• 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...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well you would have to ask the person that made the assumption. And no I mean England. Our future PM has already said Westminster is England's parliament.

Only in the sense that it has to be, because England doesn't have its own (I'm not sure it should, and would prefer regional assemblies like London's, but obviously that effort stalled).

I don't think I ever said it would be otherwise. But there would be a negotiated agreement. No doubt Scotland will not get everything it wants but nor will England.

A hypothetical was put forward in which England simply said 'we are keeping the lot, screw you' and I was pointing out why this won't happen.

That's a pretty silly hypothetical. The fact remains, though, that Scotland's Future outlined a "shopping list" that was unrealistic in a number of ways, although I did see it suggested that it was more designed to appeal to those wavering on the issue of independence, rather than an accurate reflection of what role the SNP actually wants Scotland's military to have (i.e more Ireland than Denmark).
 
Again the idea that England will simply dictate what will and won't happen in a negotiation. It seems the colonial mindset will persist despite Brexit showing the world how laughably pathetic it is.

Not at all. Just reflecting the pragmatism in the bit you trimmed: "They weren't more specific, but this was interpreted to mean a Landing Platform Dock or Bay class RFA, neither of which is going to happen."

The Royal Navy has two Landing Platform Docks and three Bay class landing ships. Australia already got the "spare" of the latter, and what's left is pretty much the bare minimum needed.
 
Last edited:
This would require Parliament to pass legislation to do so. The Conservative Party would certainly not bring this to the table and so it would be left to one or more of the opposition parties - which means that it's highly likely to fail because the Conservatives, DUP and a number of Labour MPs would vote against it.


No. No it would not. Astonishingly you still don't get what is being said in that legal link, or the other links I gave, or what the Speaker John Berkow has said …. I've been explaining this for at least a dozen posts now ….

Firstly (the first possible scenario for PM-Boris/Hunt) - if the PM attempts to stop any votes in the HoC so as to just run down the clock for an automatic default on oct 31st (which is what was originally being claimed here, and which is what I was arguing against) then that attempt would-be blocked by the Speaker, and the opposition votes would take place whether the PM wanted it or not. The second PM-Boris/Hunt option is to allow all votes as usual in the HoC (the PM cannot stop it!), where all it takes is one majority vote saying MPs do not support leaving without a Deal, and in that case Boris MUST return to the EU asking for an extension ...

... if he just sits in his office refusing to get on a plane and says I will not physically go there to ask the EU for anything, then he will be ruled by legal action and by the Speaker to be in complete breach of democracy in his role as PM and he will be effectively deposed from the Job. He cannot act against the democratic will of parliament ... if he is told in a vote that MPs will not accept his No Deal exit by time default, then in law (already existing, and already used with Mrs May), and by all parliamentary rules of UK democracy exercised by the Speaker, the PM must return to the EU asking for an extension or asking for a new different deal or whatever.

Now the third scenario would be if MPs are allowed to vote in the HoC as they have been doing, but where nobody bothers to block PM-Boris/Hunt by bringing any vote against an automatic un-voted undemocratic default exit of the EU, then of course in that case the exit will legally occur on 31st Oct ... but how likely is it that the MPs will ALL (that's all of them) be happy to let PM-Boris/Hunt do that, so that none of them brings any such vote? The answer is that it's inconceivable ... a vote against No Deal Exit will certainly occur. Of course, if the result of that vote is that the majority of MPs are happy to allow a No Deal exit, then all opposition routes fail ... in that case the democratic will of the HoC will have been to accept a No Deal exit, but how likely is that?? Well, the answer is that the last time we had those votes, one of them was very close ... so that IS a way in which a No Deal exit upon time-default could quite easily happen, but that is because that would be a democratic decision by majority of votes in the HoC.

And by the way, I am not telling you the above is true. I do not myself have the expertise to know what is true in UK and EU democratic law. Instead what I am telling you is simply what the lawyer in that legal link says it's true. And he is apparently a barrister specialising in exactly this field of constitutional and political law in the UK and in the EU, so he should be a far more credible source than any of us here. The Speaker of the House has also said that any such No Deal exit by deliberate time-default will not be allowed under parliamentary rules of democracy (ie the PM would be acting illegally).
 
Last edited:
No. No it would not. Astonishingly you still don't get what is being said in that legal link, or the other links I gave, or what the Speaker John Berkow has said …. I've been explaining this for at least a dozen posts now ….

Firstly (the first possible scenario for PM-Boris/Hunt) - if the PM attempts to stop any votes in the HoC so as to just run down the clock for an automatic default on oct 31st (which is what was originally being claimed here, and which is what I was arguing against) then that attempt would-be blocked by the Speaker, and the opposition votes would take place whether the PM wanted it or not. The second PM-Boris/Hunt option is to allow all votes as usual in the HoC (the PM cannot stop it!), where all it takes is one majority vote saying MPs do not support leaving without a Deal, and in that case Boris MUST return to the EU asking for an extension ...

... if he just sits in his office refusing to get on a plane and says I will not physically go there to ask the EU for anything, then he will be ruled by legal action and by the Speaker to be in complete breach of democracy in his role as PM and he will be effectively deposed from the Job. He cannot act against the democratic will of parliament ... if he is told in a vote that MPs will not accept his No Deal exit by time default, then in law (already existing, and already used with Mrs May), and by all parliamentary rules of UK democracy exercised by the Speaker, the PM must return to the EU asking for an extension or asking for a new different deal or whatever.

Now the third scenario would be if MPs are allowed to vote in the HoC as they have been doing, but where nobody bothers to block PM-Boris/Hunt by bringing any vote against an automatic un-voted undemocratic default exit of the EU, then of course in that case the exit will legally occur on 31st Oct ... but how likely is it that the MPs will ALL (that's all of them) be happy to let PM-Boris/Hunt do that, so that none of them brings any such vote? The answer is that it's inconceivable ... a vote against No Deal Exit will certainly occur. Of course, if the result of that vote is that the majority of MPs are happy to allow a No Deal exit, then all opposition routes fail ... in that case the democratic will of the HoC will have been to accept a No Deal exit, but how likely is that?? Well, the answer is that the last time we had those votes, one of them was very close ... so that IS a way in which a No Deal exit upon time-default could quite easily happen, but that is because that would be a democratic decision by majority of votes in the HoC.

And by the way, I am not telling you the above is true. I do not myself have the expertise to know what is true in UK and EU democratic law. Instead what I am telling you is simply what the lawyer in that legal link says it's true. And he is apparently a barrister specialising in exactly this field of constitutional and political law in the UK and in the EU, so he should be a far more credible source than any of us here. The Speaker of the House has also said that any such No Deal exit by deliberate time-default will not be allowed under parliamentary rules of democracy (ie the PM would be acting illegally).

I've highlighted the bit that shows that Parliament would have to pass legislation to force Boris or Jeremy to go to the EU.....

I've never claimed that Boris or Jeremy could prevent the votes taking place (and as far as I can tell, neither has anyone else in this thread). I have claimed that to avoid a no-deal Brexit, one or more of those votes would have to pass.

So far Parliament has been happy to pass non-binding votes to say that they don't want a no deal but they haven't been able to pass anything to say what they want as an alternative.

So, in your example, a vote is called by the opposition which would compel the Prime Minister to go to the EU for an extension. Because it is an opposition motion, the Conservatives issue a three line whip to oppose. Almost all the Conservative MPs oppose it, all DUP MPs and a handful of Labour's awkward squad because all of them see it as a devious plot by the opposition to frustrate and cancel Brexit. The motion fails, and Boris or Jeremy don't have to go to the EU.

If Parliament is unable to pass legislation to say what they want instead of a no-deal Brexit, we shall end up with a no-deal Brexit by default. Just saying no "no-deal" isn't enough (they've done that repeatedly), as Darat pointed out earlier, they would need to pass primary legislation to amend the current "Leave the EU" bill.
 
I've highlighted the bit that shows that Parliament would have to pass legislation to force Boris or Jeremy to go to the EU.....

I've never claimed that Boris or Jeremy could prevent the votes taking place (and as far as I can tell, neither has anyone else in this thread). I have claimed that to avoid a no-deal Brexit, one or more of those votes would have to pass.

So far Parliament has been happy to pass non-binding votes to say that they don't want a no deal but they haven't been able to pass anything to say what they want as an alternative.

So, in your example, a vote is called by the opposition which would compel the Prime Minister to go to the EU for an extension. Because it is an opposition motion, the Conservatives issue a three line whip to oppose. Almost all the Conservative MPs oppose it, all DUP MPs and a handful of Labour's awkward squad because all of them see it as a devious plot by the opposition to frustrate and cancel Brexit. The motion fails, and Boris or Jeremy don't have to go to the EU.

If Parliament is unable to pass legislation to say what they want instead of a no-deal Brexit, we shall end up with a no-deal Brexit by default. Just saying no "no-deal" isn't enough (they've done that repeatedly), as Darat pointed out earlier, they would need to pass primary legislation to amend the current "Leave the EU" bill.


Well then you are not disputing what I have said. Because in that case you are accepting that the votes will take place in the HoC and that PM-Boris/Hunt cannot stop that!

He (PM Boris/Hunt) may try to stop those votes, but according to that legal link he will be overruled & forced to allow the votes. And one of those votes is certain to be an option asking the House to rule out a No Deal exit (that's "certain" because we already had exactly that situation and exactly that response of a vote ruling out a No Deal exit).

Bottom line is – the PM can only force the sort of No Deal exit that you just described in your post above, IF MPs vote against ruling out a No Deal exit.
 
Last edited:
The UK's response to possible medicine shortages resulting from a no-deal Brexit is to invest £3m in measures to transport medicine.

The Department of Health and Social Care plans to spend £3m on no-deal Brexit measures to transport medication.

It wants to hire an "express freight service" to transport medicines, blood and transplant tissue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48875402

"There is no downside to Brexit" :rolleyes:

Seems rather too little IMO, especially when they were willing to spend £100m+ on the ferries (or lack thereof) a few months ago.
 
Well then you are not disputing what I have said. Because in that case you are accepting that the votes will take place in the HoC and that PM-Boris/Hunt cannot stop that!

I've never claimed otherwise

He (PM Boris/Hunt) may try to stop those votes, but according to that legal link he will be overruled & forced to allow the votes. And one of those votes is certain to be an option asking the House to rule out a No Deal exit (that's "certain" because we already had exactly that situation and exactly that response of a vote ruling out a No Deal exit).

I think what you don't understand is, without another vote to change primary Brexit legislation, ruling out a "no deal" Brexit is meaningless and so far Parliament has been incapable of doing so.

Bottom line is – the PM can only force the sort of No Deal exit that you just described in your post above, IF MPs vote against ruling out a No Deal exit.

They don't have to force anything, they just need Parliament to fail to provide an alternative.

If Parliament votes against a no-deal Brexit and then fails to agree on what should happen instead (which is exactly what has happened until now). Under those (IMO very likely) circumstances, we would still leave with no deal. :(
 
I've never claimed otherwise


I think what you don't understand is, without another vote to change primary Brexit legislation, ruling out a "no deal" Brexit is meaningless and so far Parliament has been incapable of doing so.

(


No. I think it's you who does not understand what that legal link explained, and what I have explained from that link - it would NOT be necessary to have any vote at all against a situation where PM-Boris/Hunt attempted to stop any votes at all, just to force a No Deal exit by time default.

First of all that almost certainly could not happen anyway, because as I have explained at least ten times now - the PM cannot stop such votes in the Hoc.

But just for the sake of argument, if the PM could and did stop any such votes in the HoC, and tried by that route to claim a NoDeal exit by time-default, then (1) the opposing MPs could and would take a legal ruling to block that (and they already did exactly that with Mrs May), and (2) the Speaker has also said he would block any such attempt to gain a No Deal exit by time-default (and the Speaker does apparently have the power to block the PM on that).

So what you have suggested cannot work for the reasons just explained again above (tenth time).
 
Last edited:
No. I think it's you who does not understand what that legal link explained, and what I have explained from that link - it would NOT be necessary to have any vote at all against a situation where PM-Boris/Hunt attempted to stop any votes at all, just to force a No Deal exit by time default.

First of all that almost certainly could not happen anyway, because as I have explained at least ten times now - the PM cannot stop such votes in the Hoc.

But just for the sake of argument, if the PM could and did stop any such votes in the HoC, and tried by that route to claim a NoDeal exit by time-default, then (1) the opposing MPs could and would take a legal ruling to block that (and they already did exactly that with Mrs May), and (2) the Speaker has also said he would block any such attempt to gain a No Deal exit by time-default (and the Speaker does apparently have the power to block the PM on that).

So what you have suggested cannot work for the reasons just explained again above (tenth time).
I do believe the Don agrees with you... and then goes on to explain that unless the HoC votes in favour of a solution that changes the current default no deal Brexit by 31st October than a no deal Brexit can and probably will happen.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk
 
I have never claimed that the PM would stop any vote.

What I am saying is that a vote to rule out a no deal Brexit is insufficient to stop it unless Parliament agrees on an alternative course of action.

So far they have been unable to do so and I see no change to that.
 
I do believe the Don agrees with you... and then goes on to explain that unless the HoC votes in favour of a solution that changes the current default no deal Brexit by 31st October than a no deal Brexit can and probably will happen.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk

Yes, exactly.
 

Pure PR because if you read further down it says:

They will, however, be subject to different rules, similar to those which third-country nationals who apply to stay in Malta are subjected to. “But we still want to make it clear that we want to be open and hospitable to all UK citizens.”
(referring to those who arrive after 29 Mar 2019 whom you are ipso facto addressing)

Oh well, maybe Malta is all hot air after all.
 
The UK's response to possible medicine shortages resulting from a no-deal Brexit is to invest £3m in measures to transport medicine.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48875402

"There is no downside to Brexit" :rolleyes:

Seems rather too little IMO, especially when they were willing to spend £100m+ on the ferries (or lack thereof) a few months ago.

:pio_o: <fx west country burr> I arr a briliant idea. We could use them tharr Ramsgate...I am sure someone knows a freight company who arr can do them tharr for us. I know, Seaborrne. Ship ahoy!
 
Oh well, maybe Malta is all hot air after all.

Believe what you want. You usually do.

No-deal Brexit: Which EU member state is being the most generous to Britons?

"By far the most generous is Malta's. "The Maltese authorities will give a 10 year status to UK nationals who are resident in Malta on 29th March 2019. For a UK citizen to become a beneficiary of such status, they will have to be resident in Malta on 29th March 2019," Sarah-Louise Galea, head of international media at the Maltese Prime Minister’s Secretariat, confirmed to The Local by email.

Students will be able to continue studying in Malta; workers "will automatically have open access to the labour market, hence eliminating the requirement for an employment licence." Self-sufficient individuals will have to prove they have income equivalent to the Maltese minimum wage, as well as valid health insurance.

Malta's offer contrasts sharply with that of other nations. It does not matter how long UK nationals have been in Malta, as long as they are resident by March 29th or the UK's withdrawal date. There will be no fee for applications."
 
Last edited:
Believe what you want. You usually do.

No-deal Brexit: Which EU member state is being the most generous to Britons?

"By far the most generous is Malta's. "The Maltese authorities will give a 10 year status to UK nationals who are resident in Malta on 29th March 2019. For a UK citizen to become a beneficiary of such status, they will have to be resident in Malta on 29th March 2019," Sarah-Louise Galea, head of international media at the Maltese Prime Minister’s Secretariat, confirmed to The Local by email.

Students will be able to continue studying in Malta; workers "will automatically have open access to the labour market, hence eliminating the requirement for an employment licence." Self-sufficient individuals will have to prove they have income equivalent to the Maltese minimum wage, as well as valid health insurance.

Malta's offer contrasts sharply with that of other nations. It does not matter how long UK nationals have been in Malta, as long as they are resident by March 29th or the UK's withdrawal date. There will be no fee for applications."

But did you not read further where it says any Brit arriving after 29 March 2019 will be treated like any third world arrival?

As 29 March 2019 is long passed, the bit you quoted is about as much use as a one-legged arse kicker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom