smith said:

FiF said:

Ever heard the expression of peeing on someone's chips? Maybe Remainers about to experience more than vinegar on their fried potatoes.

Theresa May will trigger Brexit negotiations without commons vote

Lumpy waters ahead nevertheless.

Hmm. The Telegraph has learned, has it.

It's guff. It is their little bit of pressure on the government. It is a paper trying to run the country. I mean, who does the editor think he is, Murdoch?

I seriously doubt they have a hot line to May and is is unlikely that she'd go off record to something akin to the Sun and Mirror.

The Government has given an undertaking to the High Court that they will not invoke article 50 until various legal challenges relating to their power to do so are decided:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/go...

These go to court in October and it has already been suggested that both parties will appeal to the supreme court if they do not get the result they are seeking.

This is sabre rattling from the telegraphs 'source'. The May governments decision to contest the challenge shows that they have been keeping their options open on this issue from the outset. A parliamentary vote is a big gamble as both the leave and remain supporters could derail matters. May would prefer to avoid this and she has some lawyers that say she can. However, there are lots of other lawyers who disagree.

It would be a brave gamble to push the button on this without a directive from the courts and the government has been clear that they will not do so.

[Derek Smith]

don'tbesilly said:

It's obvious you don't rate the Telegraph or the writer Steven Swinford (Deputy Political Editor), you discount most other news outlets as unworthy, so it would be interesting to hear who the journalist is that you hold in such high regard, and quote some relevant parts from your oracle of choice The Times.

I think most are aware that options surrounding the UK leaving/not leaving the EU have been suggested/discussed and will continue until such time as A50 is actually triggered, however May has categorically stated that Brexit means Brexit (of course we don't know yet what Brexit will actually look like), so hearing what your 'chap' has to say would be interesting.

If you think what your chap has to say is more credible than what has already been posted why would you not post them? You yourself don't have a problem ridiculing what others post, why are you so sensitive about your chap having his points discussed and possibly being disrespected.

Not my chap. It was an interview. It is untarnished by a paper's editorial control. That said, the person interviewed will have a bias of course, but it is the person's point of view. A newspaper, on the other hand:

A political journalist is political. Paper owners control editorial. This is a political missive.

The bloke who is not my chap explained some of the constraints on a swift exit from the eu.

He says may will have to "corral all these different individuals [specialists - from around the world as well as home grown - on trade negotiations], come up with precisely what version of Brexit suits our needs."

He reckons that this will take "five to ten years."

He says that the administrative challenges of Brexit will mean a slow pace of exit.

This is a chap who was at the top of his job in politics. No upwards to aspire to.

There was no particular reason for not posting, apart from the Haymarket restrictions. Also anything that goes against the PH brexit rejoicers is attacked. It is not argued against, it is just dismissed, sometimes with an emoticon, or, rather strangely, by arguing about something I didn't say.

The title of this thread has been answered many times. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is impossible. Yet we are told time and again that brexit means brexit as if that counters the old truth.

I expect us to leave the eu as it is. But beyond that I, like anyone else, have no idea what will happen.

So I'll post this despite knowing that many people will scan it looking for some way to contradict something.

What is important now is the negotiations. The terms will define the next decades in this country. Yet none of us know what these will be. The pound going up and down is wallpaper.

Anyway, a bloke who has oodles of experience said the above.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

If, however, you quoted an interview with someone with a bit of knowledge and experience of politics, such as in The Times today, then I could see your point. If you did, perhaps you would not be so ready to suggest that we are leaving the eu. It would appear that there are options.

Derek Smith said:

I expect us to leave the eu as it is.

You are all over the place Derek.

I've never seen such confusion and denial about anything before as I see from people who cant accept the outcome of this vote and what it means.

I'll give you a very basic summary, minus any papers writings.

The citizens of the UK voted in a referendum to leave the EU.
The current government will act on that result and will take us out of the EU.
The other nations in the EU are waiting for us to start the formal process.
The other nations in the EU will not be making any changes to the EU to stop us leaving.
The UK government will not be requesting the EU makes any changes to stop us leaving.
The process for this change to occur is for the UK government to get it's required organisations in place to carry out this task.
The other EU nations have accepted it is unrealistic to expect Art50 to be invoked until enough time has passed for this to be carried out by teams of people that are in place to do the job properly.
The process of the referendum was to make a decision, until that decision was made to leave the EU the government had no structures in place to carry out such a task, these are now being implemented.
Once these are implemented the negotiations can begin with Art50 being invoked.

May was very clear from the moment she was appointed as leader and PM, that there will be no staying in the EU either formally, or via the back door.

What is up for negotiation is how we will move forward with our relationships with the EU, once we are no longer a member state with the obligations and benefits that entails. That is something that will be covered by the negotiations. The negotiations are not to enable us to change the EU or continue to be a member.

[b2hbm]

jsf said:

The other nations in the EU will not be making any changes to the EU to stop us leaving.
The UK government will not be requesting the EU makes any changes to stop us leaving.

You could even argue that having accepted the UK referendum result as "going to happen" the remaining 27 states are already changing the EU from the organisation we are/were members of, and in some ways we traditionally opposed.

Not only are they having meetings without a UK presence but we're now seeing more vocal calls for the creation of an EU army. It's no longer Junker on his own, we now have the smaller states, Hungary, Czech Republic for example, who are lobbying Merkel to do just that. An excellent move on the part of the EU, the big players are shown to be listening to the smaller members and helpfully setting up something to defend everyone with the side benefit of strengthening internal ties.

As this required a unanimous vote and the UK had clearly indicated they would veto the proposal, it could be argued that we were responsible for it not happening. Now the UK is leaving they realise they can get started on it.

So the EU states have accepted we're off, it's just some of us that haven't figured it out yet.

[turbobloke]

b2hbm said:

jsf said:

The other nations in the EU will not be making any changes to the EU to stop us leaving.
The UK government will not be requesting the EU makes any changes to stop us leaving.

You could even argue that having accepted the UK referendum result as "going to happen" the remaining 27 states are already changing the EU from the organisation we are/were members of, and in some ways we traditionally opposed.

Not only are they having meetings without a UK presence but we're now seeing more vocal calls for the creation of an EU army. It's no longer Junker on his own, we now have the smaller states, Hungary, Czech Republic for example, who are lobbying Merkel to do just that. An excellent move on the part of the EU, the big players are shown to be listening to the smaller members and helpfully setting up something to defend everyone with the side benefit of strengthening internal ties.

As this required a unanimous vote and the UK had clearly indicated they would veto the proposal, it could be argued that we were responsible for it not happening. Now the UK is leaving they realise they can get started on it.

So the EU states have accepted we're off, it's just some of us that haven't figured it out yet.

That's because some of them know papers, know journalism, know a chap, just know. Top notch arguments

The legal side is being pushed by one rich remainer and a few hangers-on (what a surprise).

[Derek Smith]

jsf said:

You are all over the place Derek.

I've never seen such confusion and denial about anything before as I see from people who cant accept the outcome of this vote and what it means.

I'll give you a very basic summary, minus any papers writings.

The citizens of the UK voted in a referendum to leave the EU.
The current government will act on that result and will take us out of the EU.
The other nations in the EU are waiting for us to start the formal process.
The other nations in the EU will not be making any changes to the EU to stop us leaving.
The UK government will not be requesting the EU makes any changes to stop us leaving.
The process for this change to occur is for the UK government to get it's required organisations in place to carry out this task.
The other EU nations have accepted it is unrealistic to expect Art50 to be invoked until enough time has passed for this to be carried out by teams of people that are in place to do the job properly.
The process of the referendum was to make a decision, until that decision was made to leave the EU the government had no structures in place to carry out such a task, these are now being implemented.
Once these are implemented the negotiations can begin with Art50 being invoked.

May was very clear from the moment she was appointed as leader and PM, that there will be no staying in the EU either formally, or via the back door.

What is up for negotiation is how we will move forward with our relationships with the EU, once we are no longer a member state with the obligations and benefits that entails. That is something that will be covered by the negotiations. The negotiations are not to enable us to change the EU or continue to be a member.

Do you expect me to put more weight on what you say that on the opinion of the head of the civil service?

You suggest I am all over the place whereas I am quite clear in my mind.

I expect us to leave the eu. However, I've been around long enough to know that politics isn't simple. Nothing is set in stone. I think it would be all but impossible for a political party not to run along with the vote but beyond that neither you nor I know what will happen.

May says brexit means brexit. OK. But do you have an inside track on what she means by that? I don't. But I do know that she has a small majority in parliament and that she has to work with those who, rather ridiculously, are going to the press and making various demands: leave immediately, brexit means no eu immigrants, that sort of thing. Managing them is her first priority and an ambiguous statement is a tried and tested tactic. It means what various factions want it to mean.

You suggest that it means we won't stay in the eu in any way, 'by the back door' according to you. But it doesn't say that. I'm quite clear on that. The options include, amongst others, Norwegian style membership of the eu. That's a brexit.

You make a series of statements. Well, if that's what you want to believe, then I'm happy for you, but they are wishes. What is clear is that brexit means all sorts of things to different mps.

I don't know what is going to happen. That's where I am; in other words I await developments. On what information we have at the moment, no conclusions can be drawn at to what exit will mean. You make statements of opinion as if they are fact.

I'm clear on that.

[don'tbesilly]

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's obvious you don't rate the Telegraph or the writer Steven Swinford (Deputy Political Editor), you discount most other news outlets as unworthy, so it would be interesting to hear who the journalist is that you hold in such high regard, and quote some relevant parts from your oracle of choice The Times.

I think most are aware that options surrounding the UK leaving/not leaving the EU have been suggested/discussed and will continue until such time as A50 is actually triggered, however May has categorically stated that Brexit means Brexit (of course we don't know yet what Brexit will actually look like), so hearing what your 'chap' has to say would be interesting.

If you think what your chap has to say is more credible than what has already been posted why would you not post them? You yourself don't have a problem ridiculing what others post, why are you so sensitive about your chap having his points discussed and possibly being disrespected.

Not my chap. It was an interview. It is untarnished by a paper's editorial control. That said, the person interviewed will have a bias of course, but it is the person's point of view. A newspaper, on the other hand:

A political journalist is political. Paper owners control editorial. This is a political missive.

The bloke who is not my chap explained some of the constraints on a swift exit from the eu.

He says may will have to "corral all these different individuals [specialists - from around the world as well as home grown - on trade negotiations], come up with precisely what version of Brexit suits our needs."

He reckons that this will take "five to ten years."

He says that the administrative challenges of Brexit will mean a slow pace of exit.

This is a chap who was at the top of his job in politics. No upwards to aspire to.

There was no particular reason for not posting, apart from the Haymarket restrictions. Also anything that goes against the PH brexit rejoicers is attacked. It is not argued against, it is just dismissed, sometimes with an emoticon, or, rather strangely, by arguing about something I didn't say.

The title of this thread has been answered many times. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is impossible. Yet we are told time and again that brexit means brexit as if that counters the old truth.

I expect us to leave the eu as it is. But beyond that I, like anyone else, have no idea what will happen.

So I'll post this despite knowing that many people will scan it looking for some way to contradict something.

What is important now is the negotiations. The terms will define the next decades in this country. Yet none of us know what these will be. The pound going up and down is wallpaper.

Anyway, a bloke who has oodles of experience said the above.

That's rather a disappointing response Derek, mainly because you've chosen to edit the discussion for no apparent reason, which is a shame.

Reading the comments from other posters subsequent to our own exchange and your responses, I'm guessing the chap in question is Lord O'Donnell who as the former head of the Civil Service would have the experience you refer to.

I think a lot of leavers would agree with a lot of what he states, I can't imagine most sensible leave voters (no doubt the remainers will say there are none!) would have thought that simply voting to leave would be just that, we have voted to leave so bye,bye, we'll be in touch with what WE want.

I said in my previous post that Brexit as yet is undefined, and again, I think most leavers would expect some kind of compromise on what Brexit looks like,leavers will have differing reasons for voting leave and you can't please all of the people all of the time.

You state that you didn't mention a lot of what O'Donnell (if it was O'Donnell) said in your original post because of HM restrictions and because apparently Brexit rejoicers would attack the views and not discuss them.
I'd say the same about remainers,attacking leavers views, it goes without saying that there are opposing opinions, and I don't think the remainers are any worse or better than the leavers in giving their opinions

O'Donnell does say the UK will leave the EU though, albeit the T's & C's of the UK's exit are yet to be established, so at least he agrees on leaving irrefutably, which would seem to be at odds at what you inferred in your earlier post.

[Derek Smith]

don'tbesilly said:

That's rather a disappointing response Derek, mainly because you've chosen to edit the discussion for no apparent reason, which is a shame.

Reading the comments from other posters subsequent to our own exchange and your responses, I'm guessing the chap in question is Lord O'Donnell who as the former head of the Civil Service would have the experience you refer to.

I think a lot of leavers would agree with a lot of what he states, I can't imagine most sensible leave voters (no doubt the remainers will say there are none!) would have thought that simply voting to leave would be just that, we have voted to leave so bye,bye, we'll be in touch with what WE want.

I said in my previous post that Brexit as yet is undefined, and again, I think most leavers would expect some kind of compromise on what Brexit looks like,leavers will have differing reasons for voting leave and you can't please all of the people all of the time.

You state that you didn't mention a lot of what O'Donnell (if it was O'Donnell) said in your original post because of HM restrictions and because apparently Brexit rejoicers would attack the views and not discuss them.
I'd say the same about remainers,attacking leavers views, it goes without saying that there are opposing opinions, and I don't think the remainers are any worse or better than the leavers in giving their opinions

O'Donnell does say the UK will leave the EU though, albeit the T's & C's of the UK's exit are yet to be established, so at least he agrees on leaving irrefutably, which would seem to be at odds at what you inferred in your earlier post.

I expect the UK to 'leave' the eu. But as I've pointed out, and as it is clear in the article I'm joined by Lord O'D, there are any number of alternatives as to what leave means in this case.

The only additional bit I've added is that nothing is set in stone when it comes to politics. In support of my contention I would quote history, probably the most dependable of all forms of evidence. We know that legally there is no obligation on any government to comply with the vote. We know that there is a majority of MPs for remaining. Whilst I think it is unlikely, irrefutable is not a word that can be used reasonably for exit.

Would you consider the Norwegian option as leaving the eu? Or, more to the point, would May consider it as Brexit? Literally it would of course. Is it what people voted for? Literally it would be. But the Norwegian option would probably not be our first choice. What about a closer liaison?

As I say, brexit means anything.

I'm not suggesting that everything Lord O'D says will come true but I get the impression that he believes everything he has said, so some weight must be put on it. The suggestion about the eu changing in some way so that the UK could go along with it whilst still complying with the result of the referendum is interesting. It is not clear whether this is a viable option. It is unlikely I think, but I'm sure it is possible.

So if the eu goes with a dual level membership, would that be brexit? The MPs might prefer it.

[anonymous-user]

Prime Minister In Push To Gear Up Cabinet For Brexit
http://news.sky.com/story/prime-minister-in-push-t...

[Elysium]

bmw535i said:

Prime Minister In Push To Gear Up Cabinet For Brexit
http://news.sky.com/story/prime-minister-in-push-t...

What the story actually says:

Everyone now back from holidays so the cabinet is meeting and, as you would entirely expect, Brexit is on the agenda and May wants an update.

Add a bit of spin and it'll do as news I suppose.

[voyds9]

EU-US trade deal has stalled says German minister

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/us-eu-free-tra...

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

What the story actually says:

Everyone now back from holidays so the cabinet is meeting and, as you would entirely expect, Brexit is on the agenda and May wants an update.

Add a bit of spin and it'll do as news I suppose.

[anonymous-user]

voyds9 said:

EU-US trade deal has stalled says German minister

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/us-eu-free-tra...

So after 3 years the deal broke down because the terms were not good for EU
I'm sure we'll get some great deals in the next couple of years before actual Brexit!!

[All that jazz]

Derek Smith said:

The article is nonsense.

Derek, could I offer you some advice? Stick to posting your anecdotes of policing from the 1960s and leave serious topics like this to the big boys as the news articles posted are clearly too much for you to take in. Thanks.

[Elysium]

All that jazz said:

Derek Smith said:

The article is nonsense.

Derek, could I offer you some advice? Stick to posting your anecdotes of policing from the 1960s and leave serious topics like this to the big boys as the news articles posted are clearly too much for you to take in. Thanks.

Not good advice really. Derek is spot on here. The article in question is nonsense:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/theresa...

1. The headline confidently states that Therea May will trigger article 50 without a vote.

2. The evidence for this is:

a. Statements by anonymous sources. Not government sources, or people close to the PM - just sources. It could be Dave from down the pub for all we know.
b. The fact that the government has consulted lawyers on this point

We know this already because they are defending a high court challenge and the Government has assured the court that it will not take any action until this is heard in October:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/go...

3. Somewhat disingenuously the article also quotes a 'Downing Street source', but their statement does not actually relate to the headline. It does not appear that this is the same source quoted earlier.

As Derek has astutely observed, it is a fabricated story made to fill some column inches on Brexit at a time when there is not much happening around the subject.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 29th August 10:00

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

Not good advice really. Derek is spot on here. The article in question is nonsense:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/theresa...

1. The headline confidently states that Therea May will trigger article 50 without a vote.

2. The evidence for this is:

a. Statements by anonymous sources. Not government sources, or people close to the PM - just sources. It could be Dave from down the pub for all we know.
b. The fact that the government has consulted lawyers on this point

We know this already because they are defending a high court challenge and the Government has assured the court that it will not take any action until this is heard in October:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/go...

3. Somewhat disingenuously the article also quotes a 'Downing Street source', but their statement does not actually relate to the headline. It does not appear that this is the same source quoted earlier.

As Derek has astutely observed, it is a fabricated story made to fill some column inches on Brexit at a time when there is not much happening around the subject.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 29th August 10:00

Oh dear, you are going to be cross when it comes to pass aren't you?

[FiF]

Elysium said:

All that jazz said:

Derek Smith said:

The article is nonsense.

Derek, could I offer you some advice? Stick to posting your anecdotes of policing from the 1960s and leave serious topics like this to the big boys as the news articles posted are clearly too much for you to take in. Thanks.

Not good advice really. Derek is spot on here. The article in question is nonsense:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/theresa...

1. The headline confidently states that Therea May will trigger article 50 without a vote.

2. The evidence for this is:

a. Statements by anonymous sources. Not government sources, or people close to the PM - just sources. It could be Dave from down the pub for all we know.
b. The fact that the government has consulted lawyers on this point

We know this already because they are defending a high court challenge and the Government has assured the court that it will not take any action until this is heard in October:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/go...

3. Somewhat disingenuously the article also quotes a 'Downing Street source', but their statement does not actually relate to the headline. It does not appear that this is the same source quoted earlier.

As Derek has astutely observed, it is a fabricated story made to fill some column inches on Brexit at a time when there is not much happening around the subject.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 29th August 10:00

It doesn't need a link to the Guardian, to raise the issue of the legal challenge as that's mentioned by the DT, as is the opposition in the Lords which could delay things for years, also the possibility that delays to declaring article 50 could mean that the EU27 make moves to carry on ignoring UK, which I would suggest we seeing the beginnings even now. Also reference and link to Gus O'Donnell's comments, and the opposition that will emerge once the Labour leadership battle has resolved.

Compare that to the Guardian coverage of the same topic at the same time, and whether the DT is accurately reporting a genuine decision, or kite flying, or speculation from sources which will be eventually denied or simple column filling guff, I know which article I reckon is the better balanced, and it ain't the Guardian, which may explain why they've now hidden it away unless you know where to look.

Anyway stick to Guardian if you guys want, it impresses because it fits your bias. Some of us read the Guardian too, but only as one elemental part of an attempt to see the wider picture from as many angles as time allows.

[don'tbesilly]

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

That's rather a disappointing response Derek, mainly because you've chosen to edit the discussion for no apparent reason, which is a shame.

Reading the comments from other posters subsequent to our own exchange and your responses, I'm guessing the chap in question is Lord O'Donnell who as the former head of the Civil Service would have the experience you refer to.

I think a lot of leavers would agree with a lot of what he states, I can't imagine most sensible leave voters (no doubt the remainers will say there are none!) would have thought that simply voting to leave would be just that, we have voted to leave so bye,bye, we'll be in touch with what WE want.

I said in my previous post that Brexit as yet is undefined, and again, I think most leavers would expect some kind of compromise on what Brexit looks like,leavers will have differing reasons for voting leave and you can't please all of the people all of the time.

You state that you didn't mention a lot of what O'Donnell (if it was O'Donnell) said in your original post because of HM restrictions and because apparently Brexit rejoicers would attack the views and not discuss them.
I'd say the same about remainers,attacking leavers views, it goes without saying that there are opposing opinions, and I don't think the remainers are any worse or better than the leavers in giving their opinions

O'Donnell does say the UK will leave the EU though, albeit the T's & C's of the UK's exit are yet to be established, so at least he agrees on leaving irrefutably, which would seem to be at odds at what you inferred in your earlier post.

I expect the UK to 'leave' the eu. But as I've pointed out, and as it is clear in the article I'm joined by Lord O'D, there are any number of alternatives as to what leave means in this case.

The only additional bit I've added is that nothing is set in stone when it comes to politics. In support of my contention I would quote history, probably the most dependable of all forms of evidence. We know that legally there is no obligation on any government to comply with the vote. We know that there is a majority of MPs for remaining. Whilst I think it is unlikely, irrefutable is not a word that can be used reasonably for exit.

Would you consider the Norwegian option as leaving the eu? Or, more to the point, would May consider it as Brexit? Literally it would of course. Is it what people voted for? Literally it would be. But the Norwegian option would probably not be our first choice. What about a closer liaison?

As I say, brexit means anything.

I'm not suggesting that everything Lord O'D says will come true but I get the impression that he believes everything he has said, so some weight must be put on it. The suggestion about the eu changing in some way so that the UK could go along with it whilst still complying with the result of the referendum is interesting. It is not clear whether this is a viable option. It is unlikely I think, but I'm sure it is possible.

So if the eu goes with a dual level membership, would that be brexit? The MPs might prefer it.

May has apparently stated that the UK is looking for a 'bespoke' plan to leave the UK, so based on that it could be a mix of many options on a menu of choices.
Admittedly most remainers (one in particular) will say we won't have choices as it's the EU who will decide ultimately, but I don't think that will be the case and there will be compromises on both sides, it's inevitable.

You mention a closer liason, I think we know that won't work, unless as stated there are compromises, however leaving is non-negotiable as that based on May's unambiguous message 'Brexit is Brexit' is not on any table.

The dual level membership has been muted, but again any form of retained membership of the EU would not in my opinion be Brexit, I can't think anyone who voted leave would entertain such an idea, and would see it as a climbdown by the establishment.The UK got that with Cameron (climbdown), which is why we are where we are.

I noticed today that apparently there is talk of single market access and caps on immigration being put forward as an option by the Govt Brexit team.
Apparently the option is on May's desk for her to mull over on her return tomorrow. I'll not post a link, as it will give one particular Remainer a coronary, and as it comes from the list of unreliable sources it will be ridiculed.

[don'tbesilly]

FiF said:

Elysium said:

All that jazz said:

Derek Smith said:

The article is nonsense.

Derek, could I offer you some advice? Stick to posting your anecdotes of policing from the 1960s and leave serious topics like this to the big boys as the news articles posted are clearly too much for you to take in. Thanks.

Not good advice really. Derek is spot on here. The article in question is nonsense:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/theresa...

1. The headline confidently states that Therea May will trigger article 50 without a vote.

2. The evidence for this is:

a. Statements by anonymous sources. Not government sources, or people close to the PM - just sources. It could be Dave from down the pub for all we know.
b. The fact that the government has consulted lawyers on this point

We know this already because they are defending a high court challenge and the Government has assured the court that it will not take any action until this is heard in October:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/go...

3. Somewhat disingenuously the article also quotes a 'Downing Street source', but their statement does not actually relate to the headline. It does not appear that this is the same source quoted earlier.

As Derek has astutely observed, it is a fabricated story made to fill some column inches on Brexit at a time when there is not much happening around the subject.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 29th August 10:00

It doesn't need a link to the Guardian, to raise the issue of the legal challenge as that's mentioned by the DT, as is the opposition in the Lords which could delay things for years, also the possibility that delays to declaring article 50 could mean that the EU27 make moves to carry on ignoring UK, which I would suggest we seeing the beginnings even now. Also reference and link to Gus O'Donnell's comments, and the opposition that will emerge once the Labour leadership battle has resolved.

Compare that to the Guardian coverage of the same topic at the same time, and whether the DT is accurately reporting a genuine decision, or kite flying, or speculation from sources which will be eventually denied or simple column filling guff, I know which article I reckon is the better balanced, and it ain't the Guardian, which may explain why they've now hidden it away unless you know where to look.

Anyway stick to Guardian if you guys want, it impresses because it fits your bias. Some of us read the Guardian too, but only as one elemental part of an attempt to see the wider picture from as many angles as time allows.

The Guardian article is nearly 6 weeks old, time doesn't stand still.
The article has seen umpteen pieces of fish since it was published