Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

The Queen has no power in a formal sense to do anything with Parliament. It's pure pomp and ceremony.

That is absolutely untrue. This is the position now in the Fixed Term Parliament Act:

"The royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament was abrogated by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Section 6(1) of the Act however specifically states that the monarch's power to prorogue Parliament is not affected by the Act."

In fact the Queen could even have stopped Brexit by refusing to sign any of its acts. Since the 2017 Queen's Speech specified that eight further acts are necessary to implement all Brexit stages, she has plenty of opportunities to still do so.

Of course it's unlikely she will intervene, but she can.

She will probably be the last monarch to have such sweeping powers since they are granted by parliament at the time of coming to the throne. It's widely believed that Prince Charles will not have all of them granted then.
.

 

[flecc]

No your notion that the Queen could intervene at present is waffle -

Not waffle, fact, intervention can be at any time on any grounds.

See my post on this link.
.

 

[tommie]

Not waffle, fact, intervention can be at any time on any grounds.

See my post on this link.
.

Thank-you,
your assertion that it would be because of the Gov having lost their majority was indeed waffle.

 

[flecc]

Thank-you,
your assertion that it would be because of the Gov having lost their majority was indeed waffle.

I replied to this:

"No your notion that the Queen could intervene at present is waffle - you have to wait until the Gov has no clear majority in the House."

She can intervene at any time and doesn't have to wait for anything. I've repeatedly made that clear and it is not waffle.
.

 

[tommie]

I replied to this:

"No your notion that the Queen could intervene at present is waffle - you have to wait until the Gov has no clear majority in the House."

She can intervene at any time and doesn't have to wait for anything. I've repeatedly made that clear and it is not waffle.
.

that bit above is ok.......

But you stated
"because of the Gov having lost their majority"

which is 100% pure waffle!

 

[50Hertz]

Following on from the Prime Minister’s record breaking failure last night, the early indications regarding her commitment to seek the views of MPs across the House of Commons seems to be, well, failing. Her interpretation of “seeking a person’s opinion” seems to be talking at them and trying to persuade them to accept the what they rejected last night. She is going to fail again, she always does.

I think there is a real possibility that we will leave the EU without any deal. Theresa May is sufficiently stubborn and has an ego too large to compromise on her deal.

I can’t see a way out of the current situation without her being removed.

 

[Woosh]

She is going to fail again, she always does.

that should be a worry for ordinary brexiters.
If she fails, then one of these 3 things will happen:
- parliament will take over the business at the HoC leading likely to a second referendum leading to cancelling brexit.
- she resigns. A new PM will take a more conciliatory approach, leading likely to a softer brexit.
- she calls a new GE leading to cancelling brexit if the conservatives do not get a majority.

The Pound rises a little after last night's vote

 

[flecc]

But you stated
"because of the Gov having lost their majority"

which is 100% pure waffle!

No it isn't. How many times do I have to say "at any time for any reason".

That example was the one I chose for my post, and the Queen could equally choose it if she wished.

Not only have I made this clear, I've also made clear twice that this DUP aspect is not important in respect of the Queen's prologue power. It was just a current example of the things the Queen could use.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Y

Not waffle, fact, intervention can be at any time on any grounds.

See my post on this link.
.

You are forgetting fact Queen and her hubby, despite their immigrant past or perhaps because of it, are infact Eurosceptics and leavers. Perhaps we should reinstate monarchy. Couldnt do much worse.

 

[tommie]

That example was the one I chose for my post, and the Queen could equally choose it if she wished.
.

And that example was utter nonsense - the support has NOT been removed and the Gov majority has NOT been lost.
Please can we move on on this, youre example was totally and absolutely inaccurate.

"She can summon TheresaMay to the palace and remind her that she granted her the right to form a government on the basis that she had a majority with DUP support, and now that support has been removed and majority lost. "

 

[flecc]

You are forgetting fact Queen and her hubby, despite their immigrant past or perhaps because of it, are infact Eurosceptics and leavers.

No forgotten, but she has a duty to protect the realm so could act to break the impasse and enable progress to Brexit to continue

Perhaps we should reinstate monarchy.

I think our first past the post system is a form of monarchy, making it impossible to break out into a proper democracy of real choice.
.

 

[Danidl]

so Dan whats going to happen with this truck coming from Scotland to Northern Ireland and then on to the Republic as Mr. Ross has asked?

It is going to get stuck at Carrickarnon,until the meat pies inside rot. Marks &Sparks in Henry St or Churchtown will be without these pies, the West Brits in the Coastal belt near Ballsbridg and Churchtown ,will be livid,and meanwhile Aldi and Lidl,and Dunnes will be doing ok. .
The rest of us will have to do with the fillet steak, which would otherwise get stuck at Newry.
..Mr Ross is in fact the archetype of the West Brit to whom I refer. He is without argument, the worst minister we have for anything. Were he inside any party, he would not see the light of day, it was just that the price by the group of Independents who make up the coalition, was that one of their number get a portfolio. It is a pity it was him, because others in that group are competent.
He is referred to as Lord Ross of Churchtown,...and not in a good way.

 

[50Hertz]

that should be a worry for ordinary brexiters.
If she fails, then one of these 3 things will happen:
- parliament will take over the business at the HoC leading likely to a second referendum leading to cancelling brexit.
- she resigns. A new PM will take a more conciliatory approach, leading likely to a softer brexit.
- she calls a new GE leading to cancelling brexit if the conservatives do not get a majority.

The Pound rises a little after last night's vote

I think the likely outcome is in there somewhere. I can’t see her ever calling a GE because that would lead to her immediate resignation. She has committed to not leading the Tory party into the next GE, that was how she survived when her colleagues wanted to oust her a couple of weeks ago.

So that just leaves Parliament taking over Brexit and a possible fresh referendum. That is possibly the best outcome.

I can’t see why people are opposed to a new referendum. I think even the most hardened Brexit supporters realise that the last one was fatally flawed with lies, personal ambition and BS. It’s only right to test the waters again now that has been exposed. If a majority still want to leave, they will vote that way, there should be nothing to be frightened of.

 

[flecc]

that she had a majority with DUP support, and now that support has been removed and majority lost. "

That support and government nominal majority was lost for the most important government measure in 46 years.

Had it not been, she could have put her deal to parliament with a three line whip on her party. While that might not have got the deal though, she would not have suffered the devastating loss she has.

But one again, it was an example.
.

 

[Fingers]

I think the likely outcome is in there somewhere. I can’t see her ever calling a GE because that would lead to her immediate resignation. She has committed to not leading the Tory party into the next GE, that was how she survived when her colleagues wanted to oust her a couple of weeks ago.

So that just leaves Parliament taking over Brexit and a possible fresh referendum. That is possibly the best outcome.

I can’t see why people are opposed to a new referendum. I think even the most hardened Brexit supporters realise that the last one was fatally flawed with lies, personal ambition and BS. It’s only right to test the waters again now that has been exposed. If a majority still want to leave, they will vote that way, there should be nothing to be frightened of.

A second referendum will take seven months if it was called tomorrow.

I just can’t see it happening. There is no way the Tories will call one and there is no way Corbyn can win an election even if it was on the back of a second referendum.

So at best the timetable would be May resigning late March as a no deal looms, she won’t call a second referendum so calls an election. That would be held say June 1st. Second referendum called that day (if by a miracle Corbyn can win) so referendum would be at the earliest Jan 1st 2020.

What would the question be?

What if the turnout was significantly lower?

What if it’s close?

What if remain win?

What if leave win?

Then another 2 years of article 50. No deal so we start again. It’s utter madness. Or remain win and the call for a third referendum is deafening with increasing civil disobedience.

We need to leave and respect the referendum. Anything else will create a mess far bigger than leaving the bloody EU. They are playing us for fools and we are biting.

 

[flecc]

A second referendum will take seven months if it was called tomorrow.
I just can’t see it happening.

There's ever increasing pressure from many quarters for one, so I wouldn't bet against it. If it included a Remain option the EU would facilitate it of course.
.

 

[Woosh]

don't forget: it's easier for the UK to cancel A50 than to extend it.
Faced with the choice between No Deal brexit and cancelling A50 at the 11th hour, there is no way of telling which option will win in parliament.
One thing though, Tommie seems to be pro No Deal brexit and I am puzzled by that.

 

[50Hertz]

A second referendum will take seven months if it was called tomorrow.

I just can’t see it happening. There is no way the Tories will call one and there is no way Corbyn can win an election even if it was on the back of a second referendum.

So at best the timetable would be May resigning late March as a no deal looms, she won’t call a second referendum so calls an election. That would be held say June 1st. Second referendum called that day (if by a miracle Corbyn can win) so referendum would be at the earliest Jan 1st 2020.

What would the question be?

What if the turnout was significantly lower?

What if it’s close?

What if remain win?

What if leave win?

Then another 2 years of article 50. No deal so we start again. It’s utter madness. Or remain win and the call for a third referendum is deafening with increasing civil disobedience.

We need to leave and respect the referendum. Anything else will create a mess far bigger than leaving the bloody EU. They are playing us for fools and we are biting.

I agree with nearly all that, but I think a second vote is slowly looking more likely.

Personally, I think Corbyn wants out of the EU, but he wants the Tory party to do it. That way he can blame them when he crashes the economy into the ditch.

 

[Woosh]

I agree with nearly all that, but I think a second vote is slowly looking more likely.

it's only after you eliminate all the other possibilities that the remaining possibility becomes the chosen one.

 

[Zlatan]

I agree with 50hz over ref2..Only problem being what would it solve. Could be nothing. Could still end up no deal.. Suppose leave won and MPs rejected May's deal.. Or remain win, could kick start mayhem.
Wording could be, would be, contentious. Is it Remain /May's deal or Remain/ No deal. Whatever it is somebody will be upset, but thats normal..
If it was as Woosh suggested, a 3 way, that means 34% could be a winning vote... I dont trust them to organise a 2 stage...