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
//Apparently one option is to pass a bill calling for an election which would only need a simple majority.//
This was mentioned among last week's shenanigans. I'm not so sure it would work. Such a Bill would be in direct conflict with the FTPA and would effectively amend one of its key principles by default. There would thus be two bills: one requiring a two thirds majority to call an election and the other requiring 50% + 1. I really cannot see how it would work unless the FTPA was repealed or at least the relevant passage was formally amended.
This was mentioned among last week's shenanigans. I'm not so sure it would work. Such a Bill would be in direct conflict with the FTPA and would effectively amend one of its key principles by default. There would thus be two bills: one requiring a two thirds majority to call an election and the other requiring 50% + 1. I really cannot see how it would work unless the FTPA was repealed or at least the relevant passage was formally amended.
//Instead of purging Parliament, someone who had the sense to work with it might have more luck.//
The problem is, Jim, there are two conflicting forces at work: firstly there are somewhere in the order of 400-450 MPs who are intent on preventing Brexit in any form (despite voting to enact it and standing on a manifesto to ensure it happens); then there are 17.1m people who voted to leave.
I understand (though do not agree with) your arguments about the manner of leaving and the electorate changing in 3 years. But there is still a huge number of people who expect and deserve their decision in 2016 to be enacted. My view is that Parliament has a duty to fulfil their obligation. At present they don't want anything that is on offer so seem to be suggesting it is perfectly in order for them to ensure nothing happens. It isn't. Working with Parliament will perpetuate that view and so Parliament needs to be purged.
The problem is, Jim, there are two conflicting forces at work: firstly there are somewhere in the order of 400-450 MPs who are intent on preventing Brexit in any form (despite voting to enact it and standing on a manifesto to ensure it happens); then there are 17.1m people who voted to leave.
I understand (though do not agree with) your arguments about the manner of leaving and the electorate changing in 3 years. But there is still a huge number of people who expect and deserve their decision in 2016 to be enacted. My view is that Parliament has a duty to fulfil their obligation. At present they don't want anything that is on offer so seem to be suggesting it is perfectly in order for them to ensure nothing happens. It isn't. Working with Parliament will perpetuate that view and so Parliament needs to be purged.
//... there are somewhere in the order of 400-450 MPs who are intent on preventing Brexit in any form... //
Think that estimate is way too high. The last time May's Withdrawal Agreement was voted on, it received 286 votes for and 344 against. 44 of that 344 against were due to hardline Brexit supporters in the Conservative Party (ERG) and DUP members. So, all told, there could be a majority for some form of Brexit, if the DUP and the ERG voted for Brexit for a change.
And, before we go down that argument, yes the Withdrawal Agreement is a form of Brexit. A messy, ugly, unsatisfactory form -- but Brexit nonetheless.
Think that estimate is way too high. The last time May's Withdrawal Agreement was voted on, it received 286 votes for and 344 against. 44 of that 344 against were due to hardline Brexit supporters in the Conservative Party (ERG) and DUP members. So, all told, there could be a majority for some form of Brexit, if the DUP and the ERG voted for Brexit for a change.
And, before we go down that argument, yes the Withdrawal Agreement is a form of Brexit. A messy, ugly, unsatisfactory form -- but Brexit nonetheless.
OG, the Government uses powers under the Royal Prerogative (RP). When they issued the notice to leave the EU under Article 50 they used the RP.
They were then taken to court and it was decided the RP could not be used and Parliament had to approve it first. When Brexit was extended earlier this year, the Government did so using the RP.
The argument is that they had no authority to use RP in order to extend Brexit. If they had no authority, they could not extend Brexit so the original date must have applied, meaning we must have left in March.
They were then taken to court and it was decided the RP could not be used and Parliament had to approve it first. When Brexit was extended earlier this year, the Government did so using the RP.
The argument is that they had no authority to use RP in order to extend Brexit. If they had no authority, they could not extend Brexit so the original date must have applied, meaning we must have left in March.
Indeed, if you added on various Labour MPs who would vote for the WA subject to a referendum or subject to some minor modifications, then you probably get to something closer to 400 MPs *in favour* of Brexit in some form or another. The problem is not that MPs are anit-Brexit and determined to block it, but that there is no cooperation between what might be termed the purists ["No Deal is the only way out, or at least the most desirable"] and the pragmatists ["We should leave but only in an orderly manner"].
Continuing that theme, I would say that the rest are what might be called "Hard" and "Soft" remainers: ie, those who genuinely don't want to leave the EU at all (but wouldn't dare force this without the mandate to Remain from a second referendum); and those who would still rather Remain but would be prepared to concede defeat if at least some of their concerns are met. Maybe soft remain would be the "reluctant wing" of the pragmatist camp, but I think it's worth keeping the distinction.
I still hold that cooperation is possible, but only if people abandon the war mentality that abounds right now. That everybody who is not in the purist camp is labelled a traitor is no way to win the argument. Nor is sacking everybody who votes against you. Nor is implying that you would ignore the law. Nor is showing a flagrant disregard for detail, and insulting or mocking anyone who dares to care about such things.
Continuing that theme, I would say that the rest are what might be called "Hard" and "Soft" remainers: ie, those who genuinely don't want to leave the EU at all (but wouldn't dare force this without the mandate to Remain from a second referendum); and those who would still rather Remain but would be prepared to concede defeat if at least some of their concerns are met. Maybe soft remain would be the "reluctant wing" of the pragmatist camp, but I think it's worth keeping the distinction.
I still hold that cooperation is possible, but only if people abandon the war mentality that abounds right now. That everybody who is not in the purist camp is labelled a traitor is no way to win the argument. Nor is sacking everybody who votes against you. Nor is implying that you would ignore the law. Nor is showing a flagrant disregard for detail, and insulting or mocking anyone who dares to care about such things.
Avatar Image Jackdaw33Oh, for another Cromwell who would purge this fractious assembly. In the name of God, go!
https:/
https:/
