The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[Lockdoctor 10]

9 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Parliament wouldn’t allow no deal to happen.

 

Simple as that

 

But I expect it would allow an acceptable Brexit to take place

Parliament can't stop a no deal happening  if they don't agree to accept any deal on offer.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

57 minutes ago, apelike said:

That is something that has already been discussed in the Lords but has basically been given a no for a number of reasons. I will see if I can find the details.

 

I suspect that the main reason is because referenda are so infrequent that restrictions and limitations are much better made on a case by case basis rather than blanket legislation covering all cases.

[I1L2T3 10]

21 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Parliament can't stop a no deal happening  if they don't agree to accept any deal on offer.

Yes they can.

 

But if I was you I wouldn’t keep using the runaway train towards no deal argument.

[tinfoilhat 11]

I see David Davies is in front of European scrutiny committee blaming everyone but David Davies. Remind me how many times he bothered to turn up to negotiations?

[ez8004 10]

2 hours ago, Obelix said:

Since I never said anything about needing confirmation then I can only conclude that you are trying to build a strawman. Now are you going to actually answer the substantive point I made or do I have to rub your nose in it?

You actually did. I even made your quote in bold to make the point. You said that the EU will not accept our revocation of A50 without reason. I simply stated that your assertion is complete rubbish. We can unilaterally revoke it, the government doesn’t have to give a reason. So what is your point exactly?

[Lockdoctor 10]

5 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

You actually did. I even made your quote in bold to make the point. You said that the EU will not accept our revocation of A50 without reason. I simply stated that your assertion is complete rubbish. We can unilaterally revoke it, the government doesn’t have to give a reason. So what is your point exactly?

The poster might have meant extending Article 50 which can't be done unilaterally. 

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

Yes they can.

 

But if I was you I wouldn’t keep using the runaway train towards no deal argument.

I am only stating the legal position.

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, Magilla said:

Folk on there stating that the rest of the world trades on WTO, the exact opposite of reality!

 

It's quite weird how no-one ever seems to get challenged on any of these things.

 

Esther McVey managed to simply not answer any questions on anything on the TV yesterday by simply saying that everyone pointing out these issues probably voted remain.... That was it!!!

 

No attempt to challenge her whatsoever, or to point out that the very people highlighting these issues are experts in their respective fields and are the very people that deliver these services.. like they haven't a clue how their own businesses work.

 

It's totally bizarre!

This abnegation of journalistic integrity has been one of the most infuriating aspects of the whole Brexit debating debacle across the mainstream media.

 

Literally like inviting Buzz Aldrin to a TV debate about moon landings, and the chief believer in the Cheesy Moon for the sake of ‘balance’, then never moderating or querying any of the cheese people’s non-factual assertions that the cheese is Leicester, because Wallace & Gromit proved it in their moon landing documentary.

 

Bizarre is not what I’d use to qualify it, tbh.

[I1L2T3 10]

10 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

 

I am only stating the legal position.

Which can be changed by Parliament.

 

It seems you are hoping we have an accidental no deal. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

3 minutes ago, L00b said:

This abnegation of journalistic integrity has been one of the most infuriating aspects of the whole Brexit debating debacle across the mainstream media.

 

Literally like inviting Buzz Aldrin to a TV debate about moon landings, and the chief believer in the Cheesy Moon for the sake of ‘balance’, then never moderating or querying any of the cheese people’s non-factual assertions that the cheese is Leicester, because Wallace & Gromit proved it in their moon landing documentary.

 

Bizarre is not what I’d use to qualify it, tbh.

It's been happening for years across all media, and frankly it disgusts me. It sort of highlights the world we live that the only person to pull up a politician over the non-answering of questions is bloody Richard Madley!

[Obelix 11]

34 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

You actually did. I even made your quote in bold to make the point. You said that the EU will not accept our revocation of A50 without reason. I simply stated that your assertion is complete rubbish. We can unilaterally revoke it, the government doesn’t have to give a reason. So what is your point exactly?

What I said - and I'll post it here for you was

 

We cannot revoke Art 50 without there being a meaningful process followed. The EU have said that we have to make a constitutionally valid decision to revoke art 50 before they acept it. Thats either a referendum or a GE, neither of which can be done in time.

 

That is not us giving reasons to the EU. I NEVER SAID that we have to give reasons. It is there clearly that I said we have to make a constitutionally valid decision. That is not giving the EU reasons. Thats you introducing falsehoods about what I said to bolster your position. Until you correct that I have nothing else to say to you.

 

15 minutes ago, L00b said:

This abnegation of journalistic integrity has been one of the most infuriating aspects of the whole Brexit debating debacle across the mainstream media.

 

Literally like inviting Buzz Aldrin to a TV debate about moon landings, and the chief believer in the Cheesy Moon for the sake of ‘balance’, then never moderating or querying any of the cheese people’s non-factual assertions that the cheese is Leicester, because Wallace & Gromit proved it in their moon landing documentary.

 

Bizarre is not what I’d use to qualify it, tbh.

The one that got me was the reduction in power of vacuum cleaner motors. Almost the entire UK press, including organs that I thought were credible just played along to the loony tunes that it was dont to annoy the UK cos we had more powerful vacuums. There was no real anaylsis or reasoning at all and you ended up up with credulous fools like Jeremy Vine whining about how we cannot have the bloody vacuums that we want. It was and still is utterly farcical.

11 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

It's been happening for years across all media, and frankly it disgusts me. It sort of highlights the world we live that the only person to pull up a politician over the non-answering of questions is bloody Richard Madley!

Indeed. I wish the BBC  and the rest of them would have a three strikes rule, answer the question or GTFO and we can discsuss something else.

[Lockdoctor 10]

22 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Which can be changed by Parliament.

 

It seems you are hoping we have an accidental no deal. 

It can't be changed by Parliament if there isn't a majority in favour of an alternative.

 

An accidental no deal would respect and honour the democratic EU referendum result.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Lockdoctor

[Top Cats Hat 10]

26 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

It can't be changed by Parliament if there isn't a majority in favour of an alternative.

 

An accidental no deal would respect and honour the democratic EU referendum result.

That is nonsense.

 

MPs can pass an Act of Parliament which suspends Article 50 until a deal is agreed by the House of Commons. In that situation, the EU 27 would be more than happy to see the suspension.

 

That should be fairly straightforward given that the only consensus in Parliament at the moment is that there should be no, no deal exit from the EU.