Brexit Thread 3 - Project Reality

[Christopher]

So if parliament backs the deal but the EU rejects it where does that leave the government with the whole no deal law. Would Boris still have to ask for an extension from the EU or does the fact that parliament would have backed a deal negate that?

He would still need to extend if the EU don't accept.

No he doesn’t, he’ll get around the law and we’ll crash out. The Tories will blame it on the EU and we’ll see a huge rise in hate crimes against EU nationals in our country by the thick banana splits who support Brexit.

We’re strawberry floated basically.

[Garth]

twitter.com/MehreenKhn/status/1179811167839117312

[Garth]

twitter.com/PeterRNeumann/status/1179824942021566468

[Photek]

twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1179874904017125379

[Skarjo]

[Errkal]

What do we want ?
THE PAST
When do we want it ?
THE PAST

[Moggy]

A Leaver on another forum just posted this as evidence as to why Johnson can ignore the Benn Bill.

https://waxlyricals.com/2019/10/03/the- ... delicious/

The Prime Minister doesn’t have to ask for an extension under the Benn Act. Here’s why and the irony is delicious

We have all heard that the Benn Act will ensure that No Deal is taken off the table and that unless Parliament agrees to a deal that under this Act, the Prime Minister by law must ask for an extension to Article 50. Yet whenever the Prime Minister or members of the Government are asked if the Prime Minister will comply with this requirement and ask for an extension, they reply with a wry smile that the Prime Minister will comply with the law.

So what’s going on?

How can he not ask the EU for an extension if that’s what the law of the land under the Benn Act says must happen?

To be honest it’s quite simple. Article 50 says that we will leave the EU at the end of negotiation period either with a negotiated withdrawal agreement or without.
The Benn act however, seeks to remove the ‘without’ from the table, which then makes it in contravention and at odds with what Article 50 and EU law states. A principle established after the metric martyr case affirms that where there are differences between EU law and UK law, that EU law is superior and UK law must either be amended or set aside.

The speaker of the House John Bercow confirmed the same when recently asked by Labour MP Kate Hoey following the previous extension, where he replied that EU law takes precedence. A point restated once again only last week by Jacob Rees-Mogg when the same question was posed and he replied,

“that as long as the Communities Act is in force, EU law takes precedence.”

Therefore the Benn Act is incompatible with EU law as it contravenes the Lisbon Treaty and as such No Deal is still on the table. Unless of course they can force Treaty Change, which they cant. It becomes irrelevant what Parliament intended by the Benn Act, EU law overules it as it did when exit date was automatically changed and updated within the Withdrawal Act after Mrs May agreed to a 6 month extension under Article 50. The UK Act of Parliament was updated with the revised exit date immediately. That was despite Parliament having enshrined exit date in UK law. Our law was at odds with International law when the extension was agreed and therefore it had to be changed to reflect the new reality.

The Benn Act will suffer the same fate as the section contained within which negates the Prime Minister from having to apply for an extension is Section 2 of the Benn Act, which states that no letter need be sent requesting an extension if,
“this House approves the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union on exit day, without a withdrawal agreement as defined in section 20(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

If that condition is met, ie if Parliament agrees to leaving with no deal then the Prime Minister doesnt have to send the letter detailed in Section 4 of the Act.
Now by the sheer fact that we signed up to the Lisbon Treaty, we agreed to Article 50. By enacting Article 50 Parliament accepted the terms of Article 50.
Article 50 states we will leave without a deal if no deal has been agreed.

THAT is an acceptance already by Parliament under EU law that it has accepted that we will be leaving with No Deal if an agreement hasnt been met. It cannot then say that under UK law a letter will need to be sent if a No Deal departure isn’t agreed by the House. As under Article 50 theyve already agreed to such an outcome.

What they are suggesting by the Benn Act, is that they have signed up to an EU Treaty but then parts of that Treaty will only be allowed if Parliament rules that they can be. Thats plainly wrong.

For instance, Freedom of Movement will happen irrelevant if Parliament passes an Act saying it is in favour or against allowing such a thing. The UK Parliament cannot pass a law that contravenes or contradicts EU law on say Freedom of Movement as we’ve already agreed to such a thing by virtue of being signatories to the enabling Treaty.

As such, Parliament has already agreed to No Deal as a consequence of signing the Lisbon Treaty and enacting Article 50. If they want to stop that, then they have to revoke Article 50 or rewrite Article 50 which will need Treaty Change.

The Benn Legislation states no letter need be sent if Parliament has agreed to a No Deal Departure yet its agreement to such an eventuality has already been agreed under EU law and so therefore no letter need be sent.

As Boris has said throughout, we will comply with the law and they will. The irony is indeed sweet and delicious that the law they comply with will be EU law which then exposes quite dramatically how the Sovereignty of Parliament has been undermined by our membership of the EU, despite the denials of the Remainers within.

It is an ending that will see the curtain drawn on our membership of this Political Union which is almost worthy of Shakespeare himself. Such sweet, delicious irony indeed.

[Cheeky Devlin]

I strawberry floating despise these banana splits and the gleeful way they cheer this gooseberry fool on.

[Squinty]

I've seen that opinion elsewhere. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems a bit tenuous at best. Extensions have already been granted with no legal issue.

[Errkal]

Also, even if it was right, it would mean EU law is more sovereign that our own and they are glad of that. So should sort of gooseberry fool all over their UK laws rule etc. bull crap.

[more heat than light]

Surely if it became apparent Boris was pushing for (and likely to get) a No Deal, they'd just bring forward the VONC? There are more than enough people against a no deal Brexit to get rid of him.

[Moggy]

Surely if it became apparent Boris was pushing for (and likely to get) a No Deal, they'd just bring forward the VONC? There are more than enough people against a no deal Brexit to get rid of him.

Depends on what they want more. Johnson in jail or a Brexit extension.

I don’t want to leave the EU, but the thought of locking up Boris Johnson is damn tempting….

[Rocsteady]

It's two and a half years old but I still love that a tenth of the population hadn't gotten over the change in currency decades ago

[Tomous]

It still pains me that passport colour has been made into a actual issue.

[Lex-Man]

Surely if it became apparent Boris was pushing for (and likely to get) a No Deal, they'd just bring forward the VONC? There are more than enough people against a no deal Brexit to get rid of him.

Depends on what they want more. Johnson in jail or a Brexit extension.

I don’t want to leave the EU, but the thought of locking up Boris Johnson is damn tempting….

I often think that it might be better to go out as actually causing chaos in the UK will make it much easier to make a pro EU argument. Although it's probably not worth the loss of life and general chaos that will ensue.

[Moggy]

Surely if it became apparent Boris was pushing for (and likely to get) a No Deal, they'd just bring forward the VONC? There are more than enough people against a no deal Brexit to get rid of him.

Depends on what they want more. Johnson in jail or a Brexit extension.

I don’t want to leave the EU, but the thought of locking up Boris Johnson is damn tempting….

I often think that it might be better to go out as actually causing chaos in the UK will make it much easier to make a pro EU argument. Although it's probably not worth the loss of life and general chaos that will ensue.

I’ve had that thought before. The people still supporting this will never listen to reason, the only way that they might see their error is if we crash out and it actually hurts them personally.

But it will hurt a lot of people, not just those supporting it. And rejoining wouldn’t be easy, we wouldn’t get the nice deal we have now for instance.

The Leavers will pivot as soon as Brexit happens (they already are) into blaming the EU for anything bad that happens. Any rejoining campaign will be hampered by the worse deal we will get if we rejoin, plus the propaganda of how the EU are our enemies. All while the economy tanks.

[Moggy]

It still pains me that passport colour has been made into a actual issue.

Who would have thought that some Leavers would have an issue with colour?

[Rex Kramer]

Surely if it became apparent Boris was pushing for (and likely to get) a No Deal, they'd just bring forward the VONC? There are more than enough people against a no deal Brexit to get rid of him.

Depends on what they want more. Johnson in jail or a Brexit extension.

I don’t want to leave the EU, but the thought of locking up Boris Johnson is damn tempting….

I often think that it might be better to go out as actually causing chaos in the UK will make it much easier to make a pro EU argument. Although it's probably not worth the loss of life and general chaos that will ensue.

If we leave then I don't see us coming back, we're too much of an island nation to accept the rules we'd have to follow as a new entry. We've got it so good at the moment and even that's not good enough.

[Tomous]

Chaos from leaving > chaos from pissing off leavers and staying in my opinion.

The marches they organise are hardly well attended. A lot of them are nothing more than keyboard warriors.

[Garth]

Pretty good write-up:

Forget the hype - Johnson hasn't made much progress on breaking Brexit deadlock
After the the last 24 hours, we are not much further forward - arguably, the progress is so illusory as to set us back.

Sometimes, the House of Commons acts as if politics ends at its doors.

Watching scores of mainly (though not exclusively) Conservative MPs rise to their feet on Thursday, in full self-congratulatory pomp, to praise the prime minister for "breaking the deadlock", was quite the sight to behold.

Indeed, one EU source went rather further than my appraisal, they said it was "insane".

For the truth is, the only deadlock which has (arguably) been broken, is among Conservative MPs themselves.

Those same MPs' choice of language rather gave the game away.

They kept referring to the prime minister's "deal".

But of course, no deal has been struck. A deal has to contain more than one party. The only agreement struck has been within Downing Street and perhaps, at best, with the DUP.

Rather what the prime minister has proposed are, well, proposals. They seem to have taken all Conservative MPs and the DUP with them.

What Boris Johnson does not have is the agreement, nor anything approaching the agreement, of the European Union.

It is possible, that if the EU agreed to the PM's ideas on Friday, there would be just enough support, for a deal to pass the House of Commons.

It would unite much of the Tory party, including the arch Eurosceptic European Research Group of MPs (though not all), the expelled Remainer Tories, the DUP and, with a fair wind, a smattering of Labour parliamentarians.

Many, including some opposition MPs, like Frank Field, urged the prime minister to have a vote on his proposals now, to show how united the Commons might be.

Though there may be some symbolic power to such a ballot, the Commons might as well vote on bringing the Eiffel Tower to London - as pleasant as it might be, it's not going to happen.

As one source in the EU told me, the PM's proposals are "a million miles away" from being acceptable.

In this sense, the prime minister's proposals are very much akin to the Brady Amendment, this was the idea which passed the Commons on 29 January, where a majority of MPs said they would theoretically support Theresa May's withdrawal agreement, minus the dreaded backstop.

It was talked about endlessly and moved the European Union not an inch.

It was a phantom vote, a vote, to misquote Lady Hale, null, void and of no effect.

Any vote on Boris Johnson's "deal" without the agreement of the other party necessary to make it such, would be similarly meaningless. It's like a couple agreeing they'd like a free mortgage. We'd all like it, but it doesn't mean the bank is going to agree.

So what are the chances of agreement from Brussels? Limited.

The Irish government is extremely sceptical and cannot be seen to give such power to the DUP (because, contrary to what many MPs seem to think, other countries have politics too).

And as soon as the DUP's effective lock over the new arrangements is diluted (almost certainly a must from Brussels) then the DUP's votes will ebb. One source told me that even tweaks would result in their complete withdrawal.

And any DUP exodus will trigger a further flight of Eurosceptic Tory MPs.

Their retreat will mean any prospect of significant Labour support (already heavily overwritten in the last 24 hours) will vanish too, for they will see no reason to sacrifice their careers for a doomed venture. This is a venture built on sand.

And so, forget the hype of the last 24 hours; forget the bonhomie of the Conservative benches.

Today was a sad illustration of the insularity of the cosseted and all too cosy world of Westminster, drunk on the hype of its theoretical sovereignty, straining under the weight of its history, unable to ever quite internalise that its writ extends not nearly so far as it once did.

In truth, after the excitement of the last 24 hours, we are not much further forward, indeed, arguably, the progress is so illusory as to set us back.

There are a few ways in which we are not completely stuck.

The first is that it is likely that Boris Johnson is, in the long-term, in a better position than Theresa May to command his party.

Not especially because of the strength of his ideas but because there's no one else to articulate any in his stead.

Unlike May, there is no king over the water for Johnson.

He is the ERG's last chance saloon - if they cannot achieve their ends with him, then they can with no one.

If Johnson had proposed May's deal, the exact same one, or her Chequers plan, both would still have foundered, but probably by a little less than they did under her stewardship.

He just has more cachet, more currency with the party and so political capital to spend. Long-term, that can only be an advantage to realise a deal, should he want one.

The second is that the EU does want a deal but crucially, probably not yet.

They are not going to agree to something so drastically different to what they agreed (now some 12 months ago with Theresa May) in little more than 10 days.

These are the contours of a future relationship which might last years, if not decades.

They want more time - and they think they will get it.

They don't think there's a way around the Benn Act for the PM, ergo, one way or another an extension is certain, with an election soon after.

Johnson's proposals are, in any way you look at it, suboptimal for the EU and worse than that which they had secured under May (and considerably worse than they might enjoy under a Corbyn government, the only other likely alternative).

There is every incentive for them to sit, wait and bide their time.

It is possible that after an election, in which Boris Johnson is returned with a majority, when every other option is exhausted that they will feel obliged to return to the Johnson proposals, but there's a lot of very clear EU blue water to pass under the bridge before then.

So, the Johnson plan is, like any theoretical Commons vote upon them, for now, mere parlour game.

We end the week with only two questions of fundamental importance, the same questions which hung over us at its beginning: will Boris Johnson accept he must extend and if he does, who will the electorate credit and who will they blame?

https://news.sky.com/story/forget-the-h ... k-11826814