Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure they have changed their minds; they just don't like the 'current direction' of No Deal.

And Boris probably seemed the 'best choice' (or at least 2nd best, so had to be 1 of the 2 offered to Party members) after May resigned, another situation that was 'forced on them'!
I disagree. I would suggest all the Tory MPs that have left or been sacked want to stop Brexit any way they can and with the assistance of a biased Speaker they are making a good job of it.
 
So we have a PM who didn’t want a GE but now he does.
An opposition leader who did want a GE now he doesn’t.

While the EU sit waiting laughing.
Most MPs don’t know the meaning of compromise.
If this was two business men it would be sorted now I think.
 
Does anyone think that Tusk & Junker would allow a member state or two to block an extension?
Knowing how a block would look, I just can't see it.
How could they stop it. Under the terms of article 50 all member states have to agree to an extension of discussions after two years.
 
I disagree. I would suggest all the Tory MPs that have left or been sacked want to stop Brexit any way they can and with the assistance of a biased Speaker they are making a good job of it.
Ken Clarke was the only Tory who voted against Article 50. Nearly 50 Labour ones did.

Can you provide proven instances where Bercow has shown bias in his decisions? As opposed to (foolishly?) announcing it - at a Comedy Festival btw!
 
Last edited:
Wrong!

Cameron started it by calling the Referendum!

May took over and realised she wouldn't be able to win votes with the slim majority she had, so called another election. That move backfired - badly!

The fact is that MPs are about as divided on the issue as the rest of the country, so it was always going to be a 'tough ask' to get legislation through! And the EU negotiators knew/know this, so adjust their approach accordingly.

No Deal, via Article 50's default, has always looked the most likely 'result' to me! And future negotiations will be just as difficult imo. EU will continue to insist on an arrangement that maintains their control of agenda and agreements!

I don't disagree with any of your points, but I would say it could even be argued that it was the Lib Dems that started the whole process - think I can recall Sir Nick Clegg calling for a referendum when he was their leader, and then the other parties reacting to that as he became more popular.
 
Rumour from Westminster is that Bercow might be thinking of staying seated in his chair when today's session would normally close - and that would mean that, for as long as the Speaker remains seated, parliament could not be prorogue. LOL - but it's a good one :)

But no - he is going to stand down at close of business October 31st :)
 
I don't disagree with any of your points, but I would say it could even be argued that it was the Lib Dems that started the whole process - think I can recall Sir Nick Clegg calling for a referendum when he was their leader, and then the other parties reacting to that as he became more popular.
Possibly. But I'd suggest Cameron's frustration with Farage's 'sect' and committed Brexiteers within his own party was what REALLY got the ball rolling.
 
So we have a PM who didn’t want a GE but now he does.
An opposition leader who did want a GE now he doesn’t.

While the EU sit waiting laughing.
Most MPs don’t know the meaning of compromise.
If this was two business men it would be sorted now I think.

Main issue is nothing was decided on what Brexit actually meant prior to the referendum.

Ultimately if the government had delivered on the referendum result by moving the UK to a relationship similar to that of Norway, then they would probably have gotten a clear majority for that in the HoC and the country would have gone 'ok then, fair enough' - with only the fringes on each side unhappy with that.

The problem with a Tory government doing that is that it wouldn't have satisfied Farage and he would still have been beating the drum (as he's entitled to do) that this was not delivering on the result etc. And while it wouldn't have made enough of an impact to win many seats for Farage, it might have done enough damage to make it tough for the Tories to win too many future elections.

So, then we had May painting herself into a corner as a Remain voter but trying to make sure everyone knew she wasn't going to take us out on a technicality and it had to be full steam ahead with getting out. Trigger A50 straight away without a proper plan or even working out what she could get through parliament.

Then she had an election which ended up leaving her having to rely on DUP votes. Which made NI a very inconvenient problem and one that they could no longer sling under a bus - as they almost certainly would have done if she'd got her 60 to 100 majority she thought she might get.

Ultimately a compromise from the start of the UK leaving the EU and but staying in Customs Union / EFTA is the only possible form of Brexit there is or could be a majority for. There is clearly not a majority for No Deal and given the water that has flowed under the bridge since 2016, there may well be a majority for Remain now, even if Brexit remained as this blank canvas that it was in 2016.
 
So today it becomes UK law that we cant leave with No Deal from EU on 31/10, yes?

So if an A50 extension is vetoed by France and so is not granted by EU what happens then? Are we out with No Deal (illegal?) or revoke A50 and stay in (legal?).

Maybe Macron figures if he forces the issue by vetoing an extension and Boris can't get a GE before 31/10 UKs only legal position is revoke A50?
The Law created in parliament relating to the Government requesting an extension to A50 on 31st Oct is nothing to do with the EU or the terms of A50. We would be out the EU in accordance with our legal decision to trigger A50 and accept its outcome.
 
Main issue is nothing was decided on what Brexit actually meant prior to the referendum.

Ultimately if the government had delivered on the referendum result by moving the UK to a relationship similar to that of Norway, then they would probably have gotten a clear majority for that in the HoC and the country would have gone 'ok then, fair enough' - with only the fringes on each side unhappy with that.
...
Norway model still wouldn't have been acceptable to the vast majority of Leavers because it still required acceptance of Freedom of Movement!

Swiss model (which 'does but doesn't fully' include FofM) perhaps, but that's incredibly complicated and there's continual pressure for the Swiss to 'fold'!`
 
Rumour from Westminster is that Bercow might be thinking of staying seated in his chair when today's session would normally close - and that would mean that, for as long as the Speaker remains seated, parliament could not be prorogue. LOL - but it's a good one :)

But no - he is going to stand down at close of business October 31st :)
Hope he has a good bladder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top