Brexit (Old)

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I smell something cynical. Recalling that TM said that there may be no Brexit at all if her deal was rejected by Parliament, I think she knows that an amendment to the Bill that would be debated as part of the meaningful vote would be the calling of a second Referendum.

To my mind, the only questions on the Referendum should then be deal or no deal (not remain or leave which is the rat I smell). We had the remain/leave referendum in 2016.

Let's step back a bit.

Assuming the Meaning Vote fails and there is no mandate in Parliament for the TM Deal, we, as a country, face a choice which will be enacted through our elected representatives, our MP's.

If these MP's conclude that the TM deal is unacceptable, something that we, as an electorate empower them so to do, we are left with a binary choice:

1. Leave with No Deal with the (majority consensus) conclusion of negative implications that this entails with no mandate from the country
2. Ask the country to validate, based on a position of informed consent, the No Deal scenario or the Remain "as is" scenario.

After all, it is less important how we arrived at this fork in the road but, rather, what is on the road ahead of us. What we can now clearly see before us is a choice with visible and actual consequences.

[jfman]

The Guardian are reporting that triggering Aricle 50 is an executive function, not a Parliamentary one, so therefore the Prime Minister can on behalf of the Government (the institution, not the party) suspend Article 50.

It then follows that if the European Court of Justice advises the Court of Session that a Government is within it’s legislative competence to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 it wouldn’t require Parliamentary approval at all.

She’d be toast, but arguably she already is, and any future Government of any party would have to start from scratch triggering Article 50.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I smell something cynical. Recalling that TM said that there may be no Brexit at all if her deal was rejected by Parliament, I think she knows that an amendment to the Bill that would be debated as part of the meaningful vote would be the calling of a second Referendum.

To my mind, the only questions on the Referendum should then be deal or no deal (not remain or leave which is the rat I smell). We had the remain/leave referendum in 2016.

If it came to another referendum, I agree that should be the choice of question, Seph.

I am against the idea only because this drags everything out even further. Whatever the result, there would still be endless arguments about it, as we have found the first time around.

We need to get on with it now so that our businesses can prepare.

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The Guardian are reporting that triggering Aricle 50 is an executive function, not a Parliamentary one, so therefore the Prime Minister can on behalf of the Government (the institution, not the party) suspend Article 50.

It then follows that if the European Court of Justice advises the Court of Session that a Government is within it’s legislative competence to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 it wouldn’t require Parliamentary approval at all.

She’d be toast, but arguably she already is, and any future Government of any party would have to start from scratch triggering Article 50.

I don't think Theresa May will be toast. As that Sunday Times article shows, the public is coming around to appreciating all the hard work she's been putting into this despite multiple obstacles and objections being thrown at her from all sides.

I am disappointed that she is now threatening a 'no Brexit', although I do think she has done that to make the Eurosceptics threatening to vote the deal down think again. If the Parliamentary arithmetic does not work out on the day of the vote, and for whatever reason the idea that we just drop out of the EU on 29 March 2019 cannot stand, then, and only then, would I agree to put a 'deal or no deal' referendum to the people.

[jfman]

She’s toast. While her public approval is up the Conservatives aren’t.

After the disaster of her last campaign there’s no chance she will make it to a natural general election. Her only chance of making the next election is the collapse of her own Government.

If there’s a public vote there’s no way remain doesn’t make it onto the ballot paper.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Dave42

exactly no deal the PM could get would be better that what we got at moment with our Veto and all our opt outs we got

But that’s a deal to remain the EU, which we are leaving so it’s a pretty pointless comment.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But that’s a deal to remain the EU, which we are leaving so it’s a pretty pointless comment.

Teressa May mentioned a no Brexit at all again in parliament today so it not pointless at all

Fears over Brexit deal sign-off this weekend as UK-EU talks continue

https://news.sky.com/story/fears-ove...tinue-11559692

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The Guardian are reporting that triggering Aricle 50 is an executive function, not a Parliamentary one, so therefore the Prime Minister can on behalf of the Government (the institution, not the party) suspend Article 50.

It then follows that if the European Court of Justice advises the Court of Session that a Government is within it’s legislative competence to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 it wouldn’t require Parliamentary approval at all.

She’d be toast, but arguably she already is, and any future Government of any party would have to start from scratch triggering Article 50.

If parliament vote down the agreement, then TM would be well within her rights to walk away. She did her best. It would then need a new PM to get us through no deal.

Once we have left the EU with no deal, the government and the EU would have to very quickly set out our new relationship.

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

Teressa May mentioned a no Brexit at all again in parliament today so it not pointless at all

Fears over Brexit deal sign-off this weekend as UK-EU talks continue

https://news.sky.com/story/fears-ove...tinue-11559692

You’ve got three options

This deal

This deal - amended between now and March

No deal.

No Brexit is not an option.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If parliament vote down the agreement, then TM would be well within her rights to walk away. She did her best. It would then need a new PM to get us through no deal.

Once we have left the EU with no deal, the government and the EU would have to very quickly set out our new relationship.

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------



You’ve got three options

This deal

This deal - amended between now and March

No deal.

No Brexit is not an option.

would not been mentioned at all if it was not a option at all

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If parliament vote down the agreement, then TM would be well within her rights to walk away. She did her best. It would then need a new PM to get us through no deal.

Once we have left the EU with no deal, the government and the EU would have to very quickly set out our new relationship.

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------



You’ve got three options

This deal

This deal - amended between now and March

No deal.

No Brexit is not an option.

Tell that to TM and her ministers, it now seems to be 'in play' . It's coming down to 2 options:- worse than now or the same as now. No deal isn't an option and never has been.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If parliament vote down the agreement, then TM would be well within her rights to walk away. She did her best. It would then need a new PM to get us through no deal.

Once we have left the EU with no deal, the government and the EU would have to very quickly set out our new relationship.

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------



You’ve got three options

This deal

This deal - amended between now and March

No deal.

No Brexit is not an option.

You’ve missed my point, probably deliberately, again.

Theresa May, as Head of Government, has the legal authority to postpone Brexit indefinitely and could shortly could find out she has the authority to reverse it. No Parliamentary approval or second referendum required.

No Brexit is an option. The only question, ironically, is would the EU allow it.

[Dave42]

May set to return to Brussels after talks with EU fail to finalise Brexit deal

https://news.sky.com/story/fears-ove...tinue-11559692

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Dave42

May set to return to Brussels after talks with EU fail to finalise Brexit deal

https://news.sky.com/story/fears-ove...tinue-11559692

Nothing to worry about. If I’m right everything needs to be done at the last minute to minimise time for coherent challenge.

It helps the optics of the situation for the May deal to both “hard fought” and “inadequate”.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’ve missed my point, probably deliberately, again.

Theresa May, as Head of Government, has the legal authority to postpone Brexit indefinitely and could shortly could find out she has the authority to reverse it. No Parliamentary approval or second referendum required.

She wouldn’t do that. It would make her a pariah to the nation, and resign her in history as the great betrayer. No one wants that as a legacy.

No Brexit is an option. The only question, ironically, is would the EU allow it.

Won’t happen.

[jfman]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, on Peston just now when asked what happens in the event of the deal being voted down. “There could be no deal, but there could equally be no Brexit.”

When pressed on what that meant he said we would be in uncharted territory and nobody could predict what would happen in the chaos that ensues.

He described no smooth transition as costing the economy “tens of billions” of pounds. Paying the EU to ensure smooth transition would be more effective.

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

She wouldn’t do that. It would make her a pariah to the nation, and resign her in history as the great betrayer. No one wants that as a legacy.

And a hero to the other half of the country. The woman who put country before party and political convenience.

Could probably make a small fortune on the speaking circuits telling the story of it all. Fighting within the Party, conflict with the EU, Russian interference...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, on Peston just now when asked what happens in the event of the deal being voted down. “There could be no deal, but there could equally be no Brexit.”

When pressed on what that meant he said we would be in uncharted territory and nobody could predict what would happen in the chaos that ensues.

He described no smooth transition as costing the economy “tens of billions” of pounds. Paying the EU to ensure smooth transition would be more effective.

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------



And a hero to the other half of the country. The woman who put country before party and political convenience.

Could probably make a small fortune on the speaking circuits telling the story of it all. Fighting within the Party, conflict with the EU, Russian interference...

A prime minister that double crossed the nation, said that no deal was better than a bad deal, then sold us out?

History would not look kindly on her, and would consign the Tory’s to a generation out of power,