marlon wrote:We voted for No Deal. That should be honoured. If the remoaners hoodwink this there will be serious civil disruption in Britain. Referendums will have no meaning or value thus democracy will be a joke. Britain will be a third world country and could never pontificate to other countries on how democracy should be done.
Actually, we voted to 'Leave' or 'Remain' in the E.U.
Everything else that follows that decision, has never given any voice to either side, either 'remain','leave', the U.K or the E.U, to construct alternative scenarios on the way forward,during or after we leave, other than that we should, for the sake of the U.K-E.U, do so,in an orderly fashion, that minimises damage to either side.
That we consider either 'deal' or 'no deal' as 'option's', is solely due to the existence on both sides ,but particularly the E.U, stipulating that, in order to even consider a Political Declaration forward, or discussions on a future trade deal, it is necessary for the U.K to agree with the E.U on a Withdrawal Agreement that , is only ratified when
both parliaments have waved that deal through.
'Remainers' use falsehoods to claim that the people didn't vote for 'crashing out' of the E.U without a deal', because, by the same token, the people never voted the opposite,of requiring a deal before leaving, as with CORBYN's leaving, or agreeing a deal, without recognising 'rights' of workers,blah,blah,blah!
It is true, that it was explained to the people what 'Leaving europe would actually mean, it was that we would be
leaving the political union with europe, that was the acid test of the referendum, in that sense,the other things involved,apart from settling liabilites, leaving in an orderly fashion, were injected into the debate later,such as achieving a 'deal' or the Good Friday 'backstop' & it remains to be seen whether the
Political Declaration does indeed result in the U.K actually withdrawing from europe?
Since the CRAG Act,2010, the convention known as the, 'Ponsonbury Rule'(1924)has been what gives parliament & not a Minister-the right to sign international treaty's.
An agreement must be placed before parliament for scrutiny, 21 Days before the intended date of ratification.
If parliament votes down any deal or agreement, a further 21-day extended scrutiny period is triggered, which, in theory, could be repeated ad infinitum,but,
only 'if' parliament can seize control of parliamentary time in that 21 day period, otherwise, there may not be any further debate .
In case that are 'exceptional', during that period, a Minister may sign a treaty with further conluting parliament, the difficult, which is legally vague, is what constitutes 'exceptional'.
It wouldn't include a 'deal', neither a 'deal', 'exit deal' would constitute legal or constitutional grounds, but, a 'no deal' situation, voted
No to by parliament, might be classed as 'exceptional', because, otherwise, there would be no resolution to the Article 50 Act , as parliament would have rejected every other alternative, which are simply constructs to keep the U.K inside of the E.U.
I take your point on 'democracy', I myself have expressed it's importance in implementing the referendum result, failure,of which, will render our 'democracy' meaningless.
..All of them.
- By Rich
- By Unthinking Majority