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?

Struggling to understand - why has the Queen committed treason? Because she has signed a Bill ruling out a No Deal Brexit? But that can't happen anyway, since the UK cannot rule it out, as someone else said, we have to accept the WA to prevent a No Deal, or get an extension, before Friday 11 p.m.

A small part of me wants the Queen to make an announcement "One has decided to revoke Article 50 and send the MPs to the Tower, this has been the most horribilis of Annus Horribili!"

Well intentioned but ultimately not our decision: a single EU veto of an extension would stop it. Most commentators say that’s very unlikely though, so here’s hoping for a long one.

it Looks like a flexible one.so a long extension but we can come out at any time if we get a deal ratified. So the length of thr extension in reality is then in our hands, because it's down to us to get a deal agreed

It's the best option, because otherwise we'd be back every few weeks discussing the same shit time and time again.

This way it's you've got an extension till x date, but if you approval a deal before this you can leave, so for example if we ratified it by 30 June we could leave then.

The length of the extensionin reality is down to us. All the eu has done or will do is stop us coming back every few weeks to ask for another one as we haven't agreed a deal and giving everyone constant uncertainty and always taking over thr agenda.

I just looked at the daily mail and it's quite shocking what they are reporting. They have a head line saying may is heading to Brussels for a humiliating show down where we will be trapped till 2020 or forced out with no deal on Friday. And this is just such a twist on the truth.

Although I suppose a head line stating the eu will likely grant an extension that lets us depart at any time when we ratify a deal, but make it longer so we don't need to keep going back for new extensions if we fail to agree one is as media worthy.

Bluntness100

I just looked at the daily mail and it's quite shocking what they are reporting.“

You could have just ended there really (on any topic, any day of the year).

It doesn’t stop them kicking us out without a deal though does it? And frankly who could blame them?

I feel like anything could happen at this point.

The Queen didn’t stay up late to sign it. That’s a Twitter myth as far as I can see. It was signed off by the Deputy Clark. Who clearly has delegated authority.

The Eu could still technically kick us out with out a deal but I think it's very, very clear that's not happening. The response to us is drafted and issued publicly. They just need to put the date in it. And it states a delay till x date but we can leave the first of the month, any month, after we ratify a deal.

They just don't want to say till 30 June because they don't believe we will get it done by then and they don't want us coming back for extensions every few weeks if we continue to fail to ratify a deal. This way the pressure is on us to agree a deal and they can get on with normal business. As soon as we get it done, we can leave.

And langrish yes that's true 🤣

The Queen didn’t stay up late to sign it. That’s a Twitter myth as far as I can see. It was signed off by the Deputy Clark. Who clearly has delegated authority.

The palace is usually very quick to correct the record where Her Madge is concerned. So unless there's a palace rebuttal, it seems they are happy to allow that to stand ?

www.rte.ie/news/europe/2019/0409/1041555-brexit-europe/

There are a few key conditions:

The European Union will grant the UK another delay to Brexit with conditions, including holding European Parliament elections. It would cut Britain off on 1 June if it failed to honour that condition.

"The United Kingdom shall facilitate the achievement of the union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the union's objectives."

The second condition is more tricky. How is that enforced? If a high number of pro-brexit MEPs are elected, how will they be kept under control or do the MEPs matter in this instance? I assume vetos can only be done by the UK government, rather than the MEPs so this would be an agreement with the government that they would toe this line?

I guess the difficulty for the second condition would be if a no dealer replaced TM as prime minister.

We will formally agree not to use our vetoes in return for the extension, so we Can't cause problems if the prime minister changes, which is fine.

The palace is usually very quick to correct the record where Her Madge is concerned

Not for something as daft as this. No way are they going to issue a statement saying oh we saw the rumours, she went to bed at her normal time 🤣

@Bluntness100 - We will formally agree not to use our vetoes in return for the extension, so we Can't cause problems if the prime minister changes, which is fine.

Will that be legally binding so even if they decide to veto it doesn't count or it would be illegal for them to invoke it?

Given some of them are quite happy to piss on the GFA, I wouldn't assume an agreement means much to some of them.

How much of the EU relies on unanimous votes (with the amusing exception of Brexit delays) ?

The whole point of the Lisbon changes were to move to a more qualified majority system anyway. As was point out when JRMs toys were seen leaving the pram.

Deffo not the Queen’s signature.

Massive eyeroll.
The Queen signs whatever is put in front of her, she doesn't get involved. Imagine if she just refused to sign the stuff that she didn't agree with! Her signing is a formality.
Could it be that certain people don't understand how law making works?

Guessing people do not understand our sovereign's place in lawmaking. Or delegated authority. I have a relative who has delegated authority to sign off some big shit. They fuck it up? they lose their job.

Dol, yes, my understanding is it will be binding. If we agree to the conditions, which we will, they are fair, and we agree not to use our vetoes, it will be binding on us whilst in the extension period.

And I don't agree they are willing to piss on the gfa, I don't think anyone is. Thr back Stop is actually harmless and never intended to be implemented, but they simply can't have no border between an eu country and a non eu country on different trading terms. It would simply become a rat run in there.

They and us, on wto, are legally required to protect our borders. We would not be permitted to trade on wto if we did not, and the eu also legally requires its countries to protect its borders if trading on their terms.

So both the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland are legally bound to protect its borders, but the gfa says no border. No technical solution exists anywhere in the world. So the back Stop is a temp measure that would only be invoked if no other solution was found by the time the transition period had ended.

If Leavers had bothered to research and work out a suitably agreeable amendment or redrafting of the GFA, this could have been avoided. But they made that impossible from the off by lying saying that Brexit wouldn't be affected by or affect the GFA. They had to lie, obviously, as their entire selling point was how easy Brexit was. So easy it's a wonder no one thought of it before.

One possible resolution to the GFA issue before Brexit would have been to seek a closer union of Ireland ...

@Bluntness100 - And I don't agree they are willing to piss on the gfa, I don't think anyone is. TThr back Stop is actually harmless and never intended to be implemented

I fully support the backstop in the agreement. I think it is essential.

However, the backstop or the WA doesn't address a huge part of the GFA. The negotiations have really only addressed trade. The GFA also covers many other cross-border issues, including human rights. I recently attended at talk given by a member of the Joint Committee of The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. They put together a policy statement addressing some of these issues. One main issue is that the UK will no longer retain the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is more extensive than the European Convention on Human Rights. You can read it in more detail here www.ihrec.ie/app/uploads/2018/03/Joint-Committee-IHREC-NIHRC-Brexit-Policy-Statement_March-2018.pdf Divergence of rights is contrary to the GFA.

At the same talk, a member of the ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute) said she had given a talk recently to business leaders in NI and she had been a little nervous about suggesting checks at the ports in NI before anything came in and EU standards being retained in NI. She was surprised that nobody took issue with the suggestion. It seems that people on the ground, who will be most affected by a border, are very much supportive of a backstop.

@DGRossetti - One possible resolution to the GFA issue before Brexit would have been to seek a closer union of Ireland

Most people I've been talking to here in Ireland feel a very much closer union of Ireland is imminent. A few years ago, most people would have believed a united Ireland was 20-30 years, if not longer, away. Now people are reckoning 5 years if there is no deal or the brexit is hard.

It seems that people on the ground, who will be most affected by a border, are very much supportive of a backstop.

Or businessmen on the ground anyway. They tend to be slightly more pragmatic than your average Unionist politician though.

Most people I've been talking to here in Ireland feel a very much closer union of Ireland is imminent. A few years ago, most people would have believed a united Ireland was 20-30 years, if not longer, away. Now people are reckoning 5 years if there is no deal or the brexit is hard.

Well if that's a side-effect of Brexit, whose fault is it ?

I try to be aware when discussing NI, Scotland and Wales, that in doing so, I am English. I live in England. And as such, I really don't feel what I feel is as important as the feelings of the people who do live in those countries. If they wish to be independent, or governed in a different way, then unless and until it affects my daily life, I'd rather leave them to it. Which is not to say "abandon" ... there's still the geography and history to remind us how and why we are here.

Going back - way back - before the GFA, I often wondered if there was scope for both Ireland and Britain to somehow co-exist within a greater framework of the EU (or EC as it was). It's one of the reasons I swallowed the US constitution and read a lot of political writing of the time.

Now moving forward, rather than going back, is that still too much of a pipe dream. And including Scotland ? England and Scotland separated from the Union of 1707, but united in the union of Europe ?

(cue John Lennon ....)

That was always my vision of Europe. Nothing I'd take up arms for, but certainly something I thought possible, desirable, and beneficial to all. It still is by the way. And I'm guessing that it's Tusks, Barniers and Junckers vision too. Only more stylish and with some wine .

@FishesaPlenty - Or businessmen on the ground anyway. They tend to be slightly more pragmatic than your average Unionist politician though.

That is true. I'm just wondering how well the DUP are representing anyone on the ground these days. As far as I know, farmers in NI are very concerned. Based on some of the data I saw on where their exports go, they definitely should be.