Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
McHrozni said:
Yup. I know it's not how Parliament works now, but for debates of the magnitude that are only held once or twice per election cycle at most making the change and pushing the business of minor issues to preceeding or suceeding days seems doable.

It's a change and I know Brits hate those, but I think it would also be an improvement.



The Crown obviously, acting on the advice of the PM. Who else?



;)

McHrozni
Click to expand...
I doubt one person in a hundred would be genuinely bothered if they moved Parliment to a business estate in Birmingham.

Don't need anything fancy like the Scottish and the Welsh did, pragmatic sensible and low cost is fine. It's meant to be a serious issue not a pantomime.
 
Darat said:
I doubt one person in a hundred would be genuinely bothered if they moved Parliment to a business estate in Birmingham.

Don't need anything fancy like the Scottish and the Welsh did, pragmatic sensible and low cost is fine. It's meant to be a serious issue not a pantomime.
Click to expand...

Oh the usual suspects would be up in arms. A lot more than 1 in a hundred.

There are a lot of people in the UK who think all this **** matters.
 
dudalb said:
Just read that Winston Churchill's grandson was one of the 21 Tories who Johnson wants to read out of the party.
Just following in the family tradition of not selling out your convictions for the sake of pleasing your party boss.
Click to expand...

Given that in many respects Soames is a bit of a bad hat, it's surprising that he always seems to have been a Remainer.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If it was a VONC then Parliament would still technically be sitting wouldn't it? For the 14 days?

If it's an early election under FTPA then I think it wouldn't be.

That's a thought actually... are we at the point where the temporary government idea has legs with the maths?

VONC. Pass second referendum legislation. Have another vote before the end of the year.
Click to expand...

And what will be on the referendum? Accept the deal or no deal versions of brexit or something that includes withdrawing article 50? You are not going to get another referendum because no one will ever agree on language for it. It was only because it was dumb and meaningless that the original referendum was able to get out. If it had meant anything the vote would have been set aside for the illegal actions of the brexit campaign.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Not sure what you mean...
No deal Brexit is the legal default unless something else happens to stop it.
Click to expand...

But the authorization of article 50 did not permit one, it required a deal that parliament signed off on. There was just never anything to prevent crashing out, but crashing out was never actually authorized as an acceptable outcome either.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But it isn't like a no deal brexit is legal now, why would one more law change anything?
Click to expand...
A no deal is certainly legal at the moment. The current legislation that has us leaving on Halloween is the binding law of the land at the moment. There hasn't been any (prior to.l to this latest bill) legislation passed that prevented a no deal.

After all when Parliment voted to.leave the EU we were all under the assumption that we would have a deal as that is what the leave campaigners had promised so no one thought the leave campaigners would have been lying to us.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But the authorization of article 50 did not permit one, it required a deal that parliament signed off on. There was just never anything to prevent crashing out, but crashing out was never actually authorized as an acceptable outcome either.
Click to expand...
The bill to leave the EU by revoking article 50 had no conditions on how we left.
 
Darat said:
A no deal is certainly legal at the moment. The current legislation that has us leaving on Halloween is the binding law of the land at the moment. There hasn't been any (prior to.l to this latest bill) legislation passed that prevented a no deal.

After all when Parliment voted to.leave the EU we were all under the assumption that we would have a deal as that is what the leave campaigners had promised so no one thought the leave campaigners would have been lying to us.
Click to expand...

Oh the fact that it isn't legal won't stop it from happening.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Sounds like a logistical nightmare shuffling people back and forth in London to debate issues in different chambers. Lots of wasted time and taxi fares. Not to mention security issues.
Click to expand...

Probably should have been addressed back in the 1990s when Portcullis House was built across the road - they could have built a tunnel between the two and stuck a luxury leather-seated Trav-O-Lator™ in it to shuttle the MPs backwards and forwards in comfort and security.
 
The Don said:
Only if it's been accepted and even then he could just declare that it's unacceptable and we're back to the default of leaving without a deal.
Click to expand...

British politics are Weird.

Waiting until November it is.

McHrozni
 
Darat said:
On this I'm not sure what he even means by "family loyalty and the national interest". He was never voted in to do anything for his family, an MP is not meant to be feathering the nest of his family, and certainly a minister isn't meant to be looking out for his family's interests so there is no conflict with family loyalty and the national interest. Or if he says there is then he was never representing his constituency he was always on the take for his family.
Click to expand...

I would assume it just means that voting in the national interest is going to mean no more Christmas dinner invites from Boris for the foreseeable future.

It's notable that their sister stood for Change UK at the last European Parliament elections, having previously defected from the Tories to the Lib-Dems. Not much harmony in the House of Johnson.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
But the authorization of article 50 did not permit one, it required a deal that parliament signed off on. There was just never anything to prevent crashing out, but crashing out was never actually authorized as an acceptable outcome either.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true but happy to be corrected.

Triggering Article 50 meant that we either agreed a deal or left without one (or kept agreeing extensions)
 
ponderingturtle said:
And what will be on the referendum? Accept the deal or no deal versions of brexit or something that includes withdrawing article 50? You are not going to get another referendum because no one will ever agree on language for it. It was only because it was dumb and meaningless that the original referendum was able to get out. If it had meant anything the vote would have been set aside for the illegal actions of the brexit campaign.
Click to expand...

Well you only need to get 50%+1 to agree it for it to happen. It's Labour policy now, Lib Dem policy and the SNP will support it provided it allows Remain as an option.

You can only have a referendum on options that exist so it would have to be : Remain, Leave without a Deal, or approve the WA as it stands.
 
Darat said:
To have a 'united states of Europe" (Churchill's words) was one of his grandfather's ideas and hopes. Hardly surprising then that he is a remainer.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's rather pathetic that lying Leave meme-makers have had to cobble together bits of completely different Churchill speeches/statements to try to suggest the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom