Brexit - What If?

[Arrods]

The PM swallows his pride, sends the extension request to Brussels and it's refused (as one French minister has opined). What then?

[jim360]

Re the jail sentence: no, they could not. Most countries in the EU recognise the right to conscientious objection, and it's also part of the UN Convention on Human Rights. So, but bluntly, you're creating an imagined threat.

I do accept that if the UK left and then rejoined the EU we might have to do so on different, more integrated terms from the ones we enjoy* today, but we aren't in that position yet.

*or endure, I suppose, depending on your point of view.

[Spicerack]

Er, you do realise that Mash Report is taking the *** out of you, Zacs?

[Gromit]

AOG

// Talking of these overnight introduction of certain laws ie preventing Johnson from calling a General Election, stopping him from leaving the EU without a deal //

You have not been paying attention. Neither of those are new laws. Johnson needs a two thirds majority to agree to a general election under a law introduced in 2011 with the support of the Conservative Government.

Boris is not banned from leaving the EU without a deal in the Benn-Burt law. He has been told to ask for an extension if a deal is not in place before Oct 31. But he could ask for an extension and still take us out with No Deal after Oct 31.

[Spicerack]

Is it just me or do these Remainers sound more and more like Comical Ali every day.
Keep it going, lads, you're a great laugh.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

A bill designed to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October without a Brexit agreement has cleared the House of Lords, and it is set to become law on Monday when it is due to get royal assent.

[jim360]

The conditions of the Act (as it will be tomorrow) only kick in if Johnson has failed to negotiate a new deal. As he constantly assures us, that is and remains his aim.

[Khandro]

Merkel said a while back, that she would agree to an extension only if it was for a 'good reason'. As there is absolutely no reason at all for an extension, it cannot happen without her losing face, ergo .....

[Gromit]

AOG

Johnson can still take us out of the EU without a deal. And he will probably try to if he is still around. He has not been stopped, just temporarily delayed in order to buy us more time to have a more orderly Brexit.

[Gromit]

Khandro
While Germany and France have the loudest voices in the EU, contrary to what you think, they do not run it. In this instance, Ireland, who share a land border, will have a big say.

[New Judge]

"...in order to buy us more time to have a more orderly Brexit."

And what sort of "more orderly Brexit" might that be then? The Commons won't have No Deal and they won't have the only deal on offer (which is not up for renegotiation and in any case is not Brexit at all apart from crossing our name off the list of members). So with that in mind why don't Remainers come clean, stop fannying around with the camouflage of "we can't have No Deal" and stop taking people for idiots.

[fender62]

makes me wonder if these remainer mp's have some kind of personal monetary interest or political gain in europe, i get why some have resigned or crossed the floor, as they see a sinking ship and want to hold on to there jobs=cash.

[jim360]

The Commons is full of contradictions at the moment, it is true. But some Remain-supporting MPs voted for the WA, some voted against, and each time it came up more and more MPs voted in favour of it. Even about half the current cabinet, who spend their time lately telling us how unacceptable it is, voted for it.

If Johnson were to concede the possibility of a second referendum on the terms of Brexit -- that is, put the (possibly slightly modified) WA to a vote against Remaining -- then the Commons would support it.

In case anyone decides to remind me of this, I'd suggested including No Deal on the referendum paper earlier in this never-ending debate. I no longer think that's a good idea -- my opposition to No Deal has hardened over time -- but in any case the question now shouldn't really be about what we *should* do, but what we should do that will *work*.

[jim360]

It's probably not a good idea to go hunting for monetary excuses why Remain supporters have the stance they do. At least, if you do go down that road, then it's worth checking what the equivalent interests are, if any, for Leave MPs.

[fender62]

but the leave mps are not trying to thwart democracy

[jim360]

Are they not? Leave MPs are busy discussing ways to push Parliament out of the picture, bend and break laws, ignore courts, defy centuries of convention, etc etc.

It's a mess. Both sides are contributing to it in various ways -- it's also unprecedented, really, for MPs to take control of the Parliamentary timetable -- but, in the end, both sides are doing what they think is best for the country.

[Spicerack]

// In this instance, Ireland, who share a land border, will have a big say.//
I wouldn't be relying on any further help from Ireland, gromit.
Some of the vetoes the EU are removing soon are going to hit the Irish Economy for six.
Yes, jim, that'll be some of the vetoes you think they can't/won't remove.

[Old_Geezer]

Sidelining an undemocratic opposition in parliament is supporting democracy in the face of those treating it with disdain, not thwarting it.

[jim360]

The EU only "removes" vetoes if there's consent; previously, there was. On larger issues, such as membership of Euro, Schengen, etc, I highly doubt it.

[jim360]

No, OG. It's thwarting democracy, because democracy in the UK takes place in Parliament.

Dealing with disagreement by acting to suppress it is the action of dictators, not democrats.

[Spicerack]

Ah, so they do, in fact, remove vetoes.
Only, the other night you started shouting that I was making up ludicrous conspiracy theories and spreading scurrilous falsehoods against the Glorious EU.
I wouldn't mind but I only said goodnight to you.