News1 min ago
Brexit - What If?
The PM swallows his pride, sends the extension request to Brussels and it's refused (as one French minister has opined). What then?
Answers
Whether or not there is any extension / unity government or whatever if any deal that is acceptable to the EU cannot get approval in Parliament & MPs in their wisdom will not countenance a no-deal then the only alternative is to scrap Brexit & remain in the EU. Just revoke A50 and avoid any further messing about with a "People's Vote" or whatever. In that case the...
09:44 Sat 07th Sep 2019
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.
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.
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.
// 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.
"...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.
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.
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*.
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*.
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.
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.
// 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.
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.
