A bill has been passed to prevent no deal brexit

[StealthPolarBear]

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?

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

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

Please be true

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.

here maybe

My phone on an incredible go slow

But that's exactly what the guardian says

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

Ha, Scottish indyref opened my eyes on that one!

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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?

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’.

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.

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

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.

Bloody hell.

LOL at the treasonous Queen!

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.

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?

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....

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 ...

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