Brexit.......what Now In Simple Terms

[pumpjack]

its a whole bloody big mess
i try hard never to watch any news for ages now.

but in simple terms, what does all this *** mean for us all now

[jim360]

Well, I disagree that we would find it easier to get a Deal having left without one, but, still, at least there is some common ground there. I object to the "done and dusted" language because it defies common sense. Moreover, suggesting that "Boris will romp home" seems optimistic at best. The next election will certainly come after October 31st, and also almost certainly after Johnson has either resigned or been forced to request an extension. In that scenario he will face attacks from all sides -- including from Farage. It would make it very difficult for someone whose entire strategy is to alienate everybody apart from the hardcore Leave vote to win, if that vote is split between two sides.

Too far away to make a serious prediction, but my expectation all the same is that if the next General Election comes before Brexit then it will resolve nothing.

[ToraToraTora]

the Ben act has a crucial flaw, it demands the PM asks, if the PM refuses they have 11 days to prosecute/remove/replace whatever. The legal wheels turn very slowly, he can hang on for 11 days, after that it doesn't matter.

[Old_Geezer]

Maybe he's allowed to give in and comply in November ?

[jim360]

It would be an interesting strategy but I think it overlooks the importance of the phrase, in Article 50, that leaving should be "in accordance with the member state's constitutional requirements". It would be quite clear that a PM refusing to obey the law in an attempt to force leaving would have failed to act in accordance with our constitutional requirements, and I am sure that the EU would accept that Leaving on those terms had not actually happened in spite of the time allowed having elapsed.

Besides, even if the PM sat tight, the wheels of law can move very quickly indeed if it is judged necessary. As two cases in point, the Withdrawal (No 2) Act took six days to go through all its stages, while the Supreme Court heard and ruled on the prorogation case in a week. In a genuine emergency I wouldn't be surprised if the necessary legislation, at least, were passed inside a day wih the cooperation of both Houses. And, since the context would be a Prime Minister breaking the law, I doubt that there would be much opposition to that speed.

This is all hypothetical, of course, and yet to be tested. But, following on from my post(s) in a separate thread from last night, it also supposes that Johnson's aim is to deliver Brexit. It is almost certainly not. Johnson's aim is to paint himself as a hero if he succeeds and as a martyr if he fails, and use either of these positions as the pitch in the snap Election. In that regard, Johnson's insistence on leaving on October 31st is posturing rather than actual intent.

[Old_Geezer]

Is an extension a constitutional requirement for leaving ? Seems to me a constitutional requirement to delay leaving.

[jim360]

Obeying the law is a constitutional requirement. If obeying the law means requesting an extension then the act of refusing to do so would be unconstitutional.

[Old_Geezer]

But not a constitutional requirement related to leaving. Related to not leaving.

[ToraToraTora]

as the constitution is unwritten and this is an unprecedented situation It seems unlikely that it could be ruled unconstitutional by the EUSSR and as such void A50.

[jim360]

It wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional by the EU, but by our own Courts (or not, as the case may be). Something would happen that is equivalent to the prorogation that wasn't, although probably a lot messier. Johnson claims that we've left, the Courts rule that it was unlawful, then we are back in and it would be as though we had never left.

It is an extreme hypothetical situation, though, and, again, I stress that it is based on the idea that Johnson actually wants to leave on October 31st. I do not believe him when he says so, and I don't see how anyone plausibly can. More likely is that the posturing is an attempt to take all the credit if we do, and none of the blame if we do not, and use one or other of these positions as his Election pitch.

[ToraToraTora]

as long as we get out, ideally with an acceptable deal or no deal if necessary I don't care if He's using this situation to get a decent election win. Tory majority + brexit = win win as far as I am concerned.

[THECORBYLOON]

I am now thinking that bearing in mind the wording of Article 50, if the EU does not extend after 31.10.19, we would leave on that date.

[Old_Geezer]

Aye. I find it weird that judges are allowed to enhance/change law by, for example, decide what length a prorogue can be, and then apply it retrospectively/ex post facto. Clearly until a judgement is made it's not unlawful but unclear. Judgements changing that status should apply after the judgement has been made, not to events beforehand, when it could have been interpreted either way (and different courts did interpret it differently).

[jim360]

If the EU refused an extension, then Parliament would at least try to pass an Act withdrawing notification. There are very few scenarios I can see in which we actually leave with No Deal, as long as there is a hefty majority in Parliament against it. Which there is.

[ToraToraTora]

TCL 11:03 - the penny drops!

[ToraToraTora]

jim, as I said on another thread, they can revoke A50 at any time but it's not enough to merely stop brexit, it must be done in such a way that they can blame anyone but themselves or they'd get slaughtered by the electorate. I have confidence that they value their own april slightly more than they want to thwart brexit.

[dannyk13]

This what the public think:-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7504983/Most-British-voters-want-snap-poll-think-Establishment-determined-block-Brexit.html

[jim360]

// jim, as I said on another thread, they can revoke A50 at any time but it's not enough to merely stop brexit, it must be done in such a way that they can blame anyone but themselves or they'd get slaughtered by the electorate. //

Quite a few MPs are already likely to get slaughtered by the electorate, and it hasn't stopped them yet. Plus there is a clear difference between revoking Article 50 *now* -- when there are still other ways forward, in theory at least -- and with one week to go, in the situation when the EU has rejected an extension and there is no withdrawal agreement. Faced with the choice between what many have described, with good reason, as "crashing out", causing economic chaos, and facing the wrath of the electorate while taking what they believe to be the only correct decision, I expect most MPs would place the good of the country -- as they see it -- ahead of the good of their own jobs.

[ToraToraTora]

you may well be right jim, unusual times, let's see how it unfolds.

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT, the proceedings in the Court of Session challenging the "Prorogation" of Parliament began in anticipation of its being made.

As the PM has said many times he would not apply for an extension, I can see no reason why a judgement could not be sought in anticipation of that refusal so that, in the event of the PMs failure to apply for an extension, a Court Order would require another person (or one from a list of other folk) to make such an application.

That application could then be made on the very day that the PM fails to adhere to the law.

[jim360]

Bold to use that as proof of anything when the same poll insists that the public now want to Remain in the EU and Boris Johnson to resign. As an aside, was "early election" defined? I think it's clear and obvious that the UK should have an election long before 2022, which would be "early", but I wouldn't want an election *now* (which is to say, October 24th or something close to it).