-
It seems to be a common misconception that no deal will just magically happen if the government doesn't do anything.
What on earth do you mean, 'magically happen'? It's not 'magical' at all - if no one does anything, no deal is agreed upon, and if no deal is agreed upon, there we have the 'no-deal' scenario. It's not an actual 'option', it's the default that happens if nothing else happens, the one option no one has to do anything for. That's the threat of the deadline there.
SwissChap-
I wonder if the point is that parliament can block any government movement towards an "orderly" no-deal brexit and, if they do so, that would make no-deal so utterly chaotic that the government would be forced to find another avenue (revoke or delay article 50, people's vote etc.)
-
The flatearth brexiteurs, John Redwood, Owen Paterson, probably Ian Duncan Smith
seem to believe that the UK can just walk away from the EU,
but planes will still fly, goods will still be imported/exported, international Post will still be delivered, because (rather like Dominic Raab and his bewilderment at the volume of goods/hgvs that flow through Dover-Calais), they have connotation of all the administration that is simplified by membership of the Single Market & the Customs Union. -
What on earth do you mean, 'magically happen'?
Not sure, I didn't word that very well :)
The point was yes you're all quite right and if the government and Parliament literally does nothing at all between now and 29th March there will be a no deal Brexit with no legislation to make it work in practice.
But politically this is untenable. The Commons is fundamentally an anti-Brexit legislature and they aren't going to sit on their hands between now and March 29th.
May's current strategy is largely political sabre rattling - she needs to make a no deal Brexit feel like a real and present danger because she wants Parliament to accept her deal (which they aren't going to, because they think it's crap). Apart from the tiny number of 'flatearth brexiteurs' nobody in the commons wants or believes in no deal, so the reality is that's not going to happen either. The power of Parliament has been demonstrated very well a number of times over the past few weeks: May is ultimately not running the show, despite what she might want us to think.
Yesterday plenty of political commentators - including George Parker from the FT and Katie Balls from the Spectator, for example - were agreed that another referendum is the most likely outcome, but May's deal could take months to die. What worries me is that she could potentially drag it out for so long there's not enough parliamentary time left to clean up the mess, but she might not last that long so we'll see.
ffm
mespilus
Fox
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.