Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?

[ToraToraTora]

It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.

[pixie374]

Jim //But democracy didn't "stop" with the result in 2016.//

Well, you keep saying this, but so far, it has. Of course there is nothing wrong with debate or disagreement- but going back on the vote is entirely separate.

[jim360]

Thanks, NJ, although re your answer at 20:14, it doesn't seem a problem if our request weren't agreed to. The EU would, I am sure you'd agree, be as entitled to walk away if it wishes, as the end of the Article 50 period, as we are.

Still, on the subject, how would you interpret the situation where the EU comes back with a counter-proposal for a different date? I think that under present law it would be up to the PM (ie, the executive) to accept or refuse this, but at any rate they would surely have a choice.

Democracy clearly hasn't stopped since 2016, Pixie. There was a general election in 2017, for instance -- which changed the picture markedly, in ways which I am sure people can't have failed to appreciate. When the Conservatives were in a minority government then they needed -- and signally failed -- to take that into account. That's a failing of Theresa May.

[New Judge]

It’s all explained here:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/negotiations/the-benn-burt-bill-another-article-50-extension/

In precis, by 19/10 the PM must seek and secure the agreement of the Commons to either leave with no deal or agree a deal. When he does not he must ask the EU for an extension to 31/1/20. If any time after 19/10 the Commons either agrees to leave without a deal or it agrees a deal the PM can withdraw or modify his request.

If the EU agrees to an extension to 31/1/20 the PM must inform the EY that we accept it (this was not explicit in the Cooper/Letwin Bill).

If the EU offers an extension to a date other than 31/1/20 the PM can either agree that date or come back to the HoC and ask them to approve it. But then:

The Bill also gives Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, an ongoing role in scrutinising progress towards the securing of a deal between the UK and the EU. The Government must publish a report on 30 November explaining what progress it has made in this regard. MPs would then, by 5 December, be asked to ‘approve’ that report.
If MPs were not to approve that report or were to amend the report’s approval motion the Government would then have to set out a further report explaining what it proposes to do in the negotiations. This second report would have to be published by 10 January 2020. This reporting and approval requirement then repeats every 28 days until either a deal has been reached with the EU or the Commons resolves that the requirement should cease.

Quite what the Commons hopes to achieve with this latter clause is a little unclear. It is obvious that the EU will not change its only deal on offer (with “No Deal” being explicitly ruled out) so all that producing a blank report every 28 days will secure is a bit of ongoing employment for a few scribes.

The Commons needs to accept (and declare to the public) that its aim is no Brexit at all. All this fannying around with reports on nothing is simply smoke and mirrors. A general Election is needed to ask the country who they want to run this process because at present it is no process at all.

[jim360]

Thanks, NJ. Although I dispute that the notion that the Commons' aim is no Brexit at all applies. There are people who voted leave, and/or people who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement, who back this bill. Put another way, the Commons has an easy way out of this if it wants No Brexit at all, and I don't think that they aren't *only* avoiding talking about that one out of cowardice.

[New Judge]

//Although I dispute that the notion that the Commons' aim is no Brexit at all applies//

Then my powers of reasoning are somewhat lacking, Jim. Whatever way the various factions voted in the seemingly interminable votes, three things are evident in the current Parliament:

1. The EU will not alter to only deal on offer and this is especially so bearing in mind that No Deal has been ruled out.

2. The Commons will not accept the only deal on offer and even if they did it does not amount to Brexit (in the view of just about anybody who wants to leave).

3. They will not countenance No Deal.

Even more than that, the Commons will not agree to a GE to give the electorate an opportunity to find a way out of the impasse they (the Commons) have created.

It was odds-on that the EU would produce a deal that was unacceptable; this would have been so even without Mrs May's capitulation tactics. But these people now seem to think that because of that we should not leave at all because there is no way I can see them fulfilling the result of the referendum. I just wish they'd say so, allow a GE and only stand for parties that accommodates their views or as independents. There are only two factions in the UK now - those that want to see Brexit and those that don't. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

[THECORBYLOON]

The House of Lords has approved the Bill.