Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Vixen]

No, . .... If you read the legal article, or read what I have explained from it - PM-Boris (or any PM) cannot legally force a No Deal just by running down the clock whilst refusing to allow any votes against that tactic in the HoC. The Speaker will not allow that for a start, and the courts will intervene if opposition MPs ask for that ...

... what would happen in that case, is that the PM would be forced to go back to the EU and ask for an extension to A50. That what was actually happened to Mrs May .... she did want to go back to the EU to ask for an extension, but she was in effect forced to do that because of the rules that she was faced with from the Speaker and the Courts.

PM-Boris would be forced either to return to the EU asking for more time (another extension to A50), or else he would have to resign as PM.

The bottom line (as stated in that legal article) is that, what the PM cannot do, is override the will of parliament & override democracy by refusing to allow any votes to stop an automatic No Deal.

Boris and his ERG backers could always try to get rid of the speaker.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, written Dutch isn't so much of a problem. I used to work for Philips in their (now closed) TV tube factory in Durham and used to have to approximately translate some of the technical manuals from Dutch to English.

There is however, in my experience, a huge difference between being able to read a newspaper, have a holiday conversation or even watch TV in a language and being able to work in that language. After a day in Germany with my German clients I need to lie down in a darkened room with a damp towel over my eyes

The EU migrants manage it.

 

[Vixen]

.....and if, like in all the other votes, none of those final options manages to garner the support of a majority of MPs ?

General Election.

 

[Vixen]

Doesn't matter. He will still have a generous pension thanks to his years of service in the EU parliament and his backers like Aaron Banks are bound to reward him generously in the event of no-deal. He'll not go short

That light aircraft crash he was in.

Imagine how the course of history might have been different had he not regrettably thankfully walked away.

 

[The Don]

The EU migrants manage it.

True, and if I actually lived in Germany then likely I would find it OK too but I only go there about once every 18 months so I'm very out of practice (by convention all teleconferences are conducted in English because the team I'm working with is very multinational).

 

[The Don]

We still need a convention for how to indicate sarcasm, like a text colour or something.

Isn't that supposed to be what the rolleyes rolleyes smiley is for ?

Anyway, you're right, nobody voted for No Deal, except for all the loudest-braying voices on the Leave side, who are convinced that's exactly what they voted for. And the one thing they've been utterly consistent about is that they definitely knew what they were voting for (even if No Deal isn't what they said they were voting for at the time).

In a great victory for democracy, the Brexit option which enjoys the least support among both MPs and the population at large - a no deal Brexit - is the option that we're most likely to get.

If you made it up, you'd be laughed out of town.

EU democratic deficit anyone ?

 

[ceptimus]

Fact 1: We voted to leave - there was no mention of 'deal' on the ballot paper.

Fact 2: There are two ways of leaving: with a deal or without one.

Fact 3: At the moment, only one deal is available, and the EU are insistent that it can't be changed.

Fact 4: MPs won't vote for the deal - they've already voted 3 times against it - effectively five times if you count the two times a proposed vote was delayed for weeks or scrapped because the government knew it would lose.

Conclusion: We must leave without a deal. There are already some agreed mini-deals to cover things like keeping aeroplanes flying, and we can only hope that there will be more and more areas of agreement for things that benefit both sides in the period before and immediately after October 31.

 

[McHrozni]

Oh, for sure they could argue that, but that would require the kind of leadership and honesty that has been absolutely lacking through the whole process.

Yup. Can you imagine BJ doing that to save the country? That's how the very idea of Brexit is killed.

Unlikely sure, but it doesn't break any laws of nature.

You're right that Corbyn would be vacillating but IMO he'd be happy to leave with no deal because he's deluded enough to believe that he'd quickly be able to negotiate a fantastic post-Brexit relationship with the EU that would deliver the workers' utopia he has been promising

I think Corbyn is even less capable than Theresa May, perhaps en par with BJ. He talks a lot of the wonders that await the country and hopes EU will deliver it for him.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

At last, Thank You!

I think they can vote to agree on other options (ie other than a deal such as Mrs May's or a No Deal exit). I think that would almost certainly have happened already if they had continued the Indicative Voting down to the last two (or 3) options.

What do you base that on?

But I think the main problem is that the majority of MPs do not actually want us to leave the EU. So (thus far) they have been unwilling to vote for any of the previous options that were offering various terms/ways for exiting the EU.

I expect a majority of MPs would rather see a new referendum, or else a new General Election. But they are all a bit worried about those options too. Because a new referendum may not change the public mood at all, no matter what the result (unless it was landslide for Remain). And both Conservative and Labour now have serious doubts about winning any new General Election, ie due to Farage's Brexit party showing that it will probably take a huge amount of votes from both of them.

Unfortunately one of the other options that could still succeed is a vote defeating any proposal to rule out a No Deal exit. And that could be seen in legal terms (and by the Speaker) as support for a No Deal exit. So that's one way that a No Deal exit might happen almost by default.

Another referendum was defeated in indicative votes 280-292. How do you reconcile that result with "most MPs want to Bremain or at least another vote"?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ive-votes-round-2-what-happened-and-what-next

If there was another round with just two options it wouldn't even make it to the ballot. It would include only Common market 2.0 and a permanent customs union if you went by what was the closest to having adequate support. It's inane, Common market 2.0 is an unworkable fantasy where UK is elevated to a status equal to the entire EU and DOA in any negotiation. Permanent customs union is the reason why Irish backstop is such a problem.

Yet far more MPs voted for a permanent customs union than for WA, based on the backstop.

McHrozni

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Fact 1: We voted to leave - there was no mention of 'deal' on the ballot paper.

Fact 2: There are two ways of leaving: with a deal or without one.

Fact 3: At the moment, only one deal is available, and the EU are insistent that it can't be changed.

Fact 4: MPs won't vote for the deal - they've already voted 3 times against it - effectively five times if you count the two times a proposed vote was delayed for weeks or scrapped because the government knew it would lose.

Conclusion: We must leave without a deal. There are already some agreed mini-deals to cover things like keeping aeroplanes flying, and we can only hope that there will be more and more areas of agreement for things that benefit both sides in the period before and immediately after October 31.

The fair was held, we picked her out.

The vet's been here half an hour now, got her on hormones and all lubed up.

You can't not **** the pig, now.

 

[McHrozni]

Fact 1: We voted to leave - there was no mention of 'deal' on the ballot paper.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X7Mhokzv-jw/maxresdefault.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD1yuWTXcAAHeu_.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6KDI89WsAAD41_.jpg

Since the referendum wasn't binding and there was a major bait and switch done the minimum hygenic standard is to ask the public again if this is truly what it wishes. The public voted in the referendum with the full knowledge the action can be reversed, hoping the claims of Brexit were all honest and true. The moment this was proven false any democratic mandate from the referendum was questionable and needs to be repeated, since public is more willing to take risk in non-binding descisions.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

We know what happens: Great Britain is out of EU without a deal and there is literally NOTHING ANYBODY can do about that. (irrelevant exceptions: ratification of WA or enforcing revocation of A50)

I'd lock Parliament up and order them to run consecutive voted on those four options - ratification of WA, revoking article 50, crashing out with no deal or letting the public decide - until one wins the necessary support.

After 48 hours I'd also lock up the lavatories and send the cleaning crews home, the MPs would have to clean up afterwards. After 72 hours food delivery is discontinued, after 96 hours water is cut off.

There would be a definitive result within one week. At worst it's a new general election.

McHrozni

 

[IanS]

I'm not sure that I ever claimed otherwise, just that a pro no-deal Brexit PM could just allow all other options to expire (due to there being no agreement). The conservatives would never bring legislation to allow a second referendum or article 50 revocation and as a result would vote against it on a three line whip. The DUP would follow suit and any Conservative "rebels" would be offset by pro-Brexit Labour MPs.

IMO the same goes for anything other than May's deal in a floppy hat and glasses

On the first highlight you are assuming that PM-Boris could not be forced to return to the EU asking for another extension. And what I was showing from that legal link (and what already happened with Mrs May), is that he probably could not avoid that. That is - he would probably be forced to ask the EU for an extension if opposition MPs vote to ask for that.

You are also assuming that all opposition votes on everything have no winner. But of course that's not true - all the votes that we saw recently had a winning majority on one side or other (actually one was a tie!). All that's needed to stop PM-Boris/Hunt running down the clock, is to have a vote against a No Deal exit or a vote to send him back for an Extension, or numerous other variations like that ... there are dozens of such options which MPs can vote upon to prevent Boris/Hunt trying a No Deal exit by time default ... and the point is (as per all the previous discussion), the PM cannot legally stop MPs holding those various votes.

 

[The Don]

Fact 1: We voted to leave - there was no mention of 'deal' on the ballot paper.

That's correct, however the Leave campaign repeatedly stated that we would get a great deal and repeatedly assured the electorate that a no-deal Brexit was just Project Fear fear mongering

Fact 2: There are two ways of leaving: with a deal or without one.

Yes

Fact 3: At the moment, only one deal is available, and the EU are insistent that it can't be changed.

The shape of that deal was however largely determined by the Conservative government's "red lines"

• A refusal to recognise the "four freedoms" precluded EEA membership
• An insistence on being able to negotiate separate trade deals meant that Customs Union membership was off the cards
• Refusing to abide by European Court rulings meant that a Ukraine style deal was impossible

Complaining about the EU in the negotiating process is like complaining that a Golf Club is being unfair in not allowing you to be a member when you refuse to pay any subscriptions and not letting you play the course when you say that you're not going to pay a green fee.

Fact 4: MPs won't vote for the deal - they've already voted 3 times against it - effectively five times if you count the two times a proposed vote was delayed for weeks or scrapped because the government knew it would lose.

I tend to agree.

It is possible that Boris (or Jeremy - but likely Boris at this stage) may come back from Brussels touting this great new deal that he has negotiated. Of course it will be nothing of the sort but may contain enough weasel words in the non-binding part to allow some more Conservative MPs to vote for it and Labour could in theory abstain on the grounds that no-deal would be a disaster and at this late stage there is no alternative.

Conclusion: We must leave without a deal. There are already some agreed mini-deals to cover things like keeping aeroplanes flying, and we can only hope that there will be more and more areas of agreement for things that benefit both sides in the period before and immediately after October 31.

I've been saying for some time now that I think there are only two possible outcomes, no-deal or no Brexit and that, as the default, no-deal - however disastrous it is for the UK economy - is by far the most likely outcome.

The sheer scope of what needs to be addressed in the event of a no-deal means that there will be significant disruption in the short to medium term. The real damage will come in the long term as businesses move out of the UK and/or don't make investments here.

Even arch Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg says that it could be 50 years until the benefits of Brexit become apparent.

 

[McHrozni]

You are also assuming that all opposition votes on everything have no winner. But of course that's not true - all the votes that we saw recently had a winning majority on one side or other (actually one was a tie!). All that's needed to stop PM-Boris/Hunt running down the clock, is to have a vote against a No Deal exit or a vote to send him back for an Extension, or numerous other variations like that ... there are dozens of such options which MPs can vote upon to prevent Boris/Hunt trying a No Deal exit by time default ... and the point is (as per all the previous discussion), the PM cannot legally stop MPs holding those various votes.

EU will be unwilling to grant another extension, at least if it's not accompanied by a concrete proposal to resolve the issue one way or another by the time it ends. UK already got three extensions and a stern warning not to waste the third.

The result was UK wasting the third extension. The amount of work done was zero, the only thing that will change is BJ replacing Theresa May, which is bad as far as EU is concerned. BJ promised a no deal Brexit, why would EU give him more time to goof off? Every extra day damages the union a little further, because Brexit stifles debate about more important matters. An extension to run another referendum may be accepted, a technical extension of a few weeks because the WA was ratified and Parliament needs a little more time to pass all the necessary secondary legislation would probably be granted too. UK doesn't deserve the latter but it might still be granted, up to a month I think. The third option was if an early election was called and BJ begged for an extension to swear in the new government, since he can't do enough in the meantime. He'd have to go on all fours and growel for mercy, perhaps let Macron ride him around Brussels like a pony, but it might go through. Anything else is dead in the water.

McHrozni

 

[IanS]

Boris and his ERG backers could always try to get rid of the speaker.

OK, how will they do that lol!

 

[The Don]

On the first highlight you are assuming that PM-Boris could not be forced to return to the EU asking for another extension. And what I was showing from that legal link (and what already happened with Mrs May), is that he probably could not avoid that. That is - he would probably be forced to ask the EU for an extension if opposition MPs vote to ask for that.

I assume nothing of the sort.

What I'm calling into question is whether legislation which prevents a no-deal and forces the Conservative Prime Minister would make it through Parliament.

The Conservative Party would not introduce such legislation which means that it would have to be introduced by one or more of the opposition parties. IMO the Conservatives would then have a three line whip to vote against that legislation and they, the DUP and 10-20 Labour "rebels" would be enough to see it rejected even if a small number of Conservative MPs defy the whip and vote in favour.

You are also assuming that all opposition votes on everything have no winner. But of course that's not true - all the votes that we saw recently had a winning majority on one side or other (actually one was a tie!). All that's needed to stop PM-Boris/Hunt running down the clock, is to have a vote against a No Deal exit or a vote to send him back for an Extension, or numerous other variations like that ... there are dozens of such options which MPs can vote upon to prevent Boris/Hunt trying a No Deal exit by time default ... and the point is (as per all the previous discussion), the PM cannot legally stop MPs holding those various votes.

Yes you're right that the PM cannot stop MPs voting on a putative bill introduced by one or more of the opposition parties but IMO the Conservative Party would vigorously oppose any such measure and they, the DUP and a small number of Labour "rebels" have enough votes to defeat that bill.

IOW, bills can be introduced until the opposition are blue in the face but until and unless MPs are given a free vote and/or there are a significant number of Conservative MPs who are willing to put their careers on the line and vote against the whip in (what I think is) the national interest then like every other attempt to implement a positive course of action relating to Brexit, they will fail.

 

[IanS]

Isn't that supposed to be what the rolleyes rolleyes smiley is for ?



In a great victory for democracy, the Brexit option which enjoys the least support among both MPs and the population at large - a no deal Brexit - is the option that we're most likely to get.

If you made it up, you'd be laughed out of town.

EU democratic deficit anyone ?

Well it was a big mistake for David Cameron (backed by a vote from MPs) to have offered a public referendum on Brexit in the first place. It was always obvious (from many polls over decades) that there is a pretty big percentage of the voting-age public in the UK (and in every other EU nation) who would be only too pleased to have the opportunity to vote against immigrants being in their country (almost any sort of immigrants, for any reason!).

And Brexit is very largely about that … about immigration.

This is an issue which has been festering away at the right-wing heart of the Conservative party since at least the time of Ted Heath in the 1960's. That is - a fairly sizeable core on the farther right of the Tory party, has always wanted Britain to be completely independent and to make it's own laws against immigration (without any interference from EU law).

But it's not just confined to the privileged old-Etonian classes. Racist attitudes and beliefs amongst the public are very widespread & just as much to blame. That's why openly racist parties such as the BNP in the UK, and various parties in France, Italy and elsewhere, have always attracted support from sections of the working class public.

Some issues really should not be offered to the broad mass of any public as a referendum which will be binding upon the government. If you offered a referendum on public hanging in the UK (eg for paedophile cases), then we'd probably have seen an even bigger majority than we saw for Brexit.

 

[IanS]

I assume nothing of the sort.

What I'm calling into question is whether legislation which prevents a no-deal and forces the Conservative Prime Minister would make it through Parliament.
The Conservative Party would not introduce such legislation which means that it would have to be introduced by one or more of the opposition parties. IMO the Conservatives would then have a three line whip to vote against that legislation and they, the DUP and 10-20 Labour "rebels" would be enough to see it rejected even if a small number of Conservative MPs defy the whip and vote in favour.

Well the point is that it would not need to "make it through parliament" in a vote.

Opposition MPs can just take legal action as they did with Mrs May. The point is that the PM cannot take the UK out of the EU simply by time-default; that would be ruled illegal, and the PM would be forced to ask the EU for an extension (or else resign!).

And as far as votes to stop it are concerned - PM-Boris/Hunt probably could not stop opposition votes (and the Speaker would not allow that either). And there are all sorts of votes that MPs could take, and probably win, to prevent the PM simply running out of time for a No Deal exit.

For a start we already saw that MPs can win a vote that rules out a No Deal exit.

How things really work out in practice may be another matter entirely. And we are about to see in the next few weeks what actually happens after the new PM is elected. But in legal terms (that have already been used) and in terms of the Speaker of the House enacting the established rules of parliamentary democracy (by which the HoC is bound), it seems the new PM would have great difficulty in bouncing the UK out of the EU against the wishes of the majority of MPs.

 

[The Don]

Well the point is that it would not need to "make it through parliament" in a vote.

Opposition MPs can just take legal action as they did with Mrs May. The point is that the PM cannot take the UK out of the EU simply by time-default; that would be ruled illegal, and the PM would be forced to ask the EU for an extension (or else resign!).

I think you've got it wrong there, an alternative to a no-deal Brexit needs to make it through Parliament otherwise that's what we'll have.

And as far as votes to stop it are concerned - PM-Boris/Hunt probably could not stop opposition votes (and the Speaker would not allow that either). And there are all sorts of votes that MPs could take, and probably win, to prevent the PM simply running out of time for a No Deal exit.

I've never claimed that a Conservative PM could prevent votes taking place (and AFAIK no-one else has made that claim)

What has been said (repeatedly) is that unless MPs can agree on an alternative course of action - that's what we end up with.

Even if MPs manage to compel the PM to go to the EU and ask for an extension then if the extension is not forthcoming then we leave without a deal and unless a deal can be agreed in the extension period (or subsequent extensions) then we leave without a deal.

For a start we already saw that MPs can win a vote that rules out a No Deal exit.

Yes, but what they have not so far been able to agree is what the alternative to that no deal is. At some point in time the EU will not grant further extensions and that point in time we would leave with a no-deal unless a deal has been agreed.

How things really work out in practice may be another matter entirely. And we are about to see in the next few weeks what actually happens after the new PM is elected. But in legal terms (that have already been used) and in terms of the Speaker of the House enacting the established rules of parliamentary democracy (by which the HoC is bound), it seems the new PM would have great difficulty in bouncing the UK out of the EU against the wishes of the majority of MPs.

The majority of MPs (apparently) want to leave the EU.

The majority of MPs don't want to leave with no-deal

The majority of MPs cannot agree on a deal

The PM doesn't have to do anything to bounce the UK out, they just need Parliament to retain this impasse until such time as time runs out, either because they are not compelled to ask the EU for an extension or the EU refuses the extension.