Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[Phanerothyme 12]

22 hours ago, Dardandec said:

Still not answered my question, it was you who suggested killing people

Good grief - where, anywhere, did I suggest killing people?  Someone help me out here …

[apelike 10]

11 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

My mistake, the bill was a one off to deal with the March 29th situation.

 

It was passed in the commons by one vote so if a similar situation arose in October a similar bill would attract even more support so no deal is still highly unlikely.

The only way to stop a no deal brexit would be for Parliament to agree on the deal proposed or to agree to revoke A50 and both have so far been rejected. They could of course agree to a hard brexit and go down other avenues so its it not so highly unlikely as you think.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Just now, apelike said:

The only way to stop a no deal brexit would be for Parliament to agree on the deal proposed or to agree to revoke A50 and both have so far been rejected. They could of course agree to a hard brexit and go down other avenues so its it not so highly unlikely as you think.

Parliament would never agree to a hard Brexit and I'd say come next October it would more likely vote to revoke Article 50 that go along with endless extensions especially if the run in to October was accompanied by more frenzied no deal planning and more £ billions spent which we will never get back.

 

What you also need to remember is that we will then be three and a half years after the referendum and those 'remain but we must respect the will of the people' MPs will be starting to think that a good shot had been made at leaving the EU but at some point someone has to call an end to this endless indecision and expense. 

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Parliament would never agree to a hard Brexit and I'd say come next October it would more likely vote to revoke Article 50 that go along with endless extensions especially if the run in to October was accompanied by more frenzied no deal planning and more £ billions spent which we will never get back.

The thing is parliament don't have to agree on a hard brexit as that is still the default after 31st October, all that has happened so far is that the date has shifted due to an extension.

 

Quote

What you also need to remember is that we will then be three and a half years after the referendum and those 'remain but we must respect the will of the people' MPs will be starting to think that a good shot had been made at leaving the EU but at some point someone has to call an end to this endless indecision and expense. 

Not necessarily, given the result of the local elections they should be running a little scared, and that may just egg them on to finalise  our exit at last.

Edited May 7, 2019 by apelike

[Top Cats Hat 10]

6 minutes ago, apelike said:

Not necessarily, given the result of the local elections they should be running a little scared, and that may just egg them on to finalise  our exit at last.

But the last three years have shown that there isn't a thing called Brexit and you just vote for it. You have to work out what Brexit actually is first before you can vote on anything. Theresa May made a mistake involving the Labour Party in discussions because there is now an expectation that any deal will involve a customs union which the extremists in the Tory Party won't accept. That means putting her Chequers++++++ deal back to parliament is likely to get even less support than it did the last time it was rejected.

 

People who bleat on about how 'they should just get on with it' really have no idea of what is involved. MPs will not just vote for something that they don't agree with just for the sake of it and nor should they.

[apelike 10]

11 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

People who bleat on about how 'they should just get on with it' really have no idea of what is involved. MPs will not just vote for something that they don't agree with just for the sake of it and nor should they.

The logic behind that does not work as it did not stop them voting for the referendum ,voting for the big repeal bill or voting A50 through and with big majorities did it? We are talking about politicians who only 10 years ago were caught out trying to line their own pockets at the taxpayers expense, they then tried to pass a Freedom of Information (amendment bill) to make them exempt from the FOI Act which was later dropped. Hariett Harman tabled a motion to try and get MP's expenses exempt from the FOI and even placed Labour MP's under a 3 line whip. Having a whip in itself is undemocratic as it forces MP's to toe the party line whether they agree or not!

 

 

[nightrider 13]

One interesting consequence is Boris is potentially about to be prosecuted for lying to the public:

 

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/date-set-for-court-against-boris-johnson-1-6034496?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons&fbclid=IwAR2GnkMkxpaYoMfirfTDhdXcHMjBmxTGZzh-Ns-JlzLm5cgwQ6Ak0crA7Y4

 

[alchresearch 214]

How odd, a crowdfunded private prosecution.

 

Prosecuting Boris Johnson over “Brexit lies” would be an ill-conceived publicity stunt

http://barristerblogger.com/2018/09/14/prosecuting-boris-johnson-over-brexit-lies-would-be-an-ill-conceived-publicity-stunt/

[Top Cats Hat 10]

19 minutes ago, nightrider said:

One interesting consequence is Boris is potentially about to be prosecuted for lying to the public:

The case has a sound legal and evidential basis but sadly won't go anywhere as to convict a politician for deliberately misleading the public would have immense consequences.

[hackey lad 3,956]

45 minutes ago, nightrider said:

One interesting consequence is Boris is potentially about to be prosecuted for lying to the public:

 

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/date-set-for-court-against-boris-johnson-1-6034496?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons&fbclid=IwAR2GnkMkxpaYoMfirfTDhdXcHMjBmxTGZzh-Ns-JlzLm5cgwQ6Ak0crA7Y4

 

Some people have more money than sense

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

How odd, a crowdfunded private prosecution.

 

Prosecuting Boris Johnson over “Brexit lies” would be an ill-conceived publicity stunt

http://barristerblogger.com/2018/09/14/prosecuting-boris-johnson-over-brexit-lies-would-be-an-ill-conceived-publicity-stunt/

This happens a lot these days. 

 

An interesting article that admits that the evidence that he lied is sound but the case will turn on whether Johnson was lying as an MP or Mayor of London or as a private citizen. The article claims that a prosecution will fail because it will be very difficult to prove that he was lying in an official capacity.

 

An interesting thing not mentioned in the piece is that even today, 50% of the population still believe the lie so in theory 50% of the jurors would also still believe the lie they are judging, to be true!

[geared 303]

3 hours ago, apelike said:

The logic behind that does not work as it did not stop them voting for the referendum ,voting for the big repeal bill or voting A50 through and with big majorities did it?

 

Those were not free votes though, so it's a poor comparison.  Three line whip was used in some of those votes, basically vote it through or get booted out the party.