It has possibly provided motive and cover for the various remain and anti-no-deal groupings to unite, and force the issue once and for all.
I suppose the Speaker could just invite all current MPs to meet in the Commons chamber for informal discussions every day during the suspension. Boris wouldn’t lock the doors or send in troops, would he?
Would he…?
Maybe he has a little plaque “WWTD?” (what would trump do?)
My thoughts as well. I’ve not heard anything from Parliament that resembles a coherent alternative that commands an overwhelming majority. Without that (and there has been ample opportunity and multiple indicative votes to develop one) then just choosing to kick the can down the road is unproductive. Seeing as the 31st October represent “no deal” by default and the troublesome backstop goes out of the window, it does little to progress things in a positive way.
Maybe just. annex the Republic? Declare it Southern Ireland…
Or nuke Brussels and Warsaw.
Or get annexed by the Irsih Republic (* we are now East Ireland*).
Or, just cancel the whole thing…
That last point is the tricky thing though. On what grounds do you cancel it? The assumption seems to be that there is no democratic fallout from doing so. Cancelling it does not mean that those who voted for it will shut up and go home.
If you are saying that leaving the EU is now impossible then people will quite rightly say “when did we agree to give up all possibility of leaving the EU?” To me, such a situation would have been the greatest democratic outrage.
If it is still possible then the problem has not gone away and will resurface with renewed force whenever the E.U. program overreaches itself or stumbles…and it will.
Regardless of any of the above, If a second referendum were held it would have to be on the basis of a remain vote representing a de-facto confirmation that the UK can never leave in the future. It is a pretty sure thing that the EU will never allow this situation to arise again. Expect a new treaty in the aftermath of this whatever happens to Brexit.
This same Parliament already voted *against *hard Brexit. Have they no authority to ban the PM from implementing it anyway?
On the grounds that it is a terrible idea which will do short-, medium- and long-term damage to the country, and that the people democratically elected to represent the majority sometimes have more time to devote to these questions and access to better information, and thus a better idea of how things might pan out than the electorate en masse—which is why said electorate delegates governance in the first place. On the grounds that this is a whopping great decision to be made by a tiny majority of those who even bothered to vote on the question, in a referendum that was meant to be advisory in the first place, and whose campaigns involved disinformation. On the grounds that EU citizens resident in the UK didn’t get to vote in the referendum [I’d have to double-check that point: going from memory] and perhaps should have been allowed to.
Shades of Canute commanding the tides.
Brexit is a logical consequence of invoking A50, not something Boris Johnson is implementing.
The biggest problem with that is that a hard Brexit doesn’t have to be implemented, it will happen by default, and it will require positive action to prevent that. The current PM has indicated that he will not do that, that he will let it happen if no alternative is accepted by the end of October.
So, the main way Parliament can change that is to replace the government via a vote of no confidence. The problem is, what happens after that? There needs to be a majority of Parliament who will accept the consequences of that, which will almost certainly include an early General Election and the strong probability of Corbyn as PM for a time (who, apart from anything else, also wants to leave the EU) and/or a series of weak coalitions. It’s not obvious that there’s a majority for that, or that a majority would form behind an alternative government.
So, in short, yes, Parliament have that authority - but they need to have the will to do it, and accept the consequences.
I don’t agree. I think it would require that, if we ever go through this again, we have to think it through a bit more carefully next time. We have to define what we mean by “Brexit” before we vote on it.
I think, politically, if remain wins next time around, it would be hard to muster up the enthusiasm to go through all this again any time soon but it wouldn’t mean that we could never leave.
My personal wish is that parliament does away with referendums. They don’t seem to be compatible with a parliamentary democracy.
All Parliament has to do is to revoke the A50 Brexit withdrawal resolution. The European Court of Justice had made clear that the U.K. Parliament can do this without any agreement needed from the European Union.
But there are not the votes to do this. So instead everyone is talking about a new Referendum or new General Election or getting another postponement from the EU.
The fact that we’re finding it difficult to leave has very little to do with the EU. They agreed a date on which we would leave and a deal by which we would do so. It’s the UK Parliament who have refused to ratify that deal. And a decisive chunk of the MPs who voted against that deal were pro-Leave. We would be out now if it weren’t for Steve Baker and his “Spartan” ERG chums.
The truth is that the UK badly mishandled the negotiation by setting itself contradictory red lines and starting the clock ticking on A50 before it had actually worked out what it wanted in a deal. A more competent government could have organised cross-party consensus for a soft Brexit that would have pissed off the ultras on both sides but had c.450 MPs lining up behind it.
So the answer to the question “When did it become impossible to leave the EU” would be “When we left Theresa May, Boris Johnson and David Davis in charge of getting us out”.
Could the EU also rule that the vote against hard Brexit meant no hard Brexit, and refuse to implement it?
Can Parliament do that, or does it have to be the Government? Mors specifically, the PM?
I’m not sure what a one sided “refuse to implement” would even mean.
Neither am I. Something like pretending nothing had changed, hoping the UK would do likewise, maybe?
I really meant “Is there anything the EU can do to apply some adult supervision here?”
In the absence of any deal, a “hard Brexit” is the inevitable legal consequence. The UK has given notice of leaving. That (after extensions) falls due on October 31st. At that point all the legal and administrative frameworks tied up in EU membership cease to have legal force. If both the UK government and the EU tacitly agree to pretend nothing has changed (but what then would have been the point of “taking back control” anyway?) things might totter along without too much difficulty; but any dispute between any trading partners across the UK/EU boundary will have nowhere to go for resolution.
Plus there’s the point that, absent a specific agreement, AIUI, under WTO rules neither party can give the other favourable terms as hoc unless it does the same for all WTO members. So there’s another slew of international legal cases.
speculative, especially the “long-term”. no-one has done this before nor even anything like it.
on this question they don’t though, the projections are all worst-case that rely upon no-one taking mitigating actions (which won’t happen). How it pans-out it unknown, anyone who tells you otherwise with certainty is lying. Beyond short-term upheaval, no-one knows. These are the same experts who saw nothing and said nothing in the run-up to the 2008 crash.
history is made by those that turn up
the pledge that went along with the referendum, that was re-inforced by both major parties at the subsequent GE, was that the result was going to be respected and enacted.
show me a political campaign that doesn’t or an electorate gullible enough to think eveything they are promised will come to pass, they don’t do so in a GE and there is no reason to think they did so to any greater degree in the referendum. Given that a promise was made to enact…are the electorate guaranteed to believe promises or not?
They were allowed to.
look, I deal with pretty high-level people in major coprporations. A really good rule of thumb for major executive decisions is that if you aren’t prepared to to accept the answer you don’t ask the question in the first place. Once you do it is a major issue if you don’t implement and not to be taken lightly. All the points you make have merit but even were any of them used as justification for revocation you would still have to deal with the fallout from a large group of people clearly denied their freely-taken, explicitily promised, democratically expressed wish. By all means say “whoopsy, my bad” but the aftermath may be even uglier that what you think you are avoiding.
No, the horse has bolted. There won’t be an “again”.
It is an absolute certainty that a failure to follow through on this now will see the E.U.make it pretty much impossible to do so in the future. They won’t write it in so many words but the effect will be to ensure it is impossibly punative for any country to do so.
So that is the practical outcome of chosing not to do it now, in effect it becomes a decision to bind to the E.U. forever. If that’s the democratic will of the people to do so then I’m happy to go along with it but it would be honest to admit that this is the case.