Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[apelike]

20 minutes ago, Albert the Cat said:

You are either confused or just have no idea what you are talking about. The bill that prevents no deal absolutely does not require consent. It does not affect perogative powers in any way, so it goes for Royal Assent. 

I didnt say Royal Assent I said Consent which is a different thing as explained with the Blair bit. But you are correct because even that cannot be used as the bill has already passed into law.

 

Quote

 You leavers need to stop spreading lies or just wrong information.

Have you noticed how many times I have corrected the remainers on here when they spread misinformation!

Edited September 8, 2019 by apelike

[Pettytom]

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I think he means this.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-eu-legal-prison-no-deal-brussels-latest-a9095976.html

 

Which would mean no-one would trust a Johnson regime to sign any sort of deal.

The Independent is such a leftie rag. 

 

The Thunderer is the only paper...

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1170807878053183490

[Longcol]

4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

The Independent is such a leftie rag. 

 

The Thunderer is the only paper...

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1170807878053183490

Tomorrow should be interesting - I will keep half an eye on it while we head for our holidays.

[XXTickerXX]

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I think he means this.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-eu-legal-prison-no-deal-brussels-latest-a9095976.html

 

Which would mean no-one would trust a Johnson regime to sign any sort of deal.

He can fall back on this .... The Civil Contingencies Act 2004

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/part/1

 

And then the government can rule by decree. Do you all think Boris and Cummings don't have at least something up their sleeve?

 

With the above law (Thank Tony Blair)  - Triggering the Act requires no more than “a senior Minister of the Crown”—that is, Boris Johnson—to announce an Emergency. This done, he can make, alter or suspend almost any law he likes. He can do this for a period of thirty days.

He can then suspend the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Then he could dissolve Parliament in the traditional way.  General election anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

[Top Cats Hat]

7 minutes ago, XXTickerXX said:

Probably because Brussels is backing down on the backstop and seeing Boris surge in the Polls.

Funny that, because the ball on the backstop is firmly back in Johnson’s hands after Merkel gave him 30 days to come up with an alternative.

 

Statements from Europe and Amber Rudd’s interview today suggests that there has been absolutely no engagement with the EU so I’m not entirely sure how the EU can back down on something which is not up for discussion.

 

I suspect that Leavers are starting to see their great white hero Johnson as rapidly become a busted flush.

[Longcol]

1 minute ago, XXTickerXX said:

He can fall back on this .... The Civil Contingencies Act 2004

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/part/1

 

 

No chance.

 

Brexit doesn't meet any of the criteria in the Act.

[XXTickerXX]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Funny that, because the ball on the backstop is firmly back in Johnson’s hands after Merkel gave him 30 days to come up with an alternative.

 

Statements from Europe and Amber Rudd’s interview today suggests that there has been absolutely no engagement with the EU so I’m not entirely sure how the EU can back down on something which is not up for discussion.

 

I suspect that Leavers are starting to see their great white hero Johnson as rapidly become a busted flush.

 

[Longcol]

4 minutes ago, XXTickerXX said:

 

Some guy who makes things up on twitter.

[XXTickerXX]

4 minutes ago, Longcol said:

No chance.

 

Brexit doesn't meet any of the criteria in the Act.

One of the first laws of politics is never to give yourself more power than you would like the other side to have. Labour broke this rule in 2004, when it passed this act. Can you imagine the irony if it was used against them.

[Longcol]

1 minute ago, XXTickerXX said:

One of the first laws of politics is never to give yourself more power than you would like the other side to have. Labour broke this rule in 2004, when it passed this act. Can you imagine the irony if it was used against them.

It won't be used because Brexit doesn't constitute a national emergency within the meaning of the Act.

 

Simple really.