arminisgod
Player Valuation: £35m
Because they isn't a majority in favour in the house of commons. Since 1973 there has only been 3 referendums nationwide. It's nothing something Westminster likes.
A no deal Brexit is far more likely.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Because they isn't a majority in favour in the house of commons. Since 1973 there has only been 3 referendums nationwide. It's nothing something Westminster likes.
A no deal Brexit is far more likely.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It is not going well and no one, including your beloved leader, has a clue how it will end up.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
And that’s what it feels like.....
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
The issue is that parliament made article 50 statute. It would therefore take another act of statute to revoke it, as I understand it, that needs a motion passing by both houses. It would take time to do this so it can't be used as a last minute ploy. There are no plans to introduce a motion to revoke article 50 from the government. It's possible that somebody from the floor could bring such a motion, but if it were even possible to make that statute (which I'm not sure tbh) it would set new precedents in Parliament for creating laws, and I'm not sure that a majority of MPs would want to go there/
The way the Govt is heading with this is, initially, to vote against a no deal. If they lose this motion, which is unlikely, we will leave on 29 March with no deal. If the motion is passed they will then bring forward a motion to apply to the EU for an extension. If that motion fails, or if the EU say no to an extension, then the fall back is that we leave the EU without a deal.
Effectively, parliament has allowed the country to get itself into a position whereby the EU is effectively in control of whether or not we leave without a deal. Unbelievable really. If the EU didn't have us by the balls before they have now.
Carl O'Ancelotti
Player Valuation: £20m
Yes but the people who have carried out the coup are the ERG/DUP alliance who are supposed to be the ones that want it the most.
You couldn't make up the irony.
It depends on what question is posed...
If you think about yesterday's vote: Mogg (who wants Brexit) voted against because he didn't agree with a backstop but seems to want a deal, Johnson voted against because he has now decided all along he was pushing for a 'no deal' when he is on record saying 'we're going to get a great deal' and Gove voted for it as he wants Brexit, but not a no deal.
Both Gove and Johnson chaired the Leave campaign.
All this OUT means OUT nonesense that the likes of @Joey66 keep shouting means nothing. If you go back to the public, who let's be honest are the ones who wanted this, ask them what type of leave they want or if in fact they've changed their mind. Seems a perfectly reasonable position. It respects the democratic process and it hopefully unblocks parliament.
tim cahill
Player Valuation: £50m
You think there is a majority for no deal??
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
Agreed mate.
Who ever wins a second referendum it won't change anything. Many remainers didn't accept the first referendum. Why would they accept the second if the result goes the same way?. Also, simply by having a second referendum we have set a precedent. So if the result is reversed what makes anyone think that Brexiteers will just sit down and accept it. They will do exactly what the remainers have done with the first referendum.
The other issue, and it's probably a more important one, is that we effectively have a hung parliament. Nobody has a majority to get anything through relating to Brexit. The only way to change this is to have a general election, and it's far from guaranteed that one will bring a majority anyway. Plus, it's not feasible to set this in motion in time to effect the Brexit process.
A very accurate summing up of the whole sad sorry mess we're in.
If you think about it, leave voters didn't accept the result of the initial referendum (slightly crude example I know).
[QUOTE="JEBUS_LIVES, post: 6909925, member:
If you think about yesterday's vote: Mogg (who wants Brexit) voted against because he didn't agree with a backstop but seems to want a deal, Johnson voted against because he has now decided all along he was pushing for a 'no deal' when he is on record saying 'we're going to get a great deal' and Gove voted for it as he wants Brexit, but not a no deal.
Both Gove and Johnson chaired the Leave campaign.
All this OUT means OUT nonesense that the likes of @Joey66 keep shouting means nothing. If you go back to the public, who let's be honest are the ones who wanted this, ask them what type of leave they want or if in fact they've changed their mind. Seems a perfectly reasonable position. It respects the democratic process and it hopefully unblocks parliament.
[/QUOTE]
ATM Out is a legal law whatever the traitors in the HOC decide before the end of March.....
Fact no unstatute vote means didky squat - ATM we leave at the end of March as 500 MPs voted for article 50 which is now law.....
If you think about yesterday's vote: Mogg (who wants Brexit) voted against because he didn't agree with a backstop but seems to want a deal, Johnson voted against because he has now decided all along he was pushing for a 'no deal' when he is on record saying 'we're going to get a great deal' and Gove voted for it as he wants Brexit, but not a no deal.
Both Gove and Johnson chaired the Leave campaign.
All this OUT means OUT nonesense that the likes of @Joey66 keep shouting means nothing. If you go back to the public, who let's be honest are the ones who wanted this, ask them what type of leave they want or if in fact they've changed their mind. Seems a perfectly reasonable position. It respects the democratic process and it hopefully unblocks parliament.
[/QUOTE]
ATM Out is a legal law whatever the traitors in the HOC decide before the end of March.....
Fact no unstatute vote means didky squat - ATM we leave at the end of March as 500 MPs voted for article 50 which is now law.....
-Rob-
Player Valuation: £15m
How could remain win by a minority?
A 2nd referendum can only have 2 options, just like the first referendum did. Hopefully those options would be much more clearly defined than they were first time round.
As of today where there is no feasible deal on the table to leave the EU so a referendum vote would have to be between remaining or leaving the EU without a deal. Whichever of those options gets greater than 50% of the votes, that's the direction the country would take.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
See my post to you above Tim. It doesn't matter if there is a majority against a no deal in the vote tonight, it isn't legally binding.
If we get to 29th March with no deal agreed and no extension agreed by the EU, then the legal fall back is that we leave with no deal, irrespective of the outcome of tonight's vote. That is what the ERG are banking on.
Personally, I don't believe the EU will let that happen, but let's not kid ourselves that they aren't holding all the aces here.
I also feel that all we are doing is delaying judgment day to a few weeks further down the line. At the moment, all three options are still firmly in the table. Remain, leave with a deal and leave with no deal. I am a betting man but even I'm not prepared to lay money on the outcome. I haven't got a 'kin clue.
ATM Out is a legal law whatever the traitors in the HOC decide before the end of March.....
Fact no unstatute vote means didky squat - ATM we leave at the end of March as 500 MPs voted for article 50 which is now law.....
[/QUOTE]
All laws are legal - although you might have yourself a decent jurisprudential discussion point (which I expect is entirely lost on you).
Article 50 was voted for by the HOC so your first and second sentence entirely contradict each other.
unstatute isn't actually a word, so I've no idea what you're meaning by this.
Out might be where you want to get to; but the choice here is are you leaving through the front door, the upstairs window or being thrown off the roof.
- Status