Challenging the Benn Act

[Parker231]

Today’s news reports are saying that the Government won’t break the law but won’t ask for an extension. As a deal with the EU doesn’t seem to be happening, Johnson will have to request the extension?

Mystery I don't think you're reading and interpreting these words in relation to how things actually are.

You seem to be missing the point. Johnson can’t just explain what he and the ERG want. He has to find a workable consensus between that, the rest of the leavers and the remainers who would be OK with leaving because of the referendum result. That is the thing that’s preventing us from leaving. Not the EU agreeing to an extension WE are asking for.

He has to find a workable consensus between that, the rest of the leavers and the remainers who would be OK with leaving because of the referendum result

Trying to please everyone is impossible. That’s how the concept of voting came about. If there is a difference of opinion take a vote. Add up the ayes and no’s and see which received the greatest number.

He's not going to be able to build a consensus.

The EU's only offered deal has been roundly rejected by Parliament.

Our only leverage for a better deal (ie No Deal) has been removed by Parliament.

Our fate is now in the hands of Macron, or indeed any other of the rEU governments. We won't know until after 17 Oct whether it is No Deal or not. Because an extension might not be granted, as there isn't really any prospect of progress, and more than one country stated that further extensions would only be granted if there was progress and real prospect of new agreement. That does not seem likely

Was May's deal better than No Deal?

Yes. Pretty much every option that doesn’t have the potential to lead to food and medicine shortages would be better for the UK than no deal.

No deal, isn’t and never has been leverage. It affects the EU far less than it does the UK. And it isn’t the EU’s worst possible scenario in the negotiation.

,
No deal, isn’t and never has been leverage. It affects the EU far less than it does the UK. And it isn’t the EU’s worst possible scenario in the negotiation

So why don't they let it happen?

In the early days after ref, if remain faction in Parliament had conceded defeat, and accepted the result, I believe a leave result with concessions could have gone forward but we have had stubborn mule.
So Boris, and Co area dragging this stubborn mule into its field, (where it will run free and stretch its little legs... Munch on fresh grass and breathe fresh free air) from its confined, dark stable..

@Septembersunrays

Correct. Bad losers are the reason why no progress has been made

MysteryT is making no sense. UK could have had no deal on 24.6.2016. There was nothing to stop Uk choosing that. Except UK itself.

Our best leverage for getting a good WA is to stay in EU.
I thought France would assent to extension in October, if UK had a plan to make progress (like if UK had a GE planned). Must find latest rumours.

“if remain faction in Parliament had conceded defeat, and accepted the result”

This pity party again. It is the leave camp who has failed to decide how to leave. They have let leave voters down. Stop blaming everyone except those really responsible - the leaders of the leave camp who promised things they couldn’t deliver, and who have failed to reach a consensus about how the UK should leave. All the talk post-referendum was about soft vs hard brexit - remainers knew it was happening and were just waiting for the leavers to make their minds up while hoping for a soft brexit. The idea of revoking only came about when it was clear leave just couldn’t get their shit together. Leavers need to get over their need to feel like the underdog and like everyone is against them - it’s the infighting in the leave camp that means we have not left yet

In the early days after ref, if remain faction in Parliament had conceded defeat, and accepted the result, I believe a leave result with concessions could have gone forward but we have had stubborn mule.

How? What would conceding defeat have looked like and what concessions would ‘leave’ have given? How would that have changed the red lines we went into negotiation with?

MysteryT is making no sense. UK could have had no deal on 24.6.2016.

Article 50, the mechanism to leave to EU, was not invoked until 29 March 2017.

A reminder that many members of the current cabinet voted against the withdrawal agreement, including the prime minister.

If the Tory party had supported the WA - and in March, it still had a majority (including the DUP) - Brexit would have happened already.

No one's faults but their own.

Ignore gaslighting by political operatives.

@mistigri

T May did not help herself by;

Agreeing the WA before it was presented to Parliament in accordance with the Law established from the Miller case

Trying to conceal the legal advice on the WA

EU have stated that WA can't be re-opened. So how other options, that were never tested in Parliament, are meant to considered I have no idea.

No deal looks more likely everyday. Postponing a General Election just adds to the delay.

May negotiated an agreement in accordance with the A50 process and which respected the red lines agreed with her party.

Tory MPs including Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg and Dominic Raab voted against it.

If Brexit doesn't happen then these are the people who will be responsible.

However much political operatives bleat and gaslight, these are the facts.

So what happens next?

The Benn Bill has Assent and lawyers and Judges have reported it is watertight. Parliament aren’t sitting for another five weeks. Government must release by 11am tomorrow the documents relating to the shutting down of parliament and Project Yellowhammer. Still no further forward on getting a deal as the UK have still not made any proposals to the EU regarding the Backstop.

"A reminder that many members of the current cabinet voted against the withdrawal agreement, including the prime minister."

Indeed. I remember all the macho posturing about it being the worst deal ever. Now, the hard Brexit mob seem simultaneously to be holding two incompatible positions, namely:

• The withdrawal agreement is the worst deal ever and completely unacceptable; AND
• Remain-supporting MPs are wholly responsible for a no-deal Brexit because they didn't support a perfectly acceptable withdrawal agreement.

It's gaslighting on a massive scale.

May negotiated an agreement in accordance with the A50 process and which respected the red lines agreed with her party

That's what happened for sure, but UK law (the Miller Case) requires that any WA must be passed by Parliament. That's the step that May missed out. Also trying to prevent the legal advice on the WA was s bad move and served only to create mistrust in Parliament and the public.

Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab and Jacob Rees-Mogg voted for the WA third time around.

Take a look at:

www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/mar/29/how-did-your-mp-vote-on-the-withdrawal-agreement

Only 4 Labour MPs voted for the WA.

Labour cried for a general election from the GE 2017 onward as they thought they could win as only 2% behind the Conservatives with 40%.

So they voted against every WA that was presented in the hope of toppling the Conservative party. However, Farage's Brexit Party topped the EU polls in May 2019 and took the wind out of Labour's sails big time as people defected to Brexit Party and LibDems.

Labour is now a remain party so they again will oppose any WA that is presented as cancel Brexit is their policy. So a bit incorrect to say that;

Boris Johnson
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Dominic Raab

are responsible if there is no Brext.

Still no further forward on getting a deal as the UK have still not made any proposals to the EU regarding the Backstop

The friction less border can't happen as technology does not exist. If it did other borders would be using it by now.

Boris keeps saying he has a solution to the Backstop but he’s yet to share it with the country most affected - ROI. Until the Backstop is resolved there will be no deal.

Boris keeps saying he has a solution to the Backstop but he’s yet to share it with the country most affected - ROI. Until the Backstop is resolved there will be no deal

For inorganic products (manufactured goods) there might be tech solution such as, electronic tagging, checks at point of origin before good enter NI. However, for organic products such as food and live animals that originate in NI and pass over into ROI there is no tech solution.

Borders in other countries would be using it by now. Think of all the time that could be saved if heavy goods vehicles did not have to queue.

Border solution would have to be some form of freeport/NI only backstop or NI special economic zone. I would support such solutions, but DUP and ERG are the obstacles as WA has to be passed by parliament.

Labour might be an obstacle too as in the previous WA votes labour voted against just to make Conservatives look bad.

So the backstop has to stay then. If we don’t want to agree to it, then it’s either asking for endless extensions until the EU stop agreeing with them or crashing out without a deal and then going back to the EU and asking for a deal, with the backstop from a much worse negotiating position that the one we’re in now.

And I do agree that the step that was missed out was trying to find out what would get through Parliament before triggering Article 50.Far too much time was spent trying to appease hard leavers at the expense of moderate leavers and remainers that would have got behind a deal to honour the referendum. If that hadn’t happened the WA might have looked very different and we’d probably have left by now.

Even for non-farm goods the tech border is a non starter.

Before anyone starts going on about trusted trader schemes, there are on average fewer than 1,000 trusted traders per EU state.

I think France could well say no if Johnson is still PM. There is no trust and BJ has no sensible proposals.

And I do agree that the step that was missed out was trying to find out what would get through Parliament before triggering Article 50

The Article 50 guidelines state that informal discussions can take place before the leaving member invokes Article 50 and starts the two year clock. That never happened either.

Article 50 also anticipates that the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship between the EU and the leaving member are discussed in parallel. That never happened either.

I think France could well say no if Johnson is still PM

Who would replace Johnson as PM?