I'd Have Thought That Bercow Would Have Grasped That No Deal Is The Default....

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-john-bercow-warns-tory-hopefuls-that-mps-will-block-no-deal-brexit-11730563
....it can't be blocked, if we do nowt we are out, end of. No deal does not have to pass through the HOQ.

[Gromit]

Tora,
The HOC vote was not binding.
I suppose a lot depends on who takes over from May, and whether the EU will yield at all to prevent No Deal (which would be very bad for both sides).

[jim360]

Firstly, let's just quash at least one aspect of this thread: Bercow's opinion means nothing if the House of Commons votes *for* something he personally opposes. The Speaker's job is to give the House a chance to express its will. That is all Bercow has done, and all he can do. Clearly he's opposed to Brexit. So what? A Speaker that was pro-Brexit wouldn't be able to force his ideology on the House either. Bercow is just a Brexit supporters' scapegoat for the more material point, which is that this Parliament has rejected, and will continue to reject, either of the two forms of Brexit currently on offer.

With that in mind, is No Deal really the default? I should have thought that the lessons of March 29th and April 23rd would have shown that as long as Parliament has any say, which is always, then No Deal will not happen. The House will not allow it. So even if it were the legal default, then any PM who tries to sit on their hands and force a No Deal exit will be overruled by the House -- in its present make-up at least -- and be forced to either seek an extension or to unilaterally revoke notification.

Moreover, I am not sure that Article 50 even allows a No Deal exit, at least not one that happens "by accident", either. The key phrase, in Article 50(1), is that any member state may only leave the EU "in accordance with its constitutional requirements". If a PM attempted to ignore the House and seek a No Deal exit then that would, I feel, be unconstitutional.

We're definitely getting into a legal minefield here, and I might be speaking out of my backside, but my, admittedly amateur, opinion is that a No Deal exit can only be constitutional if the UK Parliament explicitly agrees to it by passing the necessary primary legislation, and I am not sure that either the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 or the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 do the job on their own.

[New Judge]

//The key phrase, in Article 50(1), is that any member state may only leave the EU "in accordance with its constitutional requirements".//

Just a point of pedantry, Jim but there is no “only” in A50(1). But in any case, those constitutional arrangements are clear cut. Parliament has passed legislation that means we leave on October 31st. There is no mention of that departure being dependent upon a deal being agreed. If nothing is done, we leave. I don’t think it is in the EU’s bailiwick to over ride those arrangements by suggesting what should happen in the UK Parliament.

//opinion is that a No Deal exit can only be constitutional if the UK Parliament explicitly agrees to it by passing the necessary primary legislation, and I am not sure that either the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 or the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 do the job on their own.//

I believe the necessary primary legislation is in place, Jim. S13 of the 2018 Act sets out what must be done in the event that no agreement can be reached. Whilst I have not digested it completely, I can see nothing that says "No Deal" must be specifically ratified. This is somewhat borne out by the urgency with which the "Cooper/Letwin" Bill was put before Parliament. This was specifically to prevent the UK "crashing out" by default in April. Something similar will have to be tabled again before Halloween. As I explained in my earlier answer, this is not so straightforward as before. But I hold out no hope that we will leave properly either in October or at any other time.

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "is No Deal really the default? " - If we get to halloween with nothing having one through and no extension then yes. I've heard a lot of bluster but no one has outline a scenario/method where the house can stop it. Just voting against the cliff edge does not remove it, you have to put something in it's place. So we revert to the usual 3 options, pass May's deal, suspend A50, allow no deal.

[ToraToraTora]

one = Gone not won

[Togo]

//how do you get rid of a Speaker //

Major General Thomas Harrison knew how. Drag the little *** out and put him to live in a "travellers" camp. His missus would like that.

[jim360]

I'll bow to NJ's judgement on this. Still, even if No Deal is the legal default it's still nonsensical to assume that Parliament will let it happen, or that a Prime Minister can somehow stop Parliament from imposing its will on the matter.

[Quizmonster]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32061097
Mr Bercow is worth his weight in gold. May would just have gone on endlessly putting her misguided and basically unaltered plan before the House of Commons, had she not been stopped by him.
I was particularly pleased when a tawdry plot by Cameron and Hague a few years ago to get rid of him also failed miserably. I wish him luck in continuing to have the same impact on seeing that the business of Parliament goes ahead properly.

[CrapAtCryptics]

He obviously has a suicide wish as the Brexit vote in his constituency was only marginally remain - it wouldnt take much of a switch or a few non voters turning out at the next GE to consign him to the dole queue.