Archived Apparently, PM Boris is now ignoring the parliament:) (whatever)
submitted ago by CrustyBeaver52
Posted by: CrustyBeaver52
Posting time: 1.2 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 12/9/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 688
SCP: 100
100 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Apparently, PM Boris is now ignoring the parliament:) (whatever)
submitted ago by CrustyBeaver52
view the rest of the comments →
[–] crazyjuan 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
The opposition and rebel conservative MPs passed a bill that made it illegal for the PM to not ask for an extension on the EU negotiations on October 31st, unless a deal is accepted by both EU and parliament beforehand. This bill is to prevent "No-Deal Brexit".
PM expels the conservative rebel MPs.
PM call for a snap-general election before October 31st. Opposition and expelled MPs vote against it - formally putting them "in confidence" with the current government.
PM prorogues parliament - no new legislation or parliamentary debates until the prorogue is lifted.
This leaves the PM with only a couple of options to pass no-deal Brexit, and they are both underhanded.
Option 1: when the Queen has to sign the "anti-no-deal Brexit bill", she is meant to ask advice from the government on whether she should - PM could advise her not to, putting the bill as void, then no-deal Brexit is possible again.
Option 2: he asks the EU for an extension to the negotiations on October 31, and puts pressure on the UK's representative to Veto the motion himself. This de-facto results in no-deal Brexit.
Alternatively, he could resign - letting the opposition leader become PM and watch him face the backlash of overturning the democratic decision to leave the EU.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 [S] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Option 1 - yeah, she did sign it this morning, so I guess he didn't ask her not to, or she snubbed him. So he's up to something else here. I thought option 1 was what he was planning myself.
[–] DoOver 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Why would she sign a bill that is supposedly "entirely unconstitutional" according to your explanation up above? I don't see how that would be possible or deemed valid whatsoever if it weren't allowed.