catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,107
No. Your basic premises are untrue.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit
- Status
Blue Bubble
Sharper than a thorn
Interesting summary of the choices possible at this late stage from David Allen Green ("Jack of Kent"):
The myth of “ruling out a No Deal Brexit”
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/07/the-myth-of-ruling-out-a-no-deal-brexit/
I tend to agree with his summary.
The myth of “ruling out a No Deal Brexit”
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/07/the-myth-of-ruling-out-a-no-deal-brexit/
I tend to agree with his summary.
That aligns with my thinking (which is why I think it's an excellently researched and insightful article
)...And then the conclusion:
I don't know where this idea has even sprung up from, it's been the case ever since parliament passed the act to invoke article 50.
It would require a majority vote in the commons to amend or revoke the act, there is simply no other mechanism in our constitution that can prevent that, parliment is sovereign.Parliment can't bind itself but to "unbind" itself it has to (in this case) pass further primary legislation.
It would require a majority vote in the commons to amend or revoke the act, there is simply no other mechanism in our constitution that can prevent that, parliment is sovereign.Parliment can't bind itself but to "unbind" itself it has to (in this case) pass further primary legislation.
Yes, it's accurate. However HoC could make a simple ammendment of the following nature:
If five days before the deadline no deal has been reached with EU, PM must ask for an extension. If extension is not granted and no deal is reached UK must revoke article 50 no later than 12 hours before the deadline and stay in the EU and no new attempt to leave must be made for at least another 10 years.
It doesn't force any descision yet still rules out a no deal Brexit. If the clock begins to run low the PM must ask for an extension to do whatever. If the clock is about to run out UK revokes article 50. This makes Bremain the new default and forces Brexiteers to come up with a Brexit that will have majority support in Parliament.
It only seems fair to me. There should be no downside, only a considerable upside, after all. An amendment similar to that was attempted back in June, but Parliament voted against even debating it.
McHrozni
Last edited:
Absolutely they could bring some kind of legislation like this to a vote - and it would almost certainly go down in flames.
All the DUP, almost all of the Conservatives and a sizeable minority of Labour MPs would vote against it because it contained a clause that would result in a revocation of Article 50.
After all, if a deal which merely hinted at long-term ties with Europe repeatedly failed because of the backstop, what chance a bill that requires Article 50 to be revoked if something pretty likely happens ?
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,967
The way this is playing out, we're going to leave without a deal and the UK will break up because of it, with Scotland going back in.
I'd like to leave to an EU country before it's too late and it all comes down around our ears, but I'm lousy at languages. What would be easier to learn? Speaking German, or understanding the Scots?
I'd like to leave to an EU country before it's too late and it all comes down around our ears, but I'm lousy at languages. What would be easier to learn? Speaking German, or understanding the Scots?
Well, if you're sternly against a no deal Brexit and adamant you want a Brexit with a deal, then threatning no Brexit seems like the rational choice to get a deal through.
It's the same logic as Brexiteers are employing against the EU and failing spectacularily at it. It does not work. The same approach might work on the other target though.
Of course you're right that it's nearly impossible to pass such an amendment. I'm just saying Parliament can rule out no deal without giving a definitive Brexit resolution. A backstop if you will. Heh.
McHrozni
It may seem rational to you, but any Conservative MP who even had a whiff of being willing to consider supporting a bill which could revoke Article 50 would likely find themselves deprived of the whip, subject to a motion of no confidence from their local party and deselected next time around.
Parliament's inability to pass any alternative to a no-deal (which they have rejected) indicates to me that, for all their noises, Brexit-supporting MPs would rather have no-deal than no Brexit if offered a stark choice between the two.
Absolutely. Parliament have it in their power to do pretty much anything w.r.t. so long as it can be done unilaterally. The trouble is that, for whatever reason, they cannot seem to get a majority for a course of action.
Brexit is starting to remind me of World War one. Europe had four great monarchs when it began: British, German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian. Three of those monarchies were ended by the war.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-falls-into-fourth-place-in-new-opinion-poll-11756313
Brexit will eat the Tories alive, this was a given. However it will also eat Labour. That's two great political parties that held a duopoly for decades, eviscerated due to inflighting and propaganda.
It serves both right.
I find it surprising and alarming that Tories and Brexit parties take the top two spots. Maybe the work WW1 began will be finished by Brexit.
McHrozni
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-falls-into-fourth-place-in-new-opinion-poll-11756313
Brexit will eat the Tories alive, this was a given. However it will also eat Labour. That's two great political parties that held a duopoly for decades, eviscerated due to inflighting and propaganda.
It serves both right.
I find it surprising and alarming that Tories and Brexit parties take the top two spots. Maybe the work WW1 began will be finished by Brexit.
McHrozni
Or move to Malta, English is an official language there.
It may seem rational to you, but any Conservative MP who even had a whiff of being willing to consider supporting a bill which could revoke Article 50 would likely find themselves deprived of the whip, subject to a motion of no confidence from their local party and deselected next time around.
Parliament's inability to pass any alternative to a no-deal (which they have rejected) indicates to me that, for all their noises, Brexit-supporting MPs would rather have no-deal than no Brexit if offered a stark choice between the two.
Once they rejected the WA that was a given. There always were only three options: no Brexit, no deal Brexit and WA. There are two ways to choose between them, Parliamentary vote and second referendum, giving Parliament a grand total of four outcomes they could pursue. Anything else is either fantasy or else not substantially different from those outcomes.
We are in agreement the cited article has a major flaw then
McHrozni
Last edited:
I heard you can get far in Ireland with English too.
Or Scotland, a few years down the line.
McHrozni
Labour at least have a way out, change party policy to return to being pro-Remain or at least to support a second referendum in which Remain is an option.
There have been whispers that Jeremy Corbyn is considering this, but that he needs time to move away from his current position. Then again, it's also been said that Len McClusky, the UNITE union leader refuses to consider anything other than Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't dare gainsay him.
True, but they are never given the choice between A and B*, instead the process is:
Do you want A ?
No !
Do you want B ?
No !
Do you want C ?
No !
* - well they kind of are, but in a roundabout way because there is a default outcome
We are in agreement the cited article has a major flaw then
McHrozni
Why ? That seems to me to be what the article says - revocation is an option, just not one that will pass Parliament.
It's a tad late for that. There are what, five parliamentary days left between the new PM and party conferences? Parliament then reconvenes one month before the Brexit deadline. If there is a no deal Brexit then as promised by the most likely new PM Labour will rightfully be seen as embracing the way out only when it was no longer viable.
Labour has a way out only if the new PM begs for an extension and offers a referendum and EU agrees to it. Neither is a given, although I think EU would grant one last extension in order to hold a second referendum.
BJ asking for that would be fun though.
McHrozni
Same issue with Scottish - an unintelligible (to Ian Osborne
) accent.Ian Osborne was (jokingly) asking whether it would be easier to learn a foreign language to to learn to understand English spoken with a Scottish accent for precisely that reason.
That can be achieved by a determined PM. Offer parliament a vote on WA (change the decleration slightly to pass the Speaker). If they vote it down again offer them a vote to revoke article 50 and saying in the debate this will be the last vote on the matter, because all alternatives have been exhausted. Tell them a vote for no is a vote for no deal Brexit and you shall do your utmost to fulfill the wish of Parliament. Tell them further you will make sure EU will not accept a further delay if they vote against the proposal and instead focus on the alternatives.
Do so in late October, so not much can be done.
MPs would hate it, but every single one of them would have to answer for their vote. I suspect the abstinention would be astronomical.
Because the said amendment rules out no deal Brexit without actually ending the process. It just gives a blueprint to follow if no other solution is reached and orders the question to remain sealed for a decade. That's way, way different from voting to revoke article 50.
McHrozni
It's still revocation - the fact that your suggestion has some follow up actions doesn't change the fact that it requires revocation to start the process.
No, not follow up actions. It has preconditions to take place - i.e. if all other options are exhausted and no Brexit deal acceptable to both EU and Parliament is reached, UK remains in EU. That's significantly different from revoking the article 50 and claiming responsibility for it.
The actions that come after are just so EU can be sure the revocation is made in good faith, a precondition for it even being possible.
McHrozni
- Status