To repeal, revoke, a bill or law already adopted requires the same vote that was necessary to enact it. It cannot be done be dictate.
LL stop digging a hole fella. The example you’ve just given highlights the point that governments can’t automatically get legislation through. Every bill needs a vote. You win or lose depending on the outcome of the vote. Normally if you have a majority you can depend on your party’s mps to get bills through. On this matter it hasn’t been the case for may or for Johnson, because parties are split and opinions are strong and their own mp’s vote against them.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, however, Parliament voted to take "no deal" off the table when T May was PM. Once Boris became PM, the "no deal" option was automatically back on the table, which is the reason why Corbyn and his mobsters voted again to take "no deal" option off the table. If you are correct, how did the "no deal" option end up back on the table when Boris become PM, and, why wasn't there a vote to repeal the previous vote to put "no deal" option back on table?...........just a question.
I thought it was May's personal choice to avoid the 'no deal'. She presented her own deal 3 times which was not voted through. Did I miss a vote on the 'no deal' withdrawal in May's time, or is LL fantasising? Again.
Parliment didn't vote to take No Deal off the table under Mrs May - they voted to extend Article 50 under a government motion. And under the current legislation just passed it doesn't take new deal off the table it stops that from becomeing the default option. So the government must either reach a deal by 18 October or win a vote in parliment to allow No Deal. Otherwise the new default is that they have to seek an extension until 31 Jan 2020. If the EU suggests another date after 2 days then that other date must be accepted unless parliment votes against the alternative date offered.
The legal default is leaving the EU with no deal if an agreement isn't reached. This is written into EU and UK law. Even if the Parliament votes against "no deal" it must be changed into law by Royal assent to become an act of Parliament. Even then, the legal default is still leaving the EU without a deal if an agreement is not reached. For the EU to change the legal no deal default, they must get the 28 member countries to vote on it first, can't see that happening. UK law regarding anything to do with Brexit means very little unless changed in EU law. UK law does not overrule EU law as the agreement/s between the EU and the UK have already been agreed to and signed off on.. You said, "And under the current legislation just passed it doesn't take new deal off the table it stops that from becomeing the default option". In English, both commoner and Queens English, this means Brexit no deal is off the table. However, as previously mentioned, EU law states "no deal is the legal default option" if an agreement cannot be reached. OOPS. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47562995
You’re right for once. I should stop scraping the barrel and engage instead with posters who know their arse from their tit. If I can find any
Read past the first bit... In a night of high drama in the Commons, MPs surprised the government and voted by 312 to 308 to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances. The vote is not binding - under current law the UK could still leave without a deal on 29 March.
We could always go with the Corbyn labour way. Take over parliament, negotiate a deal, then tell every one they have nogotiated a **** deal and recomend we reject it. Lol the remain dicks don't know their heads from their arses.
I’m not in the habit of talking to myself so probably wouldn’t look there for conversation. Can see why the idea came to you.
No it's not. It all depends on the curent PM who happens to be Boris and his advice to the Queen on Monday. There's extensive precedent of Governments asking the Queen to not sign legislation they don’t approve. Anti-Brexit spokesman Tony Blair himself used this power on a number of occasions to “quell politically embarrassing backbench rebellions”. Perhaps most notably to block a bill by Tam Dalyell in 1999 that aimed to give MPs a vote on military action against Saddam Hussein. Further back, Harold Wilson used the Queen’s veto to kill off two “politically embarrassing bills” about peerages and Zimbabwean independence, in 1964 and 1969 respectively. Let's wait until Monday before we put the Euro flags out. Like him and his methods or not, I wouldn't put anything past Boris.
That would have been the case had the bill been structured to require Queens consent, in which case it would have been stopped at third reading as outlined here https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019...ce-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/ (the article is written before the bill was presented but shows the difference between the two) but the speaker ruled that the bill doesn not need Queens consent instead needing Royal assent which hasn't been refused since 1708. However Royal assent is on the advice of ministers so who knows what might happen on Monday... That would start the consitutional crisis fun...
