Re: Brexit
 

In the context of everything else that has just happened, it’s is just a delaying tactic, and possibly a final throw of the dice aimed at stopping Brexit altogether - the proof of that will be in whether his proposal suggests Remain as a ballot option, in which case regardless of how it’s sold, it will turn into a re-run of 2016.

Amidst all the navel-gazing on this side of the channel, there seems to be little understanding that all that is on the table is Deal, No Deal or No Brexit. A choice for Deal extends the A50 deadline to May. No Deal occurs by default next week. The only way to get an extension beyond May is with a clear set of proposals to do something different. Given the parliamentary pantomime of the last week, who in the EU would believe any plan May put forwards? They simply don’t believe she can get anything past the Commons.

Re: Brexit
 

Parliament doesn't seem to want any kind of deal. All ideas have been rejected.

They have one more chance to look again at TM's deal. If they vote that down we just need to let 'no deal' happen and get on with it.

Cancelling Brexit would cause uproar, so 'no deal' is the only alternative.

And on 13 April, everyone will look up at the sky and wonder why it hasn't caved in. Future prosperity will suddenly beckon. :D

Re: Brexit
 

Parliament resoundingly rejected “no deal”, it’s by far the least popular option. No point in wrecking the country because they can’t agree.

---------- Post added at 09:31 ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 ----------

On the contrary - I think Hammond is making the last throw of the dice for leaving. Every other leave option will get obliterated at the polls.

May’s deal, with the Government media machine in operation, can inform leave and remain voters it addresses many of their concerns about EU exit. For those sick of it, it offers finality.

Re: Brexit
 

But as said many times, it is not in Parliaments power. The only way Parliament can take control and stop no deal is by either revoking A50, or accepting the deal.

Otherwise it is up to the EU.

If the WA is rejected a 4th time, I don’t see what can be done. We can’t go back to EU and ask for more time, for what? Parliament have proven that there is no consensus for an alternative. So why would the EU be inclined to give us more time?

Only the prospect of them not getting their money, is the only reason. Which tells you all you need to know.

Re: Brexit
 

There’s a misunderstanding of what is (and isn’t) in the control of Parliament. At all costs Parliament can prevent no deal with a vote of no confidence, put a unity candidate up for her Maj to appoint (to entend) then vote themselves out again for a general election.

Parliament holds all the cards. The legal default position didn’t last on March 29th and will not on April 12th.

It is up to the EU, but they’ve nothing to lose and everything to gain by extending.

Re: Brexit
 

The thinking from the EU is that if we don't pay the money it'll only be attached a pre-condition to the future relationship anyway. So I am not sure how strong a motivation that'll be to them.

All this aside I wonder how mentally MPs are handling all this. Reports of them shouting at each other in corridors, people resigning in the middle of the commons, some MPs not going to their actual homes due to security concerns, a deluge of threats and anger all at a time they having to make a decision which'll have ramifications for a long time under the intense deadline and pressure.

Re: Brexit
 

Some interesting thoughts by David Davis..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-eu-live-news

Re: Brexit
 

Absolute nonsense. Parliament cannot prevent no deal-The date didn’t last because the Government changed that date in law. There is no method to put in or appoint a Unity Government, there is no way the Queen would simply appoint a Government in such an undemocratic and unconstitutional way.

We need to get on with leaving the EU as Democratically decided and stop all these bullshit coups to scupper the people’s decision to leave the corrupted EU.

Re: Brexit
 

Mick, I know you disagree but the Government put forward he extension to save it’s skin. It will continue to do so.

The Queen is constitutionally obliged to appoint a PM that commands the confidence of the house. If that’s a Grieve or Letwin type character delivering a second referendum then there’s the rub. Corbyn gets to slam the Tories and stay out of it anyway.

We need a second decisive referendum. Or a general election.

Re: Brexit
 

Wouldn't the method be the current government is brought down in a vote of no confidence and a new government, built of a coalition in Parliament, can pass a Queens Speech?

The Queen has to appoint a Prime Minister who can command the confidence of Parliament. By what authority would she not? That is the constitutional way governments are formed.

Re: Brexit
 

We should take Brexit away from Parliament and put it into the hands of a train franchise

if we're going to miss deadlines let's do it using professionals

Re: Brexit
 

The Queen appoints a new PM on the advice of the old one, not Parliament. The old PM’s job is to advise who is likely to command the confidence of parliament. There exists no procedure whereby parliament can intervene in the process directly.

Re: Brexit
 

My view is that May's deal does not commit us to a specific future relationship. So pass her deal, everyone take a breather and calm down then call an election with party's explaining their version of the next deal.

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

Ok but then surely by convention the old PM just recommends whomever now commands the confidence of the house no?

Re: Brexit
 

This from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, but that’s not the point that was being floated earlier.

Parliament cannot take control of that process. It can’t go to the Palace and advise Her Maj that May no longer has their confidence and such and such a person does. Only May can do that.