IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brexit

Closed Thread
Old 1st July 2019, 02:06 AM   #3001
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Really the only way that PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could produce a No Deal exit on 31st October (assuming that is what they really wanted to do), is to allow a vote in the HoC, in which they persuade the majority of MPs to vote against any motion that asks the House to rule out a No Deal. The PM would really have to get that authority from the House in a vote for or against a No Deal.
Boris has one powerful ace in his sleeve: allow a vote in HoC asking the house between another extension and a no-deal Brexit. He would best do so by making sure he tried to prorogue Parliament but was blocked by it's sheer illegality and have the Speaker force the vote upon him.

After that is done and Parliament ordered BJ to go to EU and beg for more time, he goes to Brussels and asks for more time, in order to renegotiate the WA but rule out an early election or a referendum. EU would probably say you can have more time if you use it for a referendum, BJ says no and that is that.

Parliament can prevent that by telling him to agree to a referendum in exchange for an extension, but referendums are notoriously difficult in UK and this is a difficult referendum to begin with. Legislating and holding one takes six months on average, BJ can tell the EU he needs a year to hold one. This isn't even false: it took over three years to hold the EU membership referedum, it took 10 months from when the Tories had the majority in HoC to hold it and Parliament rejected the option of a second referendum in the two indicative votes.

Even BJ can claim he can't promise what he can't deliver. Irony aside, it is a reasonable thing of a politician to say in his situation. If EU gets him a two tiered deadline again (i.e. two weeks to pass basic legislation for another referendum, six months to hold it) all BJ needs to do is hold off for those two weeks. There would be a vote, but if the vote fails to pass he gets his no deal Brexit - legally. I imagine there are quite a few things PM can do to frustrate debate and fail to pass something he doesn't want to pass. Offering a choice between ratifying WA and no deal Brexit, but not Bremain, is one. Besides, Parliament is against everything, including another referendum.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 1st July 2019 at 02:13 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 02:24 AM   #3002
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
By the way, despite the above (which is any case not my own opinion, but just giving the opinion of legal and constitutional political experts ... I gave several more such links in the other thread), I would not personally rule out the possibility of the HoC voting to allow a No Deal exit.

That is – in a vote that asked MPs to rule out a No Deal exit on 31st Oct., I think there is actually a reasonable chance that MPs might reject that motion (ie failing to vote against a No Deal exit). So that would be one way in which PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could indeed cause the UK to leave the EU with No Deal.

Last edited by IanS; 1st July 2019 at 02:25 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 02:48 AM   #3003
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
By the way, despite the above (which is any case not my own opinion, but just giving the opinion of legal and constitutional political experts ... I gave several more such links in the other thread), I would not personally rule out the possibility of the HoC voting to allow a No Deal exit.

That is – in a vote that asked MPs to rule out a No Deal exit on 31st Oct., I think there is actually a reasonable chance that MPs might reject that motion (ie failing to vote against a No Deal exit). So that would be one way in which PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could indeed cause the UK to leave the EU with No Deal.
That's true. Parliament rejected No Deal Brexit under any circumstance amendment by a narrow margin: 312-308.

https://www.dw.com/en/british-lawmak...278/a-47895802

It could be that in a vote actually bringing about something, anything, that would prevent it Parliament will come short. Is there a way to frame a British Parliamentary question in a way different than "Yes or No"?
Example: Referendum to the left, No Deal Brexit to the right?

That would give some clarity. MPs can vote against everything with little consequence, but if the question is framed between two positives their ground for constructive ambiguity shrinks to zero.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 02:49 AM   #3004
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Boris has one powerful ace in his sleeve: allow a vote in HoC asking the house between another extension and a no-deal Brexit. He would best do so by making sure he tried to prorogue Parliament but was blocked by it's sheer illegality and have the Speaker force the vote upon him.

After that is done and Parliament ordered BJ to go to EU and beg for more time, he goes to Brussels and asks for more time, in order to renegotiate the WA but rule out an early election or a referendum. EU would probably say you can have more time if you use it for a referendum, BJ says no and that is that.

Parliament can prevent that by telling him to agree to a referendum in exchange for an extension, but referendums are notoriously difficult in UK and this is a difficult referendum to begin with. Legislating and holding one takes six months on average, BJ can tell the EU he needs a year to hold one. This isn't even false: it took over three years to hold the EU membership referedum, it took 10 months from when the Tories had the majority in HoC to hold it and Parliament rejected the option of a second referendum in the two indicative votes.

Even BJ can claim he can't promise what he can't deliver. Irony aside, it is a reasonable thing of a politician to say in his situation. If EU gets him a two tiered deadline again (i.e. two weeks to pass basic legislation for another referendum, six months to hold it) all BJ needs to do is hold off for those two weeks. There would be a vote, but if the vote fails to pass he gets his no deal Brexit - legally. I imagine there are quite a few things PM can do to frustrate debate and fail to pass something he doesn't want to pass. Offering a choice between ratifying WA and no deal Brexit, but not Bremain, is one. Besides, Parliament is against everything, including another referendum.

McHrozni

None of that is changing or disputing anything I said in the above post, though.

Point is - it's extremely unlikely that the PM could circumvent the democratic will of parliament to force the UK to leave with No Deal.

Whether or not we end up with a vote in the HoC that forces either a new referendum, or that forces a General Election, is another matter entirely.

But the point is – much as a pro-Brexit Tory PM might wish to prevent the HoC voting on various options, the PM almost certainly could not in the end prevent such democratic votes in the HoC.

What the result might be in a new referendum, heaven only knows (though afaik the opinion polls have suggested a win for Remain by perhaps 6% or more … but polls like that have been shown to be seriously wrong in recent years).

The result of a General Election is now also very hard to guess, imho. Mainly because Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party has thrown a huge spanner into the works. If Farage and his party contest seats nationwide, then it's certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that his party could actually end up with the most seats (though probably not enough to form a government). But if that happens then I would expect Labour and Lib Dem to pool their seats together to agree an emergency coalition government. I think the Conservatives would probably be decimated in a GE that was held either now, or else held in the wake of the new Conservative PM leading the country into an even bigger and more incompetent looking mess than we have already had over the last 12 months.

See the latest Poll figures from YouGov 24th-25th June -

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...20-lib-dem-19-

Brexit Party 22%
Conservatives 22%
Labour 20%
Lib Dem 19%

Last edited by IanS; 1st July 2019 at 02:51 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 02:53 AM   #3005
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
post deleted ... wrong thread lol!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 03:01 AM   #3006
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
None of that is changing or disputing anything I said in the above post, though.

Point is - it's extremely unlikely that the PM could circumvent the democratic will of parliament to force the UK to leave with No Deal.

Whether or not we end up with a vote in the HoC that forces either a new referendum, or that forces a General Election, is another matter entirely.

But the point is – much as a pro-Brexit Tory PM might wish to prevent the HoC voting on various options, the PM almost certainly could not in the end prevent such democratic votes in the HoC.
He doesn't have to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. All he must do is ensure the option he doesn't want to pass doesn't pass. I'll explain what I mean below.

Quote:
What the result might be in a new referendum, heaven only knows (though afaik the opinion polls have suggested a win for Remain by perhaps 6% or more … but polls like that have been shown to be seriously wrong in recent years).
This is a referendum where the question is everything. Everything. Suppose the options at hand are:

Should the UK:
1. Ratify the WA or
2. Leave EU with no deal?

If BJ gets this referendum question through he's in home stretch. Ratifying the WA has half the support of a no deal Brexit, all he needs to do is promise even more unicorns and calls out anyone who campaigns for the ratification a hypocrite and he just might get the 51-49 victory that is a clear mandate for a hard Brexit and deregulation and privatization of everything.

Alternatively the question could be Should UK revoke article 50 and remain in EU?
1. Yes.
2. No.

Since yes is the current legal default and it's a significant constitutional question that's at stake, he could also demand a 60% quorum for yes, or else the legal default remains. Hypocritical sure, but he held another referendum and fulfilled the will of Parliament and requirement of the EU.

Given the divisions in Parliament, agreeing to the referendum is trivially easy compared to deciding what to ask in the referendum. It's quite possible to run down the clock with proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out.

On the other hand, I'm still of the opinion another referendum will be held, somehow. But it's getting ever weirder.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 1st July 2019 at 03:03 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 03:33 AM   #3007
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Nigel Farage has hit out at Channel 4 over an episode of a comedy show in which satirical character Neil Fromage is shot dead while giving a speech on immigration.

The leader of the Brexit Party described the scene in the fourth episode of Victorian-era sitcom Year of the Rabbit as “sick and frankly irresponsible”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...81281.html?amp
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 04:13 AM   #3008
ohms
Graduate Poster
 
ohms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,606
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Nigel Farage has hit out at Channel 4 over an episode of a comedy show in which satirical character Neil Fromage is shot dead while giving a speech on immigration.

The leader of the Brexit Party described the scene in the fourth episode of Victorian-era sitcom Year of the Rabbit as “sick and frankly irresponsible”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...81281.html?amp
Says the man who said he would pick up a rifle and join the front line if he doesn't get Brexit. What a hypocrite!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Long time lurker
ohms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 06:06 AM   #3009
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Do you know how much a modern frigate or destroyer costs?
What would they do with a single frigate?

Would they be expecting to engage in high intensity naval warfare?

Ireland has a very good and well balanced maritime defence force with very capable patrol vessels. Their entire fleet cost less than one Type 45 Destroyer.

https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-ar...ice/the-fleet/
The plan that was published in 2014 included 2 frigates I believe as well as anti mine vessels and offshore patrols vehicles and other support ships.

I don't believe they wanted to have any destroyers nor do they wish to maintain nuclear submarines.

Of course the other thing to remember is that SNP white papers do not in fact tie the hands of future Scottish Governments who may decide they have other strategic aims.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 11:16 AM   #3010
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
He doesn't have to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. All he must do is ensure the option he doesn't want to pass doesn't pass. I'll explain what I mean below.



This is a referendum where the question is everything. Everything. Suppose the options at hand are:

Should the UK:
1. Ratify the WA or
2. Leave EU with no deal?

If BJ gets this referendum question through he's in home stretch. Ratifying the WA has half the support of a no deal Brexit, all he needs to do is promise even more unicorns and calls out anyone who campaigns for the ratification a hypocrite and he just might get the 51-49 victory that is a clear mandate for a hard Brexit and deregulation and privatization of everything.

Alternatively the question could be Should UK revoke article 50 and remain in EU?
1. Yes.
2. No.

Since yes is the current legal default and it's a significant constitutional question that's at stake, he could also demand a 60% quorum for yes, or else the legal default remains. Hypocritical sure, but he held another referendum and fulfilled the will of Parliament and requirement of the EU.

Given the divisions in Parliament, agreeing to the referendum is trivially easy compared to deciding what to ask in the referendum. It's quite possible to run down the clock with proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out.

On the other hand, I'm still of the opinion another referendum will be held, somehow. But it's getting ever weirder.

McHrozni

On the basis of the legal analysis and other links that I gave previously - I don't think it's possible for the next Tory PM to run down the clock with a succession of "proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out".

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal.

Nor do I think the next PM could just choose any deliberately exclusive and deliberately fraudulent or misleading options on a referendum ballot paper. That would again be a clear attempt by the PM to rig the result of a referendum. Again, restrictive and divisive options like that (as the only options on a referendum ballot paper) would be ruled illegal. The options have to be fair, honest and genuinely representative of the preferences debated & expressed by elected MPs in the HoC.

More simply – I think we are very far past the stage where a rouge pro-Brexit PM could deliberately mislead both the HoC and the electorate over Brexit. The options must be honest and fair, and must be seen to be honest and fair (otherwise they will be subject to legal challange & ruled illegal).

Of course it would be another matter entirely if opposition MPs decided not to bother opposing whatever the Tory PM wanted to do, and decided not to bother with any legal objections or any requests to vote in the HoC against whatever the pro-Brexit PM proposes. But it seems very unlikley indeed that opposition MPs will allow PM-Boris or PM-Hunt a fee hand to act like that to do whatever they want.

Last edited by IanS; 1st July 2019 at 11:20 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 12:23 PM   #3011
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Well in the event that England decided that it wasn't going to negotiate in good faith on independence they would have to remove them which would present several issues 1) Getting them and 2) Having somewhere to put them.
Why the assumption they wouldn't? Oh, and you mean "England, Wales, and NI," surely?

Quote:
Which is one amongst a multitude of reasons why the idea that the UK will simply claim the entire RN for themselves post independence is nonsense on stilts.
I'm sure the MoD will be open to reasonable suggestions as to what 8% of military equipment Scotland would want to have, but 8% of "everything" wouldn't necessarily be in Scotland's interest.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 12:40 PM   #3012
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal.
Quite possibly, but when? The legal wheels grind exceeding slow, and it would undoubtedly be 'ruled illegal' well after Halloween. Even if before Halloween then decisive Parliamentary action would need to be taken pdq...

eta

which might well also lead to legal proceedings taking us beyond Halloween
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury

Last edited by GlennB; 1st July 2019 at 02:10 PM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 12:47 PM   #3013
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Presumably all the bits they currently have and are willing to pay to maintain.



They may pursue a joint defence treaty but i don't believe that is currently proposed.

Scotland would be a proper country just like any other in Europe. It's not bloody Andorra or Jersey FFS. The idea that it would be uniquely unable to look after its own affairs is Unionist wet dreamery.
So anyone who can find an obscure Scottish grandparent can claim Scottish nationality (and thus stay in the EU).
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 01:13 PM   #3014
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Presumably all the bits they currently have and are willing to pay to maintain.
Unlikely. There are currently assets in Scotland which it suits wider UK purposes to be there, and that isn't just HMNB Clyde, either. In addition, there is some stuff that was proposed in the Scotland's Future paper that an independent Scotland wanted that are not currently located in Scotland.

Quote:
They may pursue a joint defence treaty but i don't believe that is currently proposed.
Probably because it would go down like a lead balloon.

Quote:
Scotland would be a proper country just like any other in Europe. It's not bloody Andorra or Jersey FFS. The idea that it would be uniquely unable to look after its own affairs is Unionist wet dreamery.
That's a bit of a silly comparison, given that one is landlocked with a population one 70th of Scotland's population, and the other isn't a country at all. Denmark would be a more apt comparison.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 01:51 PM   #3015
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The plan that was published in 2014 included 2 frigates I believe as well as anti mine vessels and offshore patrols vehicles and other support ships.
They also stated they wanted a "command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities" from the current RN fleet. They weren't more specific, but this was interpreted to mean a Landing Platform Dock or Bay class RFA, neither of which is going to happen.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 02:32 PM   #3016
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,782
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
That's a bit of a silly comparison, given that one is landlocked with a population one 70th of Scotland's population, and the other isn't a country at all. Denmark would be a more apt comparison.
I think that's his point. Scotland is a country like Denmark, more than capable of looking after its own affairs, not a principality like Andorra or Jersey.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 03:30 PM   #3017
Aber
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard.
Parliament only has a limited set of tools:
- pass legislation
- vote no confidence in the Prime Minister

IIUC everything else could be subverted, and would be justified as carrying out the democratic will of the people.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 07:08 PM   #3018
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
deleted wrong thread.

Last edited by Samson; 1st July 2019 at 08:06 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 10:51 PM   #3019
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
On the basis of the legal analysis and other links that I gave previously - I don't think it's possible for the next Tory PM to run down the clock with a succession of "proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out".

The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal.
Democratic will of Parliament is being heard in this case. He's just making sure the democratic will of all PMs is being considered.

Quote:
Nor do I think the next PM could just choose any deliberately exclusive and deliberately fraudulent or misleading options on a referendum ballot paper. That would again be a clear attempt by the PM to rig the result of a referendum. Again, restrictive and divisive options like that (as the only options on a referendum ballot paper) would be ruled illegal. The options have to be fair, honest and genuinely representative of the preferences debated & expressed by elected MPs in the HoC.
They aren't deliberately exclusive or deliberately fradulent. It's simply that the referendum usually only has two possible answers. Which two do you put on?
No Brexit and No Deal?
No Brexit and WA?
WA and No Deal?
WA and Unicorn Deal?
No Brexit and Unicorn Deal?
Unicorn Deal and No Deal?

Clearly this won't work. At a minimum you need three options. Parliament already rejected all of them, except the Unicorn deal, so it can be argued that should be on the ballot, although it's the one option that will solve nothing.

Quote:
More simply – I think we are very far past the stage where a rouge pro-Brexit PM could deliberately mislead both the HoC and the electorate over Brexit. The options must be honest and fair, and must be seen to be honest and fair (otherwise they will be subject to legal challange & ruled illegal).
First of all, a good portion of the electorate and Parliament both is already misled. It's not a rogue pro-Brexit PM, it's a rogue pro-Brexit PM and Parliament that consistently rejected both another referendum and revoking article 50, the electorate is little better.

Second if there is a legal challenge and the referendum is ruled illegal, BJ still "wins" of sorts. There must be new legislation for another referendum. These things take time and EU won't give BJ unlimited time to come up with an answer.

Options must be honest and fair, true. But a good portion of the electorate considers "no deal Brexit ASAP" as "honest and fair".

Quote:
Of course it would be another matter entirely if opposition MPs decided not to bother opposing whatever the Tory PM wanted to do, and decided not to bother with any legal objections or any requests to vote in the HoC against whatever the pro-Brexit PM proposes. But it seems very unlikley indeed that opposition MPs will allow PM-Boris or PM-Hunt a fee hand to act like that to do whatever they want.
I calculated that in. Referendums are difficult in UK as it is and an issue like Brexit would cause major headaches in Switzerland, which could be called Referendumland for our purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Swiss_referendums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Swiss_referendums

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:01 AM   #3020
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Why the assumption they wouldn't? Oh, and you mean "England, Wales, and NI," surely?
Well you would have to ask the person that made the assumption. And no I mean England. Our future PM has already said Westminster is England's parliament.

Quote:
I'm sure the MoD will be open to reasonable suggestions as to what 8% of military equipment Scotland would want to have, but 8% of "everything" wouldn't necessarily be in Scotland's interest.
I don't think I ever said it would be otherwise. But there would be a negotiated agreement. No doubt Scotland will not get everything it wants but nor will England.

A hypothetical was put forward in which England simply said 'we are keeping the lot, screw you' and I was pointing out why this won't happen.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:02 AM   #3021
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So anyone who can find an obscure Scottish grandparent can claim Scottish nationality (and thus stay in the EU).
You may not even need that. I would imagine a newly independent Scotland would have one of the easiest routes to citizenship and/or immigration in the EU. We need the people!
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:07 AM   #3022
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Unlikely. There are currently assets in Scotland which it suits wider UK purposes to be there, and that isn't just HMNB Clyde, either. In addition, there is some stuff that was proposed in the Scotland's Future paper that an independent Scotland wanted that are not currently located in Scotland.
The question was what it would be capable of sustaining. Not what it would WANT to sustain

Quote:

Probably because it would go down like a lead balloon.
Regardless of that England and Scotland will be important strategic defence partners. It benefits neither for one or the other to be hamstrung in any settlement. I would imagine geographically Scotland would also be considered useful/important within NATO.

Quote:
That's a bit of a silly comparison, given that one is landlocked with a population one 70th of Scotland's population, and the other isn't a country at all. Denmark would be a more apt comparison.
Yes it is which is why I said we AREN'T those countries. Denmark is a better comparison. Denmark has a pretty functional navy and military. It even has some frigates!!!
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:11 AM   #3023
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
neither of which is going to happen.
Again the idea that England will simply dictate what will and won't happen in a negotiation. It seems the colonial mindset will persist despite Brexit showing the world how laughably pathetic it is.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:13 AM   #3024
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Parliament only has a limited set of tools:
- pass legislation
- vote no confidence in the Prime Minister

IIUC everything else could be subverted, and would be justified as carrying out the democratic will of the people.
Doing something illegal does not seem to be a barrier for Brexit. No doubt someone would get a slap on the wrist in 3 years time.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:44 AM   #3025
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Quite possibly, but when? The legal wheels grind exceeding slow, and it would undoubtedly be 'ruled illegal' well after Halloween. Even if before Halloween then decisive Parliamentary action would need to be taken pdq...

eta

which might well also lead to legal proceedings taking us beyond Halloween

Well we are not talking about the sort of legal cases where a member of the public might have to wait years before a case is heard. Afaik, this would be decided by the relevant "court" immediately, so that any such action by the PM was ruled illegal before any deadline expired. However ...

... even if that were not the case, and where the ruling comes after the expired deadline, the ruling would cancel the PM's result. That is - the exit from the EU would have been illegal, and it could not stand. How the UK would work that out with the EU, and what the EU would do about something like that, is perhaps less clear. Also less clear is what would happen to the PM in a situation like that, where he had been found guilty in law of such massive abuse of power … it would presumably be a very serious offence indeed.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:55 AM   #3026
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well we are not talking about the sort of legal cases where a member of the public might have to wait years before a case is heard. Afaik, this would be decided by the relevant "court" immediately, so that any such action by the PM was ruled illegal before any deadline expired.
The problem is a No Deal doesn't require any action on behalf of anyone. It's the legal default, what happens if no action is taken. Parliament can order PM to "take action", but how would that work? The only measures UK can take are ratifying the WA or revoking article 50. Revoking article 50 is illegal without a new vote, Parliament already rejected it in indicative votes. It also rejected ratifying the WA three times.

Demand from Parliament to PM to "stop No Deal Brexit" is impossible. Parliament can instruct the PM to revoke article 50, it can ratify the deal or it can instruct the PM to go to Brussels and beg for more time. This last option means there will be a referendum on the question, or else a No Deal Brexit.

My point is Parliament will have to grow some testicles and instruct BJ to do one of the above three. It can't prohibit a No Deal Brexit and do reject everything that is needed to prevent one.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 01:08 AM   #3027
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Democratic will of Parliament is being heard in this case. He's just making sure the democratic will of all PMs is being considered.



They aren't deliberately exclusive or deliberately fradulent. It's simply that the referendum usually only has two possible answers. Which two do you put on?
No Brexit and No Deal?
No Brexit and WA?
WA and No Deal?
WA and Unicorn Deal?
No Brexit and Unicorn Deal?
Unicorn Deal and No Deal?

Clearly this won't work. At a minimum you need three options. Parliament already rejected all of them, except the Unicorn deal, so it can be argued that should be on the ballot, although it's the one option that will solve nothing.



First of all, a good portion of the electorate and Parliament both is already misled. It's not a rogue pro-Brexit PM, it's a rogue pro-Brexit PM and Parliament that consistently rejected both another referendum and revoking article 50, the electorate is little better.

Second if there is a legal challenge and the referendum is ruled illegal, BJ still "wins" of sorts. There must be new legislation for another referendum. These things take time and EU won't give BJ unlimited time to come up with an answer.

Options must be honest and fair, true. But a good portion of the electorate considers "no deal Brexit ASAP" as "honest and fair".



I calculated that in. Referendums are difficult in UK as it is and an issue like Brexit would cause major headaches in Switzerland, which could be called Referendumland for our purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Swiss_referendums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Swiss_referendums

McHrozni

OK, well without going through the above in detail again (because it's essentially what we already discussed before) - if you read that link to the legal analysis that I gave earlier, you will see why the legal opinion is that a pro-Brexit PM such as Boris, probably could not succeed with any of the methods that you are proposing.

If you have not read that legal link, then please read it, because it explains why opposition MP's could, and almost certainly would, use the law to stop any of the attempts that you describe. And where, in fact, opposition MPs already took that legal recourse to stop Mrs May on at least two occasions when she tried to bounce the UK out of the EU by excluding a parliamentary vote (inc. trying to run down the clock); so those legal rulings and that recourse to law is already established and in place as the method being used by MPs if the prime Minister tries any of the illegal deceptions that you suggest.

That doesn't mean it's impossible for Boris or Hunt to succeed with such tactics. That might happen. But it's unlikely to succeed if opposition MPs object in law to a PM trying any deceptions such as that.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 01:22 AM   #3028
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
The problem is a No Deal doesn't require any action on behalf of anyone. It's the legal default, what happens if no action is taken. Parliament can order PM to "take action", but how would that work? The only measures UK can take are ratifying the WA or revoking article 50. Revoking article 50 is illegal without a new vote, Parliament already rejected it in indicative votes. It also rejected ratifying the WA three times.

Demand from Parliament to PM to "stop No Deal Brexit" is impossible. Parliament can instruct the PM to revoke article 50, it can ratify the deal or it can instruct the PM to go to Brussels and beg for more time. This last option means there will be a referendum on the question, or else a No Deal Brexit.

My point is Parliament will have to grow some testicles and instruct BJ to do one of the above three. It can't prohibit a No Deal Brexit and do reject everything that is needed to prevent one.

McHrozni

Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link. It's what I explained before. And Mrs May already tried that, and where the legal link says she was in effect "forced" to go back to the EU and request an extension.

The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 01:28 AM   #3029
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well without going through the above in detail again (because it's essentially what we already discussed before) - if you read that link to the legal analysis that I gave earlier, you will see why the legal opinion is that a pro-Brexit PM such as Boris, probably could not succeed with any of the methods that you are proposing.

If you have not read that legal link, then please read it, because it explains why opposition MP's could, and almost certainly would, use the law to stop any of the attempts that you describe. And where, in fact, opposition MPs already took that legal recourse to stop Mrs May on at least two occasions when she tried to bounce the UK out of the EU by excluding a parliamentary vote (inc. trying to run down the clock); so those legal rulings and that recourse to law is already established and in place as the method being used by MPs if the prime Minister tries any of the illegal deceptions that you suggest.

That doesn't mean it's impossible for Boris or Hunt to succeed with such tactics. That might happen. But it's unlikely to succeed if opposition MPs object in law to a PM trying any deceptions such as that.
So far Parliament haven't been able to agree on a way forward for Brexit. They've had various votes, both binding and indicative to reject certain courses of action, including Theresa May's deal and a no-deal but they have never been able to agree on a positive course of action whether that is acceptance of a deal, revocation of Article 50 or leaving the EU with no deal in place.

So far the EU have been understanding of/complicit in (depending on your point of view) in this indecision by allowing the UK to kick the can down the road but there will likely come a point when the EU is unwilling to delay Brexit any longer and/or will impose conditions that are unacceptable to a Conservative PM and so there will be no further extensions to the Brexit deadline.

At that point in time, Parliament will have to decide what they want to do. Just saying that they don't want Option X or Option Y is no longer good enough. So far, they haven't been able to agree - I don't see that changing.
  • There will not be majority support for a second referendum
  • There will not be majority support for revocation
  • There will not be majority support for no-deal
  • It seems impossible to get Theresa May's deal approved
  • The EU isn't prepared to negotiate any other kind of deal with the existing red lines in place
  • There is no appetite in either of the two major parties to change the red lines

Which means that the default outcome - leave with no deal - comes about.

Even if Parliament votes to reject that outcome, in order to stop it they need to come up with an alternative plan of action - which seems beyond them.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 01:44 AM   #3030
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link.
The only legal link that you gave and I found answered the question "Can the PM prorogue Parliament to force a no deal Brexit". None of the scenarios I present involve proroguing Parliament. BJ must prevent Parliament from passing a Brexit resolution that will be viable with the EU. Proroguing is just one of the possibilities here, I discussed the others, all of whom include Parliamentary votes. It's not enough to hold a vote, Parliament must vote affirmative to an action.

Quote:
The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link).
And if the HoC rules out a No Deal Brexit (again), then what? It refused to ratify the WA three times and it voted against both revoking article 50 and holding another referendum in indicative votes. It even rejected a different deal to WA. Those are the totality of options on the table. Parliament might as well ask the Sun not to set for a week, so they have more time to debate the whole thing and instruct PM to achieve that.

The fact is Parliament must vote for something if it is to prevent a No Deal Brexit. For a Brexitard PM all he must do is ensure all votes are negative, or else positive but pass something unacceptable to the EU. With a different leader of the opposition that would be impossible to do, a competent Labour party would have dealt with the issue twice over by now and probably run the show for a decade. Alas, Corbyn and his clique are no better than BJ.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 2nd July 2019 at 01:53 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 01:47 AM   #3031
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
So far Parliament haven't been able to agree on a way forward for Brexit. They've had various votes, both binding and indicative to reject certain courses of action, including Theresa May's deal and a no-deal but they have never been able to agree on a positive course of action whether that is acceptance of a deal, revocation of Article 50 or leaving the EU with no deal in place.

So far the EU have been understanding of/complicit in (depending on your point of view) in this indecision by allowing the UK to kick the can down the road but there will likely come a point when the EU is unwilling to delay Brexit any longer and/or will impose conditions that are unacceptable to a Conservative PM and so there will be no further extensions to the Brexit deadline.

At that point in time, Parliament will have to decide what they want to do. Just saying that they don't want Option X or Option Y is no longer good enough. So far, they haven't been able to agree - I don't see that changing.
  • There will not be majority support for a second referendum
  • There will not be majority support for revocation
  • There will not be majority support for no-deal
  • It seems impossible to get Theresa May's deal approved
  • The EU isn't prepared to negotiate any other kind of deal with the existing red lines in place
  • There is no appetite in either of the two major parties to change the red lines

Which means that the default outcome - leave with no deal - comes about.

Even if Parliament votes to reject that outcome, in order to stop it they need to come up with an alternative plan of action - which seems beyond them.
My prediction is there will be another extension. Either Parliament will send BJ to beg for another extension, ordering him to offer another referendum in exchange for mercy. EU will accept, then Parliament will face the difficult legislating for said referendum. There are three options: No Deal Brexit, WA and Bremain, it is possible to hold a fair referendum with three options in several ways which I described before.

Alternatively Parliament will not confirm BJ as PM or BJ will be removed in a vote of no confidence before Haloween, triggering an early election. EU will agree to an extension in order to hold it. The result of that election will decide the fate of Brexit and indeed the UK.

I've been wrong before on these issues, lots of times. Let's see how this prediction holds.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 2nd July 2019 at 01:51 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 02:05 AM   #3032
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
My prediction is there will be another extension. Either Parliament will send BJ to beg for another extension, ordering him to offer another referendum in exchange for mercy. EU will accept, then Parliament will face the difficult legislating for said referendum. There are three options: No Deal Brexit, WA and Bremain, it is possible to hold a fair referendum with three options in several ways which I described before.
I cannot see this getting support in parliament given that the Conservatives and a sizeable minority of Labour MPs (including the leader) are against a second referendum.

I can see them asking him to go back to ask for an extension (which he may or may not do - it would after all give the Brexit Party a stick to beat him with if he does agree to an extension) but not with anything tangible to offer in exchange. After all, Brexiteers (especially those of a no-deal persuasion) want the EU to deny the extension so that it's the EU's fault when it all goes to rodent poop.

Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Alternatively Parliament will not confirm BJ as PM or else BJ will be removed in a vote of no confidence before Haloween, triggering an early election. EU will agree to an extension in order to hold it. The result of that election will decide the fate of Brexit and indeed the UK.

I've been wrong before on these issues, lots of times. Let's see how this prediction holds.

McHrozni
There's no confirmation process for the PM, as the leader of the party in government Boris or Jeremy would automatically get to be PM. The only way to remove them would be either for them to be deposed as Conservative Party leader (unlikely given that they have just been appointed) or for a no confidence vote to be successfully passed.

As disfunctional as the Conservatives are, a confidence vote will IMO be unsuccessful because the DUP won't support it (because there isn't an outcome which would increase their influence), there will be very few Tory rebels (because they don't want to be savaged by the Brexit Party) and they will likely be offset by pro-Brexit Labour MPs supporting the goverment.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 02:33 AM   #3033
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I cannot see this getting support in parliament given that the Conservatives and a sizeable minority of Labour MPs (including the leader) are against a second referendum.

I can see them asking him to go back to ask for an extension (which he may or may not do - it would after all give the Brexit Party a stick to beat him with if he does agree to an extension) but not with anything tangible to offer in exchange. After all, Brexiteers (especially those of a no-deal persuasion) want the EU to deny the extension so that it's the EU's fault when it all goes to rodent poop.
If the alternatives were No Deal Brexit and Second Referendum, the latter may yet win out in the vote. Thus far alternatives were Bright Sunlands with Unicorns to a Second Referendum. This is different.

Quote:
There's no confirmation process for the PM, as the leader of the party in government Boris or Jeremy would automatically get to be PM. The only way to remove them would be either for them to be deposed as Conservative Party leader (unlikely given that they have just been appointed) or for a no confidence vote to be successfully passed.
Hm, okay. An unrelated question: has UK considered joining the 20th century yet?

Quote:
As as disfunctional as Parliament is, a confidence vote will IMO be unsuccessful because the DUP won't support it (because there isn't an outcome which would increase their influence), there will be very few Tory rebels (because they don't want to be savaged by the Brexit Party) and they will likely be offset by pro-Brexit Labour MPs supporting the goverment.
Normally yes, but if the alternative is a No Deal Brexit, I predict they will change their minds. Not all but enough to force another election. This is because in a No Deal Brexit, they can still expect to lose their jobs shortly down the line, they'd be sacrificing the country in order to have a few more months of cushiny jobs for themselves. Would you want to go down in history like that? Chances are enough wouldn't and a new election will take place.

Of course I could be wrong, but who do you hope to be right on the matter?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 2nd July 2019 at 02:36 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 03:18 AM   #3034
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link. It's what I explained before. And Mrs May already tried that, and where the legal link says she was in effect "forced" to go back to the EU and request an extension.

The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link).
But ruling out a no deal exit does nothing to actually stop it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 03:19 AM   #3035
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
If the alternatives were No Deal Brexit and Second Referendum, the latter may yet win out in the vote. Thus far alternatives were Bright Sunlands with Unicorns to a Second Referendum. This is different.
The Conservatives would not vote in favour of a pro-referendum motion because they (rightly IMO) fear that it would imperil Brexit and any Conservative who voted to prevent a no deal Brexit would face a motion of no confidence from their local constituency (which would likely have them out on their ear), would likely be deselected at the next election or be beaten by the Brexit Party.

There may be a handful of retiring MPs who may be willing to take one for the nation but they will be offset buy the 20-50 Labour MPs who don't want a second referendum.

Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Hm, okay. An unrelated question: has UK considered joining the 20th century yet?
I'm not so sure what it outdated about this arrangement. The Prime Minister is just the (current) leader of the governing party or coalition.

Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Normally yes, but if the alternative is a No Deal Brexit, I predict they will change their minds. Not all but enough to force another election. This is because in a No Deal Brexit, they can still expect to lose their jobs shortly down the line, they'd be sacrificing the country in order to have a few more months of cushiny jobs for themselves. Would you want to go down in history like that? Chances are enough wouldn't and a new election will take place.

Of course I could be wrong, but who do you hope to be right on the matter?

McHrozni
I think you're underestimating politicians ability to delude themselves that adopting any position that has a whiff of not being pro-Brexit if they represent a constituency that voted Leave will automatically result in them losing their seat to the Brexit Party at the next election.

The confidence vote will also be a three line whip so voting against the party will get the MP kicked out of the party so they're balancing losing their job against their perception that they will keep it.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 03:29 AM   #3036
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But ruling out a no deal exit does nothing to actually stop it.
Not unless an alternative course of action can be agreed.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 03:46 AM   #3037
KDLarsen
Philosopher
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
Today marked the first sitting of the newly elected European Parliament, and the Brexit Party contingency spent little time before showing what a charming lot they are, by turning their backs to the performance of the Anthem of Europe (aka Ode to Joy).
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 04:02 AM   #3038
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So anyone who can find an obscure Scottish grandparent can claim Scottish nationality (and thus stay in the EU).
If it happens, it surely can't happen in time for Scots to stay in the EU.

At least my kids should inherit the option to apply for a Scots passport. Nice to have choices.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 04:03 AM   #3039
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The Conservatives would not vote in favour of a pro-referendum motion because they (rightly IMO) fear that it would imperil Brexit and any Conservative who voted to prevent a no deal Brexit would face a motion of no confidence from their local constituency (which would likely have them out on their ear), would likely be deselected at the next election or be beaten by the Brexit Party.

There may be a handful of retiring MPs who may be willing to take one for the nation but they will be offset buy the 20-50 Labour MPs who don't want a second referendum.
They can also abstain en masse, which is why I think this is still within the realm of possibility.

Quote:
I'm not so sure what it outdated about this arrangement. The Prime Minister is just the (current) leader of the governing party or coalition.
It doesn't separate legislative and executive branch enough. In more modern system across the channel a change in PM would automatically trigger a confidence vote.

It's to prevent this exact situation from arising.

Quote:
I think you're underestimating politicians ability to delude themselves that adopting any position that has a whiff of not being pro-Brexit if they represent a constituency that voted Leave will automatically result in them losing their seat to the Brexit Party at the next election.

The confidence vote will also be a three line whip so voting against the party will get the MP kicked out of the party so they're balancing losing their job against their perception that they will keep it.
Maybe. But with a majority of decidedly less than 10 seats in a 650-seat chabmer (proverbial seats, there's only seating for about half the MPs) those don't matter that much. It only takes a small handful of Tory rebels for this to work - Tories plus DUP have 322 seats. Labour, LibDem, CUK, Cymru, SNP and Greens have 304 between them. If they all hold true, Independents break even it takes less than 10% of Tories abstaining, 5% if they break ranks and vote against. That's not impossible.

A few Tory MPs represent Bremain constituencies. BJ is one of them.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 2nd July 2019 at 04:08 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 04:04 AM   #3040
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Today marked the first sitting of the newly elected European Parliament, and the Brexit Party contingency spent little time before showing what a charming lot they are, by turning their backs to the performance of the Anthem of Europe (aka Ode to Joy).
Openly copying the early Nazi party. Why are we not surprised.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.