The consequence thread (Brexit)

[Cyclone]

Unless the situation has changed and court cases have been successful then they dont. Its the government that will trigger A50 but Parliament may get to vote on approving the negotiated leave terms. If they don't approve them then it does not matter as once A50 is triggered there is no going back.

 

Brexit could be halted after Government admits MPs likely to have final say

Parliamentary vote on final Brexit agreement hailed as 'victory' by pro-EU MPs

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-could-block-brexit-deal-no-10-admits-a7368561.html

 

So, lets hope that parliament stops this experiment in self destruction.

[L00b]

This was my understanding. It's what's called a "Royal Prerogative" which basically means an executive power exercised by the cabinet on behalf of the Queen.

Did anyone bother to ask her views on the matter?

[unbeliever]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-could-block-brexit-deal-no-10-admits-a7368561.html

 

So, lets hope that parliament stops this experiment in self destruction.

 

As indicated in the article and title, this refers to parliamentary approval for the post Brexit deal long, long after article 50 has been invoked and the process is irrevocable.

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2016 at 12:41 ----------

 

Did anyone bother to ask her views on the matter?

 

Gosh I hope not.

[Cyclone]

My bad, they've agreed that parliament has a say at the end of the process, not at the start

 

He said: “It’s an encouraging sign that the Government has agreed to give Parliament a say on the final terms of Brexit. But there must be a role of Parliament before the end of the negotiations.

[altus]

No. A specific post-Brexit arrangement will require the approval of parliament, but Brexit itself will be irreversible long before this point. If parliament rejects the arrangements at that point then you're left with a straight pure Brexit and WTO MFN rules.

You're assuming the only options are going to be 'accept this deal' or 'WTO rules'. There's always the option of 'go back and negotiate a softer brexit deal'. Admittedly, that might require the EU agreeing to extend the 2 year deadline.

[unbeliever]

You're assuming the only options are going to be 'accept this deal' or 'WTO rules'. There's always the option of 'go back and negotiate a softer brexit deal'. Admittedly, that might require the EU agreeing to extend the 2 year deadline.

 

I can't see that happening. I could be wrong though.

[L00b]

You're assuming the only options are going to be 'accept this deal' or 'WTO rules'. There's always the option of 'go back and negotiate a softer brexit deal'. Admittedly, that might require the EU agreeing to extend the 2 year deadline.

I'd say it's inevitable if Parliament is only considered at the end of the process, and then happens to say "no".

 

And it also happens to be one of the EU's strongest procedural aces in the hole once Article 50 is triggered, a corner in which no UK government of the time would want to be stuck.

 

Then you have to remember that

 

two can play the feet-dragging game (as currently practiced by the UK, what says the EU won't once the 2 year clock is ticking...not me: in fact I'd bet that the EU will indeed, after all it's a legitimate negotiation tactic),

 

and to secure (take-it-to-the-bank-secure) a majority approval vote in Parliament within 2 years, about a moving target (deal as it evolves over time), is going to take a Himalaya of behind-the-scenes deal brokering and doing between the government and MPs.

 

[bowie]Under pressure[/bowie]

Edited October 19, 2016 by L00b

[altus]

I can't see that happening. I could be wrong though.

Knowing that they've got to get parliament to approve any deal is likely to alter what those doing the negotiating are likely to agree to anyway. They'd also know that having a deal rejected by parliament and being sent back to the EU would put them in a much weaker position - another incentive to negotiate something acceptable the first time round. I suspect the EU could be quite 'accommodating' in such circumstances.

[unbeliever]

Parliament was always going to have to pass legislation to effect Brexit.

Although if the treaties are dissolved at the EU end, refusing to do likewise at the UK end would be nonsensical.

[L00b]

Although if the treaties are dissolved at the EU end, refusing to do likewise at the UK end would be nonsensical.

Can you please expand? Not sure I understand the point.

 

Came across Oxford Professor Ngaire Woods explaining Brexit and the European Single Market recently, worth an edit

in here.

 

Should be made compulsory viewing for all posters.

Edited October 19, 2016 by L00b