lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Parliament has made a binding vote in favor of filing article 50 commencing the process by which the UK would leave the EU. There has be no binding vote that would block this in the absence of a Brexit deal. “The will of the HoC” as currently expressed is that the UK leaves the EU on Oct 31 deal or no deal.if a PM attempts to force a No Deal Brexit against the express voted will of the HoC, then his only option would be to ask the Queen to prorogue parliament
Now, that quote directly above may look as if the mere act of the HoC voting to rule out any No Deal exist, could not be indefinitely biding on the next PM
What it says is that Parliament specifically ordered the PM to seek an extension to avoid a no deal Brexit on Apr 12 and it certainly could do so again for Oct 31. No one has questioned this. The rebuttal is:
- The PM is not required to seek an extension unless Parliament specifically says to do so. Thus far they have not
- Even if the PM is ordered to seek an extension, one may not be granted.
In all of the above quotes, what the barrister is saying, is that the only legal route which the PM has if he tries to prevent the HoC voting to rule out a No Deal, is actually to ask the Queen to Prorogue parliament.
This isn’t what he’s saying at all. He’s saying the PM can’t Prorogue Parliament as a means to prevent a vote that would force him to seek another extension. At this point, he probably doesn’t need to since there is currently no impetus for such a vote and no good reason why the EU would grant the extension anyway.