Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Brexit
Original poster

A bill has been passed to prevent no deal brexit

207 replies

StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:14

I would have thought would have been the lead story on the bbc news, and in fact would have popped up on breaking news. I can't find it anywhere on there. In fact they're still reporting no deal will happen on Friday in the absence of anything else.
I am so confused, can anyone explain this to me?

OP posts:
Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:16

I've just looked in the UK politics section. Why is the bbc not reporting this? What on earth is going on?

OP posts:
SneakyGremlins · 09/04/2019 11:17

I can't find anything on this? Where did you hear it?

Please be true Sad

HirplesWithHaggis · 09/04/2019 11:18

The new act does not prevent a No Deal Brexit. It requires that May asks for an extension to Art 50. If the EU says "No", or offers a long extension which is refused by Parliament, we're still out on Friday.

Or we hit the "revoke" button, but that is not a requirement of this Act., though it would have been the outcome if Johanna Cherry's amendment had passed.

Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:18

here maybe

OP posts:
Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:19

My phone on an incredible go slow

OP posts:
Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:19

But that's exactly what the guardian says

A bill has been passed to prevent no deal brexit
OP posts:
Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:20

Brexit has made me realise how crap news reporting can be.

OP posts:
HirplesWithHaggis · 09/04/2019 11:24

Ha, Scottish indyref opened my eyes on that one! Grin

woman19 · 09/04/2019 11:29

Stephen Bush in the New Statesman says that although it's got no legal status, it will be useful if/ when things get stickier later this week.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/04/significance-yvette-cooper-s-bill-stop-no-deal-brexit

But the main use of the Bill is as a proof-of-concept: we now know how long it would take parliament to force through a bill without the consent of the executive. That means that should, at a later date, with a different prime minister and the same parliament, a majority emerge to force another delay or to revoke Article 50, backbench MPs now know how much time they need

He's too polite to say, most people are, but the turnaround of the Queen signing it off late last night in about an hour, was also very significant in my view. Wink

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep · 09/04/2019 11:30

You're right, the reporting has often been misleading. HirplesWithHaggis is right though, it isn't in our control now - we can't pass a law allowing us an extension it's an EU decision. As far as I'm aware though it does mean we can't voluntarily leave without a deal, which is something.

grumpyyetgorgeous · 09/04/2019 11:34

As far as I'm aware though it does mean we can't voluntarily leave without a deal, which is something.

But essentially the EU can, and will kick us out by refusing an extension if we don't come up with a plan.
And I honestly can't see how we'll do that!

Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:35

But surely what the law is saying (and it is described this way so I don't understand how it can have no legal basis) is a deal or revoke. No deal is now illegal. Right?

OP posts:
SneakyGremlins · 09/04/2019 11:36

I'm so confused with which bits are legally binding and which aren't Sad

Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:39

I'm getting increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity and the contradictions flying around. Whatever the hell this non legally binding law was, why haven't the bbc reported what happened last night? Why wasn't in breaking news in the way "horse wins grand national" was?

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 09/04/2019 11:39

The Prime Minister legally has to ask for an extension to avoid no deal.

However, the EU doesn’t have to give us one. No deal is the default in that scenario.

TM could say ‘well fuck it, I asked for an extension as I had to, no deal it is’. Or she could say ‘fuck it, we’ll have to revoke and try Brexiting again another time’.

HirplesWithHaggis · 09/04/2019 11:40

No Deal Brexit is the legal default, and we're out Friday unless we pass the WA (unlikely), get an extension agreed (possible, and we'll know tomorrow after the EU meeting), or revoke. Nobody is kicking anyone else out. We made this choice, these choices.

Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 11:41

OK thanks noble. I am still amazed it can be reported as legally ruling out no deal then.

OP posts:
CruCru · 09/04/2019 12:22

I saw this. There are a lot of people commenting in CAPITALS that signing this means the QUEEN has committed TREASON against her people.

Weird thing to ask I know but is it actually possible for a monarch to commit treason? I thought you could only commit treason against a reigning monarch. Otherwise loads of monarchs would have committed treason against their people.

Original poster
StealthPolarBear · 09/04/2019 12:27

Bloody hell.

OP posts:
RiotAndAlarum · 09/04/2019 12:35

LOL at the treasonous Queen! Grin

RustyBear · 09/04/2019 12:46

Charles I was tried and found guilty of treason against the people. He refused to enter a plea, denying that anyone had the right to try him.
Didn't do him any good, he was tried & executed anyway.

BlackeyedGruesome · 09/04/2019 13:12

But, but, they wanted sovereignty back ... Queen is the sovereign and signing a parliamentary bill that parliament decided on.... Isn't that what people voted for?

DGRossetti · 09/04/2019 13:13

Charles I was tried and found guilty of treason against the people.

to be fair he did actually start a war with guns'n'stuff, not just wear a loud shirt, or use the wrong soup spoon.

That said, it's generally the peoples place to do what the Monarch - and their government - say. No more, really....

DGRossetti · 09/04/2019 13:14

But, but, they wanted sovereignty back ... Queen is the sovereign and signing a parliamentary bill that parliament decided on.... Isn't that what people voted for?

Is that a logical statement ? Probably a bit lost here Grin ...

CruCru · 09/04/2019 13:17

Ah I see. My understanding had been that Charles I was actually accused of treason against the Crown (since he was acting in his own personal interests rather