The government would simply hold a general election in which Labour would be destroyed and have another vote.
If the vote goes against repeal of the Act, do you mean? If so, that would look quite transparently suspicious and risk setting a most uncomfortable and untenable precedent by deciding to hold a General Election purely because a vote on the repeal of an Act of Parliament favoured maintaining it rather than repealing it; indeed, it would have an ironical parallel with the Cameron government's equally untenable holding of a referendum solely in a bid to resolve or overturn perceived problems within the Conservative party.
You mention you view that such an election, if held, would destroy the Labour Party; it seems to be doing quite an effecive job of that of its own volition and without any assistance that might be offered to it in so doing by the current Conservative government. But that's not quite the whole story, methinks.
Whilst logic might suggest that a policital party in disarray as the Labour one remains (even following Mr Corbyn's retention of his leadership of it) would almost certainly seem unelectable, it is not, however, the administrative stability of such a party or even the control and/or concealment of internecine wars within it that wins it votes and might get it elected - it's what voters decide.
Given the sheer numbers of newly joined Labour Party members in recent times, I would be rather wary of complacently concluding that Labour's recent and to some extent still ongoing woes will render it unelectable; in any case, no General Election is currently in the offing and Ms May has (for what it might or might not be worth) ruled one out for the foreseeable future.
It is therefore perfectly possible, especially given that there has also recently been some upturn in LibDem membership, that the Tories find themselves in coalition again following the next General Election, whenever that might be - or they might even just lose it by a whisker; as with everything else on all of this, uncertainty rules the waves.
Even saying that, repealing the act "may" not even be required to leave the EU, only to transfer their laws onto our books. Article 50 seems to be sufficient for that purpose in itself.
But unless an Act of Parliament whose sole and specific purpose was to take UK
into what's now EU is
not first repealed, how could UK
leave EU?
However, I am no lawyer and no doubt ones point of view is affected by where we get our information from.
I'm no lawyer either, but logic suggests that UK would struggle to complete the business of severing its ties with EU while a statute taking it into EU's forerunner remains on the books; that would surely be the height (or depth?) of absurdity?!
BBC reports the
Daily Telegraph as noting of Ms May that "getting her Great Repeal Bill through Parliament could make John Major's problems with the Maastricht Treaty look like a "walk in the park"; that, I suspect, is putting it mildly.
Leaving is still essential and any efforts to slow this procedure down is undemocratic.
Leaving is essential only for the 37% of the electorate who expressed a wish in the opinion poll that UK leaves EU; it is not so for anyone else.
If anything that slows the procedure to leave EU is "undemocratic", the finger of blame for that should perhaps first be pointed at the present UK government which has taken over 100 days since announcement of the poll outcome do nothing material towards effecting Brexit other than merely announcing a possible vague time in around 5 months to invoke Article 50 and pussyfooting around the issue of Parliamentary debate and vote on repeal of the Act.
In any event, with pending Court cases and possible appeals following them, the climate of uncertainty remains paramount, as you have yourself admitted.
Even were everything eventually to fall into place to take UK out of EU, there would (and indeed could) be nothing in statute to prevent a future UK government reapplying for EU membership provided that it still exists - and I rather doubt that EU would say no under such circumstances.
The other issue that sticks in the craw when reading what Ms May now appears to be trying to say at what is, after all, her first party conference as leader (and so she's feel especially obliged to seek to make her mark) is the extent to which much of this gung-ho talk seeks conveniently to ignore the fact that UK does not hold all the cards, nor can it call all the shots; should Brexit procedures commence, they will
not centre around UK telling EU what it wants and is determined to have and simply get away with it, for that it not what "negotiating" is or indeed can be about.
When one also remembers that UK will be seeking to pit what it might believe to be its best interests against those of 27 other nations within the EU group, what it might want is likely at many points along the route to conflict with what EU or any of its member states want; this should be abundantly clear. As I've noted before, should the negotiations (should they commence) end up with UK noticeably worse off, the government of the day will seem to have no viable alternative than to abandon Brexit in UK's interests; should it still determinedly push it through regardless as though principle and face-saving attempts are more important than those interests, it wouldn't (nor would it deserve to) last five minutes in office.
Another point to bear in mind is that, even should Brexit happen, UK will remain a member of the Council of Europe which comprises 47 member states including all EU member states, so anyone assuming that Brexit will (Br)extricate UK from its duties and responsibilities under ECHR will have another think coming.
Best,
Alistair
Topic: brexit?!!?