It seems - increasingly, these days - that legal opinions, no matter how “eminent”, on previously untested matters (“is it legal to invade Iraq without a further UN resolution?” springs to mind), are always going to be open to question/interpretation.
It’s still [I]possible[/I] that the Supreme Court can overrule this. (I doubt it, myself, I admit.)
Many MP’s who were on the remain side aren’t going to prevent Article 50 notification in a vote in parliament at this stage anyway, because they accept it as “democratic will” even if it wasn’t their own preference.
Some of the Labour rebels (“just” the 80% of them who recently expressed lack of confidence in their own leader) will have mixed feelings about calling/forcing a general election, perhaps. Some of those without safe seats may lose them; on the other hand, it would (presumably?) bring forward Corbyn’s resignation by a couple of years (even he can’t cling to power if he drops 100 seats in a general election???), which they’d surely welcome, at least in principle?
Under the new Fixed Term Parliaments Act, there can be a general election only if the House has no confidence in the government, I think? They actually have to have a “no confidence” motion? But the government being unable to get its legislation through is kind of similar, arguably.
The Conservatives will win this on a Brexit platform as there is no serious leading opposition party
Certainly - no question about that.
and hey presto, the opposition remains divided while the Euro-sceptic Tory MPs are whipped into line to keep power.
I wouldn’t fancy trying to whip that nice Jacob Rees-Mogg into line. Seriously, Europe is an issue on which Tory rebels just [I]will not[/I] be whipped. But that isn’t going to be relevant here, anyway, surely?