Jump to content

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

Vaati

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Vaati

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The referendum wasn’t a statutory instrument it was an advisory poll and Cameron (wrongly) took the advice of the referendum and announced that the UK would leave. The referendum itself obliged nobody to do anything.

Once again just to be correct... Cameron stated that the result would be enacted on and that was also in his pro-EU leaflet so being advisory makes no difference. He did not take the advice of that referendum wrongly but according to what he had stated he would do. The referendum may not have obliged anyone to follow the result through but Cameron and parliament thought otherwise and parliament passed A50 into law..

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, apelike said:

But all parliament have done is create a law that obliges him to ask the EU for an extension which still does not rule out a no-deal.

It wasn’t intended to stop no deal. It was intended to buy enough time to hold an election.

 

The election will give us all an up to date view of public opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

It wasn’t intended to stop no deal. It was intended to buy enough time to hold an election.

Quote: The Guardian Live reports

"A bill designed to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October without a Brexit agreement has cleared the House of Lords, and it is set to become law on Monday when it is due to get royal assent. The bill is thought to be legally watertight, and it seems to have closed off the option of Johnson forcing a no-deal Brexit at the end of October"

 

He could of course also ask the Queen not to give consent, a tactic Blair also used in the Iraq conflict to deny parliament taking control.

 

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, apelike said:

Once again just to be correct... Cameron stated that the result would be enacted on 

I’m sure I’ve asked you this before but which part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 says that the result would be acted upon?

 

An Act of Parliament holds way more weight than the promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, apelike said:

Quote: The Guardian Live reports

"A bill designed to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October without a Brexit agreement has cleared the House of Lords, and it is set to become law on Monday when it is due to get royal assent. The bill is thought to be legally watertight, and it seems to have closed off the option of Johnson forcing a no-deal Brexit at the end of October"

 

He could of course also ask the Queen not to give consent, a tactic Blair also used in the Iraq conflict to deny parliament taking control.

 

Thanks for the quote.

 

Was there a reason that you chose it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I’m sure I’ve asked you this before but which part of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 says that the result would be acted upon?

It didn't as being an Act it is not necessary as it just gives authority (law) and rules pertaining to the referendum being held.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted

 

46 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

An Act of Parliament holds way more weight than the promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister!

I agree. Notice how the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed by parliament into law! That gave the PM the authority from parliament to start negotiations for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. At the third reading, the Commons passed the bill by 494 to 122 (big majority) and it gained Royal Assent on 16 March 2017 and passed into law, so all legal and above board.

 

2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Thanks for the quote.

 

Was there a reason that you chose it?

Yes to post on here... :)

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain how a no-deal Brexit will be helpful in the future?

 

Brexit is only the beginning of a new relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. Unless we want to be the only major economy in the world to trade on WTO terms (unfavourable compared to deals) we need to have a trade agreement in place with our closest and largest trading partner - the EU. The "deal" negotiated by May and rejected 3 times by Parliament was only a holding situation - not the final deal.

 

How will crashing out help us to negotiate a favourable deal with the EU in the future? Given that all our major trade deals were negotiated by the EU - where is the knowledge and capacity to negotiate future deals around the world?

 

You might like to have a look at the deals currently in place.

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries-in-a-no-deal-brexit

 

And this only covers trade deals and not the myriad of other agreements.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, apelike said:

 

 

Yes to post on here... :)

In general, I find leavers hard to

understand.

 

In this case, I’m totally confused.

 

Was there a reason for your post? Forum

rules say that you have to add to the discussion. Just so you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, apelike said:

it gained Royal Assent on 16 March 2017 and passed into law, so all legal and above board.

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. To me, the 2017 Withdrawal Act holds a lot more democratic weight than an inconclusive, crappy referendum born out of political cowardice.

 

But laws that can be made can also be unmade if they turn out to be bad for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

In this case, I’m totally confused.

Then try harder and read the post.

 

Quote

Was there a reason for your post? Forum

rules say that you have to add to the discussion. Just so you know

Just so that you also know, as said try reading the post as it was not just a quote.

 

5 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

But laws that can be made can also be unmade if they turn out to be bad for the country.

True and I have no argument with that.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apelike said:

Quote: The Guardian Live reports

"A bill designed to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU on 31 October without a Brexit agreement has cleared the House of Lords, and it is set to become law on Monday when it is due to get royal assent. The bill is thought to be legally watertight, and it seems to have closed off the option of Johnson forcing a no-deal Brexit at the end of October"

 

He could of course also ask the Queen not to give consent, a tactic Blair also used in the Iraq conflict to deny parliament taking control.

 

You are either confused or just have no idea what you are talking about. The bill that prevents no deal absolutely does not require consent. It does not affect perogative powers in any way, so it goes for Royal Assent. 

 

The PM cannot stop this.  You leavers need to stop spreading lies or just wrong information. The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708. It has NEVER happened in modern times. It will not happen here either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their will be lots of Liberal tears tomorrow when Boris just completely ignores the Bill and suspends parliament. Apparently they have found a way to bypass it.

 

They will apparently ask for a general election tomorrow and if denied, suspend parliament immediately.

 

We can only wait and see. I can't see Boris telling the House of Lords to stand down filibustering the Bill if they did not already have a way around it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.