[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How can something that specifies, if Parliament doesn't agree or the EU Parliament doesn't agree, then X has to be done, be legal? Parliament won't specify what they would agree to, and the EU Parliament have only said what they would agree to. How can a 3rd party(ie Boris) be held responsible or accountable for any of that?


Anyway you look at it, that limb of the legislation can only be reached if any proposals have been put to both Parliaments. The "question" hasn't been asked, never mind answered.


Another aspect of this ILLEGAL law(eg rushed through and has debating time limits specified) is that the "no to no deal" means both Leave and Remain. Some of Leave side voted for it to have a TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL deal, but the Remain side are using it to FORCE A COUP of never ending delays to leaving. How would the logic of that "law" be legal in any other context? Imagine if it was used for a Benefits related law, and it was something any claimant could never ever achieve. Imagine if the Scots voted for independence, and these tactics were used.

This is what could happen. At the next EU Council meeting on 17-Oct, they could have made sufficient progress to continue negotiations but they would have to last beyond 31-Oct.

Since the Benn Act requires the PM to accept whatever the EU offers, that could be just one month, which would let Boris off the do-or-die pledge.

Could it happen, really?