Brexit - the next steps

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes
They are making a film about it.

The Turd Man

Starring Orson Smells
And
Joseph Rotten.

Nice to note that you are managing to stay awake long enough to complete reading my posts!

[jeremyp]

Well it's a take I suppose


https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-wont-remainers-talk-about-family/

There's a difference though, isn't there. When you have a baby, the phase where you have to clean up their poo only lasts a couple of years and during that period, they are relatively easy to manhandle into a position so you can do the cleaning. Elderly relatives are a far different proposition to tackle for one person, particularly if, as was the case with my step grandmother, they are prone to bouts of violence as a result of their confusion. Furthermore, there is no prospect of it ending except with the death of the elderly relative or the carer.

My guess is that Giles Fraser has never been in the position of having to care for an elderly relative, or he wouldn't be such an arse about it.

[Roses]

There's a difference though, isn't there. When you have a baby, the phase where you have to clean up their poo only lasts a couple of years and during that period, they are relatively easy to manhandle into a position so you can do the cleaning. Elderly relatives are a far different proposition to tackle for one person, particularly if, as was the case with my step grandmother, they are prone to bouts of violence as a result of their confusion. Furthermore, there is no prospect of it ending except with the death of the elderly relative or the carer.

My guess is that Giles Fraser has never been in the position of having to care for an elderly relative, or he wouldn't be such an arse about it.

I would not want my children to be responsible for any personal care issues where my husband and I are concerned. When I can no longer attend to my husband's occasional needs in that area he will go into a home, as I will if the time comes when I need assistance in that regard. I would not have wanted to attend to my parents in that way, far too embarrassing.

[wigginhall]

I've read some wacky stuff on Brexit, but Fraser is out there in la la land.   What a weird mixture of nostalgia, and semi-fascist idiocy about family. 

[Nearly Sane]

So the Indies have their first achievement


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/jeremy-corbyn-has-backed-it-chances-another-referendum-are-slim

[Nearly Sane]

Meanwhile pallets...


https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop&referrer=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2iEkmPdEGjABPBLAu145PPsjn9sd67zZaCM0vNt6NhHrLB6RwDx0GQHCI&r=US&IR=T

[Nearly Sane]

Classic strong and stable govt

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47389860/the-home-secretary-appears-surprised-when-told-the-pm-is-not-supporting-a-brexit-amendment

[Spud]

"Theresa May has said MPs will get a vote on delaying Brexit if her deal and a no-deal outcome are both rejected" - BBC.

What will happen if the deal is rejected, then leaving without a deal is rejected, then delaying Brexit is rejected?
Cancel Brexit?

[Nearly Sane]

"Theresa May has said MPs will get a vote on delaying Brexit if her deal and a no-deal outcome are both rejected" - BBC.

What will happen if the deal is rejected, then leaving without a deal is rejected, then delaying Brexit is rejected?
Cancel Brexit?

Well we would have to vote to rescind Article 50 to cancel Brexit.

If none of the above happens we exit with no deal.

[Roses]

Well we would have to vote to rescind Article 50 to cancel Brexit.

If none of the above happens we exit with no deal.

Rescinding Article 50 would be by far the best option.

[jeremyp]

Can the prime minister rescind article 50 without a vote? If she can, that is now the most likely outcome in my opinion.  If not, say hello to no deal.

[Nearly Sane]

Can the prime minister rescind article 50 without a vote? If she can, that is now the most likely outcome in my opinion.  If not, say hello to no deal.

A prime minister might be able to, not sure, think unlikely. This one can't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can the prime minister rescind article 50 without a vote? If she can, that is now the most likely outcome in my opinion.  If not, say hello to no deal.

A vote of whom? Parliament? The people in a referendum?

Legally there is no requirement for a referendum to revoke article 50 - the recent ECJ ruling is somewhat ambiguous on PM vs parliament, that is down to UK constitutional law, which is always murky - I suspect that politically the government would be well advised to get parliamentary approval for revocation, but I think legally they might not need to. The question would then arise if May revoked, the EU accepted the revocation and then there was a challenge in the UK courts what would happen were the government to lose.

[Nearly Sane]

And more of Failing Grayling - the minister kept on to make the racist lying incompetent PM look good by comparison.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699

[Nearly Sane]

Though a friend has come up with a better explanation

'He’s the policy version of Richard Burton in the “Medusa Touch”. May daren’t confront him. What damage he could wreak, like the unconscious Burton in his hospital bed scribbling “Windscale”."

[Spud]

Well we would have to vote to rescind Article 50 to cancel Brexit.

If none of the above happens we exit with no deal.

Theresa May said, referring to the vote on 13th March, "so the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on the 29th of March if there is explicit consent from the House for that outcome"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996
But then she says later that "the only way to take No Deal off the table would be to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do".
She doesn't say (possibly hasn't considered?) what she would do if the extension was voted down.

[ProfessorDavey]

Theresa May said, referring to the vote on 13th March, "so the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on the 29th of March if there is explicit consent from the House for that outcome"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996
But then she says later that "the only way to take No Deal off the table would be to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do".
She doesn't say (possibly hasn't considered?) what she would do if the extension was voted down.

I'm sure she'd considered it but isn't going to say and probably hasn't decided.

If parliament votes against no deal, but also votes against an extension one way to square the circle is to look at the majorities in each case and also whether the votes are binding. If not binding then if there is a larger majority against no deal than against an extension then she will probably argue that preventing no deal via an extension takes precedence.

[Spud]

I'm sure she'd considered it but isn't going to say and probably hasn't decided.

If parliament votes against no deal, but also votes against an extension one way to square the circle is to look at the majorities in each case and also whether the votes are binding. If not binding then if there is a larger majority against no deal than against an extension then she will probably argue that preventing no deal via an extension takes precedence.

If she can get her deal approved during the extension, yes.
Interesting that if No Deal is rejected, parliament will have contradicted what they said by voting to trigger Article 50.
Perhaps May could be forced to step down during the extension, and her replacement could revoke it?

[Gordon]

Perhaps May could be forced to step down during the extension, and her replacement could revoke it?

We can but hope, Spud.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see that wank weasel Chris Grayling has còst another £33 million having to pay off eurotunnel for the extra ferry ballsup.

[jeremyp]

A vote of whom? Parliament? The people in a referendum?

Parliament

the recent ECJ ruling is somewhat ambiguous on PM vs parliament, that is down to UK constitutional law, which is always murky

I don't know why the ECJ would be involved, it is not the final arbiter over British constitutional law.

I suspect that politically the government would be well advised to get parliamentary approval for revocation, but I think legally they might not need to.

That is the nub of my question. If May can legally withdraw article 50 unilaterally and the only alternative is no deal, it is my opinion that she would do so, even at the cost of the downfall of the government. On the other hand, if she needs parliamentary approval to withdraw article 50, I think that might turn out to be as gridlocked as all the other votes and no deal will follow as it isa the current default.

Having said the above, if there has been a resolution that she cannot go for no deal (which I think there has, although I've really lost track of a lot of this stuff, so I might be imagining it), she could argue that there is no alternative but to withdraw article 50 and therefore she already has a parliamentary mandate.

[jeremyp]

I'm sure she'd considered it but isn't going to say and probably hasn't decided.

If parliament votes against no deal, but also votes against an extension one way to square the circle is to look at the majorities in each case and also whether the votes are binding. If not binding then if there is a larger majority against no deal than against an extension then she will probably argue that preventing no deal via an extension takes precedence.

I don't think parliament is the concern with respect to an extension. We can revoke article 50 unilaterally, but an extension is going to require the unanimous agreement of the other 27 EU states. I could easily see some of them saying no to that.

[Spud]

Ah, perhaps the purpose of the vote for an extension is to add weight to her request to the 27.

[Aruntraveller]

I see that wank weasel Chris Grayling has còst another £33 million having to pay off eurotunnel for the extra ferry ballsup.

Now look, I can see you are holding yourself back, tell us what you really think of Mr Grayling. 

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, perhaps the purpose of the vote for an extension is to add weight to her request to the 27.

What request?