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

[Top Cats Hat 10]

14 minutes ago, geared said:

I'm quite interested to see how this pans out now, if no deal is removed completely then I feel many of the more vocal Brexit supporters might lose their voice.

This is all designed to panic the crackpot wing of her party to get into line and support her deal. To be fair, she has always told them that it is her deal or no Brexit.

 

Unfortunately, this reassurance will make it much less likely that Remain supporting Labour MPs will be tempted to vote for her deal if it is the only way to prevent no deal.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, geared said:

 

he he he.

 

May has just announced that MP's will get to vote on both and extension and ruling out a no deal exit (if her deal gets rejected again)

I'm quite interested to see how this pans out now, if no deal is removed completely then I feel many of the more vocal Brexit supporters might lose their voice.

 

The no deal outcome cannot be removed by a (single) Parliamentary vote alone: it is the default operation of EU law (Article 50) in the absence of a ratified withdrawal agreement by 23:00 on 29 March 2019.

 

Parliament cannot nullify this effect of international legislation binding 28 countries, through a piece of national legislation binding only itself. Simplest way to put it, is that the UK is sovereign, but it is not "more sovereign" than the EU, nor the other EU27 within it.

 

That 'rule out no deal' vote is meaningless, if it is not accompanied (in the same proposal being voted on) by legally-binding strings, namely in case political consensus and a Brexit outcome cannot be secured by [deadline] (a week and a half to Brexit day, say), then no deal shall be ruled out through-

 

(i) either a withdrawal of the Article 50 notification (no Brexit)

(i-b) necessarily with a repeal of the Great Repeal Bill (which is current UK law and under which the UK is committed to Brexiting on Brexit day);

 

(ii) or an undertaking to vote May's withdrawal deal through (Brexit with a deal);

 

(iii) with either option time-bound within functional timescales (say, no less than a week to Brexit day)

 

(the 'no deal rule out' proposal  can pick (i) only, or (ii) only, or both with cascading fallbacks, many different ways to skin that cat; but either (i) or (ii) and (iii) are legally and factually indispensable to actually rule out a no deal Brexit).

 

So if that 'removal of no deal' vote doesn't specify at least some of these things, then it would be as vague and ineffectual as the 2015 EU referendum act (which was completely lacking in specifying what should happen about either of the referendum's possible outcomes), and cause still more political testiculating to no useful effect.

 

EDIT: I've not expanded on the extension side of things, but substantially the same logic applies. It is for the UK to ask (through that extension vote), but it is only for the other EU27 to give. The political maths still don't add up favourably for the UK and, at any rate, certainly not to beyond end April/early May.

 

Pragmatically, and objectively, at this time neither the government nor Parliament have even begun to unf**** your Brexit snooker. Still.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by L00b

[apelike 10]

Loob, thank you for the above.

[Penistone999 10]

19 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Are you suggesting that every leave voter in Labour constiuencies with a Remain supporting MP is engaged in death threats and 'traitor' insults? 😡

Who mentioned death threats ? 

 

 

Another Labour MP stood up in the commons today and said they would never vote for a second referendum as it betrays their constituents who voted to leave. 

 

He obviously realises that voting for it would basically mean he was a turkey voting for christmas ,and would be committing political suicide .

[I1L2T3 10]

10 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

Who mentioned death threats ? 

 

 

Another Labour MP stood up in the commons today and said they would never vote for a second referendum as it betrays their constituents who voted to leave. 

 

He obviously realises that voting for it would basically mean he was a turkey voting for christmas ,and would be committing political suicide .

It’s easier to say that now no deal is off the table

[L00b 441]

The British Government have published their no deal impact assessment (pdf, download link).

 

In a few words as in a hundred: it's a complete catastrophe. Even worse than I envisaged.

 

Less than 20% of EU-only trading UK businesses have completed the most basic and straightforward parts of the process to be able to trade with the EU post Brexit. 

 

Today the government  had a meeting with business leaders, because DExEU only recently worked out that the UK would not have enough pallets in the event of a no deal. Given that little oversight, I think it reasonable to conclude that the effects in the report are grossly underestimated.

 

Is there anything at all in that report, that can be construed as anything other than a disaster? No wonder the government were dragging their heels on publication.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by L00b

[Magilla 510]

2 minutes ago, L00b said:

Is there anything at all in that report, that can be construed as anything other than a disaster? No wonder the government were dragging their heels on publication.

A forgone conclusion. If Brexit were a person they'd be sectioned

 

[Penistone999 10]

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

It’s easier to say that now no deal is off the table

No Deal isnt off the table. 

48 minutes ago, Magilla said:

A forgone conclusion. If Brexit were a person they'd be sectioned

 

Project fear , nothing more. 

[I1L2T3 10]

12 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

No Deal isnt off the table. 

It most certainly is

[apelike 10]

3 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

It most certainly is

No its not as its still the default action if there is no deal.

 

A quote from the BBC:

 

"Mrs May said an extension "cannot take no deal off the table", adding: "The only way to do that is to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do, or agree a deal."

 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

 is to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do, 

To be fair, up ‘til now she has insisted that she would not extend Article 50. She also said that she wouldn’t call a snap election in 2017.

 

I wouldn’t put too much faith in what Teresa May says! 😉

[MAC33 10]

Never before in the entire course of human history has an entire culture, race and civilisation decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy. 

European man is in a civilisational death dance.’

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/02/26/a-cri-de-coeur-from-a-nation-wrecker/

Edited February 27, 2019 by MAC33