Listening to Gove, Johnson and Raab it seems that No Deal is now simultaneously the will of the people
and
something that the EU is forcing on us.
But we always pushed for no-deal
what?
Listening to Gove, Johnson and Raab it seems that No Deal is now simultaneously the will of the people
and
something that the EU is forcing on us.
Isn't it true that the Parliament can thwart a no-deal Brexit, whatever the people or the PM say or do?
there is a precedence for all-out Civil War with a smattering of beheadings
Parliament can only force the PM to request an extension to Article 50, but given that the PM has categorically stated he doesn't want that, and the EU have stated that they will only extend Article 50 further if it is to accommodate the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement (which the PM has now rejected outright), then the chances of an extension happening are nil.Isn't it true that the Parliament can thwart a no-deal Brexit, whatever the people or the PM say or do?
Well, that is very disappointing. I thought the Parliament was your most powerful institution. Yet, when the existential chips are down, it is weak, frozen into inanition and thumb-sucking irrelevance, idly watching its entire nation walk the plank.Parliament can only force the PM to request an extension to Article 50, but given that the PM has categorically stated he doesn't want that, and the EU have stated that they will only extend Article 50 further if it is to accommodate the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement (which the PM has now rejected outright), then the chances of an extension happening are nil.
That being the case, the only other way for No Deal to be averted would be for the UK Parliament to pass legislation of some description to force a revocation of Article 50... and there is nowhere near enough support in the Commons for that, nor is there enough time for that to happen even if there was enough support for it.
Parliament can only force the PM to request an extension to Article 50, but given that the PM has categorically stated he doesn't want that, and the EU have stated that they will only extend Article 50 further if it is to accommodate the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement (which the PM has now rejected outright), then the chances of an extension happening are nil.
That being the case, the only other way for No Deal to be averted would be for the UK Parliament to pass legislation of some description to force a revocation of Article 50... and there is nowhere near enough support in the Commons for that, nor is there enough time for that to happen even if there was enough support for it.
Can't Parliament block Boris from allowing no-deal to take place?
Nobody "allows" it, it just happens by default now. Agreements need to be made with the EU to stop it, and only two people can make that request. One has never dabbled in parliamentary politics beyond their constitutional duties, the other is a raging ****wit.
What could he do?It would be funny if the EU changed position to say that they will extend article 50 if Parliament requests it on the basis Parliament doesn't want no-deal and is at odds with the Government on that, therefore time is needed to call and conduct a GE for a new Parliament and a new Government (not even mentioning a 2nd referendum, the GE will work as such). If both the EU and the UK's Parliament do a "bypass" on the UK's Government what will Boris do?
It would be funny if the EU changed position to say that they will extend article 50 if Parliament requests it on the basis Parliament doesn't want no-deal and is at odds with the Government on that, therefore time is needed to call and conduct a GE for a new Parliament and a new Government (not even mentioning a 2nd referendum, the GE will work as such). If both the EU and the UK's Parliament do a "bypass" on the UK's Government what will Boris do?
If Johnson is still PM after Brexit and then there is an immediate GE, he could win big-time. Ironically, far from forcing Johnson out, the whole process could actually end up delivering Johnson a huge majority in the Commons (that he currently doesn't have).
Yes, that's a distinct possibility - if Johnson is likely to face an election sooner or later, it is a question of when is most beneficial... and you could well be right that he is better to take the risk now rather than face an election after Brexit.Why?
Wouldn’t he have a far better chance of winning a GE by large majority prior to Oct 31st?
If he has a GE now he can cash in on all those pro-Brexit party points. He can spear head leave as a full bird looney pm while labour and the Lib Dem’s split the core of remain vote with the rest of the remain vote going to various smaller parties.
If he has a GE after Brexit, the ********* of no-deal will be blamed on him by both pro-Brexiters and remainers
All of this is the doing of some far right nut jobs and they wont take an ounce of responsibility for it.
That’d have too much value to realistically use.I was thinking perhaps we could start using these instead...
Until the Eurozone collapses anyway...That’d have too much value to realistically use.
There's a sentence to conjure with.O'Brien spot on as usual.
Until the Eurozone collapses anyway...
There's a sentence to conjure with.
Until the Eurozone collapses anyway...
Any vote by Parliament to not allow hard brexit is nothing more or less than voting that the tide isn't allowed to come in.Yeah I know it was the default but I kinda thought that because Parliament had voted against no-deal so many times, they'd be able to essentially call of brexit if no-deal became the situation we where in. But I guess not
You mean, no-deal Brexit?Any vote by Parliament to not allow hard brexit is nothing more or less than voting that the tide isn't allowed to come in.
The only things the UK Parliament can do is vote for the deal they have already voted against three times, even though that MEANS hard brexit, or they vote to retract Article 50. Voting not to allow hard brexit is, by definition, useless arse covering at best, and yes, that means no deal. One wonders why Corbyn hasn't brought forward that vote of no confidence. Oh I know why. He hasn't got a lead in the polls. Playing politics when the future of the country is at stake.You mean, no-deal Brexit?
Playing politics when the future of the country is at stake.
The only things the UK Parliament can do is vote for the deal they have already voted against three times, even though that MEANS hard brexit, or they vote to retract Article 50. Voting not to allow hard brexit is, by definition, useless arse covering at best, and yes, that means no deal. One wonders why Corbyn hasn't brought forward that vote of no confidence. Oh I know why. He hasn't got a lead in the polls. Playing politics when the future of the country is at stake.
Playing politics when the future of the country is at stake.