They wouldn’t have to extend it unilaterally if the EU agreed to an extension because of a new referendum being arranged.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
They wouldn’t have to extend it unilaterally if the EU agreed to an extension because of a new referendum being arranged.
I was hoping after I posted the tweet someone might tell me why a no deal Brexit is impossible.
The case is regarding the reversal not the extension. The process for an extension is clearly defined, it requires the unanimous agreement of the EU council and the concerned member state.
then parliament cant block a no deal then
If the government cant get its bill passed, and it wont seek to extend A50 (and possibly it cant revoke unilaterally - and has already said even if it can it wont) then it is mays deal or no deal and Amber Rudd is basically lying then? (not bad after being sacked for lying and getting her job back shes publicly lying again in less than a week - at least she is consistent)
yes but parliment cant force may to do that - hence they cant block no deal and amber rudd is lying ((yet)again)
The ECJ to some extent can create the law, so we will have to see what they say.
I need to add to this my vocabulary,
You've been wrong before. Looks like there is a pattern emerging...
Parliament can force her to do anything they want, we don’t have a presidential system.
What is it about Corbyn that scares you that much?
I must admit I find him quite frustrating at times, but when I looked at his policies at he last general they all seem rather sensible, and I could not say with any confidence he'd be better or worse than having May/Tories at the helm. Certainly there is nothing I've seen that suggests having him as PM would be worse than a no deal Brexit, which will surely be catastrophic.
they really cant actually
They cant force a renegotiation if the other party (the EU) does not want to negotiate
Nor can they force A50 to be extended as again they cant force the EU to do that
So May says its her deal or no deal - and I dont see how parliment can block that (they could force a GE)- though again that does not (without EU agreement extend A50 or allow any renegotiations)
They cant force a different deal or block no deal - unless you can explain the legal mechanics of how they can?
They technically can stick on an ammendment to mays bill (if the governemnt allow amendments) but as I say that would not oblige the EU to stop A50 or renegotiate... so they cant actually block no deal unless they approve a deal - and the only deal on the table is mays deal
so explain to me how parliment can legally block it either being mays deal or no deal?... what powers are open to them - perhaps there is some arcane law you know of because I dont but Id love there to be - simply as my understanding is they can not block a no deal scenario if the government wants that.
Any deal has to be approved - but in the withdrawal act the default or backstop poistion to not getting a transition deal approved was leave on 29th with no deal and thats enacted in law - cant see how they can change that without government wanting to
My phone.
Jesus. That's now logged at work. Thanks.Let's change the vocabulary.
Instead of calling it May's deal - let's call it what they EU will offer - the EU Offer - May had very little to do with it anyway.
When parliament vote meaningfully they have a choice of accepting the EU offer or not.
If they accept the EU offer it goes through and the UK leave on 29th March with something resembling the offer as it is.
If they refuse the offer the default is no deal.
The only other choice is to remain if all EU27 and the UK agree to rescind A50.
Doesn't matter if the UK has a second referendum , a change of leader, a general election or Jeremy Corbyn becomes the Pope.
What the hell has happened to the UK. Not only the Brexiters have lost it.
Instead of calling it May's deal - let's call it what they EU will offer - the EU Offer - May had very little to do with it anyway.
When parliament vote meaningfully they have a choice of accepting the EU offer or not.
If they accept the EU offer it goes through and the UK leave on 29th March with something resembling the offer as it is.
If they refuse the offer the default is no deal.
The only other choice is to remain if all EU27 and the UK agree to rescind A50.
Doesn't matter if the UK has a second referendum , a change of leader, a general election or Jeremy Corbyn becomes the Pope.
What the hell has happened to the UK. Not only the Brexiters have lost it.
Mostly reinstating poverty measures/impacts to the treasury's reports which the tories had stopped.
How would you cut the obscene train fares across the country?
I really wish the labour manifesto was what Tories thought it was.
The Labour government pays for everything?
the government has already been paying for rail travel with feck all to show but rising fares and more money in richard bransons pockets
Turns out you get more government spending with taxes on corporations and rich folk.
Sorry I should have read your post more carefully. No, of course parliament can't force the EU to agree to anything, but they can force the government to attempt to ask the EU for either an extension of the article 50 period, or cancellation of article 50 or anything else they please. Obviously its then up to the EU whether to accept or not (which they've previously made clear they'd be open to as long as it was accompanied by a democratic mandate). I just think its very important to remember that parliament hold (and have always held) complete power over the governments actions. The only question is whether they choose to wield that power.
Not sure what you mean there
The lunatics well and truly have taken over the asylum. Any sane people left?
They were not sensible because they could not be delivered without punitive taxation or massive borrowing. Being 20 points behind Corbyn could promise the earth in the near-sure knowledge that he would never have to deliver on any of it. Pure populism. That said, I do have some sympathy with the notion of re-nationalising the railways.
look i like things to be going well and to help people in poverty but if you tax me it's literally a crime against humanity
Your point being?
there should be a accountant multiplier in the tax system where your calculated tax is multiplied but the number of accountants you have +1
Well that is one way of looking at it. The other being to tax enough to fund services like health and education to a standard befitting the 5th largest economy in the world.
shock horror as concentration of wealth leads to the people hoarding it paying more taxes, great analysis from the telegraph there
Taxing a few rich posh twats isn't a waste.
What makes you think you'll "cut" train fares by nationalising? I mean you can subsidise the fairs with taxpayer money to make them appear cheaper, but that's merely hiding the cost and spreading it across more people (the taxpayers), including those that use and don't use rail services.
Unless you think the government will run them more efficiently and have cost savings through that. In which case allow me to have very severe doubts about that based on my experience of cost efficiency in public services.
train fares are already heavily subsidised while the companies running them make buckets of cash, it's a farce literally just getting rid of the capitalists share will lower prices
The tax burden on this country is already the highest it has ever been. Do you really think that taxing the rich more will lead to further investment? If there is no investment there will be no jobs that means more people on welfare and therefore less tax take for the nation. This then leads to further tax increases, so more of the wealthy leave and so on. All done before.
But hey, read about the massive prosperity this country basked in during the 1970's.
Sounds like socialist populism.