You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
8

[–] crazyjuan 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

  1. 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".

  2. PM expels the conservative rebel MPs.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

0
5

[–] CrustyBeaver52 [S] 0 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.

0
3

[–] DoOver 0 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.