Brexit

There are already many threads pertaining to Brexit. This is a simple thread to discuss all things concerning Brexit....

Anchor posted the following on another thread pertaining to 'Operation Yellowhammer':

"I can't find any Brexit thread, so if this is the wrong place just delete my post and we'll pretend no excrement is about to be hitting any fans at all.

Can they really suspend parliament to force through an empty pile of absolutely bugger all ?"

Proroguing parliament is nothing new. It is infact a pretty standard procedure in a Parliamentary democracy. Indeed parliament is usually prorogued once a year (albeit for usually a short period of time). The reality is that the UK is currently experiencing the longest Parliamentary session since 1653, so one could argue that a prorogation of Parliament and a Queen's Speech is long overdue.

As far as proroguing Parliament is concerned the length of time typically varies. For example, in 2016 Parliament was closed for four working days, whilst in 2014 it was closed for 13 days. As it stands Parliament will only lose between three to eight sitting days as Parliament was expected to go into recess anyway from roughly 13 September to 8 October.

It should also be noted that previous PM's such as Attlee and Major prorogued Parliament for political purposes, with the latter doing so for some 6 weeks.

Some are presenting prorogation as a kind of power grab. The reality is however that prorogation in practice just keeps the laws as they are, preventing changes to statutes for a short period of time. The Government therefore would be unable to use prorogation as a mechanism to deliver a No Deal Brexit IF the MAJORITY of MP's hadn't already in effect voted for No Deal. The simple reality is that MP's set a No Deal Brexit as the legal default when they passed the EU Withdrawal Act. They effectively confirmed No Deal Brexit as the default parliamentary position when they rejected the potential deals put to them by the government.

As it is Parliament will still have enough time to further debate Brexit and MP's will still be able to introduce a vote of no confidence.

Come on man.... regardless of historical precedent or legality, we all know that this move was done to better enhance a no deal Brexit. Anybody who doesn’t is in denial. Heck, even I can see that, and I hardly follow this at all.

Yes of course it was. I never stated otherwise. My point is that proroguing parliament is nothing new.

I find it interesting however that remainers are accusing BJ of being undemocratic when he is infact trying to respect the result of the largest democractic vote in the UK's history. In 2015 Parliament passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015. In the lead up to the June referendum the Government promised to respect the outcome and to trigger Article 50 and take the UK out of the EU, with or without a deal, if the majority voted leave. After the referendum Parliament voted - by a significant majority - to trigger Article 50 with the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 passing 494 to 122. So we have a situation where, in the single largest democratic vote in the UK's history, the people told Parliament that they wanted the UK to leave the EU with a No Deal exit effectively being the default option. Parliament then voted 494 to 122 for the UK to leave the EU. Again, a No Deal exit was the default option. And yet those who are working incessantly to overturn two democratic votes have the gall to claim that BJ is attacking democracy by actually trying to respect the result of the two aforementioned democratic processes. Unreal.

If BoJo does get a deal on the table, does Parliament have to approve it?

I don't know if he's actively trying to get a deal done, or just letting time pass (or going through the motions) to get to the deadline.

No.

Another reason for prorogation? So they can't say No?

Any potential 'new' deal would still need to be passed by Parliament. In reality only 4-5 sitting days will be lost. Parliament will be back sitting before the EU summit in Brussels on the 17th/18th of October. If the EU agree to any 'new' deal it will be during this summit. So politicians will have time to debate any 'new' deal if one is forthcoming. They can during this period accept or reject any potential 'new' deal.

The simple reality is that Parliament is usually prorogued once a year and usually after a new PM and cabinet are appointed. Furthermore, as has been the case for MANY years, Parliament closes down during the conference season which is a period of three weeks in September and October of each year. So in reality all that is happening is that Parliament goes into recess a few days early. Then, after the conference season, Parliament resumes. The Queen gives her speech on the 14th and the EU make a statement concerning Brexit at the completion of their summit. At this point, as stated earlier, Parliament will have sufficient time to accept or reject any new deal if indeed there is any new deal to consider.

Interesting listening to an interview with the chief economist of the Deutsche Bank. He is very bullish about the future economic landscape for the UK in a no deal scenario. He even specifically stated that a no deal exit was far preferable to leaving with a deal like the one May accepted.

It's quite amazing listening to remoaners go on and on about how BJ has no mandate to take the UK out of the EU without a deal. That nobody voted to leave without a deal. The latter of course requires the ability to know what each leave voter heard and read, to know what they did and didn't know, and how they weighed up the various issues. But of course remoaners seem to believe they possess these special mind reading powers. The very simple facts are that:

1. BEFORE the 2016 peoples vote pollies like Cameron, Hammond and Osborne stated on a number of occasions (both inside and outside of Parliament) that if people voted leave then the Government WOULD respect their wishes and that they WOULD trigger Article 50. They told potential leave voters that once Article 50 was triggered that the UK would be on a "one way street to the exit" at the end of two years and would leave with or WITHOUT a deal. They made it very clear that if the leave vote won then the UK WOULD leave the single market and the customs union. This is a matter of public record.

2. Parliament voted 494 to 122 to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act which allowed the PM to notify the EU of the UK's intention to leave under Article 50. Article 50 states that the maximum amount of time a country has to negotiate an exit is 2 years (unless the EU agrees to an extension). IF no agreement is struck during the two year negotiation period then the UK would leave WITHOUT a deal. In reality therefore the NO DEAL option is effectively the default option.

Now on the ballot paper did those who voted to leave select an option that stated that the UK would leave without a deal? No. Did they select an option that stated that they were in favour of the UK leaving the EU but only with a deal? No. Did over 17.4 million people vote for the UK to UNCONDITIONALLY leave the EU? Yes. So exactly how remoaners can claim nobody voted to leave without a deal is beyond me. As for BJ. He has a mandate from the people, and from Parliament, to take the UK out of the EU. He is trying to do this. And yet remaoners somehow think this is undemocratic...

I talk to a lot of people in the UK and all of them are of the same mind - leave means leave.

Leaving with no deal is better than staying just because the pampered class can't cope with hearing the word "no."

That's a rather interesting interpretation of words there. Choosing to do something and choosing to do something unconditionally are two entirely different things. Yes, it can be said that the people did not choose to leave on the condition of a deal, but on the same token, it can be said that they did not choose to leave unconditionally even in the event of no deal. The ballot never asked that, and that was one of it's many flaws as a survey.

The electorate were asked "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? ". There were NO conditions mentioned on the ballot paper, therefore the electorate voted to leave UNCONDITIONALLY.

The fact is that many on the remain campaign (including the PM and pollies such as Hammond and Osborne) stated publicly on a number of occasions that IF the remain campaign was successful the Government would trigger article 50. They said that doing so would see the UK head down a one way street to exiting the EU with or WITHOUT a deal. Indeed the remain campaign used the prospect of the UK possibly leaving WITHOUT a deal to try and scare people into not voting leave.

Furthermore, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to give the PM the authority to trigger article 50 knowing that the effective default position would then be that the UK would leave WITHOUT a deal (unless one could be agreed upon within 2 years).

Just on Éire for a moment. The Central Bank of Ireland has warned the Government that a no deal Brexit could cost 100,000 jobs in the Republic. Meanwhile, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council have stated that the EU's standard corporation tax system, that is being forced upon Ireland, presents a bigger threat to the country's economy than a no deal Brexit.