60% of Legal Cheek readers think Article 50 will NEVER be invoked

Theresa May says otherwise

Lead12

More than half of Legal Cheek readers have given the middle finger to Theresa May and her “Brexit means Brexit” pledge, saying they don’t think Article 50 will ever be invoked.

On Tuesday, we reported Thom Brooks — EU law professor and head of Durham Law School — had gone public with his controversial view of Brexit.

Delighting Remain voters and irritating Daily Mail readers everywhere, Connecticut-born Brooks revealed he thinks Article 50 will never be triggered and, consequently, Brexit will never happen, despite the United Kingdom voting to leave the EU 52% to 48% on 23 June.

Brooks’ comments proved divisive in our comments section. For some, “out means out”, for others, “Brexit means Brexit… but that doesn’t mean that it will happen”.

Though polls hardly proved authoritative in the run-up to the EU referendum, we thought we’d put the controversial question to our Twitter following to see if they agreed with Brooks. Overwhelmingly, they did.

Lead1

Of the 651 people that voted, 59% said they didn’t think Article 50 will ever be invoked, one citing their reason as: “too many clever citizens who can see the catastrophe ahead”.

While our poll result has proved decisive, the Prime Minister is pushing ahead with her commitment to trigger Article 50 in the new year.

This week, May also confirmed there would be no parliamentary vote on the EU referendum result. This promise comes despite an ongoing Brexit legal challenge in the High Court, scheduled to be heard by the Lord Chief Justice in October. It seems the Brexit fallout is shaping up to be yet another edition of lawyers vs politicians.

45 Comments

Anonymous

🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Bunch of Remain-leaning university students voting in a poll, what did you expect?

(22)(5)
Anonymous

I suspect most educated people can distinguish between what they want to happen and what they think is likely to happen. I don’t want Jeremy Corbyn to the re-elected leader of the labour party, but I know that it is likely that he will be.

(4)(1)
Anonymous

Those are the absolute worst scum of the country. You’re absolutely right. To hell with education.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

I know it’s important, but I’m pretty fed up with the whole Brexit issue by now. Media fatigue.

(1)(5)
Anonymous

So 60% of Legal Cheek readers don’t understand democracy?

(15)(9)
Not Amused

100% of the population doesn’t understand economics. Any vaguely competent economist would admit that.

The dangerous people are the people who think they understand economics when they don’t. There were many reasons to vote Remain, so I’m not going to do what you did and just assume that all 48% who voted Remain did so because they (wrongly) believed they understood economics. But the tiny portion of remain voters who simply refuse to shut up and accept the result, who ignore the fact that the UK is fine, who ignore the fact that the EU (and particularly the Euro, Greece and the Italian Banks) are screwed … I think I can be forgiven for assuming that this tiny minority are idiots who (wrongly) believe they understand economics.

Much was said during the campaign about how I shouldn’t vote leave because of the politicians who were the face of leave. Well that cuts two ways. Let’s look at the politicians who are currently advocating ignoring the result – David Lammy, Tim Farron and Oily Smith. I rest my case.

(13)(12)
Anonymous

I like this idea, let’s pick 3 people who support something and use it to support our argument.

How about 3 politicians currently braying the mantra “Brexit means Brexit”:

Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn and Iain Duncan Smith.

I rest my case.

(12)(4)
Interloper

Be honest now Not Amused. You were inspired to join the Bar by the Erskine-Brown character off Rumpole weren’t you ? You have modelled yourself on him ever since.

(2)(1)
Pantman

I think it worth remembering that Nigel Farage conceded defeat in the referendum, late on the evening of the 23rd June. He went on to say “We may have lost the battle, but we won’t lose the war”.

If it is ok for a Brexiteer to pre-emptively reject the will of the people, then I’m sure that it is perfectly valid for REMAIN campaigners to continue to campaign for their preferred outcome.

I think it is probable that art 50 will be invoked, but anyone with any sense knows that “Brexit means Brexit” is complete and utter guff. I am somewhat surprised at the constantly slipping timescale on this issue though. First it is “soon”, then it’s the end of 2016, then early 2017 and Kwasi Kwarteng (arch Brexiteer) now suggesting it could be up to a year before art 50 is invoked.

The longer it goes on the less chance there is of it actually happening.

(5)(5)
Interloper

Don’t know why anybody downthumbed that post there – seems some perfectly valid points made there.

The Wicked Witch of Maidenhead rode in on her broomstick to Chequers and announced (just coincidentally in front of TV cameras that had magicked there) that “Brexit means Brexit” but nobody knows what the f Brexit actually means – or is she implying that it is now some sort of empirical concept (like the number 1) ? I imagine she is is – that maybe she is even drafting legislation to severely punish any member of the UK public who is thinking of it as anything but an empirical concept….

“Where are the glass slippers ?” I believe she also said – off camera…

(2)(4)
Scouser of Counsel

Actually she defined it. No second referendum. No staying in the EU by the back door.

Seems very clear to me.

Like it or not, (I voted remain, for what it’s worth), we are leaving the EU.

Like it or not, that’s democracy.

(5)(1)
Boh Dear

Christ. Last time I make a joke. That got out of hand fast.

(1)(0)
Pantman

Right, and at the same time they are saying “we’ll have a bespoke deal – not the Norway deal, not the Switzerland deal”. All this implies they want access to the single market and that implies free movement of people. There have even been suggestions that the UK will continue to pay into the EU budget, in the same way that Norway does, in order to gain access to the single market.

If you think that is leaving the EU then I think you are too easily persuaded by a bit of spin.

(0)(0)
Not Amused

This is not on. May is a month in to the job and the supporters of a party which has NEVER elected a female leader jump immediately to insults based on my new leader’s gender?

What vile misogyny from the virtue signallers

(2)(2)
Politics 4 Kids

Not Amused loves May!

Not Amused and May
Sitting in a tree
B-R-E-X-I-T-I-N-G
First comes Gove
Then comes Farage
Then comes Boris
In a Boris carriage!

(5)(0)
Anonymous

I was disappointed in the result but it would be unethical for the government not to accept the result and refuse to invoke the majority’s decision.

(6)(4)
Anonymous

Unethical?

Let’s just imagine the scenario. Leaving aside all the practical difficulties of leaving the EU, a deal is in fact negotiated. Unfortunately it is a bad deal for the UK, but it is the best we can get. It will cause real damage to the UK economy.

Now what do the government do? Remain? Put the deal to a second vote? Or leave regardless of the consequences. The first two courses may be many things but I don’t see that they could be considered “unethical”.

(1)(7)
Anonymous

unethical to ignore the will of the people given the mandate to make the decision.
Really if you cant see that you are a blinked idiot.

(3)(3)
Pantman

The referendum was always billed as “advisory”, not “binding”. The government at the very least needs to sit up and try to understand why the vote went the way it did – and do something about that. But as pointed out above, it isn’t unethical to go through a process of examining what will happen upon a “real” exit from the EU (ie no single market access, no substantive trade deals…) – which is what some Brexiteers actually want – and then realising that sometimes the public can’t be trusted to act in their best interests.

If there were a referendum on capital punishment in the UK it is likely that the public would vote to restore it. I don’t think that’s a valid reason to follow what the public voted for.

(3)(3)
Anonymous

The referendum was always billed as “advisory”, not “binding”.
Now you are just making stuff up!! Please point me to evidence of this. Oh you cant. Shock!

It is terrifying to see how many people don’t think the public can be trusted to know what is best for them. Terrifying!

(1)(5)
Anonymous

“Is the EU referendum legally binding? The EU referendum result is not legally binding so in theory Parliament could ignore the will of the people by deciding to stay in the EU. This is because Parliament is sovereign and the EU vote was an “advisory referendum”, as opposed to a “binary” referendum which has a fixed outcome. Legislation for the UK’s last referendum in 2011 would have forced the Government to change the law if the public had voted for a new voting system.”

That’s taken from a report from that noted bastion of pro-EU reporting, the Daily Express. If even the Daily Express acknowledge the position, I think ‘Pantman’ just might be on to something.

(4)(0)
Anonymous

You can’t speculate on the outcome of a capital punishment referendum based on your flawed assumption that the general public are a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots. Just because you received an outcome you didn’t like, doesn’t mean you put that down to the so called stupidity of the people.

Voters had genuine misgivings and expressed that in a vote that the government / establishment invited them to participate in (and attempted to scare monger a remain outcome). When that didn’t go according to plan, you label voters stupid instead of seeing the real flaws in a EU dominated by non UK priorities and UK damaging policies.

(4)(1)
Pantman

This is just straight-forward nonsense. Up until very recently polls have consistently shown that the British public would favour a return to capital punishment (do some research, you will find this is true). Given this fact I am sure that a small increase from current polls could be achieved by the same lies and propaganda used by the LEAVE campaign to achieve a referendum vote backing capital punishment.

I’m not labelling the British public “knuckle dragging idiots” due to this assumption, that’s your claim. But I do think that they are largely unable to think through the full implications of their intuitive reactions.

As to the direct evidence of this regarding the EU referendum, I have seen plenty of people on the TV saying “I don’t know what I voted for”, “I support free movement, and that doesn’t make any sense in how I voted” or “I’m just confused by the whole thing”. I don’t believe that these people really constitute a percentage that would have overturned the result, and they may vote the same way again. But I think making assumptions about how people voted, and that they knew what they voted for, is a false assumption.

(1)(1)
Anonymous

Sorry disappoint you but the Brexit vote was democracy in action. I am highly educated and voted for Brexit so our parliament once again is sovereign, not because I wanted imperial measures back or am anti immigration. A lot of Remainers seem quite willing to ignore the risks of greater political union because they think there will be economic Armageddon. Well let’s see where we and the EU are in ten years time, shall we?

(0)(0)
Not Amused

The fact you use Twitter for these polls makes them self selecting.

(3)(0)
Chuckie Arlaw

To Katie, LC and the rest of the clickbait media empire, there was only one poll that mattered.

Is it too much to ask for some proposed solutions and opportunities in your reporting or can we expect unashamed agenda pushing, finger-pointing and bashing of others for the foreseeable future? As someone who moved here 6 years ago to practice, seeing Britain move from the Brexit divide to the unity at the Olympics was somewhat uplifting.

(1)(1)
Pantman

Think of all that money for sports achievement that could have been put into the NHS! What was it, £4 million per medal!?

(0)(1)
Anonymous

The idea being the investment in sport facilities keeps people from using the NHS

(1)(0)
Pantman

It’s been proven that there is no “Olympic effect” – participation in sport has fallen in the period since 2012.

(0)(0)
ALawyer

Headline – “60% of Legal Cheek readers think Article 50 will NEVER be invoked”
Picture and commentary – “Of the 651 people that voted, 59% said they didn’t think Article 50 will ever be invoked”
So in other words the headline says 60% of Legal Cheek readers think Article 50 will never be invoked but the result of those who voted was actually 59% not 60% and that is only of those who voted not a result of all Legal Cheek readers as the headline states so the headline is inaccurate twice over.

(3)(1)
Pantman

That logic pretty much makes the Brexit vote invalid, doesn’t it? 51.9% voted to leave, 48.1% voted to remain, 27.8% did not vote – so 75.9% of voters did not vote LEAVE.

(0)(2)
ALawyer

“That logic pretty much makes the Brexit vote invalid, doesn’t it?” – No, my logic as you put it, is related to the fact that the headline does not match up with the facts contained in the story. I did not comment on the validity of the vote but rather that 59% of people who voted that Article 50 will never be invoked (as opposed to the 60% contained in the headline), is not the same as “60% of Legal Cheek readers” which implies 60% of all Legal Cheek readers. Furthermore, taking your logic looking at it the other way 51.9% voted to leave, 48.1% voted to remain, 27.8% did not vote 79.7% of people did not vote to REMAIN in the European Union, so leave still wins.

(1)(0)
ALawyer

PS and actually even that doesn’t work because then you have 51.9% voted to leave, 48.1% voted to Remain, 27.8 did not vote = 127.8%! So your percentages do not work, which I used in my response above, so you will have to forgive the illogical maths but it is based of your logic.

(1)(0)
Huh?

I couldn’t care less about what your ‘twitterati’ think KK – more NEWS instead please?

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Most Legal Cheek Readers are really very thick and simple – NON SHOCKA.

(1)(1)
M. Thatcher, Barrister at Law

Most Remainers lack any proper understanding of economics.

Too lazy to research matters themselves, they pick whatever best fits their “progressive”, “educated”, superficial, millennial identities.

Of course experts in their professional capacities would advise against uncertainty and short-term negative economic consequences.

But long-term economic prosperity is built, not predicted;
and building requires absolute freedom of the nation state.

(4)(6)
Anonymous

Of course it will be invoked, but the result will most likely be staying in the single market with a meaningless EU migration break tacked on to keep Brexiters placated. In effect nothing will change.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.