Posted on 10/19/2019 5:16:11 AM PDT by Nextrush
Boris Johnson's bid to push through a new "deal" with the European Union called the second worst deal since former Prime Minister Theresa May's one and "Brexit In Name Only" among other things is coming to the decisive moment in the hours ahead.
A massive Remain rally planned before the decision on the "deal"in a special House of Commons session today.
Leave forces led by Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage got their say outside Parliament last night saying among other things:
"this sell out from the British prime minister....
(Excerpt) Read more at nextrushfree.blogspot.com ...
I don’t understand how this is a sell out.
If they don’t like it then just leave without an agreement.
Leftists just like to keep voting until they get the results they want and then, “IT’S THE LAW!!!”
No. Nothing is preventing you from posting the the full content right here.
Is there something you've written that isn't suitable for Free Republic?
Admissions of wrongdoings or porn or Scientology? Why do you write
things like that on your blog? You may have a mental issue.
If they don’t like it then just leave without an agreement.
That sounds great.
However, I’m not quite sure whether or not it is either an option to be explored, a sure thing if pursued, or impossible: that to me would seem to hinge on how the referendum, the legislation passed last month, British Law, and the EU stuff end up interacting at this point if the deal is voted down.
I am doubtful that anyone is sure at this point. Some people may be. If there is anyone on the forum whom I would believe has enough knowledge to be sure, in my opinion it would be Naturalman.
The UK wants their sovereignty back. The older folks know joining the EU was a mistake. The young are blind....just like the youth here in the USA.
Remainers control Parliament right now and are strangling any chance of a real pullout from the EU and Boris Johnson is complicit by cutting a fake Brexit deal with the EU.
How is it a fake deal?
Also on the 31st Britain is out UNLESS the EU gives them an extension.
Nigel Farage has said this is 95 percent of what Theresa May got from the EU.
The UK will be restricted in terms of fishing in its own territorial waters, trade deals with third parties, taxation and the list goes on. The wording is different but the control of EU institutions like the European Court of Justice is written into this “Great New Deal” Boris Johnson brags about.
Hmmm...that does sound like garbage.
Then maybe Johnson is banking on it being rejected and on 31 Oct leaving without a deal ;-)
Parliament forced him to negotiate. So he did. Personally he should have waited a few more days to announce...and make the deal even worse. Then on 31 Oct wammo.
Part of the problem is nobody actually knows. Lots of us have opinions, but we are now in uncharted waters in terms of British constitutional law. We're dealing with things that have never happened before in British history and so there's no precedent, so in a sense whatever happens now will be what the British constitution says happens.
The core of the British constitution and British sovereignty is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Based on that, I will say that the British Parliament could simply withdraw from the European Union and that would have total effect in British law. But only the Parliament can do that - and by that I mean, the House of Commons would have to vote to do so, the House of Lords would have to vote to do so (the Lords could only delay the decision but it could delay it), and Her Majesty would have to assent (which she would in such a case - she does have a certain discretion to refuse in very particular circumstances none of which would apply here).
But I can't see that happening. And only Parliament can do it.
If Parliament had totally and completely broken down - a case could be made that the Queen could do it unilaterally but we are not even remotely close to that and I can't see it happening. Those type of powers would only be used in the modern world if... the British Parliament was destroyed by nuclear war, or maybe if Tom Clancy 'Debt of Honour' style, some mass terrorist attack. Parliament would have to be incapable of assembling for the Queen to take those actions - the powers do exist but really are apocalyptic at this point - the only serious means by which they still exist are the "Queen's Orders" which supposedly theoretically outline a response to nuclear armageddon.
(It's never been confirmed but there are persistent rumours that "Queen's Order One" is the official order to launch Britain's nuclear weapons in an all out retalitory strike - the Prime Minister (or other senior surviving Cabinet member would technically make the decision but it would be an order by the Queen as Commander-in-Chief to make it absolutely unambiguous that it is to be followed in a situation where seconds count. "Queen's Order Two" is known to exist and would be used in an all out instant mobilisation of all British military forces - it would even bring retired personnel and the school cadet corps into action).
But I digress - my point is, yes, I think there are constitutional mechanisms by which Britain could unilaterally leave - an Act of Parliament based on the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty, or (very very theoretically) direct proclamation by the Queen, most likely on the advice of her Prime Minister. But that second option is never going to happen - it would probably be the end of the monarchy, it's an option that only exists to deal with the absolutely worst imaginable or unimaginable disaster - actual literal destruction of the country, tens of millions dead and a decapitated legislature, and the first...
Parliament can't even vote on a deal - there's no way the numbers are there for anything like this.
And even if that happened - while legally speaking it would mean under British law that Britain had left - the European Union would be absolutely entitled to regard it as Britain abrogating a treaty and to impose all sorts of sanctions based on that. The issue is Britain did voluntarily sign up to the process outlined by Article 50 as being the correct process by which to leave. It didn't have to sign the treaty - but it did. And breaking it would have the same type of consequences that breaking any treaty does in terms of national prestige, and the ability of other nations to rely on your word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.