-
'In the absence of a withdrawal agreement the UK Parliament cannot unilaterally prevent a no deal in strict legal terms'
That supports what @Dammit is saying, it doesn't contradict it. If there's no withdrawal agreement, then the UK Parliament cannot prevent a no deal exit, because unless Article 50 is extended then without a withdrawal agreement there is, by definition, a no deal exit. It doesn't matter what the Government or the UK Parliament does or doesn't do. If the Article 50 process isn't extended, and there's no withdrawal agreement and so no transition period, then by definition we have a no deal exit on 29th March, regardless of bellyaching by the government or Parliament.
No deal is the default situation. To avoid it, you need either an extension or a deal. At present, we have neither, and the UK cannot unilaterally create either.
You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Brommers
No, that's not true.
From today's Indy:
“In the absence of a withdrawal agreement the UK Parliament cannot unilaterally prevent a no deal in strict legal terms,” says Dr Jack Simson Caird, a senior research fellow in Parliaments at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.
“The Government would find it very difficult to pursue a no deal outcome without the support of the House of Commons. The Commons doesn’t have to approve a no deal but the Government has said in order for it to work, there would have to be a further legislation which would have to be approved by the Commons.
“If the Government decided as a response to the Commons rejecting the Brexit deal it was going to pursue a no deal, the Commons could attempt to block no deal legislation or seek to amend it to require the Government to change its position,” Dr Caird said.
They just said the same thing on PM too.
It seems to be a common misconception that no deal will just magically happen if the government doesn't do anything. I suspect mainly because politicians and the media have explained it very badly.